In the evangelical world there is a growing tendency to brush aside our doctrinal differences and emphasize our agreement on the "essentials" of Christianity. I suppose this tendency comes ultimately from John Wesley, the father of the evangelical movement. In his sermon "Catholic Spirit," published originally in 1750, he poses the question that "although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? ... May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?" His answer: "Without all doubt we may" (4). He goes on to suggest that "every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God" and that we must exercise "the right of private judgment on which that whole [Protestant] Reformation stands" (I.9, 10). Wesley qualifies his opinion by saying that "an indifference to all opinions... is the spawn of hell, not the offspring of heaven.... A man of a truly catholic spirit has not now his religion to seek. He is fixed as the sun in his judgment concerning the main branches of Christian doctrine" (III.1). The central point of "Catholic Spirit," then, is that we must agree on the core of Christian doctrine while charitably allowing room for multiple opinions. Wesley enumerates his list of core doctrines in paragraph I.12 and the following, but basically they boil down to a belief in an omnipotent God, that Jesus died for the sins of the world, and an attempt to live holy lives—to "show your love by your works" (I.18). Apparently, everything else is up for debate.
Wesley argues that "as long as there are various opinions there will be various ways of worshipping God" (I.8) and supports his argument with an example from 2 Kings 10:15:
After [Jehu] left there, he came upon Jehonadab son of Recab.... Jehu greeted him and said, "Are you in accord with me, as I am with you?" "I am," Jehonadab answered. "If so," said Jehu, "give me your hand" (New International Version).
Wesley suggests that though Jehu and Jehonadab disagreed on how to worship God they somehow found themselves in one accord. First, I have my doubts about just how deep was their accord. After all, if I had just run across Jehu who had very recently "killed everyone in Jezreel who remained of the house of Ahab" (2 Kings 10:11), I might feel more inclined than usual to find accord with him. Continuing with his Jehu/Jehonadab example Wesley points out from 2 Kings 10:28–29 that Jehu had not turned away from "the worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan" and thus worshipped God differently than Jehonadab, yet they were still in one accord. A man as astute as Wesley should know that worshipping idols was forbidden by the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:3–5). He should also know that worshipping a golden calf while waiting for Moses to come down from Mt. Sinai is the thing for which Israel was struck with a plague (Ex. 32). So the very text on which his sermon is based leaves Wesley without support for multiple valid modes of worship and, consequently, multiple valid opinions.
Moreover, Wesley's idea that it is acceptable to separate ourselves based on our multiple opinions violates St. Paul's exhortation to unity:
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas [Peter]"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10–13, NIV).
Paul does not suggest that we should agree on some set of essential doctrines and that everything else is up for debate. Rather, his point is that because Christ is not divided, neither should we be divided. "Perfectly united in mind and thought" is a very different thing than "every man must judge for himself."
If directly contradicting the scripture is not enough to do away with the idea that we can agree to disagree, let us make one further observation: The idea that it is okay to divide ourselves based on our varying opinions as long as we agree on some hypothetical set of "essentials" is fundamentally flawed. It is a fact that divisions between Christians exist because of differing opinions. It follows that each of the divided groups must believe that their opinions are "essential," or there would be no reason for the divisions to exist. The converse is also true. If our differing opinions are not "essential" then there is no reason to divide ourselves because of them.
If Paul were to write to us today he might say, "One of you says 'I follow Luther'; another, 'I follow Calvin'; another, 'I follow Wesley'; still another 'I follow Joel Osteen.'" The consequence of our exercising "the right of private judgment on which that whole Reformation stands" is that "no man can be assured that all his own opinions taken together are true" ("Catholic Spirit," I.4). Frankly, I want something more. I want to know without doubt that I hold the "faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 1:3, NIV). I suppose I will have to keep looking until I find it.
