Oversimplification
It is common, when people are discussing complex ideas, to simplify concepts in order to make them easier to understand. This is helpful and every good teacher needs to be able to do this. The risk in simplifying, however, is that eventually the original context can be lost as the simple concept is repeated for generations. I believe this has happened in a vast majority of Christian circles when it comes to the concept of “primary” versus “secondary” issues.
It’s True!
This concept has a lot of truth and has helped people navigate the sticky situations of living in a church where doctrinal disagreement is likely to be found between almost all members in a congregation. In fact, if you find yourself in fellowship with a group of 10 or more people and everyone agrees on all matters of doctrine, you are almost certainly in a cult. None of us have completely “arrived”, so we’d all agree completely only if we’re all cheating off the same test (with some wrong answers)!
Who would argue that what someone believes about baptizing infants is just as important toward fellowship as whether or not a person believes in the substitutionary atonement, or that it matters just as much what someone thinks about tithing as the resurrection?
When Secondary Is Primary
The topics generally outlined when people discuss “primary” doctrines are solid. You can’t claim Christ only appeared to be flesh and blood and still be Christian (as Gnostics of the time did). Today, it is often presented as the Jesus not necessarily even existing but the principles are good anyway.
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
2 John 1:7
However, to say that there should never be division unless there is primary disagreement, I believe, is to throw out the role that discernment must play in favor of easy “do or do not” checklists. While the primary issues are essential to defining what Christians must believe, there are also commands regarding unrepentant sin which call for faithful Christians to consider a person an unbeliever even if he is in agreement on all the “primary” issues.
Examples
And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
Matthew 19:16-22
While this man likely had broken the spirit of these commandments, that was not addressed as the primary issue that kept him away. He would likely have been willing to accept the same doctrines as the rest of Jesus’s disciples. However, Jesus asks him to do what is not commanded of anyone else in scripture: to forsake the concept of personal property entirely and give everything away.
Many teachers and commentators rightly observe that this was a command specifically for this man, because the man had made an idol of his wealth.
This is very similar to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) except, in that case, Peter points out that they weren’t even obligated to give up all their wealth. The issue instead was that they had kept some back while trying to claim glory for having given everything away. They likely subscribed to all the primary doctrines, but were still struck dead on the spot.
Deeper Problems
This is probably giving some people anxiety. Do we arbitrarily define when a disagreement of secondary doctrines should result in breaking fellowship? Not at all. The principle here is, for some people, digging a bit deeper into that disagreement can uncover all sorts of idols and sins.
Often the discussion will focus on verses that may or may not prove or disprove doctrinal beliefs. That is always a good start to discussions of what Christians should believe. However, we shouldn’t discount information that is exposed in the discussion which may reveal a reason other than scripture interpretation which could be dictating the positions people have carved out on the “secondary’s”.
For instance, while I fully believe that credobaptism is what is revealed by scripture, I am more than willing to fellowship with someone who believes infants should be sprinkled due to an understanding of the church as a covenant people and baptism, therefore, as a sort of circumcision. My understanding of church definition is a bit different (I believe only the second birth is of importance) but it’s a topic for discussion among believers.
In the conversation, it can sometimes also be revealed that they believe that the rite offers at least some special benefits to the children toward them being saved. Maybe they believe that it actually has the power to wash away original sin, or just that it simply marks children for blessings toward belief.
These beliefs can grow into a person’s larger theological framework until they are trusting in baptism as a salvation act. This, in turn, can influence other beliefs regarding the completeness of Christ’s work on the cross or God’s sovereignty over salvation. This can trickle still further.
Eventually, it may be necessary to break fellowship, not because we ever disagreed about Jesus having lived, died for our sins, or being raised again. Instead, it is because a supposedly secondary topic has been made an idol in their theology which poisons all the rest of their faith.
It’s not so much that our disagreement on baptism lead to a division but the sin or rejection of a proper understanding of a primary doctrine is revealed as the motivation behind the secondary position.
Keep your wits about you. Sometimes the secondary issues are primary for someone who is justifying sin or protecting idols. Sometimes the issue is not the issue.
