Section B: Applying This Framework To Doctrinal Diversity
1. Growing in Discernment
a. Criteria For Assessing Difference
The New Testament is no stranger to conflict. It is not that first century churches were some pristine ideal model. On the contrary, it was written in the context of disagreement, disunity and false teaching. It can speak to our context and teach us how to respond to that which threatens the unity brought by the gospel.
The danger we seek to avoid here has two sides. On the one hand, demanding uniformity on things that are not revealed;44 on the other, encouraging diversity on central issues. To make these judgements we propose four principles45 that arise from the gospel framework we have outlined:
- The Gospel Principle
- The Scripture Principle
- The Credal Principle
- The Catholicity Principle
i. The Gospel Principle
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6)
The principle we propose is simple, although its application may be difficult. We must ask of every issue: “How does this relate to the gospel?”.
Since the knowledge of God comes to us in the gospel, the gospel itself must structure our theology. God has not spoken to us in an undifferentiated monotone. God’s revelation has a climax—for He has made himself known in the appearance of His Son. It is because the Bible is so Christ-centred, that it is also so gospel-centred:46
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)
Whilst the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura must be upheld (see the next criteria), even more basic is the content of the gospel itself. We are Bible-believers because we are first gospel-believers. Hence the gospel does not merely give us a source of knowledge, but content. The gospel boldly proclaims that the universe only fits together meaningfully when Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are placed at the centre. Just as “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”47, so also the gospel brings knowledge of God “in the face of Christ”.48
This does not mean that all other sources of knowledge are denied, but it does mean reality will be distorted when the gospel is not at the centre. If reality is a jigsaw puzzle, the gospel tells us not to start with the edge pieces, but with the centre—the gospel of the Lordship of Christ. The process of maturation is one whereby we see this Lordship extend to the very horizons of our knowledge and experience.
We will discuss later the term ‘gospel issue’ as a category, but for now we must say something on the content and extent of ‘the gospel’. We argue that the gospel is a definable body of propositional truth that is not simply every word of the Bible. It is an understanding of the Jesus ‘event’—his life, death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. The whole Bible focuses on this event—foreshadowing it in the Old and reflecting on it in the New Covenant. This fits with Jesus’ view of the Old Testament in Luke 24:44-49, Peter’s view of prophecy in 1 Peter 1:10-12 and also with Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:20.
The gospel focuses on a person, but is not the same as that person. We must not falsely divide Jesus’ person and the apostolic witness to it. If the apostolic witness is not reliable, then we are left in the dark and have no criteria to protect us against a different Christ offered to us. The gospel is not ‘Jesus Christ’, but ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’.49
The gospel is historical, but not merely historical. We must not be satisfied with agreement merely on the facts surrounding Jesus, but the gospel’s interpretation of those facts. That Jesus died is history, that Jesus died for sins is the gospel. With such a focus on the death of Jesus, it is not surprising that the apostles do not stop at recording his death, but interpreting it for us. A right understanding of the atonement could not be more central to the gospel. In opposition to this, Peter Carnley argues that theories explaining the fact of the atonement came much later (he dates penal substitution to the 12th century50). Accordingly, in grouping Christian thinking into three categories according to their degree of speculation (dogma, doctrine and theological reflection), he places penal substitution in the most speculative category51. Carnley concludes:
“But it has been the wisdom of the Church to leave the matter of the saving efficacy of the Cross
an undefined mystery and thus open to a range of theological reflections”52
However, a gospel-centred approach such as advocated here would invert this judgement because substitution is so foundational to the New Testament presentation.53 As Nicole says:
“Just as the atonement is at the heart of the Christian faith, so substitution is at the heart of the
atonement.”54
The gospel therefore gives us a centre and shape to our knowledge of God. As we grow in the knowledge of God we are developing a web of understanding that defines our relationship with Him. Because truth is interconnected, all error will cause deformity, but the degree of deformity will depend on its connection to the centre.
The conceptual connections or distance from the centre must be determined by the content of the gospel itself. The Bible certainly does not treat all truths in exactly the same way. Jesus talks of the weightier matters of the law and in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-9, Paul shows how a right understanding of the gospel will reorder the importance we place on issues such as food sacrificed to idols, special days and alcohol. Whilst all truth matters, the gospel tells us that not all truths matter in the same way or to the same extent.
