Because I imagine it will come up again and again as time rolls on, I feel the need to explain what the purpose of contrarianism is to a Christian.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines a contrarian as “A person who (habitually) opposes or rejects prevailing opinion or established practice; someone who behaves in a contrary manner.”  There are two things to make clear early on:  first, a contrarian need not be heretical.  As a self-confessed contrarian, I find myself less often doubting the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed (sets of statements all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians would agree on) and more often doubting modern Christian ways of teaching and speaking.  Second, most contrarians don’t espouse views that are the antithesis of what they disagree with.  Rather, contrarians prefer to articulate nuance in an otherwise unequivocal statement.

The question, then, is what can a contrarian add to faith, to truth?  How do they edify?  I would argue that a contrarian can be absolutely essential to a body of believers.  Christians often have a tendency to unite enthusiastically behind a phrase or idea without really taking the time to fully evaluate its meaning and consequences.  Like most people in society, they have a habit of surrounding themselves with others who think similarly.  Within a church, this usually results in hiring pastors and asking people to serve in administrative and teaching roles who all think and speak and generally conduct themselves similarly.  To a certain degree, this can be good.  We want to unite around a common theme—the person of Christ Himself, in this case.

However, the sort of intellectual or methodological incest that sets in when everyone thinks in the same ways is the problem here.  I think the Mars Hill controversy out in Seattle had a lot to do with this self-sorting phenomenon.  Whether or not anyone ends up admitting any wrongdoing in that case, or whether the accusations turn out to be largely false, it is apparent that a lot of the trouble had to do with trying to keep disagreement out of the church leadership.  Due to both firings and voluntary resignations, it appears that anyone who either questioned outright the actions of the other church leaders or who only suggested caution be taken was forced out of the inner circle.  This is a huge problem.

A contrarian like those forced out of Mars Hill provides the chance to reflect meaningfully on a problem that arises in the church or upon a suggested new direction for ministry.  They can, of course, cause division at times—that is always the pitfall they must avoid—but it is an obvious danger.  The more insidious danger is that which comes from not allowing any dissent.  From all appearances, the Mars Hill controversy blindsided many members of that particular church community.  In a more open, discursive environment, many of these grievances might have been aired much, much sooner, before their pressure built to the breaking point.

Contrarians see the world through a fundamentally skeptical lens.  They don’t have an overriding love of either tradition or “the new”, instead preferring to analyze all things by their own merit.  By this, they can offer a special caution to a body of believers that no one else can.  They can illuminate things that would otherwise never be lit up, often by broaching topics no one else is willing to discuss.  Strife and division are real dangers in any church, but do not be misled to think that a church body that brooks no dissent has no division; the foundation can crumble while the building stands pristine.  But the body of believers that regularly engages in discussion, always “testing the Spirit” as St. John writes, can help keep that foundation strong, Christ-centered, and lasting.