In Essentials Unity
There are several slogans that have come out of the Restoration Movement (a church fellowship that came out of a desire to abandon man made creeds and get back to New Testament teaching and guidelines for Christianity), this movement beginning in the early 1800’s. One example of such a slogan is: Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and where the Bible is silent, we are silent (or allow varying opinions without threatening division). Another is: No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible. One of my favorites is: We are not the only Christians, but we strive to be Christians only. Here is the one I’d like to look at: In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things love.
On the surface that last one seems pretty good, would you agree? I certainly think we should do all things in love for our fellow humans. The problem occurs when we try to identify what constitutes “essentials” versus “non-essentials.” What falls into each of those categories?
In a recent Restoration Herald magazine article entitled “Is Less Better?” by Harold Orndorff, he quotes from writers with the Colson Center, “Throughout church history, Christians have attempted to keep issues of lesser importance from obstructing the overall work of the church. Often this principle is summarized by the phrase, ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.’”
There it is, that famous slogan. The Colson Center writers then state, “On the whole, this is a wise philosophy.” So, I ask: is it? I mean, I agree with the principle, but how helpful is it, really? The problem with it, in my estimation, is that it is too vague. Again, where do you draw the line between what is essential and what is non-essential? For example, one liberal Christian said this, “I identify as a polyamorous Christian – or a Christian who happens to have multiple partners, including two who live with me and my children. My husband and I found love outside our marriage. We did this while also maintaining our deeply held faith.” Like me you may say, “What?”
How could a person who calls themselves a Christian say such a thing? With our slogan as the guide, they put it this way: “The essential is only devotion to Christ, everything else including doctrine is non-essential.” Or maybe they put it this way, “The essential is simply ‘the love of God in Christ’ and all else is non-essential.” This idea springs up with those who choose to be homosexual and call themselves Christian. Love is their all-in-all; and not just unconditional love, they also want unconditional acceptance (but love and acceptance are not the same). Can you see the problem? What is missing in such thinking is the Bible as our guide. When such thinkers turn “devotion to Christ” into whatever that means to them, and not what the Bible describes, Christian faith becomes subjective. The Bible must be allowed to define what is essential.
“A rootless faith, content only with the bare minimum, will never measure up to the riches both commanded and offered in Christianity.” That’s what the authors from the Colson Center said, and I believe it’s even more serious than that. Jesus is the Word incarnate, and has given us the Word in writing, giving us his teaching and commands, along with those of his authorized apostles. True faith in Christ must listen to what he and the apostles say. Their words provide definition to salvation and the Christian walk. We poke at beliefs in a self-made fog otherwise.
So, as much as I used to like the slogan about essentials and non-essentials, I’ve decided it just doesn’t help. But one of the other slogans does help. “Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Non-essentials are those areas where the Bible does not speak. It does not speak about church buildings, about preaching style, about many things, but it does speak about marriage, about sexual sin, about many doctrinal issues. The Christian must speak the truth in love where Jesus and his apostles have spoken.
In the end, slogans are a little like creeds, only temporary helps to guide principles, but they must not replace the actual teaching of our Lord as we seek clarity in the Christian faith.
On the surface that last one seems pretty good, would you agree? I certainly think we should do all things in love for our fellow humans. The problem occurs when we try to identify what constitutes “essentials” versus “non-essentials.” What falls into each of those categories?
In a recent Restoration Herald magazine article entitled “Is Less Better?” by Harold Orndorff, he quotes from writers with the Colson Center, “Throughout church history, Christians have attempted to keep issues of lesser importance from obstructing the overall work of the church. Often this principle is summarized by the phrase, ‘In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.’”
There it is, that famous slogan. The Colson Center writers then state, “On the whole, this is a wise philosophy.” So, I ask: is it? I mean, I agree with the principle, but how helpful is it, really? The problem with it, in my estimation, is that it is too vague. Again, where do you draw the line between what is essential and what is non-essential? For example, one liberal Christian said this, “I identify as a polyamorous Christian – or a Christian who happens to have multiple partners, including two who live with me and my children. My husband and I found love outside our marriage. We did this while also maintaining our deeply held faith.” Like me you may say, “What?”
How could a person who calls themselves a Christian say such a thing? With our slogan as the guide, they put it this way: “The essential is only devotion to Christ, everything else including doctrine is non-essential.” Or maybe they put it this way, “The essential is simply ‘the love of God in Christ’ and all else is non-essential.” This idea springs up with those who choose to be homosexual and call themselves Christian. Love is their all-in-all; and not just unconditional love, they also want unconditional acceptance (but love and acceptance are not the same). Can you see the problem? What is missing in such thinking is the Bible as our guide. When such thinkers turn “devotion to Christ” into whatever that means to them, and not what the Bible describes, Christian faith becomes subjective. The Bible must be allowed to define what is essential.
“A rootless faith, content only with the bare minimum, will never measure up to the riches both commanded and offered in Christianity.” That’s what the authors from the Colson Center said, and I believe it’s even more serious than that. Jesus is the Word incarnate, and has given us the Word in writing, giving us his teaching and commands, along with those of his authorized apostles. True faith in Christ must listen to what he and the apostles say. Their words provide definition to salvation and the Christian walk. We poke at beliefs in a self-made fog otherwise.
So, as much as I used to like the slogan about essentials and non-essentials, I’ve decided it just doesn’t help. But one of the other slogans does help. “Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and where the Bible is silent, we are silent.” Non-essentials are those areas where the Bible does not speak. It does not speak about church buildings, about preaching style, about many things, but it does speak about marriage, about sexual sin, about many doctrinal issues. The Christian must speak the truth in love where Jesus and his apostles have spoken.
In the end, slogans are a little like creeds, only temporary helps to guide principles, but they must not replace the actual teaching of our Lord as we seek clarity in the Christian faith.