The further the conceptual distance from the gospel, the less importance we must place on it, even in the face of our traditions and denominational preferences. Unfortunately, denominational history so often testifies to an insistence on issues irrelevant to the gospel, and freedom on areas that are central.
This will necessarily involve a growing grasp of the conceptual links between biblical concepts. It will mean a sharpening of our knowledge of the internal logic of the gospel and seeing how false ideas undermine this logic. It will mean a strengthening of our grasp of the links between the indicative and the imperative in Scripture. Our ethics must be increasingly gospel-centred: not merely moral, but a response to the grace that has appeared in Christ Jesus (Titus 2:11)
This ‘gospel principle’ is of course not a new one. For Luther, the central gospel implication was justification by faith alone. It was the doctrine on the church either stood or fell. Justification by faith became his hermeneutical control in reading the Scriptures, acting as a kind of Ockham’s Razor. His popularisation of adiaphora (which we explore below) was also firmly grounded in an assessment of how something related to his great rediscovery of justification by faith.
ii. The Bible Principle
The Bible Principle is an outworking of the conviction that Jesus’ Lordship is expressed concretely through His Word. It asks the question: “Does this reading express submission to the Scriptures and hence to Christ?”. It works on the conviction that we cannot draw a wedge between God’s Word and His person. Once these two are held together, then the seriousness of a conscious denial of Scripture becomes apparent. Our attitude to Scripture is a direct expression of our attitude to Christ. This principle implicitly denies the possibility of a relationship with Christ not grounded on the verbal revelation we have in the Scriptures.55
Of course, this view is under attack and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on human freedom has expressed itself in theological terms. The concept of divine authority residing in a written text is considered untenable by most in the theological academy. Yet, at the same time we must also acknowledge the advances made through critical methods in approaching the Bible arising since the Enlightenment.
The best of critical scholarship has shown us the complexity of the reading process. A naïve linguistic realism can be rightly rejected, and a more tentative approach adopted. Recent advances in literary approaches show us that the Bible is not simply a sourcebook of divine commands to be mined and reassembled as systematics. We can acknowledge that truth is communicated in both form and content. Wooden, mathematical approaches to language have given way to an appreciation of the flexibility and variety of language in human communication. We can acknowledge the complexity of the reading process, without compromising our commitment to remain in that process.
These are valuable pursuits and have deepened our appreciation of the text. Yet, we must be wary not to inadvertently import methodology that is antagonistic to the text (such as human autonomy as a fundamental assumption). One test to consider is whether my assumptions drive me back towards the text of Scripture in confidence that that is where God’s voice is heard. The alternative is to use the fruits of critical scholarship as a way of hiding from God like Adam and Eve in the Garden.
What we learn from all this is that hearing God’s voice is complicated by the complexities of communication, by our finiteness and by our sinfulness. It is right to acknowledge this complexity, display a degree of epistemic humility and yet not to undermine our primary conviction that God speaks today in a way that can be heard. It is helpful to acknowledge that some things in Scripture are more difficult than others. Clarity must not be equated with simplicity. Whilst this is not an excuse for ignoring difficult issues, we must respond to the information we do know (Phil 3:16).
In this context, we suggest an assessment of the faithfulness of a reading of Scripture. A faithful reading may or may not be correct, but is characterised by a willingness to accept Scriptural authority. We may not agree with someone’s conclusion, but we can acknowledge that their reading could be made within the context of submission to Scripture’s authority.
On the other hand, we must not concede that a reading is a faithful one simply because it is claimed to be so. Sincerity must not be elevated as a criterion. For a start, we are not competent to assess this in ourselves, let alone others (1 Cor 4:1-5). We are assessing the faithfulness of a reading, not the person. Nor can we assume that someone who has been faithful on many topics is being faithful in this one. They are the ones most likely to persuade others to side with them based on trust, not content. A robust doctrine of sin is critical here.
Finally, we are not left without resources in making this assessment. The Bible itself gives precedent for assessing false teaching. The apostle’s response to a range of threats to the gospel acts as a kind of case history we can draw upon and learn from.
iii. The Credal Principle
The credal principle is simple—‘Does this reading go beyond the bounds of the creeds?’ The creeds act as stakes in the ground, poles around which detail can be added, but not moved beyond. Any authority creeds have is a derived authority, dependent on their faithful re-presentation of the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is not a separate mode of revelation as in Roman Catholic and Orthodox models. Scripture is the Spirit-inspired Word of God; tradition is merely the Spirit-illumined response to that Word. In addition, unlike Scripture, tradition is patchy, a mix of Spirit-illumined riches and dross.
