What to do with a Chevy owner: Conviction and Secondary Doctrines

I like a sleek sports car and a power torqueing truck as much as the next guy, but I assure you I am not a gearhead or a car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination. I could have been pretty easily, though. My grandfather worked for a Ford dealership and mechanic shop all his life. For whatever reason, those mechanical genes didn’t get passed on to me. So it always makes me chuckle when Ford lovers and Chevy lovers banter back and forth about the incompetence of the other maker.

True fellowship is not in danger as we debate such trivial matters. These discussions do not even get to the level of secondary issues. But it is a different story when you talk about doctrinal matters. When it comes to Scripture, there are eternal implications. However, it is clear from Scripture that not every doctrine holds the same weight. There are essential doctrines and there are secondary doctrines. Essential doctrines are clearly and repeatedly taught in Scripture; Scripture prohibits denying such doctrines; and they are connected to the person of God and matters of salvation. Secondary doctrines are those things which are taught in Scripture, but simply do not rise to that level of importance. Such things would include views on baptism, spiritual gifts, and eschatology. There can be variance or denial and it will not necessarily be eternally perilous.

So the question is this: how are we to teach on secondary issues? Should they be mentioned at all? If mentioned, must they always be spoken of minimally and accompanied with the various other perspectives? If they don’t reach the level of essential importance, how much time should we give them?

A helpful thought for me concerning these questions is this: Secondary doesn’t mean unimportant. Secondary doctrines are important, they just aren’t essential. They are important because they are given a place in Scripture. All Scripture is inspired and is profitable to us. Denial or misunderstanding of them will have spiritual consequences. Add to that the reality that essential doctrines are tied to and can be undermined by a false view of these secondary matters and you see that we must not mess around with secondary doctrines. For instance, the mode and timing of baptism is different for different denominations. But it is possible that it can be corrupted to such a degree that it begins to infringe upon the doctrine of conversion by teaching that there is some kind of baptismal regeneration happening.

Since secondary doctrines are a part of our Canon, I recommend the following:

Study and come to a conclusion – When something shows up in Scripture often, we are obliged to know it well. Just because something is difficult and controversial doesn’t mean we get to opt out of knowing about it. It is important to God, so it should be important to us. Do the work, even if it takes years, and come to a conclusion.

Teach and discuss your conclusion with conviction – After you have done faithful study, don’t be afraid to hold that position with conviction and defend it with humble boldness. This is not arrogance, but simply the intensity that marks the love of the truth.

Have rigorous discussion with other views– Because it is secondary, and because you are fallible, you should be willing to change if a compelling case can be brought from the Scriptures. Therefore, you should not shut down the discussions that will arise because of it. A church must not be afraid to let these discussions happen. And be aware that these discussions will persist for generations. That is the nature of these harder doctrines. However, a church must make sure that a spirit of kindness, charity, and forbearance is maintained at all times.

Occasionally affirm the godly people who hold other views – When these difficult matters are being taught again, there should be times when those people on the other side of a doctrine are affirmed for their love of God, their keen insights, and their godly lives. They are not dummies and they should not be presented as such. They have some strong arguments and there are times when those arguments should be stated and examined. However, I see no reason this must always be done. There is a time and a place to speak of them, and there is a time and place to simply teach what you see the scripture saying.

Let each church decide what secondary doctrines they will put in their doctrinal position and which they won’t – Because these doctrines are important, churches will decide which will become distinctive of their bodies and which will not. If a church puts a position in a doctrinal statement, they are making a public declaration that they want a particular doctrine to be taught and applied. Many times, if not most of the time, those churches will affirm the doctrine’s secondary status and the above debates will be allowed, though the actual teaching will come from the adopted position. None of this is wrong when that church still partners with other congregations for gospel work.

Separation can be appropriate because of secondary doctrines – Sometimes the implications of how a doctrine is taught will cause such spiritual harm that separation must happen. For instance, some charismatic churches’ teaching regarding spiritual gifts severely undermines the Bible as authoritative and sufficient. That is dangerous; and separating from such a church is warranted.

Let the systematic exposition of scripture determine when and how you will teach on a secondary doctrine – The best way to balance the teaching on secondary doctrines is to let Scripture dictate. When you preach and teach the whole counsel of God and systematically exposit Scripture, the frequency and tone will be set by Scripture; not you.