The Importance of Theological Debate Among Christians

Cliff and Stewart Knechtle recently got into some controversy regarding their views of the Eucharist, and Cliff's response was ultimately that he doesn't care what one believes on this point, but rather what matter is whether or not you follow Jesus. He commented in turn that he strongly disagrees with anyone who think our purpose is to correct people on this matter one way or the other, arguing that there are more important thing, such as those starving and such like. 

It's worth noting that this is not strictly a new position for him, he has made a similar statement on the Jack Neil YouTube channel. When asked why he is not Catholic, he noted that the issue for Christians should not be what denomination you are, but the issue is how you respond to the person of Jesus Christ, and argued that this is the orthodox Christian faith. So the above position is a natural explication of this earlier one. 

In light of these comments I've been reflecting a bit more eon the nature of debate among Christians; because I think that Cliff raises what is a valid but also misplaced concern. For I agree that what is central is whether or not we follow Christ, and that we Christians should not prioritize anything ahead of getting people to come to Christ. So naturally, If something should not be profitable for people in their relationship to Christ, whether in coming to him, remaining with him, or growing in that relationship; anything which is unhelpful to this should be eschewed. All the more so those things which are inhibitive to it; and I pray that our Lord aids me and all of us in eschewing such things. 

The issue however is that the substance of debates among Christians (such as the debate on the Real Presence) often deal precisely with who Christ is and what it means to come to him and to follow him. While Christians have a general over-arching agreement on matters like the Trinity and the Incarnation, and so have a broad agreement on who Christ is and so on what it is to follow Christ and so, to be a Christian; our further disagreements are still relevant to the Christian life, and frequently have subtle yet important implications for who he is as well. This is because our different beliefs often deal with what he teaches, promises, warns, commands, and counsels, and all in turn have different implications on how we think Christ wants us to relate to him, and so, how we think Christ wants us to see him through that relationship. 

Hence, regarding the question of the Eucharist; the question of the debate can be formulated this way: Is Christ the one who set up merely a symbolic ritual for us to follow to remember him by, or is he the one who comes to us to be present with us in a unique way every time that ritual is properly performed? Different answers to this question will give you very different ideas as to the sort of person Jesus is. Indeed, it will give you different ideas as to the sort of God he is, and so the sort of God we follow.

More to it, your answer to this gives you different ideas of what it even means to follow Jesus. For Jesus issued a command here: "Do this in memory of me" so to fail to do this is to disobey him, but depending on your answer to the question of who Christ is here, you will have a very different idea as to what the 'this' is that he is commanding us to do in memory of him. We can't both be right, and so, we can't both be obeying Christ here; and so at least one of us is not following Christ as well as we ought. If what is important is following Jesus, both in drawing people to do so and to encourage people in keeping doing so, then it's clearly important that we get this right. 

Likewise, disagreements on the Papacy and authority structure of the Church are also disagreements on how Christ himself 'set up' the Church i.e. disagreements on what his intent was in how his Church was to be organized and governed, if at all. Hence we can formulate these debates again as questions about who Chris is: Is he the Christ who made a purely invisible Church, or a Church with both a visible and invisible dimension? Is he the Christ who set up a single head over the bishops, or simply a first among equals with no ultimate, final, and definitive authority?

in turn again, this question of 'who Christ is' it is also a question of whether we are following him well; because Christ has issued commands regarding the Church. Namely, in Matt 18:15-17, in how when our brothers sin against us, and if he does not repent after having been told privately alone, and then with one or two others, then we are to take him to the Church. Naturally, if we have different and incompatible ideas as to who Christ is in relation to the Church and so as to which Church he built, then we will each be doing very different things when we try to obey his commandment. One will go to one Church, another to another. Since our views are mutually exclusive, we can't all be right, only at most one among us can, and the rest shall again, be failing to follow Christ as well as we could. 

Again, in the great commission, Christ commands us to go out and make disciples of all people's and nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to do all he has commanded us. But each of us has different ideas of what kind of commander Christ is, what his commands are; I just gave two examples, but we can multiply them. Hence, once again, if we have incompatible ideas as to what his commands mean, then when we teach other people to do what we think he commands, we can't all be succeeding in following Christ's command to teach commands, due to having an errant idea as to what his commands even are. 

Cliff is right that the priority is how we respond to Christ; for we should respond to him in love, and so on that ground follow him. Indeed, If we love Christ, surely we shall want to follow him as closely as possible. As Christ himself said 'if you love me, you will obey my commands' However clearly we cannot obey his commands if we don't first know him in full. Hence Christ began by calling his disciples his servants, but later on in his ministry he said this "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you." Surely we should all seek to befriend Christ, to return in love the love he has given us; but the first condition for this is for Christ to make know to us all he has learned from the Father. Thus if we do not have a right view of Christ's teachings, we simply cannot be following him in the right way, and so, we cannot be following him as well as we could. 

Consequently, I don't think we can justly accept Cliffs view of these matters. I can sympathize with the concern that we should not waste time in matters unrelated to Christ, and if the subject of these debates were less obviously theological in nature, less obviously relevant to the very question of who Christ is and what it means to respond to and follow Christ, then I'd be inclined to agree that we should in no way prioritize such matters over the gospel; and I hope, by God's grace, that I'd live out that agreement in my deeds. However, when dealing with matters which are so deeply tied to Christ's identity and teachings, and to our identity and responsibilities as his followers, then I don't think that we can eschew these debates, but rather must take them all the more seriously due to the grave importance of their subject matter.