THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF REVEALED TRUTH
Doug Sukhia
A. Introduction
My experience, after 50 years of being a Christian and 45 years in full-time ministry, has convinced me there needs to be more clear thinking on the issue of what is important and what is not. Some have the idea that every bit of information on doctrine and ethics that we can establish from scripture is of equal importance. Consequently, when they become convinced of a particular position they expect it to be emphasized, taught and practiced in the church or by other believers.. When this doesn't happen they accuse their brethren of compromise and separate from them over these issues. Sometimes the leadership of a church will elevate certain unimportant, ethical or doctrinal standards and expect others to conform; those who don't are rebuked and censured. I believe much of this "biting and devouring" of one another could be avoided if believers understood the concept of the relative importance of revealed truth presented here.
B. The Concept
The thesis is that there are some things God has chosen to make very clear to us and other things are not so clear. Those things that are clear and have abundant scriptural support should be considered essential, vital doctrines [category A]. Then there are those that are helpful but not essential [category B];and finally those doctrines and practices which are debatable; I term these peripheral [category C]. Minor or secondary issues should not be over emphasized or elevated to "major" status.
The placement of a doctrine or practice on this "scale of importance" must be based solely on the amount of its scriptural support not tradition or experience (personal, family, local church, denomination or culture). To determine the amount of scriptural support there is for a doctrine or practice several factors must be considered. These would include the following:sound interpretive principles (historical, grammatical, contextual methodology II Tim. 2:15); theological considerations (eg. the virgin birth of Christ is important due to its christological significance rather than the volume of biblical data); the amount of times and variety of places that it is mentioned and how critical the issue is to the salvation of the soul (eg. Paul taught many things but he considered , repentance and faith that leads to holy living most critical Acts 26:20; see section D.2 in this paper).
C. The Analogies
1. The Body: Analogies used to describe believers in the New Testament include: branches of the vine, the spouse of God, the family of God, etc., but the most prominant and the one unique to the New Testament is "the body" (Eph. 4:15f, I Cor. 12). This analogy is instructive of the nature of the New Testament church especially its mutual experience and life (new life in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit) and our diversity of giftedness (each has differing functions yet the same status, I Cor. 12). The scriptures have been historically referred to as "the body of truth." Therefore, I believe the body is an apt analogy for illustrating the concept of the relative importance of revealed truth.
Just as there are organs in the body that are vital that we cannot live without (heart, liver, brain, etc.) there are doctrines and practices in this category eg. diety of Christ, substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ,salvation by grace through faith, Bible alone as final authority; love, humility, unity etc. There are also parts of the body that are extremely helpful but nevertheless not essential to life (limbs, sight, hearing, etc. Mt. 18:8,9).This would correspond to the doctrines that distinguish protestant denominations like ecclesiology, eschatology, baptism, spiritual gifts etc. Then there are parts of the body that are not especially useful that we can easily do without. This, of course, is by design for reasons not always revealed to us ( hair, fingernails, appendix, etc.). I think things in this peripheral category are worship styles, dress, Bible versions, use of alcohol, dancing etc. Doctrines and practices deduced from Scripture, but not specifically commanded or forbidden, should be placed in the secondary or periferal categories.
I believe this framework should influence: the basis of our fellowship, the emphasis of our ministry as a church and the grounds for censure or church discipline.
2. The House: The church is called a temple and structure in the New Testament (Eph. 2:21f; I Pt. 2:4,5f; Mt. 16:18). The relative importance of doctrine and practice can be illustrated by a house: essential: foundation,walls,roof,plumbing, electrical; helpful: windows, insulation, flooring; peripheral: decorations, appliances... This illustration helps us understand the kind of things that church leaders should be concerned about and what should be left up to individuals to decide. I see the role of pastors and elders to be like that of carpenters, cement layers, plumbers and electricians. We should major on the essential category. We should see to it that people get rooted and grounded in the faith first and foremost. Our denominational distinctives are of secondary importance and should be taught in that light. Peripheral issues should be left up to the individual (with guidance and advice when requested).
3. General principle–Life ,in general, provides an illustration of this principle of gradations of importance. Everywhere we look there are illustrations of this. All complex systems of machines, games, or organizations contain things essential, helpful and peripheral. Some examples follow: car–essential-engine, helpful-windshield, peripheral-radio; baseball game–essential-ball, helpful-glove, peripheral-uniform; restaurant–essential-food, helpful-tables & chairs, peripheral-table cloths.
