NC Marriage Amendment and the Two Kingdoms

I have watched and read a number of Christian leaders from both conservative and liberal churches weigh in on the North Carolina marriage amendment that is up for a vote on May 8th.  The amendment reads:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts. (Go here for the official NC Board of Elections information)

This polarizing amendment to North Carolina’s state constitution would restrict the definition of marriage in the state to the union of one man and one woman.  Obviously, this definition would not include the union of those of the same sex.

This issue is not as simple as the ads on television make it seem.  It isn’t as simple as the Christian leaders make it out to be either.  Depending on the Christian tradition you are listening to, you will get a different answer as to how Christians in North Carolina should vote even when those different Christian traditions agree on the biblical definition of marriage.  One side argues that God created marriage to be between a man and a woman and so we should vote that way.  The other side agrees that the bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn’t believe that Christians should attempt to enforce this sort of moral code on others through law.

I want to suggest that what is missing in the arguments that Christian leaders are making is a theology of how Christians engage in government.  Several Christian friends who agree with the biblical definition of marriage have approached me with questions.  For them, there is no doubt that marriage was created by God to be between one man and one woman, but they are unsure if this means that we should vote to enforce this by law.  There are many biblical ideas that we don’t attempt to enforce by law, so why this one?  This question is particularly important to younger Christians who are trying to navigate a new cultural situation than our parents and grandparents whose social views were more or less the views of the broader culture.  This post will suggest that understanding the doctrine of “two kingdoms” will provide a helpful framework for political engagement.

Two Kingdoms

It was John Calvin (following but nuancing Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas) who outlined the biblical doctrine of the two kingdoms.  Calvin pointed out that the bible teaches that Jesus Christ is king and Lord over all but that he rules the world through two separate authorities: government and the Church.  Therefore, there are two different authorities in this world under the authority of Jesus Christ.  These two kingdoms govern in accordance with the knowledge of God as creator (government) and knowledge of God as redeemer (Church), respectively.

Christ rules the Church by His word and His Spirit through ministers of the gospel.  The means of authority are non-violent and non-coercive because authority is exercised by the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments and church discipline.  The focus of this rule is the whole person, including the heart.

Christ rules the world through various governments who are appointed by God and given authority and responsibility to promote the common good, to reward good, and to punish evil coercively.  These governments are to make laws and rule according to natural law.  The focus of this rule is outward morality in the public sphere of life.  Calvin points out that God’s basic law as outlined in the last six commandments of the Ten Commandments (called the second table of the law) weigh on the consciences of all people.  Therefore, there are basic natural moral impulses that God has placed in the hearts of all those who bear God’s image, and these moral guidelines that are known naturally by all people should guide government officials in lawmaking.  Of course, Calvin points out that all people because of sin, suppress the truth in unrighteoussness and become foolish and darkened in our thinking.  So, he recognizes that the written law of the Ten Commandments is needed to further convict consciences and give clear guidance.  While the first four commandments relate to love for God, the second table of the law deals with love and justice toward our neighbor.

Thinking about Political Engagement According to the Two Kingdoms Doctrine

Calvin helpfully shows the biblical relationships between natural law, revealed written law, gospel, government, and Church regarding the knowledge of God and ourselves.  I believe these connections are helpful in thinking about how we are to engage in government policy decisions.  If we thought consistently within this framework, Christians would not line up under either “conservative” or “liberal” agendas since both neglect important components God’s law in regard to the common good.  But, this is the issue: Christians must discern what laws are consistent with the natural law (outlined in the second table) and whether or not it is possible in the current climate to make laws consistent with these laws. Two questions remain, however.

First, we have to understand how the Ten Commandments should be read.  Calvin points out that the Ten Commandments require more than what is strictly denoted in the commandments.  Two principles (in addition to love) guide his reading of the second table: Synecdoche and the “principle of opposite duties.”  Synecdoche means that each command represents a large body of obligations that fit underneath it.  For instance, “Honor your father and mother,” is a command that obligates all people to submit to the various authorities over us.  Since the family is the basic unit of society, this obligation to honor parents represents our obligation throughout society to submit to authorities like employers and government officials.  The “principle of opposite duties” shows us that the commands not only negatively obligate us (“Do not steal” for instance) but also positively obligate us (promote the wellbeing of others, and provide for those in need).  These two principles show that the second table is much more extensive than we might at first expect.

Second, we have to understand where marriage belongs: to the natural law of creation or to the gospel word of the church.  The gift of marriage and family is given to all people in all cultures.  God established marriage at creation.  It is true that marriage signifies the mystery of the gospel (Christ and His Church united), but it belongs generally to all people as part of God’s natural design for humanity.

Therefore, for those who believe that God created marriage at creation to be the union of one man and one woman as the proper structure for the family, it is proper for us to support laws that seek to establish this as the social norm.

