Essentials - A Graphic

On the essentials unity...

So what is essential? What are the vital doctrinal issues that matter, not only for the integrity of the Christian faith, but also for the unity of the whole of Christianity.

I'll need to deal with Roger Olson's distinction between a "centered set" and a "bounded set" in a future post, but for the moment I would offer one way I use to mentally quantify the essential and the non-essential and it is probably something many of us do without realizing it.

I have in the past suggested different levels for what is essential.   

• There are creedal essentials which Christians are almost all unified on.  
• There are confessional essentials that Protestants at least used to be largely agreed upon.  Then there are denominational distinctives that may be important for particular reasons but are not essential.  
• Finally there are lesser matters of conscience that should not be cause for any division.

It seems to me there are two criteria that can be plotted mentally in a way that helps clarify things.  On the one hand there is the matter of "what is important" or at the risk of driving postmoderns crazy, "what is foundational?".   Maybe a better way of stating it is "is this doctrinal idea something that other truths of the faith are built upon?   If we remove this stone from the wall, will the wall crumble?"

Clearly the early church felt the the identity of God was foundational.  One cannot be a Christian and engage in idolatry, the worship of a false God.  Paul likewise suggests in Romans 1 that the great cause of all kinds of mischief is altering the image of God, redefining who God is.  So the Early Church fashioned creedal statements about the nature of God as one, creator, father, etc.  At the same time, they argued about and settled on a number of statements about Christ.  It was unacceptable to see Christ as a mere man, for Christ was worshipped by Thomas after the resurrection.  It was also according to the Apostle John the spirit of Antichrist to deny that Christ had come in the flesh, so his humanity had to be affirmed.  The definition of Christ as God-Man was an essential - and anything less veered into idolatry.  

Reconciling the deity of Christ with the oneness of God as well as the role of the Holy Spirit led to the doctrine of the Trinity.  

What strikes me about all this is that these definitions are supported in scripture, not just in logical formulations or tradition.  Which leads to the following graphic.  

The "essential" is formed by considering what is "important" to the faith on the one hand, and what was clearly stated in scripture on the other.  Plotting those two ideas of "importance or foundational" on one axis and "clearly stated in scripture" on the other, leads to some interesting thought exercises.  

Too often we think in two dimensions.  The postmoderns would say we think too much in black and white or in terms of "binaries", in or out, true or false, when things are often not that simple.  Perhaps what we need is simply a way to mentally account for the notion that there are more than two dimensions, more than a single factor that leads us to a viewpoint.

So, for example, "important" or "foundational" means a particular truth of the faith is not merely an idea hanging on its own, but is an idea that serves as a platform that other ideas are built on.  One can remove a shingle from a house without compromising the structure.  One cannot compromise a foundation.   Which big ideas of the faith are "foundational"?

When I say "clearlty stated in scripture" I tend to think of truths that are stated multiple times, stated emphatically or very strongly and in fairly specific language.   Multiple texts can be referenced to support the idea of the Trinity, for example.   The "filioque", the idea that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father "and the son" is much more difficult to find in a specific text.

If I begin plotting doctrinal ideas in this way, I find it helps  quantify the things I am willing to argue for and the things one can more easily allow a fair amount of freedom on.  I have mentioned the Trinity and the Deity of Christ as concepts that are both foundational and clearly attested in multiple passages.  So both wind up in the upper right quadrant. 

Eastern Christians believe the filioque is very important, but I think there would be agreement that scripture doesn't address the question in a particularly direct way.  I would place that in the lower right, important but not as clearly stated in the text.Christians in the 70s were very divided over the continuation or cessation of the "sign gifts", particularly tongues.  I personally place that one on the left side as "not foundational to the faith" but as for clarity in scripture, I tend toward a soft cessationist view, with caveats and footnotes. 

The "age of the earth" controversy I would place in the  lower left.   While creationists make a valid  case about hermeneutic consistency, the meaning of words and construction of linguistic phrases, I don't think it absolutely clear that the initial separation of light from darkness has to fall into a solar day prior to the existence of the solar system, nor do I think the length of day 1 in Genesis is inextricably tied to the historicity of Adam.  But more to the point, the length of a day doesn't serve as the foundation upon which other critical doctrines are built.  It is not all that important.

On the other hand, the historicity of Adam and the fall from grace are, in my mind, stated clearly, stated multiple times in both Testaments and have enormous implications for the understanding of human nature and for the meaning of salvation.  

The point is, none of us decides what our critical doctrines are based on a single consideration.  We weight ideas on an invisible mental scale.  Making those scales visible, plotting them into grids and being cognizant that they move in multiple dimensions can help us separate the "essential" from the non-essential.   

I would suggest a third "dimension" be added, and that would be Tom Oden's (Vincent of Lerins) concept of consensus.  That is, if a doctrine is stated in scripture clearly and multiple times, if it is an idea that serves as a basis or foundation for other doctrines and if there is a broad consensus among Christians across time and space, that would bolster the categorization of a doctrine as an "essential".   

And on those things, Christians need to unify and resist compromise.   Not everything can be flexible.  Nor can every matter be a cause for division.   The church desperately needs to rally around essential truths and find a common voice again in a radically pluralized culture.  Maybe organizing our thoughts around a simple visual grid can help us to separate the essentials from the non-essentials.