Protestants have been wary of finding a place for tradition, which is understandable given both Jesus’ warning about human traditions and the way the Roman Catholic Church has effectively allowed tradition to stand over Scripture. Yet the magisterial Reformers’ writings are soaked in the writings of the Fathers. Their understanding of sola scriptura was not Scripture interpreted individually or in a way that operated outside the tradition of interpretation. We suggest three key reasons for their emphasis:56
-
God has made us communal beings and our context will affect us for good or bad. We would be wise to critically examine how our context is shaping us in the light of Scripture. Given sin is both personal and corporate—and the great temptation to succumb to the spirit of the age—it is wise to compare our beliefs with those outside of our culture and age.
-
The Scriptures are addressed to the people of God, and to individuals only derivatively. They are intended for interpretation within community and lived out within community. Our church context is the gracious provision of God. Why else would God give gifts of teachers to his church? Moreover given the unseen heavenly gathering,57 God’s people extend both in space and time. Any true listening must give the Christian dead a fair hearing!
-
The Scriptures tells us that the Spirit’s work is ongoing—in individuals and in churches58. Part of the fruits of this work are true confessions of faith. This must be balanced by the mixed nature of the visible church. There is no guarantee that the faithful members will be in the majority, nor that those within the faithful will be biblical at every turn. We must not confuse the recognition of the value of tradition with mere democracy.
The Roman Catholic critique of Protestantism in this area has been to accuse it of inventing a novel concept of ‘private interpretation’ which has led to a splintering of the church:
This is false on two accounts. Firstly, the mainstream Reformers didn’t argue for private interpretation, on the contrary, they set their position within the context of the Patristic teachings and proved this with numerous citations. Calvin was noted for his particular familiarity with the Fathers.
Secondly, the conclusion made from this premise is false. The opposite of private interpretation is interpretation within the context of God’s faithful people. It is not an argument for an organisational, institutional interpretive process and teaching authority.
What gives the creeds59 such credibility is their age and consensus over such a long time. Both at the time and ever since, they have commanded the overwhelming assent of faithful Christians. This is not to suggest their infallibility, but that if they could be disproved from Scripture, it is likely they would have been already.
Their scope is worthy of comment. What makes them so enduring is that they fare so well when assessed against the Gospel and Bible principles outlined above. They reflect the shape of the gospel and are thoroughly biblical in content. They do give a gospel shape to which all other doctrines can find their place—“a framework and a checklist for our preaching and teaching”60. Yet, like the New Testament they do reflect the fights of the day. Their emphasis on the doctrine of God was an explicit counter to false understandings of God. There is no evidence that they intended to address every area in equal detail. It is not surprising that they do not refute every modern error.
Historically, the term heresy has had a technical definition of teaching contrary to the creeds. Should this be extended to include modern errors? The creeds are a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for orthodoxy. However their focus on the doctrine of God is not arbitrary. Whilst evangelicals rightly see the gospel centering on ‘Christ crucified’, we need to see that the cross is not just a soteriology, but also a revelation of God. It is the cross that reveals the triune nature and action of God in the world. Agreement on the doctrine of God may not be sufficient, but it is a necessary basis for fellowship—we must agree on which God we are worshipping. Moreover, the very DNA of the church is grounded in the Trinitarian shape of God. Feminist theologies, that talk of a ‘Mother God’, are not tinkering with the edges—they are worshipping an altogether different God.
Yet, the creeds must not alone define orthodoxy. Whilst some may desire the peace that comes from their broad acceptance, in their day they were controversial. The next threat to the gospel will always be from a different angle to the last. We cannot rest on the hard won consensus of yesterday. Orthodoxy will always be hard fought—whilst the Scriptures promise us the Spirit’s illumining work they also promise opposition and false teaching from within61. If we think the fight is won, then we must be blinded to the battle raging around us.
