Among the courses I teach at Welch College is Christian Doctrines. One of my goals, in addition to teaching reformed Arminian and Free Will Baptist doctrine, is to introduce students to the doctrinal positions of other confessions. I aim to teach the inner logic of varying positions. But my purpose, for Free Will Baptist students especially, is to teach them how to respond to alternative viewpoints and remain confident in their own.
If we find ourselves interacting with people who hold different beliefs, we will have much more meaningful conversations when we truly understand their positions rather than casually dismissing them as ridiculous. Sometimes, doctrinal differences do not amount to one position being Biblical and another not; sometimes, all parties involved are wrestling with Scripture but interpreting key passages differently. For this reason, we should not be dismissive, and hence disrespectful and uncharitable, of other peoples’ positions. In this way, we learn humility.
Some time ago, in one of my Doctrines classes, I was teaching class, and we began discussing the eternal state of children who die in the womb or infancy: whether they go to heaven or hell or both. I summarized the major positions, and we had a good back-and-forth—for the most part. Frequently, students will ask questions about viewpoints not characterizing their own, and I will explain the rationale for the position in question in a manner that is honest and fair, even if I believe the perspective is faulty. Of course, I usually will conclude by explaining my own position.
On this occasion, a student engaged me but, frankly, did so from a rather defensive posture. Perhaps she was coming from a place of hurt; maybe someone in her family had once miscarried a child. She took the position that all children dying in the womb or infancy go to heaven and seemed genuinely offended and upset that anyone could believe anything contrary. Knowing full well I have other students in class who confessionally believe in unconditional election, I explained that position. To be clear, I do not believe in unconditional election, but I explained the logic of it.
“Well, that’s just stupid,” she quipped back. She did not say it humorously but angrily. The air in the room of some thirty students changed; several students got wide-eyed. In that moment, I wanted to put her in her place because her behavior did not reflect the fruit of the Spirit. No one should behave disrespectfully. Yet also I recognized that we all falter sometimes and need a measure of grace. I wondered whether she was responding from a place of pain, or perhaps she was just being plain mean.
Regardless, the whole episode prompted within me some reflection on how we, as God’s people, should discuss doctrinal differences. What follows are three principles that have occurred to me as I have reflected on this experience.
(1) We must show sensitivity to the people with whom we are interacting.
Oftentimes, in the excitement of conversation, we get caught up with our ideas and seem to forget we are interacting with a person, thinking more about what we are saying than about how the other person is hearing it. We must always remember we are interacting with people who have unique backgrounds and struggles, and we should communicate in a manner that acknowledges the person with whom we are conversing. In other words, we should learn and practice emotional and social intelligence.
The example of Jesus bears out this point. Sometimes He communicated with people sharply, such as in His interactions with some Pharisees: “Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:43–44a, NASB). But more often His tactic was different, such as His interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4, or His feeding of the 5,000 in John 6, or the episode of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.
Consider the way Jesus interacted with the woman at the well: He did not avoid the problems associated with her marital background or understanding of worship, but He engaged her compassionately and patiently. Or consider the circumstances in the eighth chapter of John: Jesus was direct with the Pharisees who should have known better: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (v. 7). And yet to the woman caught in adultery, He said, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? . . . I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on do not sin any longer” (vv. 10–11).
Jesus reminds us to think of the people with whom we are interacting and to make decisions about what we say and how we say it on that basis.
(2) We must engage people’s positions with seriousness and empathy rather than flippancy and contempt.
One temptation, when discussing doctrinal differences, is to treat our interpretations as if they are the only real interpretations and to treat other’s as if they are silly. In some cases, some views really are silly. Still, the quickest way to kill a worthwhile conversation is to act as if the other person is unintelligent. Jesus says, “Treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12). We want people to treat us with seriousness; likewise, we must do the same.
Again, we see from Jesus’ example the same point. Consider the case of Nicodemus in John 3 when he asks Jesus how someone can be born again: “How can these things be?” (v. 9) Although Jesus asks him how he can be a teacher of Israel and not understand these things, He does not treat Nicodemus’s question with levity but with seriousness. The narrative presents Jesus as showing understanding and engaging Nicodemus on his level. We might also consider the story of Mary in John 11. Lazarus has died, and Mary is filled with grief. Upon seeing her, Jesus demonstrates profound empathy with her as He bears her grief and He, Himself, weeps, even though He knows full well that resurrection is coming. Jesus engages people where they are at.