D. Biblical evidence for this concept
1. The Life and Ministry of Jesus Christ
a. Jesus criticized the pharisees for their inability or unwillingness to distinguish between the important and the helpful (Mt. 23:23-24). They made a big deal out of tithing (pharisaical "tithing" of items not demanded in scripture) yet overlooked the "more important" matters of justice, mercy and faithfulness. So they strained out a gnat (they were picky about little things)and swallowed a camel (they couldn't care less about the big things). Notice that biblical tithing, although commanded, is not consider as important to Jesus as the character qualities mentioned (23:23).
When the pharisees criticized Jesus for "eating with sinners" (another pharisaical taboo) he quoted to them Hosea 6:6 (Mt. 9:13). "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" is a rebuke of religious scrupulosity (making ritual sacrifices) without a heart of love to God and others. To God mercy (i.e. a heart of compassion and love towards others, even "sinners") is more important than keeping the ceremonial law although that was commanded also.
Jesus quotes the same Hosea 6:6 verse in Matthew 12:7 where they criticized Him for picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. This time He also pointed to David's taking of bread that only priests were supposed to touch when he and his men were hungry (I Sam. 21:1f). Again He points out that the meeting of physical needs is more important than ritual stipulations and priestly propriety.
Jesus also criticizes the pharisees for keeping their traditions faithfully but not having a heart of love to God (Mt. 15:1-9). They made a big deal out of food rules but were unconcerned about much more important matters of personal piety (Mt. 15:17-20).
b. Jesus said that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit was worse than blasphemy against Christ (Mt. 12:31,32). Both are bad but one is worse.
c. Jesus reduced the ethical expectations of God for man to two commandments (Mt. 22:37-39). The rabbis were used to arguing over what was most important. Jesus doesn't rebuke them for this but accepts their challenge. He establishes the priority of love to God (Dt. 6:5) and love toward others (Lev. 19:18). By distilling ethical expectations down to two commandments He shows He considered certain ethical demands to be subservient to others. His comprehensive rule of life was "love God and others from the heart." He considered this vital, major and essential to godly behavior; more important than some other divine expectations.
Jesus' "new commandment" to love others as He loved shows His attachment of greater importance to this command than all others (John 13:34;15:9,17). Without going into just what it means to love in this way, there is no question that He elevated this command over other equally valid expectations. It was to Him most important.
d. Jesus conducted His ministry with a clear sense of priority. He healed, taught and lived as a perfect example of godliness. But His primary work was to be a substitute, to die as a ransom for sinners (Mt. 2:28). He understood the relative importance of the different aspects of His ministry and that His death on the cross was supreme (Mt. 16:21f).
e. Conclusion–Jesus made distinctions between what was vital, helpful and peripheral in regards to doctrine ethics and ministry. Therefore it is proper for us to do the same and to put the emphasis on what is most important.
2. Paul
a. Paul made specific statements that show he considered some ethical matters to be in the peripheral category. In the ethical, practical section of the Roman epistle he makes it clear that to him whether one eats meat or vegetables, or whether a person keeps Jewish holy days is a matter of personal choice or individual conscience (14:2,5). Paul put these things in category C–peripheral, not important "disputable matters" (1,6,22). Each person should come to his own conclusions about these issues and do what his conscience allows. They should not become the norm for every other believer (3); nor should it become an issue to separate over: "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God" (22). Paul also seems to put "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" in category A–vital, essential. These are the things he urged them to emphasize (12:1;9,10;14;13:8,15:2).
Paul had a similar view of food offered to idols (I Cor. 8:1,7). The vital principle of action again is love (8:1,12,13). Food is not important to Paul: "But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (8). Love,unity, humility and general holiness is important to Paul.
b. Paul de-emphasized other things besides food and the "keeping of days" (Col. 2:16). He did not consider baptism as important as the gospel (I Cor. 1:17). Although Paul did baptize people as a part of his ministry (14,16) he did not think that was in category A. Paul put sacraments, signs and symbols in a lower category of importance. I think this is reflected in his treatment of circumcision: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6). This was written at a time when circumcision was still being practiced for various reasons among Jewish believers (Acts 16:3;21:21). To Paul, faith in Christ that leads to love of God and others is more important than sacraments.
