Are the mere essentials enough?

[jubilationtcornpone]

A few months ago, I met a fellow who occupied a prominent ministry position in his church. Over dinner one night, we got to talking about church doctrine. With passion, this fellow declared, "As long as a church teaches the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else."

Now, I know that a lot of believers would applaud such a statement. After all, it sounds positively loving and tolerant, does it not? Indeed, I'm sure that his remark was motivated by love and a desire for unity. At the risk of ruffling some feathers though, I find such sentiments to be rather dismaying. To my mind, it's like saying, "As long as a school teaches the very basics--reading, writing and arithmetic--then that's all that matters. Everything else is just fluff." It may seem loving, but it sets the bar awfully low. What a far cry from Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as he urged the young man to safeguard the Ephesians, that they may hold meticulously to the Word and "teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

Moreover, I think that his sentiment--a distressingly common one, I might add--assumes that the essentials are all that matter, and that everything else is of little consequence. While that's an understandable viewpoint, I believe that it's exceedingly unwise and unscriptural. There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance. Principles of Biblical exegesis, for example, are critically important; after all, a sloppy approach to exegesis can lead to all sorts of abominable teachings. What about principles for selecting a church elder, for example? Should we "not give a flip" if a church decides to ignore the Biblical command to elect elders who are monogamous and exhibit upright characters (1 Tim 3:8-13)? Or what about the command against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)? Is it okay if a church declares that it's okay for Christians to date and marry non-believers?

Just to drive a point home, let's use a more extreme example. There are churches that encourage their members to handle poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. This false teaching will not, by any means, cost someone his salvation, but does that make it acceptable? Certainly not! Once again, we should "give a flip" if such matters are being taught!

Interestingly enough, this person followed up his comment by saying, "I refuse to attend Pentecostal churches, though. That's because speaking in tongues freaks me out!" Notice the reason he gave? Rather than rejecting Pentecostalism on Biblical grounds, he does so because he thinks it's freaky. Such feelings are certainly understandable, but they are not the right way to test church doctrine!

I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics. This notion may sound like a loving, Christ-like sentiment, but it's not what the Bible teaches.

 

[Rick Otto]

posolutely right, Jub!

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Agreed

Forgive me...

 

[march56]

IAWTP,
I believe sermons should use the Bible as source for material but that the issues of the day be answered as well. In that way you won't end up with people who have errored in their ways without receiving any convictions in the message.
As a result the pastor will not win the popularity contest and the attendees may not necessarily increase in numbers. Though you want your number of persons being reached by the Gospel to increase, not by the popularity of what you are preaching.(P.C. wise) but by the substance and truth of the message. That will affect peoples daily walk. Sorry I didn't quote scripture.
-M.C.

 

[Dmckay]

A few months ago, I met a fellow who occupied a prominent ministry position in his church. Over dinner one night, we got to talking about church doctrine. With passion, this fellow declared, "As long as a church teaches the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else."

Now, I know that a lot of believers would applaud such a statement. After all, it sounds positively loving and tolerant, does it not? Indeed, I'm sure that his remark was motivated by love and a desire for unity. At the risk of ruffling some feathers though, I find such sentiments to be rather dismaying. To my mind, it's like saying, "As long as a school teaches the very basics--reading, writing and arithmetic--then that's all that matters. Everything else is just fluff." It may seem loving, but it sets the bar awfully low. What a far cry from Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as he urged the young man to safeguard the Ephesians, that they may hold meticulously to the Word and "teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

Moreover, I think that his sentiment--a distressingly common one, I might add--assumes that the essentials are all that matter, and that everything else is of little consequence. While that's an understandable viewpoint, I believe that it's exceedingly unwise and unscriptural. There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance. Principles of Biblical exegesis, for example, are critically important; after all, a sloppy approach to exegesis can lead to all sorts of abominable teachings. What about principles for selecting a church elder, for example? Should we "not give a flip" if a church decides to ignore the Biblical command to elect elders who are monogamous and exhibit upright characters (1 Tim 3:8-13)? Or what about the command against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)? Is it okay if a church declares that it's okay for Christians to date and marry non-believers?

Just to drive a point home, let's use a more extreme example. There are churches that encourage their members to handle poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. This false teaching will not, by any means, cost someone his salvation, but does that make it acceptable? Certainly not! Once again, we should "give a flip" if such matters are being taught!

Interestingly enough, this person followed up his comment by saying, "I refuse to attend Pentecostal churches, though. That's because speaking in tongues freaks me out!" Notice the reason he gave? Rather than rejecting Pentecostalism on Biblical grounds, he does so because he thinks it's freaky. Such feelings are certainly understandable, but they are not the right way to test church doctrine!

I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics. This notion may sound like a loving, Christ-like sentiment, but it's not what the Bible teaches.

In a word, NO! I could give you some long drawn out arguments to support this, but in keeping with the theme of your OP I will just give a simple reason. We can only trust someone as much as we know them. Even Jesus said in His high Priestly prayer in John 17 that eternal life was: "3"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." If we limit ourselves to "just the basics" we are cheating ourselves out of a large part of our heritage as believers.

