Whenever I am asked about my theological “persuasion”, alarms usually go off in my head because I expect that the person asking probably has an agenda. That agenda usually is to find out if I am in “their camp” or not. And, the truth is that almost always I am not.

What I mean by that is there is no “camp” that I am completely comfortable within. And, either that means I am a confused theologian who can’t make his mind up about my affiliations or it means that perhaps the plethora of persuasions simply leave many of us sincere students of the Word wanting.

When I was in seminary all the cool kids were the “Free-Gracers”. Those of us who considered ourselves “Lordshipers” were on the outside, but it’s funny how times change and that now the theological in-crowd has shifted. It seems that most of the veritable superstars today are Reformed, which either means that I actually am cool or that given enough time everyone will be at some point!

The pendulum of trendy theologies continues to swing and what is considered to be “more biblical” today will likely be considered less so tomorrow. Who knows…perhaps Arminians will have their day too. It’s just speculation, but something inside me says that Molinism will be the new trend, and it will become the chosen tradition in a few years.

When pressed about why I don’t subscribe to any particular tradition, I usually express that it’s because I haven’t found one that does justice to ALL the Scriptures and adequately accounts for its own apparent disparities. All the formal persuasions I have studied thus far have clear and fundamental weaknesses that undermine the credibility of their paradigms.

For example, I am not a “Free-Gracer” because though I fully appreciate the nature and purity of grace, I just cannot see in Scripture the clear distinctions it makes between Savior and Lord, believer and disciple, Israel and the Church. For the same reasons, I am not a Classic Dispensationalist adding that forcing a narrow view of eschatology and a literal reading on every genre of Scripture is unnecessary and perhaps even inappropriate.

At the same time, I am not a classic “Lordshiper” because though I fully embrace the necessity of recognizing Jesus as Lord, I also am cold to the idea of automatic progressive sanctification. And for more reasons, I am not a Reformed Calvinist because I find the idea of limited or particular atonement as well as irresistible grace to be biblically indefensible. Though some Calvinists insist that it is biblical and necessary, I contend that it is not only indefensible but reprehensible to think that God only really loves the “elect” world and that He only sent His Son into the world to die for them.

In order for me, and I suspect many others, to sign on with any human theological paradigm, it would have to do justice not only to the letter of the Scriptures but also to the spirit of the Scriptures. Meaning, any construct would have to be both logically sustainable and theologically palatable. To date, I haven’t found one that suffices, and perhaps it is because none of them actually do.

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians suggests he felt the same. He wrote: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul,’ or ‘I follow Apollos,’ or ‘I follow Cephas,’ or ‘I follow Christ’. Is Christ divided?”

Paul’s contention is with allegiances to certain individuals rather than simply to Christ, and it easily follows that allegiances to theological persuasions and paradigms would also be in view since everyone cited in the passage was a teacher of the Scriptures and naturally had those around them who gravitated toward their ministry.

Paul’s primary issue with allegiances is that they divide. He specifically asks a rhetorical question to make the point that Christ is most certainly not divided up among individuals or camps. No, he urges the church to “agree and that there be no divisions” in the Church. His definition of agreement is that we be united in both the same mind AND same judgment.

The implication of Paul’s admonition is that not only should our minds be one but our hearts should be too. To have the same judgment is to see Scripture together and not let trivial disagreements divide us. Unity apparently is paramount to Paul just as it was for Jesus. And yet, we tend to find all kinds of new ways to disagree with and oppose each other on lesser things.

I have made no bones about that fact that I am not a big fan of denominationalism for many of the same reasons I am not a fan of theological camps. For a body that is supposed to be known for its unity to instead be notorious for its divisions is embarrassing and is, in my view, a violation of the very oneness that Jesus and Paul clearly called us to.

When we establish new denominations or create theological camps, what we are telling people is who is welcome among us and who isn’t. This is a perplexing message to send not only to the world but also to other believers! Why would be purposely create theological boundaries around ourselves that are unnecessary and in conflict with body unity?

Now, I am not saying that there are not occasions and reasons to demarcate our beliefs as evangelicals, especially when gospel central orthodox issues are in question. But, what I don’t understand is why we would purposely create paradigms that foster divisive allegiances around non-essential issues.

And, what are non-essential issues? To name just a few, the precise order of salvation (ordo salutis), the role of women in vocational ministry, the continuation of apostolic gifts, the timing and order of end times events, and the precise age of the earth, which have all proven to be unnecessarily divisive and distracting issues in the church today.

I would also include in this list the extra-biblical acrostics and paradigms of Calvinism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc. that may be helpful for bringing certain narrow theological persuasions together but also perhaps unhelpful by thwarting greater unity within the Church at large.

My contention is that these distinctions are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive to the sanctified pursuit of unity within the Church. My hope is that those of us who are left wanting by these distinctions would prove to be an unsilent majority and resist such divisions, choosing instead to embrace the call to unity that Jesus and Paul clearly gave to us.

I sincerely pray that we will come to the point where we can identify ourselves as followers of Jesus only and that our allegiances would only be toward the Scriptures and its clear mandates. Toward that end, I look forward to the day when divisive designations are set aside and the Church starts moving again toward and no longer away from oneness.

What Augustine meant by that statement is that Christians must agree on critical matters of faith but that there is room for diversity among us on non-critical matters of faith. And, even when there is disagreement on the critical matters, there still must be grace exhibited among us.

