I’ve only been a member of the ecclesia (or church) called the body of Christ for a little over 7 years now, but I’ve known, or at least have been acquainted with, various members of the ecclesia for decades now thanks to my time as a Christian Universalist, and I’ve noticed a trend that seems to go back farther than my own membership in the body of Christ, which is the sad practice of certain members breaking fellowship with other members over what I would refer to as Secondary Doctrines.
Now, there are doctrines which we should be divisive about, in that we should be willing to break fellowship over disagreement about these particular doctrines — which I would refer to as Primary Doctrines —especially the ones connected with Paul’s Gospel (or Evangel) because one couldn’t even be considered to be saved (referring to the special, or relative, salvation that involves being a member of the body of Christ) if they don’t understand and believe them, although also those few doctrines that are just so central to understanding scriptural truth and to proper behaviour that to believe, teach, and do otherwise would be harmful to the ecclesia. There are far less of these doctrines than one might think, however, with most of what some people might assume should fall under the category of Primary Doctrines actually falling under the category of Secondary Doctrines.
And while we should certainly be willing to take a stand and defend our beliefs when we do hold a particular opinion or interpretation related to Secondary Doctrines, these aren’t things we should be creating sects over, meaning separating from one another over our beliefs regarding these issues and no longer fellowshipping with those members of the ecclesia who do disagree with us about them (and we definitely shouldn’t be creating sects over what I refer to as Conscience Matters).
So, what does fall under these three categories? Well, while I’m sure there are a number of Secondary Doctrines and Conscience Matters I’ve forgotten to include, the following chart covers what I’ve seen brought up at times within the body, and what I believe falls under each of the three categories:
Now, I’m sure there are going to be some misunderstandings when it comes to certain points on the chart, so I’ll clarify on the ones I assume those are most likely to be, but I should first mention that I do personally agree that a number of opinions and interpretations connected with the items listed as Secondary Doctrines can indeed be detrimental to hold and teach. However, despite my personal belief about those particular doctrines, I do maintain that if something isn’t a Primary Doctrine, we should still be willing to fellowship with other believers who disagree with us and who teach opinions and interpretations contrary to the ones we hold (even if I also agree that one would be justified in not allowing them to teach their doctrines at a conference one is hosting if they strongly disagree with the doctrines that might be taught there if we did).
As for the misunderstandings I’m anticipating over why I listed certain things as Secondary Doctrines rather than as Primary Doctrines, I’ll touch on them now. First of all, I expect some people to object to Determinism vs “free will” being included among the Secondary Doctrines. And while some believers do think that belief in human “free will” is disqualifying as far as membership in the body of Christ goes, I just can’t agree with this assumption. Now, yes, belief in a “free will” choice to get saved is certainly a disqualifying belief to hold when it comes to membership in the body of Christ (at least as far as the salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel goes) because our special salvation which includes membership in the body of Christ is based on understanding and believing Paul’s Gospel — which includes the fact that general salvation (meaning the eventual salvation of all humanity) is based solely on Christ’s death for our sins (along with His burial (or entombment) and resurrection on the third day, of course, but it was specifically His death for our sins that guaranteed the eventual salvation of all humanity) — and also because our special salvation is a gift of God apart from any works, and having to make a “free will” choice to have faith that Paul’s Gospel is true would certainly be a work, if it were even possible to do so (which it isn’t).
And I know some will read the above and think that what I just wrote proves that believing in “free will” does indeed disqualify someone from experiencing that special salvation, but it isn’t belief in the existence of something called “free will” that Paul’s Gospel denies so much as belief that a “free will” choice to get saved can exist that it denies. So while “free will” is indeed a nonsensical idea (not to mention a scientific and logical impossibility), I believe that one can mistakenly hold to its existence as long as they don’t believe that the salvation Paul taught about is based on “free will” in any way, because the fact that “free will” itself doesn’t exist simply isn’t included anywhere in the passage where Paul said what his Gospel is, and if something isn’t included in that passage (which is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4), it just can’t be said to be something that someone has to believe/disbelieve in order to experience the special salvation that includes membership in the body of Christ. That said, I’ve never met a single believer within the body of Christ who actually does believe in the existence of human “free will,” so from a certain perspective this is a moot point, but I had to explain why I included it where I did on the chart anyway, because I know it would cause unnecessary controversy if I didn’t.
The other thing I’m certain is likely to cause some confusion is my inclusion of God’s control of all things, including sinful/evil choices and events as a Secondary Doctrine rather than as a Primary Doctrine. And while it’s unlikely that many, if any, members of the body of Christ don’t believe that God is ultimately responsible for all things, including sin and evil (at least from an absolute perspective), this fact isn’t included anywhere in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 either, and our special salvation is only based on us having faith that Paul’s Gospel is true, so I just can’t find myself able to include it as a Primary Doctrine that one should break fellowship over (even if it it’s something that I do agree we should correct someone on if they don’t believe it, so maybe it could fit into a category somewhere between Primary and Secondary Doctrines, but I didn’t have room for a fourth category on the chart).
Now, I’m sure there are other things I included in certain categories that some might question as well, but at least based on my understanding of Scripture (especially when it comes to what’s actually included in Paul’s Gospel, and what his Gospel really means), I believe these doctrines and conscience matters are all in their proper places on the chart. However, if you do have any questions or concerns, I’m certainly open to discussing it, so please reach out to me if you want to talk about it (if you don’t know how to get in touch with me, you can find me on our ecclesia’s public Discord server, the link to which is on the homepage of this website).
[Just to give credit where credit is due, while I disagree almost entirely with his opinions on what falls under the same three categories, I based the above chart on the chart that Jeremy Howard of Do Theology created.]