Doctrinal Differences

This week I've studied about the advancement of the church into Asia and Africa, and the doctrinal questions that arose in the first centuries of the church. Looking beyond the borders of Christianity to the unreached world of India, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and the Americas, it becomes apparent that as Christianity expands, doctrinal questions will continue to arise. In actuality, that is exactly what happened.

Because Christianity allows cultural adaptation in its forms, the potential for doctrinal adaptation exists as well. In fact, doctrinal controversies were more common than not as the Gospel spread.

One of the most important controversies was that of the doctrine of Christology - who was Jesus? Was He God in the flesh? Was He a man? Was He both? Some significant divisions arose over seemingly subtle differences in these definitions. The orthodox description of Jesus as fully God, fully man, developed over a couple of centuries of discussion, debate, and controversy. This was ultimately reflected in the Nicene Creed.

On the fringes of orthodoxy, the Nestorians - which would come to dominate the eastern church - emphasized the humanity of Christ, while the Monophysites - which strongly influenced North Africa - emphasized Christ's deity. Both groups were ultimately castigated as heretical by the Roman church, but both developed a strong missiological impact. It is noteworthy that while there were extremes in each group, the mainstream of both groups did not deny either Christ's deity or humanity - only the emphasis was different. However, there were groups that were fully outside the realm of orthodoxy which completely denied either Christ's deity or His humanity; these groups were more at home in the gnostic realm than the Christian world.

What made the difference? In general, as the Gospel spread, those regions that had all of Scripture in their language were closer to true orthodoxy. Areas that had some Scripture in their language tended to be orthodox in those areas they had Scripture, and fell into the fringes or beyond where they did not have Scriptural references. And regions where the church failed to produce Scripture in their own language were most likely to be completely outside the realm of orthodoxy.

This is significant for missiology today. As the Gospel spreads, it is crucial to provide written Scripture in the heart language of the people. Where written Scripture exists, literacy improves and other literature follows.

Another significant point: New churches need doctrinal guidance and direction. It is critical to train indigenous leadership and allow them to see for themselves the truths of Scripture, but this should not be done in a vacuum. Eph. 4:11-14 teaches that teachers are one of God's gifts to the church until there is unity of faith, so that we won't be swayed by every doctrine that comes along. That means that teaching should be a significant part of missions - even though the goal is not to stick around forever, but to equip the church to be able to carry on the faith "once for all given to the saints."

There may still be differences in doctrinal emphasis - each church arises in a unique environment, facing challenges that will naturally be expressed in the emphasis made in their doctrinal statements. Yet the common thread of orthodoxy, especially about the Christian distinctives, can unite believers despite other cultural differences.