Remaining Questions

Does this mean that we should seek to make laws about everything that falls into the category of natural law?  The answer is, no.  Two things are important to remember.  First, Christ’s rule through government concerns outward morality and life in the public sector.  Laws should be made to promote the common good.  So, while lying is wrong and everyone knows it, this does not mean laws need to be made about all lying everywhere.  Laws should be made concerning truth telling in particular situations that deal with the common interest and good of society.  Everyone would be in jail or paying fines if all lying was outlawed.

Second, there is an inherent pragmatism to political engagement that follows from this theology.  Christians must seek to share God’s ultimate concerns for the world, being careful not to confuse their concerns with God’s.  But, in seeking to promote God’s concerns, we have to live where we are.  Politics is complicated, and as someone has put it, “Politics is the art of the possible.”  If a culture is so darkened in thought and so hardened in suppressing the truth that it barely recognizes or agrees with certain natural moral impulses, then Christians must seek to promote what they can instead of living in an ideal world that seeks perfection.  No government or society will ever perfectly adopt laws that fit natural law.  Christians must always seek justice as best as we are able. This involves making choices between various goods at times.  All the more reason why we need to be shaped by the Christian narrative so that we can make wise choices.

Doesn’t the NC amendment potentially harm children and women who may not be living in a domestic situation that fits this new law leaving them vulnerable to health insurance lapses or domestic violence loopholes?  I am not a legal scholar, so I do not know the answer to this.  This is a perfect example of the messiness of political engagement and the need to be pragmatic.  Christians may choose to take different approaches to this question that are guided by a concern to be faithful to God.  Some may find the concern for children and women to be a higher biblical concern than promoting the proper definition of family.  Others may see it the other way around.  I personally think that if there are problems legally for the protection of children and women, then the better route is to pass the amendment and then change other laws through the state congress.  But, I recognize that Christians could make different decisions here.

Conclusion

This post has attempted to show the complexity of political engagement, especially as it relates to the marriage amendment, and to provide a framework for wise political engagement.  This issue is not as simple as stating, “God created Adam and Eve, and that is enough for me.”  This simplistic rationale will only harm our ability as Christians to promote good laws.  This rationale raises all sorts of concerns and questions from those who are not Christians who see this as an arbitrary selection of certain biblical passages over others (like not wearing mixed fabric in Leviticus or rules concerning giving a daughter in marriage in Exodus).  Let us be wise and faithful servants of God in the two kingdoms over which Christ rules as king.

[NOTE: I have not attempted to defend the biblical interpretation of marriage between one man and one woman, nor have I attempted to address questions about the issue of homosexuality.  Rather, I have assumed the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this issue.  Discussion on that point would need another post.]

4 Tiers of Doctrinal Importance (Repost 10.10.2011)

It is vital to the health of any church that its leaders and congregation are able to discern the relative importance of various doctrines.  In other words, if leaders and congregants don’t know which is more dangerous to the local church, a disagreement about alcohol and tattoos or a disagreement about the doctrine of sin, then they are likely to draw lines where they don’t need to be drawn and fail to draw lines when eternal life and death are on the line.  No two Christians believe the exact same thing about every theological and doctrinal issue.  How then can any church remain unified?

In order to have the proper type of unity in the local church, we must 1) acknowledge that there are different levels of doctrinal importance, and 2) know which doctrines fall into the various levels of importance.  Before exploring the various levels of importance, let me explain what I mean when I say that we are to have ‘the proper type of unity’.

Many churches today strive for an ungodly, unbiblical, dangerous, and sinful type of unity.  Those who emphasize conformity to the ethic of the community and tolerance for doctrinal differences in matters central to the faith have a perverted idea of unity.  This error is common among liberals and conservatives.  On the left, liberals emphasize unity around social action and tolerance for those with different beliefs while denying the uniqueness and exclusivity of Christ.  On the right, conservatives emphasize conformity to conservative morality while failing to rigorously hold the line on the doctrine of sin.  This conservative error almost always leads to a legalism that makes sub-cultural norms a standard of faithfulness and spirituality rather than gospel fidelity.

The opposite error of this improper type of unity is dividing at the wrong time over the wrong issues.  This error occurs not because people focus on doctrine too much but because they place too much emphasis on the wrong doctrines.  To avoid this error, we must understand the relative importance of different doctrines.

But how do we know which doctrines are most important?  Does Scripture teach these distinctions?  I believe that I Corinthians 15.1-11 teaches us that we are to see some doctrines as ‘doctrines of first importance’.

I Corinthians 15.1-11:

In this chapter, Paul seeks to correct the Corinthians in their errant doctrine and increasingly licentious living.  His concern is that the Corinthians, although they originally appeared to believe the Gospel he preached to them when he planted the church, do not have saving faith.  Allow me to make some observations in three stages:

First, Paul sought to remind them of the Gospel as a warning that they must hold fast to it if there is to be any benefit to their initial response.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,  ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain.

