Second in a series on Biblical Church Partnerships. The previous post is: “Boundaries of Cooperation: Differing Viewpoints.”

What importance does the Bible give to so-called “secondary issues?” Should they be a reason to sever cooperation between churches?

In our haste to debate the latest hot theological topic, it would be a mistake to gloss over the charge that some issues are just “secondary” issues. If Scripture is our guide for faith and practice, certainly it speaks to more than what we consider to be primary issues.

Below are a few secondary issues in the Bible that quickly come to mind. With each one we should ask, “How important are these secondary issues?”

• Adam and Eve ate from the wrong tree (cf. Gen. 3:6). Their punishment for such a seemingly small infraction was death, albeit delayed by God’s mercy.

• Korah complained against Moses (cf. Num. 16). His punishment for such a seemingly reasonable protest was that the earth opened up and swallowed him and his followers.

• Judah did not let the land rest for hundreds of years. Their punishment for such a seemingly minor agricultural matter was exile for 70 years (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21).

• Ananias and Sapphira withheld some of their offering (cf. Acts 5). Their punishment for such a seemingly private issue was death.

Of course, there was more going on in these stories than the simple way that I’ve summarized them. But I believe we can draw a few conclusions.

First, there are no secondary matters of obedience to God. When he gives a command, it is to be obeyed. Anything other than obedience is disobedience. God’s very nature—his majesty and glory and awesomeness—does not allow his creatures to dictate to him or to one another which directives are worthy of their consideration. God has spoken. It is ours to obey and call others to obey.

Second, there are serious consequences for disobeying even the most minute commands in the Word of God. What makes us think that failure to obey him with regard to secondary issues would be any different? Churches which refuse to obey God in even seemingly insignificant areas are disordered and disobedient to the clear teaching of Scripture. Unless and until they repent, they will drift further into more egregious error.

Third, it is the secondary issues that set us apart. Baptists, for example, share many doctrines with other Christian groups, but are distinct because of issues that seem to be lesser. But we know from church history that those “lesser” distinctives are critically important to the faith. Today, then, it would be better to be known as the churches who seek to honor the Lord through obedience in all things than those who seek to gain the favor of the world through acquiescence in “minor” things.

On the Charge of Perpetual Division

There are some who will claim that if cooperation requires unity on every jot and tittle of a common statement of faith, then there will never be an end to it. They say that if we allow secondary issues to separate us, then the topic du jour will be a point of constant division. This charge, however, does not take into consideration the bond that a statement of faith provides.

From time to time, churches come together to agree upon commonly-shared beliefs, such as the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) and other statements of faith. If a theological issue is not commonly-shared, it will not be put into the statement. But once the statement of faith is agreed-upon, it should be the standard by which the partnership between churches exists. If, however, commonly-shared beliefs are labeled “secondary” or treated as such by those who have agreed to exist within the bonds of the statement of faith, then there will never be an end to the spiral of doctrines found unworthy of being viewed as “primary.” Perpetual division based on biblical teachings is not the threat. Perpetual downgrade is.

In the Southern Baptist Convention, we have churches in partnership with one another that have agreed that their partnership is based on a common statement of faith: the BFM 2000. The theological statements in that statement are, by extension of the partnership, not secondary. Instead of dismissing some of those theological statements as unimportant, those pastors and denominational leaders who wish either not to abide by the BFM 2000 or allow cooperating churches not to abide by it should call for the statement of faith to be changed to their liking.

As long as we have a commonly-shared statement of faith, all of it—even the “secondary” doctrines—should be our standard of cooperation.