Beyond Binary Thinking: The Complexity of Contemporary Theological Discourse
Beyond Binary Thinking: The Complexity of Contemporary Theological Discourse
Introduction
Contemporary theological discourse often suffers from an unfortunate tendency toward binary thinking. By binary thinking, I refer to the reduction of complex doctrinal questions into simplistic either-or propositions that fail to account for legitimate diversity within orthodox Christianity. While certain doctrinal matters, such as the deity of Christ or the reality of the resurrection, do indeed require clear and non-negotiable affirmations, many theological debates within the church involve questions of nuance, emphasis, and articulation rather than fundamental departures from truth. Yet these discussions often devolve into false dilemmas that obscure, rather than illuminate, the biblical data, historical testimony, and theological landscape.
This problem is particularly evident in debates surrounding complementarianism versus egalitarianism, Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS), and the nature of concupiscence. Rather than acknowledging a spectrum of faithful theological reflection, many participants frame the debate as a zero-sum contest between mutually exclusive camps. Such binary framings fail to recognize both the historical and contextual nature of doctrinal development and the possibility of mediating positions that more accurately reflect biblical teaching.
The Historical Context of Doctrinal Development
Christian doctrine has always developed dialectically, often in response to error. The Nicene Creed’s insistence that the Son is homoousios (of the same essence) with the Father was not the result of abstract speculation but a carefully chosen term to exclude Arianism while preserving biblical truth (cf. Athanasius, De Decretis, 19–22). Similarly, Chalcedon’s Christological definition emerged from the need to reject both Nestorian and Eutychian distortions, not from speculative curiosity.
A similar pattern can be traced in more recent theological developments. Complementarianism, for instance, crystallized in the late twentieth century as a reaction to the perceived encroachment of radical feminist ideologies within evangelicalism. Wayne Grudem and John Piper’s work on gender roles in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (1991) was not presented as a comprehensive theology of gender but as a corrective to certain egalitarian claims they believed compromised biblical authority. As such, complementarianism is not a timeless formulation but a contextually framed response, shaped by its cultural moment.
The Reformed doctrine of concupiscence developed in a similarly reactive manner. John Calvin’s treatment of concupiscence in the Institutes (II.1.8) was written against Roman Catholic teaching as articulated at the Council of Trent (Session V, 1546). His goal was to safeguard the doctrine of total depravity while avoiding a dualistic anthropology that would imply the inherent evil of matter or physical desires. To read Calvin’s statements outside this historical context risks misunderstanding their original intent.
The Problem of Assumed Uniformity
Another persistent problem is the assumption that theological terms indicate uniformity of belief. This fallacy of assumed uniformity flattens the landscape of doctrinal discourse and erases the diversity that exists within traditions. The EFS debate illustrates this clearly. When Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware articulated their view of Eternal Functional Subordination, they sought to address concerns about modalism in modern Trinitarian theology. Their position affirms the ontological equality of the divine persons while positing a role-based subordination of the Son to the Father (Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 2005). However, theologians such as Mike Ovey used the EFS label in a more historically sensitive and qualified manner, drawing on patristic sources and classical Trinitarian categories rather than reproducing Grudem and Ware’s framework wholesale.
The failure to recognize this diversity has led to confusion and misrepresentation. Critics often treat all EFS proponents as though they were indistinguishable, when in reality their formulations differ in both method and content. This problem is not limited to modern debates; historical theologians are often co-opted to support contemporary views they might not recognize or affirm in full. For example, both sides of current debates on concupiscence claim continuity with Augustine or Calvin, yet both have developed arguments that move beyond the concerns of those earlier figures.
The False Dichotomy Problem
False dichotomies (either/or thinking) emerge when theological discourse assumes that one must choose between two overly rigid positions. The complementarian-egalitarian debate, for instance, is frequently presented as a stark choice between hierarchical gender roles and complete functional interchangeability. Yet many theologians affirm the equal dignity of men and women while also recognizing differentiated roles in certain contexts, without aligning fully with either camp. The rigid binary fails to account for this middle ground.
The EFS controversy, to be addressed at length in this blog in the near future, displays a similar dynamic. Opponents often assume that rejecting EFS entails embracing a form of modalism, while advocates are accused of veering toward subordinationism. However, more nuanced positions exist that affirm both the eternal relations of origin (the Son’s being from the Father) and the full ontological equality of the divine persons without collapsing into either extreme (cf. Augustine, De Trinitate, I.4–5).
