Grace in Disagreement

Why we should act with more charity when disagreeing with other branches of Christendom

Now I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe’s household, that there is rivalry among you. What I am saying is this: Each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t know if I baptized anyone else. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize—not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 (HCSB)

Context

The most explosive post you can make on Substack is apparently telling Christians to be more charitable towards other branches. On June 11^th I posted this note:

“Y’all really need to chill with the constant trashing of other branches of Christendom. We get it: none of us know anything about what and why the other believes. You’re fighting the wrong battle; show the world that Christianity is true and the denominational differences don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. If we took the time we dedicated to saying the Catholics/Orthodox/Protestants/Evangelicals aren’t real Christians and instead dedicated it to saying “Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life”, the world would be a significantly more Christian place. Keep it up and you’ll make me write an essay on this, and no one wants that.”

This post was intended as a condemnation of behavior that has been rampant in my feed and is present throughout most online and offline Christian communities when there is limited overlap with other branches. This behavior is not unique to Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism, or Evangelicalism; it is entirely systemic. There is little to no reason for these branches to be in public conflict with each other to the point where we are calling each other heretics either explicitly or implicitly. Far more shameful, in my opinion, is the poor characterization of other branches beliefs and the reasoning behind these beliefs. I am a Protestant, raised in a Presbyterian church, and currently part of an Anglican congregation. I do not pretend to know the intricacies of every Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, or Protestant doctrine; the pursuit of that would take at least a lifetime to accomplish. I am confident that I am not alone, and that I am in fact in the vast majority.

Despite the general statement, the response to this post was much greater than I anticipated and there was more pushback than I expected. In retrospect, the original post may have been better worded to emphasize my issue with the behavior, and not me saying there are no differences between the branches. This conversation played out in the comments a few times, with the clarification that I am much more concerned with the lack of charity and the poor portrayals of others’ beliefs. The conversations were fruitful, enjoyable, and reached satisfying conclusions where middle ground was found, and mutual understanding was reached. Thankfully, Andrew Vargas also offered the final bit of motivation to write this piece.

Before continuing, though, it would be best to establish what this essay is, and what it is not. This essay is not intended to be an exhaustive review of the differences between the branches of Christendom. I have neither the time nor the space to devote to that. This essay is meant to identify the core, fundamental doctrine of Christianity and show the agreement between all 4 branches on this. I will also give examples of differences that I think are the result of differences in wording, but not in intent or definition, that often grow beyond the scope that is appropriate for them. I cannot guarantee that this perception is accurate, but I can guarantee that any mistakes I make in the presentation of the case are honest, and welcome correction and discussion on these finer points. I will do my best to present the Orthodox and Catholic positions to the best of my ability and identify the overlaps with my understanding of the Protestant positions with clarity.

Finally, this essay is meant to seek understanding of other positions. Andrew Vargas has offered to write in response to each other, and I extend this opportunity to any others who wish to join. Ideally, I hope this is an opportunity for us to share our beliefs with grace and charity in the pursuit of better understanding our different traditions, acknowledging the tension between us, and celebrating the hope we have in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the begotten (not made) Son of God, through whom all things were made and in whom we find our salvation.

Separation of Doctrine and Position

Before we can really address anything of substance, we must first define core Christian doctrine and identify what is sufficient for someone to be classified as Christian. The foundations of the Christian faith are clearly put forward in the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This creed declares faith in a triune God, three coeternal persons in one essence, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed identifies the role of each of these persons of God and makes claims related to cosmology, eschatology, and ecclesiology while actively combatting the heresies of the 3^rd and 4^th century, particularly Arianism and Docetism. This statement of faith is a barebones understanding of Christian theology, but all four branches of Christianity affirm this creed, although often not explicitly (i.e., Baptist denominations). The claims made here are what should be understood as core or primary doctrine, and most, if not all, other claims can be considered secondary or tertiary positions.

By relying on the Nicene Creed as the standard for Christian doctrine, we can easily see that the RCC, EO, and Protestant branches each meet the criteria to be considered Christian. As previously mentioned, the Southern Baptist Convention does not formally adopt the Nicene Creed, there has been constant discussion about whether to adopt the creed or not. Similarly, some evangelical and non-denominational congregations may nominally reject the Nicene Creed, but often these congregations’ statements of faith tend to reflect the creed, and the practical theology aligns closely with the other branches. The Nicene Creed also acts as an exclusion principle by setting sects that reject the Trinity in opposition to the Church. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the coeternal nature of the Father and the Son, thereby rejecting the Trinity. Similarly, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS) are not Christian by rejecting the triune nature of God.

