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 prior to getting saved, 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 and Tertiary 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 categories of Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines.
Still, as far as the Secondary Doctrines go, I do believe that we should all be in 100% agreement over them, because they are extremely important. But even so, I would still argue that if someone disagrees on these, we shouldn’t break fellowship with them over their disagreement (although we should indeed be trying to convince them that they are wrong about their view on these particular 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 Tertiary Doctrines, these definitely 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 absolutely shouldn’t be creating sects over what I refer to as Conscience Matters).
So what is it that falls under each category? Well, here’s a chart I created that I believe to be pretty accurate (for anyone who might be wondering and somehow isn’t already aware, everything listed under the Secondary and Tertiary Doctrines section are issues that I’ve seen disputes, and occasionally even sects formed, over among members of the body of Christ in recent years):
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 and Tertiary 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 what I did as Secondary Doctrines rather than as Primary Doctrines, I’ll explain my reasoning now. First of all, I expect many believers to object to God controls all things, including sinful/evil choices and events not being included among the Primary Doctrines because a large number of (if not most) believers think that belief in human “free will” (or belief that God isn’t in control of everything) is disqualifying as far as membership in the body of Christ goes, but 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 in the first place (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 based on Paul’s Gospel 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. However, if I did happen to know a believer who understood that the salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel isn’t based on a choice we make (be it a “free will,” or even a predetermined, choice), but is rather 100% based on God and Christ, yet they somehow did still believe that something called “free will” exists, I wouldn’t stop eating with them or discussing Scripture and theology and such with them (fellowshipping with them, in other words), and I hope that nobody else in the body of Christ would either.
The other thing I’m certain is likely to cause some confusion is my inclusion of Do not follow the Mosaic law to perfect self or spiritual walk as a Secondary Doctrine rather than as a Primary Doctrine, because Paul wrote in Galatians that anyone who teaches members of the body of Christ to follow the Mosaic law in any way for salvation is accursed (or anathema). However, I already listed Do not teach body of Christ members to obey other gospels as a Primary Doctrine, which covers that aspect of the issue, and while it is true that Paul advises us not to follow the Mosaic law, as long as it isn’t for salvation, it technically isn’t a salvation issue. And there’s also the fact that Paul does seem to allow for members of the body to choose to obey certain parts of it as personal conscience matters, because they mistakenly believe that God wants them to follow certain parts of it, even if not in order to be saved, so I see no basis for including it among the Primary Doctrines (although Paul does warn that trying to follow any of the law puts one under the curse of having to follow all of it, so we should still try to convince our brothers and sisters with weaker faith to eventually stop trying to follow it at all, which is why I placed it among the Secondary Doctrines rather than among the far less important Tertiary Doctrines).
Simply put, both of the issues I listed as Secondary Doctrines could fall under what’s already listed among the Primary Doctrines if someone tried to apply them to salvation (meaning, if someone tried to make salvation a choice, when it comes to the first issue, or if someone tried to make following any of the Mosaic law something one has to do in order to be saved, when it comes to the second issue), but as long as one isn’t applying either of them to salvation (meaning, as long as one understands that general salvation is based solely upon Christ’s death for our sins, and has nothing to do with any choices we make or other actions we take, and understands that we can’t choose to have faith for our special salvation either), I do believe that they technically belong in the Secondary Doctrines category.
As for what I meant by Avoid egregious actions that bring the body into disrepute, and why I included it among the Primary Doctrines, this is primarily referring to actions that are illegal and visible to the public (not that we should be breaking the law at all), but also to public actions that are considered by society to be so immoral (even if not necessarily illegal) that even nonbelievers wouldn’t let the public know if they were participating in them, and Paul did advise at least once that such types of actions are worthy of separating from someone over (at least until they repent).
Still, 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, concerns, or disagreements about where certain items ended up, 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 categories, I based the above chart on the chart that Jeremy Howard of Do Theology created.]