Paul notes that believing the Gospel has two effects.  Those who believe the Gospel stand in salvation and are in the process of being saved.  I think this is shorthand for justification and sanctification.  Through faith in the Gospel, we are declared righteous before God and stand before him innocent and righteous because of Christ.  Through faith in the Gospel, we are in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ.

But, Paul makes clear that these conditions are only true of those who hold fast to the Gospel.  Those who do not hold fast to the Gospel believe in vain.  In other words, there is a type of believing and response to the preaching of the Gospel that does not bear ongoing fruit and thus withers and dies.  I think this is similar to what Jesus talked about in Mark 4 in the parable of the sower and the soils.

Now note that at this point, it is not entirely clear what Paul means by ‘hold fast to the word I preached to you’.  We have to keep reading to be sure we know what he means.  This is where this text begins to address the topic of this post.

Second, Paul argued that the Gospel and the doctrines essential to it are of first importance in the Christian life.

1 Corinthians 15:3a ³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received…

Paul explained that he had and was passing on to the Corinthians that which is of primary importance in the Christian faith.  The apostles passed on the “pattern of sound teaching” (2 Tim. 1:13-14), “sound doctrine” (I Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:9), and “sound instruction” (I Tim. 6:3).  In I Cor. 15.3-8, Paul passes down a set of teachings that has a formulaic ring to it.  It is clearly a set of historical claims tied to a theological message that was held to and delivered to all the churches.  This is the tradition of the apostles: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that there were two bodies of teaching in the early church: tradition and Scripture.  They argue that Scripture has been handed down to us containing many important teachings.  But, they assert additionally that the Roman Catholic Church consists of a succession of leaders who have passed on oral teachings (traditions) that are not covered in Scripture that are equal in authority to Scripture.  Protestants argue (rightly I believe) that the tradition/oral teaching of the apostles was eventually written down in Scripture such that there is now only one authoritative source of instruction.  My last post addressed this issue in more detail.

The key thing that I want to point out here though is that Paul himself thought that there were matters of first importance and matters that ranked below this.  After passing on the Gospel to them in verses 3-11, Paul argues in the rest of the chapter for the proper doctrine of the resurrection.  He fervently argued for the bodily resurrection of Christ and of believers on the last day because he feared that the Corinthians were denying it and thus in danger of ‘believing in vain’.  I will say more on this below.

Third, Paul delivers the plain and simple Gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:3b-11 that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,  ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,  ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Several important things could be mentioned here, but for our sake, one thing stands out:  The Gospel is the message of what Christ did.  The Gospel is not my response to Jesus.  The Gospel is not the effects of believing in Jesus.  The Gospel is the good news about the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Notice the key verbs: Christ died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared.  So, what’s the point of all of this in relation to the original issue I raised?

The 4 Tiers of Doctrinal Importance:

This passage clearly shows us that the Gospel message and the doctrines essential to it are matters of first importance.  This is why Paul writes with such urgency on the issue of the resurrection.  This is why he warns them that they may not be saved if they don’t persevere in sound doctrine.  This is why he suggests to them later (15.33) that they should kick out those in the church who are denying the bodily resurrection.  It is a serious matter worth dividing the church over!

So, what are the 4 tiers?

1. Matters of first importance, of heresy versus orthodoxy: The Gospel stands at the center.  Taking the formula that Paul gave, we can see that the doctrine of the Trinity, the person of Christ, the work of Christ (including the atonement and resurrection), and sin are matters of first importance.  These are matters worth defending.  It is appropriate to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine in these areas.  It is right to remove those who deny these doctrines from fellowship.  It is necessary to leave the fellowship of those who embrace error in these areas.
2. Matters that determine local church practice and ministry:  After the first tier, we have to begin looking at other passages to sort out the rest, but I think the rest are fairly clear.  The second level of doctrinal importance contains many doctrines that are worth arguing about but should not call us to question the salvation of those that disagree with us.  The doctrines concerning church governance, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Table, Scripture, the role of women in leadership, ministry philosophy, conversion, and evangelism are doctrines which a local church needs to have general agreement on in order to minister effectively.  For example, it is impossible for a local church to get anything done if there is disagreement over the truthfulness of Scripture or if no one can agree who has leadership responsibility and final authority.  So, while differences in these areas should not lead us to question one another’s salvation, we might have to agree to exist as different churches.
3. Matters that we can disagree on while still working together in a local church:  Once we have seen which matters divide Christians from non-Christians and matters which divide Christians necessarily into different churches and denominations, we find that there are many issues that we can disagree on in the local church.  I doubt I can name them all, so I will name a few.  The doctrines dealing with the end times (rapture, tribulation, and millennium) should never be matters of first importance.  We should not make a specific theology of the end times a requirement for membership in a local church.  Similarly, one’s stance on the continuance of the supernatural or miraculous spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy should not determine whether or not one is included in fellowship in the local church.
4. Matters of conscience, where Scripture does not bind all but some may need to live a certain way while others live differently:  The last category deals with matters similar to the ones that Paul deals with in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8-11.  When Scripture does not give us a command and we must use wisdom, there must be great charity and we must refuse to lay our convictions upon others in any way.  Issues that fall into this category include the consumption of alcohol, tattoos, what movies one is allowed to watch, what language one should use, and who Christians should vote for.