He also considered religously motivated rules of self denial that centered on food restrictions, fasting, day "keeping" etc.,to be of minor importance compared to knowing and walking in Christ (Col. 2:8,16,20,21 compared with Col. 2: 6,7,9,11,13,17,20).
c. Paul's willingness to adapt himself and his preaching to the culturally influenced scruples of others shows that he considered those things peripheral and not the main issue in the Christian life. He says he "became" a Jew when addressing a Jew and a Gentile when talking to them (I Cor. 9:19-23). This is not compromise but rather an awareness of what is essential versus what is peripheral. He approached people on their turf, in their language. He adapted the style of his message (not the essential content) to his audience. In Athens, when addressing philosophical Greeks, he quotes approvingly from pagan Greek philosophers (Acts 17:28,29). In Jerusalem, addressing zealous Jews, he uses Hebrew and talks about his Jewish credentials, Ananias' being a "devout follower of the law and highly respected by all the Jews"; and "the God of our fathers" (Acts 22:3f,12,14). He made these adaptations because he had the wisdom to discern what was essential and what was not.
The most obvious action of Paul that demonstrates his "flexibility" (not his compromise) is his decision to take on himself a Jewish Nazarite vow when he returned to Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21). Some could argue that with all of Paul's emphasis on freedom in Christ, especially freedom from Jewish tradition (Gal. 5:1f; Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:8,etc.) that for him to take a Jewish vow himself, and pay for others taking a similar vow (considered to be a symbol of identification with the Jewish people; Josephus Antiquities XIX,294 [vi. 1]) was a compromise. He was catering to the Judaizers. He was changing his position to "please men" (he was often accused of this: Gal. 1:10). However, I see this as another example of Paul's ability to discern what was essential and what was peripheral. He was not compromising on things in category A: the person and work of Christ, the message of the gospel, the essentials of the faith. But he was choosing to be flexible regarding things in the other categories: Jewish scruples and customs, that did not threaten the essence of the gospel of grace. It was another example of Paul's ability to discern what is important and what is not.
d. We can see that Paul made distinctions between wrong behavior that was serious and should be disciplined if not corrected and wrong behavior, that was not ideal and should be corrected but was not a "punishable" offense. The Corinthian church had a number of behaviors that Paul admonished them to change to better reflect Christ (disunity 1:10; 3:1-4; internal lawsuits 6:1f; divorce 7:10; misuse of the Lord's supper 11:17f; disorder and impropriety in worship 11:2-16; 12-14). But the only behavior he considered grounds for discipline was unrepentant sexual immorality (5:1-13). Paul was concerned about many things in that church that he (and the Spirit through Him) wanted changed but there was obviously an order of priority (seriousness, importance) assigned by Paul (and the Spirit through Him) to those things. We should do the same. We need to discern what is a "big deal" and what is not; what is a matter for church discipline and what is not.
e. When we examine the inspired letters of Paul, it is clear that he puts the emphasis on certain ethical behaviors. The things that he emphasized under the direction of the Spirit of God are the things we should emphasize. These are the things we should major on...Christ, salvation, faith, love, unity etc.
3. Basic New Testament Principles
To bind people's conscience, micro manage their lives or choose to separate from Christians on the basis of non-essentials is contrary to certain basic principles of Scripture.
a. Christian Liberty– The coming of the Holy Spirit on every believer (Rom.. 8:9; I Cor. 12:13); the writing of the law in our hearts (Heb. 8:10,11; Jer. 31:31-34); the headship of Christ as Lord of our conscience and the One we answer to (Eph. 4:14,15; Rom. 12:12,9); the priesthood of the believer that give us access to God and the ability to discern and apply truth (I Pt.2:9; I Jn. 2:20,27) are all reasons for this insistence in the New Testament on the Christian's liberty (Gal.5:1,13). Freedom in Christ is a special privilege and part of the joy that characterizes the New Testament saints. We have been called to liberty and set free from legalistic bondage (Gal. 4:28-31). This is not a liberty to sin but a liberty to serve (Gal. 5:13-24). But it is nevertheless a liberty to be preserved. In my opinion, to bind another's conscience regarding doctrine or practice in things not in category A is to impinge on the liberty Christ has granted to His children. It is to take the pharisaical approach of the church of Rome insisting on belief in doctrines and practices that are not clearly taught in Scripture.
b. Emphasis on Character–The emphasis on character traits like love, holiness, humility, etc., in the New Testament lists of virtues and in the application portions of the epistles teaches us to emphasize these things in our life and ministry. It would have been relatively easy for authoritative apostles to decree a number of regulations regarding the everyday activities of eating, dress, occupation, proper activity on the Lord's day, family life, etc., but they didn't do this. Occasionally they touch on some of these things as they came up in the churches (Acts 15:28; I Cor. 3:1;11:3-16,etc.) but the main emphasis in every case is on the broader issues of love, respect for each other and walking humbly with God.
