What is Essential

The Rob Bell flap over his views of Hell in “Love Wins” raises an interesting question. Many objected to Bell being criticized, because to them, Hell is not something we know a whole lot about, and our beliefs about the afterlife are not “essential”. So, to some, saying or implying that Bell is “out of bounds” is judgmental and wrong.

A similar question is raised by Roger Olson, who suggests that some Mormons that Mormons maybe could be considered Christians if they accept certain things about Jesus.

Augustine’s famous dictum, “on essentials, unity; on non-essentials, liberty; and in all things charity” can only guide our behavior if we have a consensus on what is essential.

Here’s my take. There are Creedal essentials, consensus issues that all Christians generally already agree on. If someone fudges on those, we have the right and duty to say that person is no longer withing the bounds of “orthodoxy”. These are primarily about Theology and Christology.

Then there are Confessional essentials. If I choose to align myself with a particular movement in Christianity, especially if I am employed by a church or denominationally affiliated organization, I am duty bound to adhere to their doctrinal statement. If I refuse, I may not be less than orthodox, but the denomination has the right to set me aside. These are usually about soteriology and ecclesiology.

Finally there are the non-essentials. Some things in scripture are just obscure. Some things in scripture probably don’t matter. We have the right to take positions, but not to divide over these.

So how does it work? I think in the Rob Bell case, it is a close call as to whether he crossed a universal line or a debated essential that is more a denominational sectarian matter, only because the creeds do not say much about hell. Can one believe in anhilationism and be orthodox? Maybe, maybe not.

Let me explain further.

Order 1 - Creedal essentials

The key issue here is idolatry. We must worship the one true God. When the great creeds were drafted, the primary issues were about the nature of God (Trinity) and the nature of Christ (Christology). Is God one God in three manifestations? No, the Arian view was found to be heretical based on scripture, baptismal formulas known from the apostolic times and other evidence of what the apostles taught. Is Christ fully man? Yes, and the Gnostic view was found to be heretical, again for scriptural, historical and deep theological reasons. So the universal essentials are mostly Creedal. The Trinity as an essential, Christology as an essential. Perhaps some who do not understand the full meaning of the terms can be redeemed, but actively worshiping the wrong God is idolatry and must be out of bounds. There was and remains a broad consensus, meaning the issues were not only decided in the 4th century creeds, but have been reaffirmed time and again for 1600 years after

Order 2 - Confessional essentials

The key issue is soteriology. The primary reason the Reformation happened is over a dispute about how salvation works. It was considered too big an issue to be set aside. Related to this were debates about ecclesiology, the power of the papacy, the succession of bishops, the “priesthood” of all believers. But the primary issue is salvation. And it was considered an essential to both sides. Protestants consider salvation by grace alone to be essential, and Paul seems to say many things like that in the New Testament, as does the writer of Hebrews. There is broad consensus across denominational lines about this. Faith alone also enjoys a broad consensus, particularly since the Joint Declaration on Justification and Vatican 2. Salvation through Christ alone certainly has an almost universal consensus.

Issues relating to sovereignty and free will are related, but not necessarily a dividing point. Sacramentalism has been a big dividing point, because it seems to many Protestants to minimize Sola Fide on one hand and Sola Christus on the other.

Order 3 – Non-Essentials

Last are the non-essentials, issues for which there is not much consensus. They may be matters that show up at the level of a Denominational or local Statement Of Faith, There may be some close calls. Matters related to modes of baptism might be considered a Confessional essential to some. I think more of views related to sign gifts, eschatology, orders of service, some matters of church polity, etc.

So back to the Rob Bell issue: Is Universalism an Order 2 issue or an order 1 issue? Is one’s view of Hell merely an issue of eschatology or is it an issue of soteriology? If one believes it is related to soteriology, then it is certainly an essential at the confessional level at minimum. It is also related to epistemology in Bell's communication style and the general ambiguity of his position. But the reason for the firestorm is that some consider the issue of Hell to be an essential at some level, while some do not.

For what it is worth, I think the Mormon issue is clearer. The LDS church, it has been abundantly documented, has always taught that Christ had a beginning, that God the Father was once a man. The Mormon view clearly runs afoul of historic orthodox Christology and Trinitarian theology. If Bell's challenge was to question the trinity or deity of Christ, no doubt he would be branded heretic by many from most traditions. But some place his musings on Hell at level 2, so he is branded as outside the norm at the level of Protestant confessions and long held understanding of numerous biblical passages.

And I think at that level, criticism of his views is fair game. Is Rob Bell a heretic for thinking some may have a second chance after the grave? Maybe, maybe not. But if I were a church elder, I would not want him to promote that view in my church.