While this post has certainly not answered every question about which doctrines fall into what area, I hope that it has given us some easy guidelines and examples that will help Christians think about when and over what to divide.  Furthermore, the levels I have laid out here (and I am certainly not the first to highlight these distinctions) certainly expose some obvious problems that are prevalent today, namely turning these tiers upside down by attempting to impose our conscience on others and elevating eschatology to first importance while ignoring the central doctrines of the faith.

The Church on Mission

This video came on my radar a few times this week, and so I decided to watch it.  It is a beautiful and inspiring vision of the Church on mission.

Does God Get Disappointed in Believers When They Disobey?

Justin Taylor posted this video of David Powlison:

 

 

Quotes from “Life Together” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Part 4

On the confession of sin to a brother, from chapter 5, Confession and Communion:

“Confess your faults one to another” (Jas. 5:16).  He who is alone with his sin is utterly alone.  It may be that Christians, notwithstanding corporate worship, common prayer, and all their fellowship in service, may still be left to their loneliness.  The final break-through to fellowship does not occur, because, though they have fellowship with one another as believers and as devout people, they do not have fellowship as the undevout, as sinners.  The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner.  So everybody must conceal his sin from himself and from the fellowship.  We dare not be sinners.  Many Christians are unthinkably horrified when a real sinner is suddenly discovered among the righteous.  So we remain alone with our sin, living in lies and hypocrisy.  The fact is that we are sinners!

But it is the grace of the Gospel, which is so hard for the pious to understand, that it confronts us with the truth and says: You are a sinner, a great, desperate sinner; now come, as the sinner that you are, to God who loves you.  He wants you as you are; He does not want anything from you, a sacrifice, a work; He wants you alone. “My son, give me thine heart” (Prov. 23.26).  God has come to you to save the sinner.  Be glad!  This message is liberation through truth.  You can hide nothing from God.  The mask you wear before men will do you no good before Him.  He wants to see you as you are, He wants to be gracious to you.  You do not have to go on lying to yourself and your brothers, as if you were without sin; you can dare to be a sinner.  Thank God for that; He loves the sinner but He hates sin…

In confession the break-through to community takes place.  Sin demands to have a man by himself.  It withdraws him from the community.  The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation.  Sin wants to remain unknown.  It shuns the light.  In the darkness of the unexpressed it poisons the whole being of a person.  This can happen even in the midst of a pious community.  In confession the light of the Gospel breaks into darkness and seclusion of the heart.  The sin must be brought into the light.  The unexpressed must be openly spoken and acknowledged.  All that is secret and hidden is made manifest.  It is a hard struggle until the sin is openly admitted.  But God breaks the gates of brass and bars of iron (Ps. 107:16).

Since the confession of sin is made in the presence of a Christian brother, the last stronghold of self-justification is abandoned.  The sinner surrenders; he gives up all his evil.  He gives his heart to God, and he finds the forgiveness of all his sin in the fellowship of Jesus Christ and his brother.

The expressed, acknowledged sin has lost all its power.

Quotes from “Life Together” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Part 3

On the divine reality of Christian Unity, from Chapter 1, Community:

In Christian brotherhood everything depends upon its being clear right from the beginning, first, that Christian brotherhood is not an ideal, but a divine reality.  Second, that Christian brotherhood is a spiritual and not a psychic reality.

Innumerable times a whole community has broken down because it had sprung from a wish dream.  The serious Christian, set down for the first time in a Christian community, is likely to bring with him a very definite idea of what Christian life together should be and to try to realize it.  But God’s grace speedily shatters such dreams.  Just as surely as God desires to lead us to a knowledge of genuine Christian fellowship, so surely must we be overwhelmed by a great disillusionment with others, with Christians in general, and, if we are fortunate, with ourselves.

By sheer grace, God will not permit us to live even for a brief period in a dream world.  He does not abandon us to those rapturous experiences and lofty moods that come over us like a dream.  God is not a God of the emotions but the God of truth.  Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it.  The sooner this shock of disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both.  A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattered, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community.  Sooner or later it will collapse.  Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive.  He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.