The Nicene Creed is important as a unifying doctrine because all four branches functionally affirm the Creed. If we can all agree that the beliefs stated in the Nicene Creed are sufficient, other positions remain important but ultimately do not exclude branches from communion with Christ. Admittedly, the Nicene Creed is not without controversy, but the primary tenets of the Christianity are present here and we can use this as a metric to determine whether someone is Christian or not.

Seeking Understanding

I'm not saying conversations about the differences between branches should never happen, just that we need to be better about when, where, and how they happen. A 3-sentence post on Substack will do nothing other than portray to the world a disdain for other branches that should not be there. You won't convince anyone from the other branches that they're suddenly wrong, you'll simply increase the rift between us. The motivation for such conversations should always be seeking understanding and Truth, which rarely happens in public forums. I encourage you to have these conversations in person, on a video call, or in any form of community with the goal of asking questions first and foremost, not looking for the best way to dunk on the rebellious and heretical Protestants.

Not only are these short posts ineffective in convincing anyone of anything, but they also rarely present the position properly. I can't count how many times I have seen Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholics make a post against some protestant doctrine, just to showcase they have nearly zero idea of what the doctrine actually is. The inverse is just as true! How many times have we seen Protestants or evangelicals say veneration of the saints is idolatry? Surely, if we are actually concerned with having a unified Church, we should be prioritizing fully understanding these differences between us to ensure they're combatted properly.

We should be able to admit our mistakes. The church is sustained by the Holy Spirit but we are still human. We don't get everything right, even less so when it comes to complex doctrine that we struggle to wrap our finite, mortal minds around. It's perfectly acceptable to admit when we're wrong or misunderstand a position. Humility should be constantly present in these conversations.

As much as the older branches complain about how little Protestants/Evangelicals know of church history, I have had just as many encounters with Catholics and Orthodox who have little to no knowledge of church history. It's a blind spot for many of us. There are too many writings to study everything comprehensively, so we rely on clergy who have the time to dedicate to this. The issue with this is that the primary function of clergy is not to be historians, but rather shepherds. As such, many clergy still lack a rigorous and diverse understanding of church history. Those that have this education, in my experience, are much more open to ecumenism than not.

I'll happily admit the Protestants need to be better about reading the writings of church fathers and understanding tradition. However, I once again find that this complaint is easily made in reverse. We should all be reading these writings more, but ultimately scripture is where we find our salvation (no I'm not going to get into the different canons). I'd take a protestant who knows the Bible inside and out without having read a single line of Augustine over a Catholic who only knows John 3:16 but could recite Summa Theologica any day of the week. This preference is amplified by magnitudes if the former is living in a way that is undeniably filled with the Holy Spirit and bringing more people to the feet of Jesus while the latter is not. After all, we will know if the person is in Christ by their fruits.

How many Catholics have looked at Luther's charges against the Vatican? Can you honestly say that all of them are invalid and should have been ignored? Even granting that Luther likely misunderstood some doctrinal components, can we agree that the Vatican should have responded with an attempt to clarify points he misunderstood rather than declaring him to be a heretic and blasphemer? How many of us have read even our own traditions writings on these doctrinal positions? I’ll freely admit that prior to writing this I hadn’t read Luther’s 95 Theses myself.

Ultimately our goal with these conversations should not be victory but understanding. We should seek to clearly communicate our beliefs on certain positions and listen intentionally with the goal of finding middle ground and clarity on our various positions. These topics aren’t ones that can be simply discussed in comments sections on social media but require careful and charitable communication between fellow believers in a way that makes it clear that the Spirit is present in the lives of both sides. If you find yourself getting upset or starting to misrepresent the other person’s beliefs, take a step back, take a breath, and focus on our unifying faith in Jesus Christ. In all of this, we should be careful to honestly represent our own case and not to speak for the beliefs of the person across from you, particularly when you have not engaged deeply in the historical positions and writings of the other branches of Christendom—even more so when you have not done so for your own branch. There are no winners except Satan when we misrepresent the beliefs of other traditions, and we should be careful to use precise and charitable language when we are discussing these differences.

