The Problem of Unity - Part 5

I wrote a meandering thought experiment on Christian unity a long time ago.  More thoughts:

Here is a further illustration of the problem. Regarding the question, "What is essential?" we could attempt to categorize a list of doctrinal issues. We could categorize them in a descending hierarchy with the "Essential" things on top and the "non-essentials" on the bottom.  The problem really lies in the middle, the things some consider essential, but which others either do not, or do not agree with.  (More)

The upper level group of doctrines might be the historic essentials that most everyone agreed on prior to the Great Schism. These would include things like:

The Trinity
The Deity of Christ
The Humanity of Christ
Historicity of the resurrection
Canon of Scripture

These are primarily issues related to the nature of God, the nature of Christ and the apostolic witness. They were answers to controversies that erupted during the first few centuries of the church. The answers have been essentially agreed upon for most of the last 1600 years and are articulated in the great creeds. There is a degree of unity at one level with all who believe those things - Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox are generally all on the same team on these issues (save for the Apocrypha).

The second level of doctrines really did not bubble to the surface until the middle ages.  It would take more than a thousand years from the Council of Nicea to really get into the controversies about soteriology and ecclesiology that led to the Reformation. So we have a list of items that some consider essential, but which there is not a clear agreement:

Sola Scriptura
Salvation by Grace alone
Salvation by faith alone
Views of the "Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist
Sovereignty vs Free Will (Augustine started that one)
Eternal Security

Inerrancy (as defined prior to the modern era)

These are questions that are controversial because many consider one or more of them to be essential and because there is no consensus among the various bodies of Christianity about how they should be understood.  They are divisive because they are seen as so important and vital, so the disagreements become acrimonious.

One could add to this a third category a number of topics debated throughout church history, but may or may not be on the same level as the Trinity, for example. These are topics that might be "essential", might be non-essential, but which there is disagreement not only about the substance but about whether they are essentials.

The Date of Easter
The veneration of IconsViews of Mary
Sacrament vs. Ordinance

Ecclesiastical structure 

The mode of baptism
Number of Sacraments

Clerical dress

Clerical Celibacy

Most Protestants probably don't see these as essentials because a particular view of each does not redefine the nature of God, the nature of Christ or imply a consequence for one's eternal salvation. They are divisive, but to a lesser extent and in secondary ways.

But finally there are topics only recently controversial, things that have become hot buttons only in a narrow window of church history in the last 200 years or so:

Premillenialism
Views of the sign gifts
Liturgical vs spontaneous worship
Eschatology
Women's ordination
The length of a Genesis Day

None of these is about the nature of God (idolatry) nor about the nature of salvation (soteriology).  They probably should be items folks can at least work together across denominational lines with. In fact many times evangelicals do work together for common goals while holding different views on some of these things. But at other times a great deal of frustration, anger and division happens over these things. 

My problem is this.

Why is it that the most talked about doctrinal topics are often the most recent, the least certain, the least important and least consensual topics?  Eschatology, spiritual gifts, worship styles cause untold debates and drive wedges between churches and people.

The most certain things, the top group, are often the least discussed and defended today in evangelical circles. Perhaps because they have been largely settled there seems to be no need. On the other hand they are also under attack from both liberal mainliners and some independent progressive protestants.

I suppose the lesser things are talked about because certain groups push a particular tangential agenda and a response is needed - this is often how doctrine gets defined.  Still, the average Evangelical churchgoer tends to get glassy eyed if any pastor spends more than a few minutes on Trinity or Christology but perks up if a hot button issue is mentioned.  I am guilty of this myself. 

Second, the most longstanding divisive things that might be considered major issues, and perhaps essential to the doctrine of salvation are those related to the Reformation, vital issues upon which no consensus has been reached, and which continue to need attention. No universal church council ever formulated a soteriology satisfactory to a substantial majority. (Council of Trent notwithstanding because only Catholic consider it universal). The issues surrounding the nature of salvation are essentials to most Protestants, but the viewpoints vary even among protestants. Unfortunately, where dialogue occurs dialog is often characterized as compromise, and those who refuse dialogue are often the most strident. Unity can only be found if these major issues are settled which means dialog is necessary.  But it seems we are too focused on lesser things - and it seems like Christian unity is not considered something that could ever be achieved, so we settle for fragmentation.

So the question is:  How do we take the emphasis off the least important matters? How do we emphasize the central truths we agree on?   How do we seek consensus on the seemingly essential things that remain (soteriology, possibly ecclesiology) while allowing freedom on the lesser things?

How do we deal with those major things on which there is division precisely because so many consider them essential?

I guess my answer would be twofold.  First, set some priorities - let the ideal of Christian unity at least be considered possible.  Second, stop pursuing the new and the novel.  We don't need a new theological system every ten years.  We need to be true to the apostolic witness.