We, too, should engage genuinely, not dismissively, with people and their problems and questions. The graceful swan in a lake provides a good picture, whereas the bull in a China shop provides an effective counterexample: engage people with grace and poise and dignity and patience, not with disorder and aggression and selfishness and pride.
(3) We must interpret relevant passages of the Bible with integrity so that we do not make a passage say more or less than it says.
In our engagement with the Scriptures, we must demonstrate integrity, which means using our minds. Biblical hermeneutics is not anti-intellectual. That which separates human beings from animals is, among other things, reason. God has given us minds. Consequently, we must use them honestly when we interpret the Bible.
Making a passage say less than it says is not intellectually honest; likewise, dogmatically insisting upon an interpretation that a passage does not require, and so binding others’ consciences, is also intellectually dishonest. I am not hereby suggesting we cannot interpret the Scriptures when they give way to multiple interpretations. I am simply saying we should not confuse what the Scriptures say with what we say.
Even so, I am not uncomfortable being dogmatic about interpretations of Biblical passages that are straightforward. For example, in John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.” The person who claims that Jesus is one of many doors to heaven has an insurmountable roadblock: namely the clear, plain reading of the Biblical testimony itself.
By contrast, consider when, in the Garden of Gethsemane, the apostle Peter strikes the ear of the servant Malthus (John 18:10–11). Jesus tells him to put his sword away. Christian pacifists interpret this passage to teach that Jesus was proclaiming an ethic of pacifism, meaning that Christians may not join the police force or military. However, unlike the plain teaching of John 14:6, this passage does not require that interpretation.
For one, John 18:10–11 does not present a propositional statement like John 14:6; it is a story. Additionally, Jesus does not make the statement within the context of discussing vocational ethics or political ethics; He makes it within specific circumstances. These facts alone do not discount the passage’s use; it simply changes the analysis. In addition to these considerations, we should always interpret passages within the broader scope of Scripture, which includes all kinds of references to wars and swords and so forth. I believe that a pacifist interpretation of John 18 is incorrect. However, the uncompromising insistence of some Anabaptists that John 18 teaches an unqualified ethic of pacifism makes the passage say too much, which threatens to bind men’s consciences in ways that they ought not be bound.
Conclusion
In some ways, I end where I began: humility. We must recognize our limitations. We are not only finite, whereas God is infinite, but also sinful, whereas God is holy (Isa. 6:1–5; 55:8; Ps. 14:3). Practicing this epistemic virtue will increase our ability to interpret Scriptures with fidelity. In addition, as we discuss the Scriptures with others, we must always do so in a manner that builds up the other person, treating him or her with dignity and honor, as we all, as members of the body of Christ, seek the truth of God together.
November 30, 2022
Hey Matt,
How did the classroom situation end? Elbow drop from the top rope? 😉
November 30, 2022
Jacob: Thanks for the comment. You ask an excellent question. Did the situation end with an elbow drop from the top rope? I wish. No, I kid.
In the moment, treading cautiously, I let the moment stand, students squirming in their seats, until someone eventually spoke up and took the discussion in another direction by asking a different question.
After class, two students came up to me, asking, “What was that about? Why didn’t you respond to her?”
I responded by asking a question, “What was your evaluation of what happened?”
“Well, I thought she was out of line,” one of them replied.
“Do you think that was the reaction of the class as a whole?” I asked.
“Well, yes I do.”
“Sometimes the best thing to do is to let someone’s remark speak for itself,” I said.
Whether that was, in fact, the best thing to do, I don’t know. It’s not frequently I deal with anger in that way. But that’s how it went 😁
November 30, 2022
Thanks for your response, Dr. Bracey! You handled it just fine. It’s difficult to switch from professor mode to pastor mode in a split second.
Perhaps the Lord will give you or others the opportunity to show her grace in the future, which, of course, is so often how He responds to us in our moments of anger/frustration/confusion. He’s a wonderful Father like that.
December 1, 2022
Yes!