God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious.  The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, by himself.  He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly.  He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren.  He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.  When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure.  When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash.  So he becomes, first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.

Quotes from “Life Together” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Part 2

On the meaning of Christian Community, from Chapter 1, Community:

Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ.  No Christian community is more or less than this…

What does this mean?  It means, first, that a Christian needs others because of Jesus Christ.  It means, second, that a Christian comes to others only through Jesus Christ.  It means, third, that in Jesus Christ we have been chosen from eternity, accepted in time, and united for eternity.

First, the Christian is the man who no longer seeks his salvation, his deliverance, his justification in himself, but in Jesus Christ alone.  He knows that God’s Word in Jesus Christ pronounces his guilty, even when he does not feel his guilt, and God’s Word in Jesus Christ pronounces him not guilty and righteous, even when he does not feel that he is righteous at all.  The Christian no longer lives of himself, by his own claims and his own justification, but by God’s claims and God’s justification.  He lives wholly by God’s Word pronounced upon him, whether that Word declares him guilty or innocent.

The death and the life of the Christian is not determined by his own resources; rather he finds both only in the Word that comes to him from outside, in God’s Word to him.  The Reformers expressed it this way: Our righteousness is an “alien righteousness,” a righteousness that comes from outside of us (extra nos).  They were saying that the Christian is dependent on the Word of God spoken to him.  He is pointed outward, to the Word that comes to him…

But God has put his Word into the mouth of men in order that it may be communicated to other men.  When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others.  God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of a man.  Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him.  He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth.  He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation.  He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ.  The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure.

And that also clarifies the goal of all Christian community: they meet one another as bringers of the message of salvation.  As such, God permits them to meet together and gives them community.  Their fellowship is founded solely upon Jesus Christ and this “alien righteousness…”

Second, a Christian comes to others only through Jesus Christ.  Among men there is strife.  “He is our peace,” says Paul of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:14).  Without Christ there is discord between God and man and between man and man.  Christ became the Mediator and made peace with God and among men.  Without Christ we should not know God, we could not call upon Him, nor come to Him.  But, without Christ we also would not know our brother, nor could we come to him.  The way is blocked by our own ego.  Christ opened up the way to God and to our brother…

Third, when God’s Son took on flesh, he truly and bodily took on, out of pure grace, our being, our nature, ourselves.  This was the eternal counsel of the triune God.  Now we are in him.  Where he is, there we are too, in the incarnation, on the Cross, and in his resurrection.  We belong to him because we are in him.  That is why the Scriptures call us the Body of Christ.  But if, before we could know and wish it, we have been chosen and accepted with the whole Church in Jesus Christ, then we also belong to him in eternity with one another.  We who live here in fellowship with him will one day be with him in eternal fellowship.  He who looks upon his brother should know that he will be eternally united with him in Jesus Christ.  Christian community beams community through and in Jesus Christ…

…One is brother to another person only through Jesus Christ.  I am a brother to another person through what Jesus Christ did for me and to me; the other person has become a brother to me through what Jesus Christ did for him.  This fact that we are brethren only through Jesus Christ is of immeasurable significance.  Not only the other person who is earnest and devout, who comes to me seeking brotherhood, must I deal in fellowship.  My brother is rather that other person who has been redeemed by Christ, delivered from his sin, and called to faith and eternal life.  Not what a man is in himself as a Christian, his spirituality and piety, constitutes the basis of our community.  What determines our brotherhood is what that man is by reason of Christ.  Our community with one another consists solely in what Christ has done to both of us…

That dismisses once and for all every clamorous desire for something more.  One who wants more than what Christ has established does not want Christian brotherhood…Just at this point of Christian brotherhood is threatened most often at the very start by the greatest danger of all, the danger of being poisoned at the root, the danger of confusing Christian brotherhood with some wishful idea of religious fellowship, of confounding the natural desire of the devout heart for community with the spiritual reality of Christian brotherhood.  In Christian brotherhood everything depends upon its being clear right from the beginning, first, that Christian brotherhood is not an ideal, but a divine reality.  Second, that Christian brotherhood is a spiritual and not a psychic reality.

Quotes from “Life Together” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

On the great gift of corporate worship, from Chapter 1, Community:

So between the death of Christ and the Last Day it is only by a gracious anticipation of the last things that Christians are privileged to live in visible fellowship with other Christians.  It is by the grace of God that a congregation is permitted to gather visibly in this world to share God’s Word and sacrament.  Not all Christians receive this blessing.  The imprisoned, the sick, the scattered lonely, the proclaimers of the Gospel in heathen lands stand alone.  They know that visible fellowship is a blessing.  They remember, as the Psalmist did, how they went “with the multitude…to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept holyday” (Ps.42:4).  But they remain alone in far countries, a scattered seed according to God’s will.  Yet what is denied them as an actual experience they seize upon more fervently in faith.  Thus the exiled disciple of the Lord, John the Apocalyptist, celebrates in the loneliness of Patmos the heavenly worship with his congregations “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).  He sees the seven candlesticks, his congregations, the seven stars, the angels of the congregations, and in the midst and above it all the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, in all the splendor of the resurrection.  He strengthens and fortifies him by His Word.  This is the heavenly fellowship, shared by the exile on the day of his Lord’s ressurection.

The physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparably joy and strength to the believer.  Longingly, the imprisoned apostle Paul calls his “dearly beloved son in the faith,” Timothy, to come to him in prison in the last days of his life; he would see him again and have him near…

The believer feels no shame, as though he were still living too much in the flesh, when he yearns for the physical presence of other Christians.  Man was created a body, the Son of God appeared on earth in the body, he was raised in the body, in the sacrament the believer receives the Lord Christ in the body, and the resurrection of the dead will bring about the perfected fellowship of God’s spiritual-physical creatures.  The believer therefore lauds the Creator, the Redeemer, God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for the bodily presence of a brother.  The prisoner, the sick person, the Christian in exile sees in the companionship of a fellow Christian a physical sign of the gracious presence of the triune God.  Visitor and visited in loneliness recognize in each other the Christ who is present in the body; they receive and meet each other as one meets the Lord, in reverence, humility, and joy.  They receive each other’s benedictions as the benediction of the Lord Jesus Christ.  But if there is so much blessing and joy even in a single encounter of brother with brother, how inexhaustible are the riches that open up for those who by God’s will are privileged to live in the daily fellowship of life with other Christians!

It is true, of course, that what is an unspeakable gift of God for the lonely individual is easily disregarded and trodden under foot by those who have the gift every day.  It is easily forgotten that the fellowship of Christian brethren is a gift of grace, a gift of the Kingdom of God that any day may be taken from us, that the time that still separates us from utter loneliness may be brief indeed.  Therefore, let him who until now has had the privilege of living in common Christian life with other Christians praise God’s grace from the bottom of his heart.  Let him thank God on his knees and declare: It is grace, nothing but grace, that we are allowed to live in community with Christian brethren.

Levels of Doctrinal Importance: 4 Tiers

It is vital to the health of any church that its leaders and congregation are able to discern the relative importance of various doctrines.  In other words, if leaders and congregants don’t know which is more dangerous to the local church, a disagreement about alcohol and tattoos or a disagreement about the doctrine of sin, then they are likely to draw lines where they don’t need to be drawn and fail to draw lines when eternal life and death are on the line.  No two Christians believe the exact same thing about every theological and doctrinal issue.  How then can any church remain unified?

In order to have the proper type of unity in the local church, we must 1) acknowledge that there are different levels of doctrinal importance, and 2) know which doctrines fall into the various levels of importance.  Before exploring the various levels of importance, let me explain what I mean when I say that we are to have ‘the proper type of unity’.

Many churches today strive for an ungodly, unbiblical, dangerous, and sinful type of unity.  Those who emphasize conformity to the ethic of the community and tolerance for doctrinal differences in matters central to the faith have a perverted idea of unity.  This error is common among liberals and conservatives.  On the left, liberals emphasize unity around social action and tolerance for those with different beliefs while denying the uniqueness and exclusivity of Christ.  On the right, conservatives emphasize conformity to conservative morality while failing to rigorously hold the line on the doctrine of sin.  This conservative error almost always leads to a legalism that makes sub-cultural norms a standard of faithfulness and spirituality rather than gospel fidelity.

The opposite error of this improper type of unity is dividing at the wrong time over the wrong issues.  This error occurs not because people focus on doctrine too much but because they place too much emphasis on the wrong doctrines.  To avoid this error, we must understand the relative importance of different doctrines.

But how do we know which doctrines are most important?  Does Scripture teach these distinctions?  I believe that I Corinthians 15.1-11 teaches us that we are to see some doctrines as ‘doctrines of first importance’.

I Corinthians 15.1-11:

In this chapter, Paul seeks to correct the Corinthians in their errant doctrine and increasingly licentious living.  His concern is that the Corinthians, although they originally appeared to believe the Gospel he preached to them when he planted the church, do not have saving faith.  Allow me to make some observations in three stages:

First, Paul sought to remind them of the Gospel as a warning that they must hold fast to it if there is to be any benefit to their initial response.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,  ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain.

Paul notes that believing the Gospel has two effects.  Those who believe the Gospel stand in salvation and are in the process of being saved.  I think this is shorthand for justification and sanctification.  Through faith in the Gospel, we are declared righteous before God and stand before him innocent and righteous because of Christ.  Through faith in the Gospel, we are in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ.