Finally, I have referred here to the creeds of the undivided church and not to statements of faith such as the Thirty Nine Articles, Westminster Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism. There is both continuity and discontinuity with these. The continuity is that the writers were attempting to confess the true Christian faith and deny error. For instance the Thirty Nine Articles were not merely attempting to produce a party line:
“…for the avoiding of diversities of opinion and for the establishing of consent touching true religion.”62
Yet they do not attempt to define the limits of Christendom in the same way as say the Athanasian Creed tries to. The Quicunque Vult clause,63 whilst being problematic to some64, has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of orthodox Christians. Evangelicals disagree with Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches on issues significant enough to threaten salvation. Yet all agree that failure to worship the God described in the creeds is worship of an altogether different God. Modern theology often attempts to draw a wedge between our ‘journey with God’ and credal content. We must learn to hold them together:
“The creeds are a way of expressing conceptually what we experience genuinely—in the Father,
through Son, by the Spirit”65
iv. The Catholicity Principle
The principle of catholicity operates parallel to the credal principle. It asks ‘Is this teaching contrary to the common consensus of faithful Christians down through the ages?’. As its basis in the value of tradition is parallel to that of the credal principle, we will not repeat it here.
As with the credal principle, it must be noted that it is not infallible and acts more as an indicator than a proof. It is a warning sign that we are outside the consensus of readings by faithful Christians. This has weight to the extent that we know that the text of Scripture is clear and that the Spirit is at work illuminating the minds and hearts of its readers.
Certainly, if someone were to suggest a teaching that was essential for salvation, that had never been accepted before, it would guarantee its error. For we know the Spirit at work in us has been at work for two thousand years. Jesus assures us that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18).
b. Describing theological diversity—definitions
i. Definition: ‘Adiaphora’ as principled indifference
The category of adiaphora66 has come into prominent usage in recent times as a way of ‘agreeing to disagree’ in the theological arena. Adiaphora derives from the Greek meaning things indifferent or things neither commanded nor forbidden. The idea is that there are legitimate areas of Christian freedom that must be retained.
The concept is present in the New Testament, although the specific word is not. Circumcision, eating food sacrificed to idols, acknowledging special days are all examples of practices that Paul demands freedom on because of the changed perspective brought by the death of Christ. Christians are free either way—but they are not free to place demands in these areas upon the consciences of others. This is shown in Paul’s actions—he refuses to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3), but does circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:3).
Of course, in Christ, there is also a sense in which nothing is indifferent. Paul argues that the constraints of love for our brother will determine that our freedom is used in the service of others. Yet, this is not because circumcision itself is anything (Galatians 6:15), but because of the demands of love, which is the fulfilment of the law (Romans 13:10). Indeed love may dictate one course in one context and the exact opposite in another.
Historically, the term adiaphora was used sparingly prior to the Reformation67, when it began to be used in contexts where there was agreement on theological principles, but disagreement on their application in church life. Luther used it extensively in considering the extent of change required of church ceremonies, ritual and government brought over from pre-Reformed traditions. This was also reflected in the English Reformation, such as in the Vestarian (1565) and Admonition Controversies (1572)68. A claim to adiaphora status lay in the Bible’s silence on these issues, yet both sides recognised that they could not be sealed off from broader theological concerns. In many instances it was a question of what to do when a symbol had come to be associated with an unreformed concept—such as sacrificial priesthood. Was it permissible to keep the symbol and redefine its content? Or was it best to remove the symbol as a clear challenge to rival theologies?
We note that the Reformation usage is a development of the concept from the New Testament. The description of adiaphora in Paul is generally tied to old and new covenant discontinuities (circumcision, special days and foods)69. Hence Paul was able to show how the death of Jesus changed their perspective on the former prescriptions. In Reformation debates the dominant usage shifted slightly to areas where the Bible neither commands nor forbids. The Formula of Concord (1580) explicitly makes this distinction.70
In summary, adiaphora is a kind of principled indifference—a positive conviction that
the Bible gives us freedom in a particular area.
We stress this definition because adiaphora can undermine the work of the gospel if it is improperly applied. It can have the effect of reducing the scope of the authority of Christ by removing a whole category of issues from the table of discussion.71 We have in mind issues addressed in the Bible, yet for a range of reasons we find them difficult to understand or accept. The reason they may be difficult for us to understand may be because they are complex and we haven’t taken to think them through; it may be a broad framework or worldview that we bring to the text that makes certain ideas less plausible to us (such as Augustine’s Neo-Platonist presuppositions, or the egalitarian assumptions of a modern reader); it may be a personal lifestyle issue that makes it difficult to ‘hear’ the text. To put these into the basket of adiaphora takes the pressure off us to pursue the issue. Indeed it prevents other believers from pushing on the issue, because by definition, issues of adiaphora must be matters of freedom. In effect, submitting to the authority of Christ becomes a matter of perspective and other believers are silenced.
