Many Christians believe sincerely that certain areas of social and human relations are not within the task of the church. To them it is the task of the church to preach the gospel. To deal with explosive and divisive problems would do far more harm than good. Therefore, we have a responsibility to face the question: Should the church deal with controversial questions?

In the throes of reality, to ask this question is the same as asking: Should the church deal with the crucial issues of life? People are not bothered by easy, simple, black-and-white questions. It is precisely because problems are complex and controversial that they become the crucial issues of life. It is within these issues that human beings live and move and have their being. One does not escape these questions simply because they are difficult. One has to answer them, and one does answer them, one way or another—either with the benefit of the Christian perspective or without it.

To deal directly and in depth with these controversial and difficult issues is one of the fundamental tasks of the church. If the church is truly a koinona, if there is genuine concern to know the will of God, then it is within this type of fellowship where these difficult questions can best be discussed. If they cannot be faced within this fellowship of love and concern, where can they be discussed? Not to be able to consider difficult, even explosive, issues within the church is tacit admission that Christ is not the answer.

The church cannot afford to ignore these problems. The world has to face these issues and deal with them in some manner—around the conference tables, in labor union meetings, in legislative halls, and in ward offices of mercenary politicians. Decisions will be made. Action will be taken. Does Christ, through his church, have no word to speak? Is there no light from above to shine in our darkness to give guidance? If the church is going to perform its real ministry in the world, then it must get into the arena, of life and "get its hands dirty" grappling with real issues.

The church must learn not to be afraid of honest differences of opinion. According to our study of the history of religious movements, when they were vital and dynamic, differences of opinion were honestly held and freely expressed. But institutionalism had set in when positions became crystallized and thought and expression were stifled. External harmony was achieved, but experiential religion was lost.

True Christian fellowship does not mean that everyone must think alike. It does demand genuine acceptance and respect on the part of all involved, even in the midst of differences of opinion. Seemingly we have not as yet developed this kind of koinona in our churches. A recent study of adults in Southern Baptist churches found that seventy-eight percent of the Sunday school members said they did not feel free to express an opinion that differed from that of their teacher.

From A Quest for Vitality in Religion: A Theological Approach to Religious Education, by Findley B. Edge, pp. 88-89.