Dogmatic Disagreements
If you’ve been around the Church for even a short time, the chances are that you have experienced someone debating—maybe quite passionately—about this or that doctrine. If it wasn’t immediately clear, you may have asked yourself: “Why is this such an important issue?” and “With the various sides entrenched in their views, what hope is there in coming to a peaceful resolution?”
These were the exact questions I asked myself when I began research for my book, Wesley, Whitefield, and the Free Grace Controversy: The Crucible of Methodism (Routledge, 2020). I wanted to know how two eighteenth-century Church of England clerics and forefathers of the evangelical movement could disagree so passionately over the doctrine of election yet eventually resolve their differences without capitulating to one or the other’s viewpoints.
In my book, I argue that theological doctrines function as guidelines for belief, certainly, but they do more than this. Doctrines also provide frameworks for understanding ourselves and our world in terms of discreet social groups. Doctrines help define social groups and prescribe ways of thinking and behaving within those same groups.
As a result, doctrine is about much more than just ideas about God and the world. Instead, doctrines provide key components of social identity and allow groups (especially new religious ones, as in the case of the eighteenth-century Methodist movement) to define themselves over and against others.
But is acrimony the only result of this? Does doctrine only divide? How can seemingly opposite groups “agree to disagree” on such important matters? I argue that when the social function of doctrine is appropriately understood, agreement or resolution becomes a possibility.
In Wesley, Whitefield, and the Free Grace Controversy, I contend that when the identity-imparting functions of doctrine have been successfully actualized, resolution becomes a possibility—in part because groups no longer actively identify themselves as against anyone or anything.
I wanted to write this book as a way of presenting a historical case for how to disagree well over important theological matters. Too often, the high-stakes nature of these debates leaves catastrophes in their wake, with winners and losers and hurt feelings (or worse!) on either side. I hope that my work will assist those who want to understand the people they disagree with well, not just win an argument or advance a cause.
When we gain a fuller picture of why we and others behave the way we do, we create opportunities for mutual understanding, compassion, and collaboration.
The good news is we can do all of this without compromising our cherished beliefs and firm convictions. As in the case of Wesley and Whitefield, we can, with integrity, disagree well and even achieve a degree of harmony with those with whom we do not see eye to eye—in the words of the Apostle Paul, we can “live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:18). A fuller picture of doctrinal formation and debate humanizes ourselves and others. It creates the opportunity for a real and meaningful sharing of perspectives.
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. -Romans 12:18
Maybe you find yourself embroiled in a theological debate of your own. Perhaps you’ve been on the sidelines as people you’ve cared about exchange heated words about important ideas. Or maybe you’d like to be a part of the solution in disagreements of any kind for yourself, your church, or your community.
I encourage you to give Wesley, Whitefield, and the Free Grace Controversy a read and discover more about why dogmatic disagreements can be as sharp as they are and, more importantly, how to work towards a resolution for all involved.
Where to Find Joel Houston's Books:
Disclaimer: If you purchase Dr. Houston's book Wesley, Whitefield, and the Free Grace Controversy: The Crucible of Methodism using the links, he will receive royalties at no extra cost to you.