Part 1 of Christian Orthodoxy and Personal Faith
I am often asked for helpful resources on the question of the essentials of the Christian faith. The question is usually asked in this way: “What all do we have to believe in order to be a Christian?” Most of the time what prompts the question is some kind of encounter at church, where it has been said that “So-and-so is ‘not a Christian’ because they don’t believe such-and-such.” Anxiety and offense ensue, and the whole thing gets reported back to me.
Truth be told, I do not know of many good contemporary resources that will be of help. Of course the older thinkers handled all of this very nicely; but we are not prepared to hear them out.
We have failed to distinguish between the objective sense of essential beliefs and the subjective sense. In short, we have neglected to ask a clarifying question: “Essential for what?”
Are we speaking about what is essential to the system of belief? Such a body of beliefs goes by names like “Christianity” or “orthodoxy” or, more comprehensively, “the Christian worldview” or, more centrally, “the gospel.” This is what I mean by the objective sense. In other words, the individual belief is connected to a larger collection of beliefs as a thing is related to one of its necessary conditions for being.
This is to treat a belief as an “object” of thought, which is independent of one’s own mind, but which that mind may or may not conform to. If it is an essential belief, it functions as a necessary condition for that larger object of belief in which it is integrated. Oxygen is necessary for respiration; and Christ’s resurrection is necessary for ours. We may breath without paying any mind to the former, and go to heaven without understanding the latter.
On the other hand, we could be asking what is essential for someone to believe in order that they might possess saving faith or be considered a Christian in some meaningful sense. This is the subjective sense of the question. The human believer, the subject, is being considered in relation to the belief and is thus considered as either possessing or lacking the belief, in such a way that their identity is the thing that is meant. Here what is essential is conceived as essential to that person’s faith or else group status or even to their ultimate destiny. So Jesus said, “unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24).
Lest anyone think that this is such a novel idea, it should be noted that the Scripture speaks in both ways. For example, the New Testament authors speak about “one faith” (Eph. 4:5) and “the faith” (Jude 3; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). The “faith” is treated, objectively, as a body of truths independent of our individual perspectives. The words “teaching” (Jn. 7:17; Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 4:16) and “tradition” (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15) are used in the same way. And not merely of the true body of ideas, but also “the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (Mat. 16:12) or the “tradition of the elders” (Mk. 7:3). All of that is the objective sense.
But the New Testament also speaks about one’s own faith, in the subjective sense, and that of a belief in certain truths: “faith in Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:22; cf. Gal. 2:16); “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Likewise when we see phrases like “belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13). Of the man that “trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).
Now these two senses—the objective and the subjective—are connected to each other, but they ought never to be confused with each other. We do not deny that they are related. The object of belief to which my personal belief conforms naturally gives shape to my soul, my actions, and my destiny. As Paul said, you have “become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (Rom. 6:17). All true. But you and I are not orthodoxy (or heresy). We may believe the gospel, but we are not that gospel. In short, we must make a sharp distinction between the person and the proposition.
There are other fine distinctions to be sure. For example, the objective and subjective may overlap in how we work through important practical questions. What ministries can my local church partner with and for what? This is a question about what is essential. Most in church leadership are aware of the concentric circles at work. But we are often shallow in our ability to reason through those circles. The level of doctrinal agreement required to serve side-by-side at a soup kitchen or even in front of an abortion clinic, will be much more relaxed (or exists within a larger circle), than the amount of agreement required to serve together as elders at the same local church.
Within those scenarios, most have never given any thought to how the objective and subjective senses were both in play. It is simple enough on the surface of those circles. In these examples, people were being assessed according to their convictions and various levels of doctrinal specificity were matched to the task at hand. So it would seem, at first glance, that only the subjective sense was relevant.
However the theologically astute participant in such decisions is very aware that underneath the narrowing action of the circles is a relationship between doctrine and division.
As pieces in the objective system (in the conception of orthodoxy) are negotiated, rearranged, or overturned, the whole of that system begins to disintegrate, and the rate of disintegration increases exponentially with each false tradeoff. Remove the essential and what is secondary is overthrown as well. Sever the root and kill the fruit. Blast away the foundation and the scaffolding falls with it. Most Christians are not called to always be thinking on this level, but pastors and theologians are so called. And if they fail in this task, the simplicity of the majority will make a poor refuge from the storm of heresy that results.
This is part of what theologically trained shepherds are for: to ensure that discernment and charity are never pit against each other. Essential to what? Are we talking about admitting new members to our congregation or else hiring a new seminary professor? Do we mean essential for a doctrine to remain what it is, or do we mean essential for this supposedly “Christian” young man to be a suitable husband for one’s daughter?
Suppose I tell you that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to the gospel. How might you react? You may very understandably throw up your hands in protest, “What! Most of us could not articulate that doctrine in any sense that the authors of the great Creeds and Confessions would have recognized. Are you saying we’re not saved?”
An excellent question and valid concern. However, if that is you, then I have good news for you, as well as a challenge. You would be quite right that orthodox formulation of the Trinity is not “how we get saved,” nor even that proper grasp of it is any sign that one is saved. But in such a panicked state you have mistaken the objective matter for the subjective.
No—the sense in which the doctrine of the Trinity is essential is primarily with respect to the way that it relates to other doctrines, how it upholds other doctrines, not any kind of an personal entry to the kingdom or merit before God. For that very reason, our excelling in orthodoxy is also not something in which any of us may boast.
All of this is to say that both the objective and subjective questions are important. They each have their place. Let the tender-hearted layperson and the logic-chopping theologian meet halfway, and give wide open space for truth and love to flourish together, as the Apostle commanded both at once (Eph. 4:15).
At this point someone may want to know, “Very well, then, what are the essentials to the orthodox faith? And what must one believe, subjectively, in order to be saved? Or what must an elder or a ministry hold to in order for us to serve together? Let’s get on with some answers!”
Those are exactly the questions that I am eager to give clear answers to. However it is vitally important that we first understand the obstacles to answers. And we are guaranteed to come up empty on answers if we are not even permitted to ask the right questions. This is why we always have to first ask the questioner the very illuminating return question, “Essential to what?”
(#essential #nonessential #doctrine #Christian #orthodoxy #heresy #faith #biblical #truth)
留言