Because of the dangers of misapplying adiaphora, I offer three clarifications:
Clarification 1: Adiaphora are not the same as ‘secondary issues’.
The secondary importance category (which will be discussed below) has to do with the relative importance of a doctrine. It is an expression of the idea that all truth matters, but that not every truth matters in exactly the same way.
In certain contexts it may be appropriate to remain silent on a conviction of secondary importance for the sake of the partnership. Yet there must always be some context where it is appropriate to raise that same issue. We would always be right in desiring to come to a common mind and practice. Obedience to Christ in the Scriptures is always an important issue.
Yet this is where adiaphora is quite distinct. Adiaphora springs from a firm and principled indifference—it matters that this doesn’t matter. Indeed it is an indifference Paul fought for when it was threatened, so much so that the gospel itself was seen to be at stake. It is a freedom that the gospel creates. Therefore, whilst this freedom can be curtailed for the sake of love, it cannot be denied, for that would be to deny the gospel, which brought the freedom. For many issues it is an indifference that remains across all contexts and ages, such that it would be wrong to attempt persuasion of others. An example of this merging of the two categories can be seen in John Stott’s Evangelical Truth, where he strongly advocates discernment between essentials and adiaphora:
“In particular we need a greater measure of discernment, so that we may distinguish between
evangelical essentials which cannot be compromised and those adiaphora (‘matters indifferent’)
on which, being of secondary importance, it is not necessary for us to insist.”72
Confusion arises because issues of adiaphora are often also issues of secondary importance. Stott’s suggested list of adiaphora includes many items generally held as adiaphora (baptism, church government and styles of public worship). However, he also includes several items which whilst secondary are not adiaphora by the definition given above (spiritual gifts, male headship, expectations of holiness in this life, the relationship of mission and evangelism). The source of the difference is found in Stott’s definition of adiaphora, which is covered under the next point.
Clarification 2: adiaphora are not ‘doubtful’ issues
Stott’s criteria for adiaphora goes beyond both the New Testament and Reformation
usage outlined above:
“Whenever equally biblical Christians, who are equally anxious to understand the teaching of Scripture and to submit to its authority, reach different conclusions, we should deduce that Scripture is not crystal clear in this matter and therefore we can afford to give one another liberty. We can also hope—through prayer, study and discussion—to grow in our understanding and so in our agreement.”73
We need to agree with Stott’s sentiment. There are many areas that are rightly seen as secondary, that we may not find agreement on, yet we can still call each other brother or sister and work happily together for the gospel. We also applaud his desire for closer unity through prayer, study and discussion—it is not an attempt to completely remove issues from discussion. We also acknowledge his emphasis on the corporate judgement of Christians. We must be careful not to demand conformity to the quirks of our own theological emphases.
Yet we also note that adiaphora here has been considerably broadened from (a) freedoms made explicit by the gospel and (b) issues that the Bible neither forbids nor commands. adiaphora is now defined as any doubtful issue that evangelicals cannot reach consensus on. This includes issues that both sides of the debate would argue that God has spoken on—it is clearly not adiaphora to them! Three further responses to Stott’s equation of adiaphora with lack of evangelical consensus are necessary:
Theologically, consensus is what we might expect from a clear word from God applied by the Spirit of the Living God to the renewed hearts of men and women. Presumably lack of consensus would signal lack of clarity. Given our discussion of clarity above we would be claiming that the lack of clarity is in the hearer and not in the text. Yet Stott’s explanation is the reverse74—that the text may not be clear (at least to a reader) on matters beyond salvation issues. Stott’s definition shifts the lack of clarity to the text, whereas we would want to shift it to the reader. We would argue that when things appear doubtful we should presume that the lack of clarity is in us and not the Scriptures. It may be that the clarity of the Bible may on this point be a ‘hard won clarity.
