When professing Christians disagree.

[Cow Poke]

Lots of good stuff here. I disagree that disagreements necessarily cause division; there are some differences which are simply not important enough to divide over. When there is agreement that an issue is not important enough to divide over, then disagreements on it will not cause division.

It has often been said that Churches don't split over theology -- they split over personalities, polices, procedures...

And, when somebody from a different Church background seeks to join our Church, I talk to them about the ESSENTIALS of beliefs for fellowship, and how any disagreement might impact their "fit" with us. I think that's healthy, and I have had, for example, a number of Pentecostals and Charismatics worship with us. The key has been, for those individuals, that they feel a sense of "submission" to the leadership of the Pastor, and would not do anything to undermine his role. That's not a "requirement" I put on them -- it's their way of saying "even though I believe differently on things, I won't do anything to cause division."

[One Bad Pig]

Lots of good stuff here. I disagree that disagreements necessarily cause division; there are some differences which are simply not important enough to divide over. When there is agreement that an issue is not important enough to divide over, then disagreements on it will not cause division.

[37818]

When professing Christians disagree results in the church divisions we see.

". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Before two who disagree on a matter can ever come to any agreement, both need to come to a common understanding as to what the very points of disagreement are.

This is easy to say. But not easy to be done. But why make it harder than it needs to be?

None of us, I hope, sets out to be wrong in what one believes on a matter. We believe stuff on the premise that what is being believed is in fact true.

An disagreement might have four or more views. And every different interpretation has parts which are either one way or another. To make sense out of what is otherwise complex, each difference must be evaluated in pairs. Two at a time. What must be agreed on, is identifying what it is being disagreed on. So even two views, may consist of more than two things disagreed upon, as to understandings which make up the two views. In other words, the disagreement consists of some things more fundamental than the "two views" being disagreed upon.

To say this in another way:

It is easy to point out disagreements. What is difficult is identifying the elements which cause the disagreement. And those elements, or principle disagreements must be only dealt with in pairs. And if there is a difficulty there, that means there is even a more fundamental disagreement.