Disagreement with Humility

This would be less concerning to me if the inter-branch bickering was not cited so frequently in my life as a reason to not be Christian. If we all agree that the Holy Spirit indwells every Christian, our behavior should reflect the fruits of the Spirit. When we make posts critical of other branches that are steeped in anger and superiority, what fruits are we showing the world? In what way are we any different from those who do not believe the redeeming and life changing truth of the Gospel? What reason are we giving for people to give their lives to Christ if all they see is another community broken and ravaged by what appears to them to be trivial differences?

We're more than happy to throw rocks at each other while ignoring the failings in our own community. We treat other Christians worse than how we treat non-Christians. We complain about the condescension of prominent atheists in how they talk about Christianity, then turn around and act the same way towards other branches. When Jude says contend for the faith with love and Peter says to defend the faith with gentleness and respect, this is not limited to how we interact with non-believers. The grace we extend to those outside the Church should be magnified within the Church.

If we all believe the words of Jesus, we all believe that we will know the position of a church/body by the fruits it produces. Good fruit can only come from vines connected to Jesus. Yes, Church tradition and the magisterium are important in interpretation and application, but the magisterium is not the mechanism through which we receive salvation. It was Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who died in the cross, who suffered for our sins, who bore the burden of judgment and justice for us, not the magisterium. It is not the Pope (any Pope) who will be judging the living and the dead. This is ultimately why the emphasis should be on Jesus himself, not on the decisions of church clergy.

In Summary

Ultimately, these differences and the tension they produce should be used as an opportunity to show the unifying love of Christ. When the world looks to the Church, seeing four splintered groups constantly fighting with each other over what appears to be trivial/semantic differences or wildly misunderstanding and misrepresenting each other, the only ones who suffer are those who are not yet saved. If we were to present to the world a unified front confident in our shared history and core doctrine, while discussing our differences with humility seeking understanding, the global Church would grow stronger and wiser. This essay is not an attempt to completely silence any discussions on the differences between branches. Rather, it is a call to change the tone of these conversations, encourage us all to act with charity and humility, and reconsider what the best venue is for these conversations.

Now you may be thinking, "Josh this sounds great but is totally unrealistic." My question to you is why? Why is it unrealistic for us to prioritize love, grace, humility, and peace in every aspect of our life, especially our dealings with inter-branch doctrinal differences? After all, if we don't have love, we are simply making hollow noises when we argue for the truth of Christianity. When we put victory in debate ahead of love in priority, we are not only presenting an unloving, combative view of Christianity to those outside of it, we are increasing the divide between our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if these are points of concern theologically, we should be acting in a way that is loving above all else and seeking to correct the beliefs with appeals to reason, Scripture, and tradition, much like we would with any other apologetic topic.

The other question I can see popping up is "what about heresies?" These should obviously be corrected and, in cases where the offending party is unrepentant, should be removed from the Church. However, we should be slow to call things heresies, particularly positions that have been debated within the Church for much of its history. Again, this is where we must differentiate between primary, secondary, and tertiary doctrine. Positions that reject the Trinity, the nature of Jesus as both fully man and fully God, and other components of the Nicene Creed should be corrected and called heresies sooner than positions that are outside of this such as the nature of the Eucharist, veneration due to Mary, authority of the Pope, Church, or Scripture, mode of justification, sanctification and salvation, or eschatological positions should be discussed with the intent of coming to understanding of other's positions.

Again, there are very real differences between the branches of Christendom. Some of these are more significant than others. Some appear to others to be heretical or blasphemies. However, when we sit down and discuss these differences and clarify terms we bring more understanding and close that gap. If we were to post our positions rather than posting what we thought other branches believed, then these conversations would be much more fruitful. This not only puts us in a more gracious position to other branches but challenges us to understand our own theological positions better and communicate with more precision. This also requires us to evaluate just how historical our positions are and determine if we've drifted from their original intent (as in the case of the Protestant Solas) or if these positions were agreed upon or just had a final decision made which everyone acquiesced to.

All of this to the ultimate point: in all things, grace, love, and humility. We should seek to display the fruits of the Spirit in all our interactions with anyone, regardless of their beliefs. This applies to our Christian brothers and sisters, those that do not yet believe, and yes, even those who have blasphemed and preach heresies. We are meant to be lighthouses, not interrogation lamps. Draw people into the loving embrace of Jesus Christ by living in the Spirit for the glory of the Father.