Historically, there have been occasions where the consensus stood against primary and essential truths of the gospel. Whilst we may expect interpretive errors to be moderated by our interpretive community, this is not assured. The corporate effects of sin may mean that false teaching sways whole communities. Nor can it be argued that this only applies to secondary issues. The Arian controversies are an obvious example. This does not imply that the Fathers did not know their Scriptures well, nor that those Scriptures were unclear. Applying Stott’s definition of adiaphora in a strict sense in this context would have been disastrous, relegating Christ’s divinity to a matter of indifference.
Pastorally, Stott’s definition is difficult to apply because it relies on a charitable assumption that both parties are equally anxious to understand and submit to the teaching of Scripture. This is of course difficult to assess either individually or corporately75. We simply do not have access to the motives of others, or even ourselves. An example that is in the public arena is the very public change of position by Roy Clements on the practice of homosexuality. Stott and Clements have personally corresponded on the issue.76 On all other essential issues defined by Stott they are in agreement. Yet on the issue of homosexuality they differ. A strict application of Stott’s principle would lead Stott to either question Clements’ sincerity or agree that this is an issue on which the Scriptures are not crystal clear. Even more difficult is Stott’s own position on annihilationism77. Are we to take it that the Scriptures lack clarity on this point? Stott places too high a stock in redeemed minds sincerely seeking to understand the Bible.
In conclusion, we need to acknowledge that there are other reasons why evangelicals will not reach consensus. Stott’s definition of adiaphora too quickly concludes that the reason is that Scripture is not clear on these points. On the one hand this is a too limited view of the clarity of Scripture. On the other hand, there are alternative explanations available to us. Whilst our minds are being renewed in the image of Christ78, we are not assured that we will shake off the vestiges of our fallen mind in this age. We will remain resistant to the truth of the gospel, particularly in areas where our culture pressures us or our worldview limits us. All Christians will have areas where they hold inconsistent positions that undermine their broader affirmations. Given the struggle with sin we all face—we should not be surprised when ‘evangelicals’ hold ‘nonevangelical’ positions—why would sin not also affect our minds?
Clarification 3: Adiaphora is not applicable to areas where the Bible has spoken
The most notable shift in the usage of adiaphora is its application to areas addressed by Scripture. This is a novel use of the term. Indeed it goes explicitly against the criteria provided by documents such as the Formula of Concord (1580). Of course, it has long been acknowledged that this distinction is hard to determine. Doctrine and practice are deeply intertwined and application can occur at many levels. However, what we have seen historically is a far greater degree of caution before resorting to adiaphora descriptions.
Until recently, there has been broad acceptance that adiaphora was never applicable to differences of doctrine. In the Reformation, it was applied to differences between Christians on the application of doctrines that were already generally agreed on. The differences were therefore applicatory not exegetical.
Yet in recent times it has been applied to areas far wider—both doctrinal and ethical. The Windsor Report documents and discusses its application to the homosexuality debate.79 Overall the criterion has moved from the silence of the Bible, to the lack of a scholarly or evangelical consensus and it is to this new criterion we must object.
ii. Definition: ‘Essentials’
“Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22-23)
It is the spirit of this age to divide relationship with God and propositional truth. Perhaps as a reaction against dry intellectualism, much modern language emphasises relational aspects (‘she just really loves Jesus’) in opposition to doctrinal content. Yet as we have argued earlier, the gospel is promissory in nature. Promises, which are propositional in nature, are the key not just to beginning, but also to continuing in the Christian life. The two must be held together.
Part of our reluctance to connect the two areas flows from a right hesitancy in claiming to know the status of others standing before God. Evangelical freedom discussed above reminds us that God is their judge, that they are accountable directly to Him, not us (Romans 14:4).
However, this needs to be tempered by the undeniable evidence within the New Testament, that certain publicly observable beliefs and actions do exclude us from the kingdom of God. The denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 Jn 2:22-23), the denial of the humanity of Jesus (1 Jn 4:2-3) or the rejection of the apostles (1 Jn 4:6, 1 Cor 14:37-38) are examples. Whether or not these need to qualified by a closer evaluation of the context John writes to, we must concede that there are a category of truths that are being described. It is this line of thinking that is reflected in the inclusion of the Quicunque vult clause of the Athanasian Creed.