We have been left behind, after coming to Christ, to be used as His body through which He performs His work through the Holy Spirit working through us. This is also part of the process of remaking us into the image of Christ. Have you ever heard the old saying, "The longer a couple is together, them more they begin to look like each other?" After 30 years of marriage I know that my wife and I can complete each others thoughts. It freaks the kids out every time they hear us respond to something that comes up, at the same time and in the exact same words. the longer we ABIDE in Christ, which is much more than the basics, the more like Him we will be in our thinking, our responses, and our representation of Him to others.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

Thank you for your comments. I agree.

What especially bugs me is that this person serves on the leadership team of his church singles group. I surmise that their pastoral team views his "As long as churches teach the basics, I don't give a flip about anything else!" paradigm as a virtue. They probably think it's a loving and Christlike perspective to hold.

Personally though, I think that anyone with such a perspective should be disqualified from leadership! Church leaders should not merely have love, kindness and tolerance in their hearts. Rather, they must also have a strong spiritual foundation -- and a "tolerant" attitude such as this demonstrates a shoddy grasp of the Word. These matters are so basic that I'd expect even a new believer to understand them.

(As an aside, I left that church group last year. Why? Precisely because several people in its leadership -- including the singles pastor -- demonstrated this open attitude toward those who taught wrongly. One such leader declared "Whoever is not against us is for us" -- a passage that was never meant to excuse false teaching! Even the singles pastor asserted that Christian churches should not go around criticizing each other's doctrines -- not while there are still cults and other false religions that commit greater errors. When I hear such dreck coming from within the church leadership, I just have to walk away.)

 

[Dmckay]

Thank you for your comments. I agree.

What especially bugs me is that this person serves on the leadership team of his church singles group. I surmise that their pastoral team views his "As long as churches teach the basics, I don't give a flip about anything else!" paradigm as a virtue. They probably think it's a loving and Christlike perspective to hold.

Personally though, I think that anyone with such a perspective should be disqualified from leadership! Church leaders should not merely have love, kindness and tolerance in their hearts. Rather, they must also have a strong spiritual foundation -- and a "tolerant" attitude such as this demonstrates a shoddy grasp of the Word. These matters are so basic that I'd expect even a new believer to understand them.

(As an aside, I left that church group last year. Why? Precisely because several people in its leadership -- including the singles pastor -- demonstrated this open attitude toward those who taught wrongly. One such leader declared "Whoever is not against us is for us" -- a passage that was never meant to excuse false teaching! Even the singles pastor asserted that Christian churches should not go around criticizing each other's doctrines -- not while there are still cults and other false religions that commit greater errors. When I hear such dreck coming from within the church leadership, I just have to walk away.)

Unfortunately, too many so-called pastors today, have been kowtowed into believing that they must accept everything that comes along lest they be branded unloving and intolerant. They don't take the teaching of Christ and the Apostles on church discipline and handling false teachers seriously.

 

[GustheMule]

A few months ago, I met a fellow who occupied a prominent ministry position in his church. Over dinner one night, we got to talking about church doctrine. With passion, this fellow declared, "As long as a church teaches the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else."

Now, I know that a lot of believers would applaud such a statement. After all, it sounds positively loving and tolerant, does it not? Indeed, I'm sure that his remark was motivated by love and a desire for unity. At the risk of ruffling some feathers though, I find such sentiments to be rather dismaying. To my mind, it's like saying, "As long as a school teaches the very basics--reading, writing and arithmetic--then that's all that matters. Everything else is just fluff." It may seem loving, but it sets the bar awfully low. What a far cry from Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as he urged the young man to safeguard the Ephesians, that they may hold meticulously to the Word and "teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

Moreover, I think that his sentiment--a distressingly common one, I might add--assumes that the essentials are all that matter, and that everything else is of little consequence. While that's an understandable viewpoint, I believe that it's exceedingly unwise and unscriptural. There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance. Principles of Biblical exegesis, for example, are critically important; after all, a sloppy approach to exegesis can lead to all sorts of abominable teachings. What about principles for selecting a church elder, for example? Should we "not give a flip" if a church decides to ignore the Biblical command to elect elders who are monogamous and exhibit upright characters (1 Tim 3:8-13)? Or what about the command against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)? Is it okay if a church declares that it's okay for Christians to date and marry non-believers?

Just to drive a point home, let's use a more extreme example. There are churches that encourage their members to handle poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. This false teaching will not, by any means, cost someone his salvation, but does that make it acceptable? Certainly not! Once again, we should "give a flip" if such matters are being taught!

Interestingly enough, this person followed up his comment by saying, "I refuse to attend Pentecostal churches, though. That's because speaking in tongues freaks me out!" Notice the reason he gave? Rather than rejecting Pentecostalism on Biblical grounds, he does so because he thinks it's freaky. Such feelings are certainly understandable, but they are not the right way to test church doctrine!

I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics. This notion may sound like a loving, Christ-like sentiment, but it's not what the Bible teaches.