Character not personal conviction on minor issues is the focus when selecting deacons and elders (Titus 1:7; I Tim.. 3:2-12; Acts 6:3). Timothy is admonished to practice Christian virtue in the vital areas not to keep a set of rules of personal behavior prescribed by Paul (I Tim. 4:12; 6:11). We must put the emphasis where Scripture puts it on basic, garden variety holiness not on conformity to opinions and practice in the category of "disputable matters" (Rom. 14:1).
c. Equipping to Maturity–Believers are expected to grow to maturity in Christ (I Pt. 3:18). The function of the pastors and elders is to facilitate this growth (Eph. 4:11-16; Acts 20:28; Jn. 21:15f). Maturity includes the ability to make wise choices, independently. Little children need to be told everything they should and should not do. They are forbidden even to "go near the street." But as they mature they are given more and more responsibility to regulate their behavior on their own. The function of parents (elders, pastors, etc.) is to bring people to "maturity" not necessarily to conformity to our convictions in peripheral areas. People need to be able to make their own choices before God. They answer to Christ not to us (Rom. 14:10-12). Paul and the other apostles did not often "pull rank" on those they sought to help toward maturity. Most of the time they admonished, urged and appealed to them instead of mandating behavior by apostolic decree (Rom. 12:1; II Cor. 6:1; 8:10; I Pet. 5:1; etc.).
I think the difference between Old Testament stipulations and regulations in areas of food, etc. and the "broader" more "liberal" approach to ethics in the New Testament also reflects this emphasis on maturity in the New Testament era. Our responsibility is to bring people to Christ and get them "rooted in Him." They need to be brought to the point where they can stand on their own two feet and live responsibly before their God as mature "adults (Heb. 5:13-14; 6:1; I Cor. 13:11).
E. Conclusion
If the primary thesis "there is a relative importance of revealed truth" is true, how should this effect the way we conduct our lives, the ministry of the church, and our relationship to each other.
1. Our personal lives. I think that Christians should make their primary emphasis those things that are in category A. We should major on the majors: the essential doctrines of the faith and the important aspects of Christian character (love and holiness).
We should know what and why we believe the fundamentals of the faith. We should be able to defend the biblical view of salvation with a Roman Catholic or the biblical view of Christ with a Jehovah's Witness. We should not be spending lot's of time and energy trying to prove minor points of doctrine. Paul warns Titus not to waste his time arguing over "foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless" (Titus 3:9). He tells Timothy to "Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge" (I Tim. 6:21). I think Paul knew that some minor points of doctrine would always be in question. Due to the perversity and pride of even the regenerate mind there is a tendency to want to argue over little things. Paul knew this would divert people from the essential (I Tim. 1:3-7). We should spend some time and energy on the issues in category B and C but when these issues divert us from our main mission to evangelize and disciple then they are being used by Satan to get us out of the mainstream into a swirling eddy of doctrinal disputes.
When it comes to our own personal holiness we should look for those qualities in category A and be sure they are in us before we take pride in avoiding the "sins" of category B and C. Your hair might be the "right" length and you might avoid caffeine, dancing and watching football on Sunday, but are you loving, joyful, humble and contented? Are you: "Completely humble and gentle; (be) patient, bearing with one another in love"? Are you: "making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:2,3)? These are the important issues that should be the priority concerns of the Christian.
2. The ministry of the church. The church of Jesus Christ should be emphasizing and majoring on those things that are vital to the Body of Christ, things in category A. A church may be Presbyterian, Methodist or Baptist but it is primarily the "Church of Jesus Christ." Those things that distinguish us as a group from non-Christians are what we should emphasize. We are primarily a bible-believing church of Christ; secondarily we are Presbyterian in government and reformed in perspective; thirdly we believe in male leadership, and use the N.I.V. in the pulpit, etc. We have come to conclusions on what we believe in every category using the Scriptures as our authority. We have the right and responsibility to explain our positions in each area. But we should not teach what is in category B or C as if it were in category A. We should be honest and humble enough to admit that there are others who are in "the Body" that have come to different conclusions using the same scriptural data. We should, as best we can, establish what we believe belongs to what category and both teach and emphasize doctrine and practice with that awareness.