The terminology of ‘Essentials’ is therefore useful, if it is clarified as ‘essential for salvation’. However, the difficulty with the term is that is multivalent. The term is also commonly used in a much broader sense, perhaps synonymously with ‘primary issues’ as opposed to ‘secondary issues’. This is much harder to nail down, but perhaps it could be best summarised as ‘essential for effective partnership’. Stott, introduces perhaps a third definition—that the essential / non-essential division is tied to that which God has made clear to us.
“We need to keep our dogmatism to what is revealed and our agnosticism to what has been kept
secret.”80
He suggests some things are revealed, others not revealed, and still others only partly revealed:
“Now it’s when we understand that, that we realize there are some essentials which have been plainly revealed and some non-essentials which have not been so plainly revealed or even been kept secret.”81
Now, in one sense, language develops and we can’t control the usage of a word. However, we must be clear in defining what sense of ‘essential’ we mean. Are we talking about (a) a salvation issue, (b) a primary versus secondary issue, or (c) a division between that which the Bible gives clear guidance on and that which it doesn’t? What we must not do is the collapse the three into one.82
The other weakness of ‘essentials’ terminology is the binary distinction implied. Are we really forced to divide the Bible into ‘essentials’ and ‘non essentials’ as is implied by our slogan? We would suggest that we need a graded approach, not a binary division. It may be entirely appropriate to have a category called ‘essentials’, yet it does not follow that all else can be grouped in one bucket called ‘non-essentials’. Indeed a better model would be to separate the two extremes and place a large bucket of important, but not salvation or partnership threatening truths in between. For what do we communicate when we apply the term ‘non-essential’ to a doctrine that is clearly revealed in the Bible?83 It would be easy to be misunderstood in making a statement about the hierarchy of truths, to be heard making a judgement that secondary truths are unimportant or worse optional.
iii. Definition: ‘Gospel Issue’
Debates on ‘gospel issues’ are those that will undermine the internal logic of the gospel if they are mishandled. This builds on our earlier argument that the gospel is the key to placing all other thinking in appropriate balance as well as acting as a kind of filter for ideas that may distort the whole.
At a minimum, we are facing ‘gospel issues’ when the big doctrines of salvation are endangered: creation, sin, judgement, atonement, resurrection, repentance and faith. Given our earlier discussion of the trinitarian shape of salvation, we would have to include the doctrine of God and orthodox Christology.
Further, the gospel cannot be separated from presuppositions such as the seriousness of sin or the possibility of sacrificial substitution; it also entails certain necessary implications. Justification by faith is a necessary implication of Christ’s substitution and our union with him. Ethical imperatives flow out of our faith union with Christ and the eschatological tension this creates. One of the implications of this observation is that we must work harder at drawing the connections between the various elements of our thinking. Indicative must drive imperative and divine command approaches must give way to reflection on how our ethics forms a coherent whole.
Gospel issues are not always the same as central issues. They may never be raised in the Bible and may appear quite insignificant if examined apart from a gospel framework. Yet they become central in so far as they distort the centre. Circumcision would be the New Testament example: it is nothing in itself (Gal 6:15), but everything if it is understood as contributing to or necessary for salvation (Gal 3:1-5; 5:1-2). Hence, our criterion is not simply centrality, but how an idea will affect the shape of the whole.
We should note that the issues that threaten the gospel differ in every age. There is no defined list of ‘gospel issues’. Consequently, it simply will not do to write a doctrinal statement and think that it will protect us from error. The only protection is for Christians to re-appropriate the gospel in each generation and apply it to the issues of their day. Only an understanding at depth of the inner logic of the gospel will make this possible. Paul could see that certain understandings of circumcision would threaten justification by faith. Athanasius could see that without the two natures of Christ, the atonement was rendered ineffective. We must make similar judgements in our age.
iv. Definition: ‘Primary’ versus ‘Secondary’ Issues
This distinction is the easiest to endorse. We see it operating in Romans 14. Not all truth matters in the same way, therefore differences need to be kept in perspective and responded to proportionately. This is the heart of a primary / secondary distinction. However, we do offer two minor clarifications:
Firstly, as with ‘essentials’ the terminology sounds binary whilst the issues are not. A spectrum of seriousness must be kept in mind, rather than two simple categories.
