"Unity in the essentials, diversity in the tangentials, love in all things. This is a common catchphrase in many churches (including my own); and I happen to think we would get a lot farther if we actually attempted to live by it."
Some friends from college are having an interesting discussion about Christianity, evangelicals, and conservatives and one came out with the above quote. I'm just an observer of their discussion (I suppose they're really more Tim's friends than my own, though I would disagree with that, if you were to weigh the evidence, I think it's probably more true than I like to admit - but that's why I'm not a participant.) Anyway, I've heard the statement before and my initial, and immediate, reaction every time I do is to shudder. I shudder because I think it's really at the heart of a lot of the disagreement amongst Christians in the first place. Is it a good idea in theory? Absolutely! But it presupposes something that I don't think we can presuppose - that we can agree what the essentials (and therefore also the tangentials) are.
Most Christians will, I think, agree that only through Jesus can you receive forgiveness of sins and that salvation is by the grace of God. But after that, disagreement runs rampant. Do you stop calling them essentials at this point though? I don't think you can. Do you extend it to the Apostle's Creed? If so, do you include the line "He descended into hell" ? Or do you choose a different creed all together? And I think, that still leaves holes in the concept of "essentials".
For example - is it an essential that extra or pre marital sex is considered a sin under any circumstance? The Bible is certainly clear on God's position - but many churches (and Christians) see nothing wrong as long as there's a "committed relationship". The list goes on.
There are some things that leap out (to me) as "easy ones" to classify as not essential - political party, music style, manner of dress at services, etc. Though even then you need to be holding your choice up to the ultimate standard of the Bible to be sure you're not going against something that is an essential. So there's an element of discernment necessary even in the tangentials.
And that leaves us with "love in all things." I think this needs to be clarified further, because so often in our culture we're told to equate love with acceptance. But love does not imply a blanket acceptance of things that go against essentials, nor does it mean that I should not stand up to a cultural embracing of sin. In fact, I would posit that it means we ought to be doing all we can to stand against the prevaling immorality we're faced with daily. To truly have love in all things, we need to emulate the love of God - who could not tolerate or accept our sin and sent His Son to provide atonement. God's love is not permissive, nor should ours be. But this doesn't clear the way for harshness - it's a fine line made more difficult by the fact that we're humans hoping to imitate the Divine and, as such, will more often than not make a mess of it.
Good food for thought. You're so right. Love is not acceptance, or tolerance. I don't understand how so many people have come to believe that this is the definition of love, but believe they do. And then, of course, we find tangentials to argue about as if they were essentials, like infant baptism (I'm just throwing that out there, not as something I know much about or have plans to debate, but as something over which churches disagree vehemently that's not even in the Bible).
ReplyDeleteGwynne - I almost mentioned baptism, but only because it's been a hot topic in our Sunday school class of late. I discarded it at the last minute because honestly, while it's a command, I also see it as a non-essential. Certainly if you consider that you were commanded to be baptised, then the means of such is a non-essential. Debatable if the actual act of baptism itself is non-essential (because it doesn't convey or confer salvation - but it is a symbol and done in obedience. So should obedience to the commands of Christ be considered essentials?)
ReplyDeleteEric - I'm torn about stopping with salvation as the only essential. Part of me really wants to stop there - but then I think Paul and his admonition not to "sin more, that grace may more freely abound." Is considering salvation the only "essential" making room for that kind of philosophy? I don't know the answer - though certainly if you start and end with Jesus, truly and wholly, then the rest should fall into place and, if there are other essentials, then presumably they will dissappear in a life lived in the pursuit of Christ-likeness.
Thanks for chiming in!
Man o man, this is a big complicated topic. My gut reaction is very similar to what Eric said: "we won't miss out on eternity with Him if we've accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior"
ReplyDeleteBut I was having a similar discussion with some friends recently, and I think alot of people think this way, but almost all of us have an unspoken 'unless' that we tack onto the end.
Here is an example.
We won't miss out on eternity with Him if we've accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior unless you also believe in 'another testament of Jesus Christ'.
We won't miss out on eternity with Him if we've accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior unless you also wear a medallion with St. Francis on it. and believe that Mary was ever virgin.
It's a tough topic. Here is what I know.
I know I'm going to heaven!
I know that I am sinner, but Jesus died to pay the price for my sins.
I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I don't feel it is necassary to be baptized again. I'm still going to heaven. I don't believe it is necassary for me to confess my sins to a priest. I'm still going to heaven. When I take communion at church, I don't know for sure if the bread is just bread, or if it something intrinsic changes or if it actually becomes the Body of Christ. But I do know that I am saved.
I just realized I didn't really answer Beth's question. Do we stop at salvation as the only essential thing? Is that really the only essential thing? It is for me.
But what if some believes some other stuff beyond that? Does that mean they won't be saved?
I agree, we can't stop sinning - but I'm not sure that was what Paul was saying (or at least, that's not how I've ever interpreted it). I believe he's saying that you shouldn't willfully, knowingly sin. If you're standing at a crossroad, faced with a decision and you know one way is sin and the other is not - you should flee from sin, not sin more that grace may more freely abound (or, in other words, don't sin now, repent later)
ReplyDeleteThis is the great justification for many I've known personally who wander in where they have no business going, knowing full well that what they're doing is sin, but saying "I know it's wrong, but I want to do it, and I know God will forgive me when I ask later."
This flies in the face of the continuous transformation of our lives that we should be seeing when we've accepted Christ - doesn't it? Should we only focus on the essential of having salvation? Isn't it just as essential that we focus on letting the Holy Spirit work to change us? So that when we see and recognize temptation to sin, we turn from it, rather than wandering on in because we know we're saved and will be forgiven?
If the one and only essential is that we accept Christ - does that then mean that no growth, no outward expression, no life transformation need take place? In which case, can you live completely, wholly, willfully in sin but rest on the fact that you have salvation?
Eric, I can agree with that. Hey - look at that, a discussion without rancor and an endpoint of agreement. :)
ReplyDelete