But, Paul makes clear that these conditions are only true of those who hold fast to the Gospel.  Those who do not hold fast to the Gospel believe in vain.  In other words, there is a type of believing and response to the preaching of the Gospel that does not bear ongoing fruit and thus withers and dies.  I think this is similar to what Jesus talked about in Mark 4 in the parable of the sower and the soils.

Now note that at this point, it is not entirely clear what Paul means by ‘hold fast to the word I preached to you’.  We have to keep reading to be sure we know what he means.  This is where this text begins to address the topic of this post.

Second, Paul argued that the Gospel and the doctrines essential to it are of first importance in the Christian life.

1 Corinthians 15:3a ³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received…

Paul explained that he had and was passing on to the Corinthians that which is of primary importance in the Christian faith.  The apostles passed on the “pattern of sound teaching” (2 Tim. 1:13-14), “sound doctrine” (I Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:9), and “sound instruction” (I Tim. 6:3).  In I Cor. 15.3-8, Paul passes down a set of teachings that has a formulaic ring to it.  It is clearly a set of historical claims tied to a theological message that was held to and delivered to all the churches.  This is the tradition of the apostles: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that there were two bodies of teaching in the early church: tradition and Scripture.  They argue that Scripture has been handed down to us containing many important teachings.  But, they assert additionally that the Roman Catholic Church consists of a succession of leaders who have passed on oral teachings (traditions) that are not covered in Scripture that are equal in authority to Scripture.  Protestants argue (rightly I believe) that the tradition/oral teaching of the apostles was eventually written down in Scripture such that there is now only one authoritative source of instruction.  My last post addressed this issue in more detail.

The key thing that I want to point out here though is that Paul himself thought that there were matters of first importance and matters that ranked below this.  After passing on the Gospel to them in verses 3-11, Paul argues in the rest of the chapter for the proper doctrine of the resurrection.  He fervently argued for the bodily resurrection of Christ and of believers on the last day because he feared that the Corinthians were denying it and thus in danger of ‘believing in vain’.  I will say more on this below.

Third, Paul delivers the plain and simple Gospel.

1 Corinthians 15:3b-11 that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,  ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,  ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Several important things could be mentioned here, but for our sake, one thing stands out:  The Gospel is the message of what Christ did.  The Gospel is not my response to Jesus.  The Gospel is not the effects of believing in Jesus.  The Gospel is the good news about the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Notice the key verbs: Christ died, he was buried, he was raised, and he appeared.  So, what’s the point of all of this in relation to the original issue I raised?

The 4 Tiers of Doctrinal Importance:

This passage clearly shows us that the Gospel message and the doctrines essential to it are matters of first importance.  This is why Paul writes with such urgency on the issue of the resurrection.  This is why he warns them that they may not be saved if they don’t persevere in sound doctrine.  This is why he suggests to them later (15.33) that they should kick out those in the church who are denying the bodily resurrection.  It is a serious matter worth dividing the church over!

So, what are the 4 tiers?

1. Matters of first importance, of heresy versus orthodoxy: The Gospel stands at the center.  Taking the formula that Paul gave, we can see that the doctrine of the Trinity, the person of Christ, the work of Christ (including the atonement and resurrection), and sin are matters of first importance.  These are matters worth defending.  It is appropriate to rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine in these areas.  It is right to remove those who deny these doctrines from fellowship.  It is necessary to leave the fellowship of those who embrace error in these areas.
2. Matters that determine local church practice and ministry:  After the first tier, we have to begin looking at other passages to sort out the rest, but I think the rest are fairly clear.  The second level of doctrinal importance contains many doctrines that are worth arguing about but should not call us to question the salvation of those that disagree with us.  The doctrines concerning church governance, the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Table, Scripture, the role of women in leadership, ministry philosophy, conversion, and evangelism are doctrines which a local church needs to have general agreement on in order to minister effectively.  For example, it is impossible for a local church to get anything done if there is disagreement over the truthfulness of Scripture or if no one can agree who has leadership responsibility and final authority.  So, while differences in these areas should not lead us to question one another’s salvation, we might have to agree to exist as different churches.
3. Matters that we can disagree on while still working together in a local church:  Once we have seen which matters divide Christians from non-Christians and matters which divide Christians necessarily into different churches and denominations, we find that there are many issues that we can disagree on in the local church.  I doubt I can name them all, so I will name a few.  The doctrines dealing with the end times (rapture, tribulation, and millennium) should never be matters of first importance.  We should not make a specific theology of the end times a requirement for membership in a local church.  Similarly, one’s stance on the continuance of the supernatural or miraculous spiritual gifts like tongues and prophecy should not determine whether or not one is included in fellowship in the local church.
4. Matters of conscience, where Scripture does not bind all but some may need to live a certain way while others live differently:  The last category deals with matters similar to the ones that Paul deals with in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8-11.  When Scripture does not give us a command and we must use wisdom, there must be great charity and we must refuse to lay our convictions upon others in any way.  Issues that fall into this category include the consumption of alcohol, tattoos, what movies one is allowed to watch, what language one should use, and who Christians should vote for.