Secondly, ‘secondary’ can be heard as ‘unimportant’. Whilst not all truth matters equally, we must still affirm that all truth matters. We must not quash discussions on ‘secondary’ issues, however, we must also keep them in perspective. If God has spoken on a matter then it is for our good. We must be vigilant against removing issues from the table of discussion by labelling them secondary.
Footnotes
44 cf Article 34 of the Thirty Nine Articles—here we see a recognition that diversity of practice is consistent with Scripture.
45 This loosely follows a thesis set forth in R. M. Bowman, Orthodoxy & heresy: a Biblical guide to doctrinal discernment (Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 1992).
46 Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God, 87.
47 Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 9:10
48 2 Cor 4:6
49 Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God, 49.
50 Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass. (Pymble Sydney: HarperCollins, 2004), 136. Contra Garry Williams who demonstrates that penal substitution is identifiable as early as Justin Martyr. Garry Williams, A Critical Exposition of Hugo Grotius’ doctrine of the atonement in De satisfactione Christi, D.Phil thesis, Faculty of Social Studies, University of Oxford, 1999. Cited in class notes.
51 Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass, 75.
52 Peter Carnley, Reflections in Glass, 84-85.
53 This is not to suggest that we hold penal substitutionary atonement as the only model that the New Testament gives us to understand the atonement. However it is, in our opinion, the dominant one. To suggest that ‘Jesus died for our sins’ does not demand a conception of penalty for sin, is to underplay the biblical framework that it is placed within. Moreover there are several places that it is explicitly demanded.
54 Roger Nicole, Standing Forth, 274.
55 Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God, 26.
56 Andrew Bain ‘Tradition in Light of the Supreme Authority of Scripture: How Should Evangelicals Regard the Wisdom of Those Who Have Gone Before Us?’ (Unpublished B.D. Issues Paper, Moore Theological College, 2005)
57 Hebrews 12:23, Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18
58 Ephesians 1:18, Colossians 1:9
59 I have in mind the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
60 Gerald Bray, ‘I Believe’, Briefing, 310 (2004), 9.
61 2 Timothy 3:12, 4:1-5
62 Preface to the Thirty Nine Articles, 1662 Book of Common Prayer
63 “Whosoever will (Quicunque vult) be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith: Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this…”
64 Baxter rejected the Quicunque Vult clause, or at least heavily qualified it. The Episcopal Church does not require acceptance of it.
65 Bruce Smith, cited in Gerald Bray, ‘I Believe’, Briefing, 310 (2004), 30.
66 Mark Thompson ‘The Concept of ‘Adiaphora’ and The Windsor Report’, in The Faith Once For All Delivered: An Australian Evangelical Response to The Windsor Report. (ed. Peter G. Bolt, Mark D. Thompson, and Robert Tong; Camperdown: The Australian Church Record, 2005), 103-108. Timothy Wengert, ‘Adiaphora’ The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, Vol I, 4-7.
67 Mark Thompson, ‘The Concept of ‘Adiaphora’ and The Windsor Report’, 103-108.
68 Timothy Wengert ‘Adiaphora’, 4-7.
69 The issue of food sacrificed to idols is probably the exception here that is closest to later usage.
70 Formula of Concord (1580) Article 10.3
71 We are not attributing intent here, merely that it has this effect. We do not have to attribute motive to acknowledge this.
72 John Stott, Evangelical Truth Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester 1999, 141.
73 ibid., 142.
74 Stott addresses the clarity of the Bible specifically and uses the Westminster Confession’s definition to suggest that clarity should not be applied to everything in the Bible but can be applied to the essentials. John Stott, Evangelical Truth, 71.
75 This is not really a criticism of the principle as such—Stott himself acknowledges the difficulty of applying his definition—see John Stott ‘On Essentials’ speech given 16 October 1998 (http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/essentials.html)
76 See http://www.royclements.co.uk/essays14.htm Accessed 31 October 2005.
77 David L. Edwards and John Stott, Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (2nd ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990), 314-324.
78 Colossians 3:10, Romans 12:2
79 The Windsor Report available online at www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004 Accessed 28 October 2005.
80 John Stott, ‘On Essentials’ speech given 16 October 1998 (http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/essentials.html) Accessed 28 October 2005.
81 ibid.
82 I would suggest that Stott has inadvertently merged the last two of these categories into one.
83 This would be possible under the second definition of essential—a ‘primary’ versus ‘secondary’ distinction.