Augustine’s simple statement has been the modus operandi for theologically informed and reasonable Christians through the centuries and continues to prove to be still useful and applicable for us today in navigating the choppy waters of biblical and theological debate. What this statement does for us is it helps us to distinguish between the major and minor points of Christian orthodoxy which so often seem to be confused in the Church today.

For some reason, many supposedly discerning Christians seem unable to tell the difference between critical and non-critical matters and are given to elevate secondary or even tertiary issues to the level of primary. When this happens, all matters of disagreement are reasons for debate and division within the church and every opposing viewpoint no matter how trivial or minor is viewed as theological or biblical compromise or deception. The end result is a constantly warring body that disagrees and divides over just about any matter of differing perspective.

Why people choose to fight and separate over trivial matters ought to be both perplexing and disturbing  for us as the Church because Jesus specifically prayed that we would not be this way. His prayer in John 17 is for the Church to be “one” and not many, but we have still surprisingly found an unlimited number of ways to disagree, divide and denominationalize the Body of Christ through the centuries.

Traditionally, the essential matters have always been those which have been delineated in the Apostles Creed and other matters are relegated as non-essential. It’s not that the non-essential issues don’t matter; it’s that the non-essential issues ought not be issues for division or even matters for disassociation. And yet, it seems that many other non-critical points of faith have been held as essential matters worth fighting and separating over, which has proven to be both an embarrassment and a blight on the Body of Christ in the world.

I, for one, am profoundly disappointed that so many Christians apparently lack the real discernment to understand the difference between the majors and the minors of faith and especially that they are not willing to permit any diversity within the body on the lesser issues. In my observation, many misinformed Christians choose to indulge their fears, insecurities and assumptions about unfamiliar or differing views rather than choose to investigate and understand what they do not know or may not be familiar or comfortable with.

What I have seen in my study of God’s Word is that there are some points that are clearly articulated and easily supported in Scripture but there are also a number of matters that are not clearly expressed or substantiated. Therefore, there are many issues of faith that are more gray than they are black and white. And, where there is gray, there must be a measure of liberty and diversity that must be permitted.

Frankly, there are many non-essential matters of faith that are not abundantly clear in the Scriptures that have been perhaps purposely communicated that way so that we would not treat them otherwise. The bottom line in all this is that we must choose to be clear on matters where the Bible is clear and provide room for debate and disagreement on matters where the Bible is unclear.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible is unclear about many things that are not fundamental to our understanding of the gospel or its application in our lives today.  One clear example of this is the sequence and timing of end times events. The simple truth is that whether the rapture occurs prior to the tribulation or after or sometime in the middle is not a critical matter of faith. And yet, so many people unfortunately consider this lesser issue to be a dividing point within the Church. The eschatological fact of Jesus’ return is the essential issue…the timing or sequence of his return is not. The same goes for ever brooding controversies over supralapsarianism and limited atonement or hermeneutical arguments over the quality of the distinction between Israel and the Church and even the heated debates regarding the cessation or continuation of certain spiritual gifts.

The pursuit of unity within the Church depends on our understanding and respecting that there are different liturgical traditions, theological persuasions and hermeneutical structures that fit comfortably under the roof of the evangelical house of faith which offer varying perspectives on a host of non-essential matters that should not preclude interaction and fellowship with one another. And yet, conflicts are started every day over these minor issues and the world watches our bickering and biting with an ever growing incredulous skepticism.

While we should be finding ways to agree and work with one another for the common cause of spreading the gospel of Jesus in the world, too many of us are busy finding reasons not to be unified and even not to have fellowship. As the late Paul Harvey once said, “Too many people are no longer fishers of men, but keepers of the aquarium.” In the aquarium of evangelical faith many are consumed with the unanimity of the fish that are in the aquarium rather than caring about the other fish that are lost outside of it.

All this is to say that unity should be more important to us than uniformity. The Church in the world is a diverse body as it should be. And, even the Scriptures tell us that it would be so. Though we all must agree on the content of the gospel and it’s demands on our life, we can disagree on the lesser things and still work for and not against the oneness of the Church in the world to the glory of God.

During the tenure of his public ministry, it’s important to note that Jesus did not leave us with a systematic theology and neither did He require that his disciples sign off on a statement of faith before He commissioned them. And, yet since that time, every generation has been formulating markedly distinctive theologies around lesser matters and fragmenting the Body of Christ exponentially in the name of “doctrinal purity”.

To our disgrace, we have and continue to sacrifice relational unity on the altar of dogmatic uniformity. For many generations, we have majored on our differences and minored on our similarities and have chosen to be known collectively more for what we are against than for what we are for, which not only compromises our credibility with the world but also continually distracts us from our vital mission in the world.

Therefore, for the sake of the Body and for the sake of the mission, we all must learn to forbear with one another where we disagree and be willing to believe the best in each other rather than always fearing the worst. We must put aside our unfounded fears and insecurities over trivial matters and look for common ground to share with each other rather than theological battlefields to fight each other on. We must not speak ill of others we do not know or of matters which we do not understand, and we must learn to ask more questions and listen more rather than make more statements expecting to be heard. We must also stop looking under every rock and around every corner with suspicion and distrust, and we must be just as concerned about the practice of grace as we are about protection of truth. And, perhaps most importantly, we must all learn that being loving is always more important than being right. For the sake of the Body and the mission, we must.