The church has always rejected this. that's why it is split into a thousand pieces! I really think what you mean by essentials matters too: But if someone believes in the Jesus Christ of the gospels, we should be willing to overlook differences. We should be worried about confronting Islam and Atheism and Postmodernism, not Arminianism and dispensationalism. Not saying interanl debate isn;t important. just saying it shouldn't lead to public schisms and people renouncing each other's faith.

 

[jubilationtcornpone]

But if someone believes in the Jesus Christ of the gospels, we should be willing to overlook differences. We should be worried about confronting Islam and Atheism and Postmodernism, not Arminianism and dispensationalism.

I disagree. Certain differences are worth overlooking, but many are not. Yes, we should be ready to confront Islam, atheism and post-modernism, but this does not mean that we should refuse to confront doctrinal errors within the church.

Notice that the NT writers never urged their readers to overlook doctrinal differences. Now, I'm not suggesting that every single doctrinal matter is of paramount importance; not at all. However, I would like to stress that this notion of "overlooking doctrinal differences for the sake of unity" is not something that Peter, Paul and company ever emphasized.

 

[PaleoPaul]

A few months ago, I met a fellow who occupied a prominent ministry position in his church. Over dinner one night, we got to talking about church doctrine. With passion, this fellow declared, "As long as a church teaches the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else."

Now, I know that a lot of believers would applaud such a statement. After all, it sounds positively loving and tolerant, does it not? Indeed, I'm sure that his remark was motivated by love and a desire for unity. At the risk of ruffling some feathers though, I find such sentiments to be rather dismaying. To my mind, it's like saying, "As long as a school teaches the very basics--reading, writing and arithmetic--then that's all that matters. Everything else is just fluff." It may seem loving, but it sets the bar awfully low. What a far cry from Paul's exhortation to Timothy, as he urged the young man to safeguard the Ephesians, that they may hold meticulously to the Word and "teach no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3).

Moreover, I think that his sentiment--a distressingly common one, I might add--assumes that the essentials are all that matter, and that everything else is of little consequence. While that's an understandable viewpoint, I believe that it's exceedingly unwise and unscriptural. There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance. Principles of Biblical exegesis, for example, are critically important; after all, a sloppy approach to exegesis can lead to all sorts of abominable teachings. What about principles for selecting a church elder, for example? Should we "not give a flip" if a church decides to ignore the Biblical command to elect elders who are monogamous and exhibit upright characters (1 Tim 3:8-13)? Or what about the command against being unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14)? Is it okay if a church declares that it's okay for Christians to date and marry non-believers?

Just to drive a point home, let's use a more extreme example. There are churches that encourage their members to handle poisonous snakes as a test of their faith. This false teaching will not, by any means, cost someone his salvation, but does that make it acceptable? Certainly not! Once again, we should "give a flip" if such matters are being taught!

Interestingly enough, this person followed up his comment by saying, "I refuse to attend Pentecostal churches, though. That's because speaking in tongues freaks me out!" Notice the reason he gave? Rather than rejecting Pentecostalism on Biblical grounds, he does so because he thinks it's freaky. Such feelings are certainly understandable, but they are not the right way to test church doctrine!

I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics. This notion may sound like a loving, Christ-like sentiment, but it's not what the Bible teaches.

I agree. However, there ARE "agree to disagree" doctrines out there.

 

[SeraphimOCA]

The OP might like visiting and Orthodox parish...we tend to be maximalists not minimalist concerning practice and doctrine.

On another note...if we are overlooking our differences to combat such big bugabears as postmodernism...isn't that postmodernism almost by definition (I'll affirm you in your thing if you affirm me in my thing...and you better affirm me in my thing).

 

[pehkay]

1 Tim 2:4:

Who [God] desires all men to be saved AND to come to the FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Hope it helps

 

[Koey]

...the bare basics--the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ, that sort of thing--then that's all I care about. I don't give a flip about anything else...There are many teachings that are not essential for salvation, but which are nevertheless of extreme importance...exegesis...selecting a church elder...poisonous snakes...I think that the Christian community should abandon this popular notion that it doesn't matter what churches teach, as long as they hold to the basics...

Yes! This is a wonderful topic! I tend to be on the side of those who think that essentials ought to be our focus. However, I do agree with you that principles of exegesis and right doctrine ought to be a focus too.

On the other hand, much of what divides the Christian community is either non-essentials or just plain rubbish. We each color the Gospel according to the non-essentials upon which we focus. Catholics preach an authoritarian Gospel. Orthodox preach a tradition-bound Gospel. Liberal Protestants preach a humanist, social Gospel. Conservative Protestants preach a legalistic Gospel. Pentecostals preach a materialistic, health-wealth, miracles Gospel.

Instead of focusing on the essentials that the founder of Christianity, Christ actually taught, we focus on fads, imported ideas from eastern gurus or witchcraft, urban myths, heresies, man-made rules, impossible traditions, legalisms, and other self-righteous "di-stink-tives" most of which are a result of bad exegesis, over-exegesis, eisegesis, or the flesh and not the Spirit.