Theological Diversity in the Local Church

The back-and-forth among colleagues, and I approach this as a professor, and thus with their students, and thus also among students themselves, sharpens the professor life and makes us all more tolerant of one another. John Piper has over the years expressed disagreement with that approach for leadership in the local church, and in a recent article at The Christian Post he sketched a spectrum of agreement to mere cooperation from the local church (near unanimity) to a common cause rally or event (he mentions pro-life).

Photo by Felicia Buitenwerf on Unsplash

Many pastors would agree with Piper here, and many professors too don’t tolerate much disagreement with them in class. Some professors not only teach their view but expect agreement. Others teach their view and leave it to the students to make up their own mind. Others teach various views and do all they can to keep the students from knowing what they personally think.

Here's Piper:

[John Piper,] the notable Bible teacher and author was asked his opinion on who he believes Christians should “spiritually associate with.” 
Piper responded that he has degrees of association when it comes to ministries, which he viewed as being comparable to concentric circles in which, the farther out one was, the less theological agreement existed.

“As I mention them, think of them as concentric circles moving outward, with the first, most inner circle being the one where I expect the most agreement and the sixth and farthest-out circle where I expect the least agreement in those I’m together with,” said Piper.

For Piper, the innermost circle was the elders and staff at the church he led for over three decades, as he felt that this circle needed “deep and detailed theological unity, as well as ethical unity on biblical convictions on major issues.”

“I’m sometimes appalled at how some pastors say they can have staff that are all over the map theologically,” he said. “I think this breeds weak churches that become mirrors of the culture sooner or later.”

I don’t exactly agree with this approach and here is rough draft of a reflection on Titus 1:10-16 and how Paul approached theological ideas when they (according to him) crossed the line. Church leaders, pastors and otherwise, are called to preserve sound/healthy teaching as well as refute errors that corrupt the gospel.

Titus 1:10-16

10      For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

I don’t know where but I read in a novel about a pastor whose preferred time to go to church was when no one was there. Early morning was his preferred time. A church without messy people would be a respite for many church leaders, but such a church seems not to exist. What matters more is that the church is about people, that people are the life blood of the church, and that people are also the problem in churches. Pastor John Burke once wrote a book with a title that summed up the message of the book and the reality of the church and its people whom he serves: No Perfect People Allowed.

We can agree that there are no perfect people in the church, but we affirm as well that some imperfections, in character and beliefs, have the potential to corrupt the church. Those with theological skills have more capacity to spot the problem than mentor such persons back into spiritual health, but Paul does not permit them to stick on the skill of detection.

Leaders name serious corruptions

Some theological differences are just that: differences. At times they are little more than preferences. John Wesley, the great reformer of England and America, once said,

Condemn no man for not thinking as you think. Let every one enjoy the full and free liberty of thinking for himself. Let every man use his own judgment, since every man must give an account of himself to God. Abhor every approach, in any kind or degree, to the spirit of persecution, if you cannot reason nor persuade a man into the truth, never attempt to force a man into it. If love will not compel him to come, leave him to God, the judge of all (Wesley, Advice to the People Called Methodists, 10).

I like what he says here because it recognizes that none of us knows the truth with perfection. But, John Wesley did not create a believe-what-you-want culture either. At times someone crosses over the line of gospel truth and orthodox belief. For them, we must admit, they may be defending what they think is the truth and you think they are denying the truth.

In cases where the truth of the gospel has been overtly denied, Paul tosses arrows aflame with fire. He calls them “rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception,” and he knows one faction in this group of rebels is “the circumcision group” (1:10). Paul opened his mission in new cities at the synagogue with some believing the message about Jesus as Messiah and others not believing. His persistence seems always to have led to opposition by some synagogue leaders because Paul didn’t require gentile converts to follow the law. Another development occurred that spurs what he says here. Some converts to Jesus did believe Jewish and gentile believers were to follow the law of Moses as they did, which included the necessity of circumcision. At times this group gained followers and opposed Paul – and Paul warns Titus to keep his eye on this group.

In fact, more than keep his eye on them. He says, “They must be silenced” and his term could be paraphrased with “put a plug in their mouth” (1:11). The reasons he wants their corruptions stopped is because they are infecting entire house churches with their beliefs and they are doing it for money (1:11). He tosses a slur at them when he quotes “one of Crete’s own prophets (1:12), and then he labels their errors with eight more terms: (1) the believe in “Jewish myths”, (2) commitment to “merely human commands,” (3) they “reject the truth,” (4) they are “corrupted,” (5) they “do not believe” the truth of the gospel, (6) their corruptions are in “both their minds and consciences,” (7) “they claim to know God but by their actions they deny him,” and (8) so are “detestable, disobedience and unfit for doing anything good” (1:14-16).

About a generation ago Christian leaders began a slow learning curve of not talking like this, but this kind of vituperative language has been part of public discourse and Christian polemics for nearly two millennia. Some of the strongest language I have read like this comes from Martin Luther and John Calvin. It’s hard for me to say this but some of their language is plain hateful. Our progress into learning better how to express our deep disagreements encourages many of us. I know it does me. While Paul’s language sounds just like all his contemporaries and is over the top for us, he gets at something vital for leadership.

Leaders need to name theological, behavioral, and character corruptions. Shane Claiborne has been a prophet about the greed and consumerist corruption of the American church (Irresistible Revolution). Diane Langberg has called out leaders who, corrupted by power, turn church cultures toxic (Redeeming Power).  Local leaders will discern which sins and corruptions to name, and it will be wise for them to become self-aware enough and broad-as-Wesley in not naming what others see differently. Both do so in a Wesley-liked charitableness without mincing words or entering into personal vendettas. Wise leaders discern what matters most when differences slide from genuine differences into corruptions.

Leaders aim for their spiritual health

Those who turn differences into vendettas block the possibility of realization of error, reformation of ideas, and restoration to the people of God. Paul urges Titus to “rebuke them sharply. Not so he can win and the corrupted, toxic people shamed but so “they will be sound in the faith” (1:13).

The strategy of reclamation transforms how we address those who disagree with us or with whom we disagree. Why not enter into dialogue by asking questions? Not leading questions but questions shaped by genuine listening for answers for the sake of communication and dialogue. Then seeking to explain in their words what they believe – to their satisfaction. And only then outlining differences in a way that mentors the person toward a healthy theology. It’s hard. It’s often derailed by heated arguments. It’s often met by stiff resistance and name-calling. Stay patient. Do it for the sake of Christ and the church, and not for personal preferences.

John Burke, No Perfect People Allowed: Creating a Come-as-You-Are Culture in the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).

Shane Claiborne, Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016).

Diane Langberg, Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church (Grand Rapids: BrazosPress, 2020).

John Wesley, Advice to a People Called Methodists (no city, no publisher listed; 1745) My thanks to Thomas Lyons for locating an original of this book, at https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=gZ9hAAAAcAAJ&pg=GBS.PA4&hl=en