While this post has certainly not answered every question about which doctrines fall into what area, I hope that it has given us some easy guidelines and examples that will help Christians think about when and over what to divide.  Furthermore, the levels I have laid out here (and I am certainly not the first to highlight these distinctions) certainly expose some obvious problems that are prevalent today, namely turning these tiers upside down by attempting to impose our conscience on others and elevating eschatology to first importance while ignoring the central doctrines of the faith.

Tradition, Doctrine, and Practice

In my experience, I have met many Christians, even pastors, who separate doctrine and piety, the mind and “the heart”.  I have also encountered many Christians who reject “tradition” without realizing that their lives and ministries are driven by their cultural heritage more than Scripture.

While studying for my lesson on I Corinthians 15 this week, I ran across a wonderful section (pgs. 102-103) of David Wells’ book No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? in which he touches on the relationships between tradition (in a different sense), doctrine (theology), and practice (piety).

That the apostolic churches were confessional and that they confessed the apostolic teaching about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ may be disputed, but only on the most radical redactional reading of the New Testament…The apostles “delivered” the facts about Christ (I Cor. 11:23, 15:3), and interpreted those facts, and then developed the consequences for Christian life from this…All this became part of the “tradition” that was committed to faithful people to transmit to succeeding generations.  In this sense, there is undoubtedly a central place given to tradition in the New Testament.

In time, as the New Testament letters were completed and the canon was eventually closed, there seems little doubt that the whole apostolic exposition of the disclosure of God, of his character, acts, and will (especially as these were revealed in Christ), became the substance of what was confessed.  To be a believer, then as later, meant believing in what the apostles taught.  It is in this sense that apostolic succession is a New Testament truth.  Believers succeed the apostles as they accept what the apostles taught.  It is a succession not of ecclesiastical power as the Church of Rome teaches but of doctrine.

This is why the apostles not only framed the Christian faith in doctrinal terms but called for its preservation and protection in this form.  There is no Christian faith in the absence of “sound doctrine” (I Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:9), “sound instruction” (I Tim. 6:3), or the “pattern of sound teaching” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).  It is this doctrine, or, more precisely, the truth it contains and expresses, that was “taught” by the apostles and “delivered” to the Church.  It is this message that is our only ground for hope (Tit.1:9) and salvation (I Cor. 15:2; I Pet. 1:23-25).   Without it, we have neither the Father nor the Son (2 John 9).  Indeed, Paul says that we can grow in Christ only if we stay within this doctrinal framework, for its truth provides the means of our growth (Col. 2:6).  It is no wonder that Christians are urged not to depart from the apostolic teaching they received “in the beginning” (John 2:7, 24, 26; 3:11) or from what they had heard (Heb. 2:1), for it is the “faith once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3).  Nor should we be amazed to read of Paul’s admonition to Timothy that it is only by adhering to this “good teaching” that he will become a “good minister of Jesus Christ” (I Tim. 4:6).  For all of these reasons, the apostles instructed believers to “guard” this faith (2 Tim. 1:13-14; 4:3; cf. Tit. 1:9; Gal. 1:9), defend it (Jude 3), “stand firm” in it, not to “drift” from it, to become “established” in it, and to transmit it intact to succeeding generations.

No one who is familiar with apostolic teaching and practice could imagine that bare, creedal orthodoxy alone is being advocated in these passages.  It is clear, for example, both from the structure of many of Paul’s letters and from many of his specific statements, that he saw belief and practice as inextricably related to each other, the former being the foundation of the latter and the latter being the evidence of the working of the former.

I found this passage to be helpful in outlining the New Testament teaching that doctrine and practice are integrally linked.  Furthermore, Wells is very helpful in highlighting the responsibility of all Christians, but especially pastors, to guard sound doctrine.  This ought to teach us several things:

1. Doctrine must be studied deeply and carefully.  It is a mistake to argue that we should focusing on loving Jesus, being obedient, and avoid discussing and arguing rigorously about doctrine.  The neglect of doctrine will unwittingly lead to devotion to self or culture.
2. Pastors must be diligent to guard their church from separating what we believe from our love and devotion to God.  Those who argue that we should all just get along while ignoring real doctrinal controversy in their church are foolishly setting the church on a course for destruction into error.
3. Pastors must be people who can teach sound doctrine and refute those who contradict it.  There is an unhealthy tendency to make pastors out of those who are charismatic leaders loved by many when the pastorate often calls for the unpopular: firm, rigorous, and zealous debate.

While Wells’ book can be difficult, he has some very excellent insight, and I recommend his books to those interested in studying theology, ecclesiology, and culture.