I think the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's creed are important to establish a center an essentials of the faith. Yet these creeds focus on orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy. They focus on what we believe rather than how we should live. Do you believe there are any orthopraxy that should be essentials of the Christian faith? I think this is what really divides the church in this day and age. None of us like to be told what to do. Yet I think the Gospel requires a level of obedience. For example your preaching has focused a lot on the sin of racism. Would you consider this to be part of the center? What about the murder of unborn children? Is this part of the center or something we can agree to disagree on?
Thanks Will, this is a really great question and helps me clarify my own thinking. By arguing for a more limited set of foundations as the core of our faith, I am not saying that other things don't matter. I agree that Christians should have clear and thoughtful ethical convictions on issues like race, abortion, war, and other ethical issues. I certiantly do! These are not peripheral concerns. They are deeply connected to how we live out our faith in the world.
But the question I’m wrestling with is not whether these issues matter. It’s where they belong in the structure of our faith. In the Reformed tradition, there has long been a distinction between the essential core of the gospel and the ethical discernment that flows from it. When we move complex, contested issues into the category of “essentials,” we may feel like we are strengthening our witness, but I think we may actually be doing the opposite. We risk replacing the shared confession of Christ with agreement on our conclusions for how our confession applies to practice. And in doing so, we can lose both our unity and our ability to engage in the kind of deep, patient discernment that these issues require.
Holding a deep center does not mean we avoid hard moral questions. It means we engage them together in a way that is rooted in Christ, guided by Scripture, and with the humility to recognize that faithful Christians may sometimes come to different conclusions.
So should ECO remove as an essential tenet requiring sex to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman? Is this not a divisive topic not covered in the creeds? I don't think they should. I think it is essential to what it means to be made in the image of God. ECO has decided that while Christians may disagree some are not being faithful in their witness to scripture. This is why the denomination split from the PCUSA.
Your comments reminded me of Hebrews 5:11-14, " 11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
Here the writer equates orthodoxy to spiritual milk and orthopraxy to solid food. The creeds though essential are basic doctrine. Scriptures says we should move beyond this to the discernment of good and evil. My concern is on focusing on the bare essentials you are not giving people solid food that is the discernment of good and evil on issues that matter. Having listened to your preaching I don't think this is generally the case. You cover controversial issues biblically and well though I do think you could be more explicit on the abortion issue. Abortion is today what slavery was in the 1860's. We as minister can't allow this evil to go unnoticed without a response. I am just a little confused about the doctrine you are expressing here versus the preaching I have heard you preach. While you are gracious you tend not to focus just on the essentials but on deep ethical issues. You speak about them with such passion that it makes me feel they are essential whether you would label them that or not.
Humility isn't just admitting when you could be wrong. Though it is that. It is living as close to the truth as possible. Michael Jordan is not being humble when he says he is no good at basket ball. And gifted ministers such as yourself are not being humble when they don't use their knowledge and authority to teach their flock what is in bounds and out of bounds ethically. Faithful Christians can come to different conclusions perhaps. Or perhaps some Christians let the flesh, the devil, and the world, override their interpretation of the scripture.
I think the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's creed are important to establish a center an essentials of the faith. Yet these creeds focus on orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy. They focus on what we believe rather than how we should live. Do you believe there are any orthopraxy that should be essentials of the Christian faith? I think this is what really divides the church in this day and age. None of us like to be told what to do. Yet I think the Gospel requires a level of obedience. For example your preaching has focused a lot on the sin of racism. Would you consider this to be part of the center? What about the murder of unborn children? Is this part of the center or something we can agree to disagree on?
Thanks Will, this is a really great question and helps me clarify my own thinking. By arguing for a more limited set of foundations as the core of our faith, I am not saying that other things don't matter. I agree that Christians should have clear and thoughtful ethical convictions on issues like race, abortion, war, and other ethical issues. I certiantly do! These are not peripheral concerns. They are deeply connected to how we live out our faith in the world.
But the question I’m wrestling with is not whether these issues matter. It’s where they belong in the structure of our faith. In the Reformed tradition, there has long been a distinction between the essential core of the gospel and the ethical discernment that flows from it. When we move complex, contested issues into the category of “essentials,” we may feel like we are strengthening our witness, but I think we may actually be doing the opposite. We risk replacing the shared confession of Christ with agreement on our conclusions for how our confession applies to practice. And in doing so, we can lose both our unity and our ability to engage in the kind of deep, patient discernment that these issues require.
Holding a deep center does not mean we avoid hard moral questions. It means we engage them together in a way that is rooted in Christ, guided by Scripture, and with the humility to recognize that faithful Christians may sometimes come to different conclusions.
So should ECO remove as an essential tenet requiring sex to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman? Is this not a divisive topic not covered in the creeds? I don't think they should. I think it is essential to what it means to be made in the image of God. ECO has decided that while Christians may disagree some are not being faithful in their witness to scripture. This is why the denomination split from the PCUSA.
Your comments reminded me of Hebrews 5:11-14, " 11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
Here the writer equates orthodoxy to spiritual milk and orthopraxy to solid food. The creeds though essential are basic doctrine. Scriptures says we should move beyond this to the discernment of good and evil. My concern is on focusing on the bare essentials you are not giving people solid food that is the discernment of good and evil on issues that matter. Having listened to your preaching I don't think this is generally the case. You cover controversial issues biblically and well though I do think you could be more explicit on the abortion issue. Abortion is today what slavery was in the 1860's. We as minister can't allow this evil to go unnoticed without a response. I am just a little confused about the doctrine you are expressing here versus the preaching I have heard you preach. While you are gracious you tend not to focus just on the essentials but on deep ethical issues. You speak about them with such passion that it makes me feel they are essential whether you would label them that or not.
Humility isn't just admitting when you could be wrong. Though it is that. It is living as close to the truth as possible. Michael Jordan is not being humble when he says he is no good at basket ball. And gifted ministers such as yourself are not being humble when they don't use their knowledge and authority to teach their flock what is in bounds and out of bounds ethically. Faithful Christians can come to different conclusions perhaps. Or perhaps some Christians let the flesh, the devil, and the world, override their interpretation of the scripture.