Therefore in certain classes, small groups and literature, our denominational distinctives and peripheral convictions will be taught but from the pulpit at the general convocation of the saints we will emphasize things in category A. When things in category B or C are taught from the pulpit they will be clearly labeled as to their relative importance in the "body of truth."
Pastors, teachers and elders will seek to bring people to life in Christ and to health and maturity in Christ. This means they will major on what is vital. Doctors are consulted when there is some vital or serious physical problems (or to make sure there isn't). It is foolish and wasteful (of their time and your money) to go to the doctor over trivial things. As "doctors," pastors and elders should spend time seeing to the health of the body. That requires emphases on vital issues not minor ones.
The shepherd who oversees the flock (Acts 20:28; I Tim. 3:1; Heb. 13:17) doesn't bother himself over whether the sheep are chewing too fast, bahing too softly or not wagging their tails enough. His primary function is getting them to good food (John 21:15ff); and protecting them from wolves (Acts 20:29-31; Titus 1:9). This is the primary function of the church leadership: make sure people are getting good, healthy food from the Word and are able to discern and avoid doctrine that deviates from the essentials in category A. It is not their job to "micro-manage" the lives of the sheep. We must not carry the shepherd analogy too far (Mt. 23:8). We are all accountable to Christ the Chief Shepherd and are all priests in His Kingdom (Rom.. 14:4; Heb. 13:20; I Pt. 2:9). People in the church should not be viewed as little, dumb babies who need to be watched over constantly lest they destroy themselves. To micro manage Christians is to keep them from maturity and actually stunt their growth into Christian adulthood.
So we as a church will major on the majors. If we depart from these things or give an uncertain sound on the trumpet of major doctrines, then we are compromising, then we are being unfaithful to our calling. But if we do not emphasize or even clearly articulate our position on minor issues, that is not compromise because in our opinion that is not in our job description.
3. Our Relationship to Others. With this framework of essential, helpful and peripheral in mind we have a basis for fellowship and for separation regarding others. If someone believes contrary to the fundamental doctrines of category A, we must question his salvation and consider them an unbeliever (not allowed membership in the church). If their practice is not in conformity to the essentials in category A (unbelief, unrepentance, immorality), we should question their salvation and not permit them to join the church. Defection in these categories is also grounds for "church discipline" (i.e. official censuring of the person by the church). If a church departs from these fundamentals or allows unrepentant sin in its body based on category A, then you have the right and obligation to separate from that church. If not you do not.
If there is a difference of opinion or practice in category C between you and another who is in agreement with you on things in category A, you should lovingly forebear one another. You should "agree to disagree agreeably." I do not believe you have the right to ostracize or separate from them. This would be "scismatic" (i.e. an unecessary, unwarrented separation (I Cor. 1:10, 11). I believe that God has purposely chosen to not address every issue in Scripture or to make every issue addressed in Scripture clear to us. He did this to facilitate differing opinions in order to test our love in Christ for each other. Just as He has made all slightly different in temperament and gifts He has allowed for divergent opinions regarding doctrine and practice. Love is manifested only when there is divergence among us. It's no big deal to love someone who looks , acts and thinks exactly like yourself but when there is someone difficult to love (due to differing practices, beliefs, etc.) that's when Christian love is manifested. Remember that Paul's message on the nature and supremacy of love is in the midst of a discussion on how to get along with and to respect believers with differing gifts (I Cor. 12:4-30).
I do not believe a difference with other Christians on issues in category B should divide us either. Although I may choose to fellowship and serve in a church with similar doctrinal distinctives as mine in these areas I do not think such distinctions should cause individual Christians to look down on or separate from each other. I am a Christian first and a Presbyterian second. Contrary to what some many think it is possible to be a good, healthy, God honoring Christian and not be a Presbyterian (or Baptist, or Methodist, Or Pentecostal); none of these were categories in the first three centuries of the church.
The bottom line in regards to our relationships within the church is adequately summed up in this statement attributed to Martin Luther:
"In essentials unity; In non-essentials liberty; In all things charity."