Engaging Counterarguments: Why Binaries Persist
I hasten to point out that not all binaries are illegitimate. Some theological boundaries must remain sharp because certain doctrinal errors threaten the very essence of the faith (e.g., Arianism vs. Nicene orthodoxy). The challenge, then, is to discern when the church must speak with a singular voice and when a diversity of expression is permissible. Many theologians insist on binary framing out of a legitimate fear that ambiguity will lead to doctrinal compromise. While this concern is not unfounded, it can lead to the overextension of boundaries, where every disagreement is treated as a matter of orthodoxy versus heresy. The task is to avoid this overreaction while maintaining fidelity to the essentials of the faith.
Pastoral Implications
Binary theological frameworks often falter in pastoral contexts. Take the debates over spiritual gifts. Cessationism and continuationism are often presented as mutually exclusive, with little room for overlap or development. Yet in pastoral ministry, the lived experience of congregants may not align neatly with a fixed system. A church member may report an experience they believe to be the prompting of the Spirit, even as they hold to a broadly cessationist theology. In such cases, imposing rigid theological categories may hinder rather than help spiritual formation.
A pastor's task is not merely to adjudicate competing models, but to shepherd wisely with theological humility and discernment. While affirming the finality and sufficiency of Scripture, pastors must also navigate claims about spiritual gifts with both theological clarity and pastoral sensitivity. Treating this issue as a binary contest between charismatic excess and rationalistic skepticism oversimplifies the range of faithful positions. It also risks substituting tribal alignment for biblical evaluation, thereby undermining unity and obscuring the Spirit’s actual work in the life of the church.
Toward a More Nuanced Approach
The solution is not to abandon doctrinal clarity but to pursue what might be called charitable precision. This involves a careful effort to understand the actual positions of others rather than assuming their worst possible interpretations. It also requires humility: our theological statements, while grounded in God's self-revelation, are human attempts at articulation and are therefore inherently partial and provisional.
Charitable precision recognizes different levels of disagreement. While some debates involve core gospel truths, others concern secondary or tertiary matters where diverse expressions are permissible (cf. Marco Antonio de Dominis' maxim, in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas). Recognizing this hierarchy of doctrinal importance serves as a safeguard preventing unnecessary division.
The Role of Theological Tradition
Tradition is both a guide and a conversation partner, not an inflexible mold. Complementarianism, for instance, while claiming continuity with historic Christianity, is largely a modern evangelical synthesis responding to contemporary challenges. Similarly, EFS proponents must wrestle honestly with the classical Trinitarian tradition rather than retrofitting their claims onto the patristic consensus. True fidelity to tradition involves critical retrieval rather than simplistic repetition.
Implications for Education and Leadership
Theological education should emphasize historical awareness and interpretive charity. Students should be trained to read the church fathers, Reformers, and contemporary theologians with attention to context, avoiding anachronism. Pastors and church leaders, in turn, must discern when doctrinal boundaries are necessary and when charitable dialogue is more appropriate.
Conclusion
Binary thinking in theological discourse tends to distorts the reality of doctrinal development and hinders the church’s mission. While some theological boundaries must remain non-negotiable, many debates are not as clear-cut as they are often presented. Moving beyond false dichotomies requires historical awareness, theological humility, and pastoral sensitivity. Our ultimate goal is not the triumph of a faction but the faithful articulation of God’s truth for the edification of Christ’s body.
For Further Study
Anieor, Uche. How to Read Theology: Engaging Doctrine Critically and Charitably. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.
Blomberg, Craig L. “The New Testament Definition of Heresy (or When Do Jesus and the Apostles Really Get Mad?).” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45.1 (March 2002): 59–72.
Daniels, J. Neil. Unity without Uniformity: Balancing Conviction and Charity. N.p.: Amazon Kindle Direct, 2024.
Geisler, Norman L., and Ron Rhodes. Conviction Without Compromise. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2008.
Koivisto, Rex. One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.
Mohler R. Albert, Jr., “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” www.AlbertMohler.com, 20 May 2004. http://www.albertmohler.com/2004/05/20/a-call-fortheological-triage-and-christian-maturity-2/
Packer, J. I., and Thomas C. Oden. One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.
Poythress, Vern. Symphonic Theology: The Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985.
Putman, Rhyne. When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020.
Comments
Post a Comment