A friend points me to one of John Stott‘s Daily Thoughts. Stott writes:
One area in which this distinction between faith and love should operate is in the difference between essentials and non-essentials in Christian doctrine and practice. Although it is not always easy to distinguish between them, a safe guide is that truths on which Scripture speaks with a clear voice are essentials, whereas whenever equally biblical Christians, equally anxious to understand and obey Scripture, reach different conclusions, these must be regarded as non-essentials.
— John Stott, The Message of Romans (The Bible Speaks Today series: Leicester: IVP, 1994), p 374.
I wonder if I might think about one difference in doctrine that Christians face: charismata, or what are sometimes called ‘spiritual gifts. There are lovely Christians who love God and seek his glory. They do not find it hard to work together. They share a common Reformed tradition that seeks to take the Bible seriously. Yet they have different views of spiritual gifts. Stott’s quote suggests that differences of opinion on charismata fall into the non-essential category. Yet that is not always how they are treated. Steve McCoy reports the story of a young pastor who let slip a favourable comment about glossolalia in his sermon at Southwestern Seminary. His sermon will not be made available for others to listen to online.
One major criticism of some in the charismatic movement has do to with whether accepting certain gifts of the church in effect reduces the authority of Scripture (if so, few would regard it as a non-essential issue). One article well worth reading is Vern Poythress’ Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology. I think he has two especially helpful points:
- First, he separates gifts today from apostolic gifts. A ‘word of knowledge’ no more carries the weight of Scripture than does a sermon. That is because both are being spoken by fallible people.
- Second, he develops a distinction between gifts; some are discursive and others non-discursive. Discursive gifts are based upon specific Biblical text, whereas non-discursive gifts are based on a more intuitive understanding of Biblical doctrine.
Poythress’ article is well worth reading for those wondering if charismatic and non-charismatic Christians can share common ground. It is not written to persuade one that certain gifts exist or do not exist. Rather, it establishes a framework that affirms the ultimate authority of Scripture.
Without saying that the charismatic issue doesn’t matter, I think we can say that there is room for charismaticism not to be the sort of essential issue that would divide fellow believers. And that is good news.
September 5th, 2006 at 12.08 am
Being the said friend who posted the extract in the first place, it might sound perverse of me to take issue with its content; but I was in fact slightly troubled by the gist of Stott’s argument. It seems to proceed from a backward reasoning: coming from an evangelical tradition which seeks to make the Word of God the ultimate arbiter of faith, and yet faced with the reality that Christians do not always agree in their interpretation of Scriptures, he dismisses all the areas of disagreement as unimportant.
However this seems to be prompted, not by the Word itself, but rather by the desire (nay, the necessity) to avoid having to bring in another source of authority, like a church magisterium. I wish it was true that the things on which we do no agree are not essential; but is it? At the very least, it does not look like the parties agree to disagree. You provide a sad example of this. But then, should they? If, say, you are an anabaptist and do not believe child baptism to be valid, you are bound to consider other believers practicing it a serious issue, potentially impacting on the person’s salvation (but again this will depend on the view you take of baptism).
I think good-faith disagreements on the meaning of Scripture are a serious issue for Reformed Christians; and Stott’s attractive way out of it seems to bite its tail. Certainly no one would argue in general that disagreeing on an issue renders it secondary. We need to justify why this might the case among Bible-based Christians.
September 5th, 2006 at 1.58 am
Hugo, where do you think the distinction should be drawn? What marks off a non-essential disagreement from an essential disagreement?
Incidentally, I agree with you; I do not think that all issues on which Christians disagree are non-essential. (Nor, I think, does Stott, although he is certainly not as clear as he could be in the excerpt I quote.) For example, I think that an issue that called into question the authority of Scripture would be of central importance. It would not be a non-essential issue. Indeed, the very reason I think that Vern Poythress’ article is potentially so helpful is that it turns what might be an essential issue into a non-essential one.
September 6th, 2006 at 2.13 pm
I don’t know; but clearly the line should have to see with the substance of the issue, not how much people argue about it.
You sometimes hear the argument that essentials are those doctrines on whose acceptance salvation hinges; but this seems to be too narrow. It means for example that I would have to accept as unessential all the “specificities” of the Roman religion, which I cannot do.
Following on your Scripture point, I think we need to separate between two types of disagreements: disagreements as to the source of the authority and as to the content of the teaching of the authorities. The former is paramount because you cannot go anywhere in a dialogue as long as you have not agreed on what is authoritative. But then, the paradox is that it not uncommon to agree on the result with those who disagree on the “procedure” to get there while disagreeing with those who agree on the source to look to (eg: abortion or male ordination with R. Catholics, infant baptism among Reformed Christians).
September 7th, 2006 at 1.18 am
Returning to Stott’s original distinction between essentials and non-essentials:
1. Essentials: “truths on which Scripture speaks with a clear voice…”
2. Non-essentials: “whenever equally biblical Christians, equally anxious to understand and obey Scripture, reach different conclusions…”
I think the key is really in the view of Scripture that Stott infuses these statements with. In order for an issue to be non-essential, it must be unclear enough that Christians who are equally anxious to understand and obey Scripture disagree on it. Perhaps some of the issues you are concerned about are ones where one party does not have a high enough view of Scripture (perhaps having too high a view of the institutions of the Church?).