Distinguishing Mountains from Molehills

[MattY]

This is a spinoff from this other post. How do we distinguish more important doctrines and practices from less important ones? It's common sense that not all doctrines are equally important. No one thinks your opinion about the rapture is as important as believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Jesus spoke about "weightier matters" of the Law, implying that there are less weighty matters. There are "disputable matters" (Romans 14:1); there are also things in which "those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you." (Philippians 3:15). Those might be the same thing, but the latter sounds a little more important. On the other hand, there are issues that Paul said basically, Dig in your heels - such as Galatians 1. These are essential matters of the gospel.

This is not about ourselves, or how our/your own church should interpret and follow the Scripture; it's not about the minimum that I can do and still be a Christian; it's about how to view and treat others who don't agree with us, or who change their minds from what they thought when they were younger and need to find a different church (that happens a lot, since we're all human). I think it's about how we treat other Christians with love and humility.

In my opinion, here are some categories.
(1) essential doctrines or dogmas (the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, the Return of Christ, God being Creator of all things) which divide genuine Christians from heretics;
(2) important or urgent doctrines (believer's baptism, nonresistance, separation from the world, church government, male headship in the church and home, Arminianism vs. Calvinism, how church discipline is practiced, sacramental vs. nonsacramental view of the ordinances), which affect the health of the church (both now and for future generations) and how Christians live and worship, and generally require believers who disagree to be in different congregations and fellowships; so they are important to discuss and get right, while acknowledging the genuine faith of those who believe differently;
(3a) less urgent or less important practices that may still prevent churches from uniting, such as whether to have musical instruments in worship, how to apply separation from the world, etc.
(3b) somewhat important but disputable doctrines that usually do not or should not cause Christians to divide, such as mode of baptism, views about the millennium and the interpretation of Revelation, some details about Genesis 1-11, etc. These are fine to discuss and have opinions about. I would probably put annihilationism (or "conditional immortality") and soul sleep, both of which I disagree with, into this category.
(4) unimportant matters, like the difference between seraphim and cherubim, or the author of Hebrews. They might be interesting or intellectually stimulating, depending who you are, but they have little to no importance

Not everything will fit neatly into these categories - life is not that simple. A lot of people think mode of baptism, for example, belongs to (2). But I think this is helpful for how to think and act toward other Christians. If you take some less important things, like eschatology, to an extreme, then you actually find yourself in heresy, violating essential doctrines. I'm not sure where to feet washing and the women's veiling - either in (2) or (3a). They portray or symbolize important things.

The type of church discipline to apply, if any, also might vary. If a Mennonite church member joins the army, that would require excommunication. (Some Presbyterians - not all - excommunicate members who leave to go to a church that doesn't practice infant baptism). But what you do with someone who holds a different opinion on it is probably different than someone who actually does it. Or for another example, if they believe in, let's say, unconditional eternal security, that could prevent them from becoming a church leader, and it probably would require more of a teaching/dialogue/guidance approach, unless they become divisive about it, which would require firmer discipline no matter what the issue is.

[MattY]

In the first couple centuries of the church, they had the "rule of faith". (The "Apostles' Creed" is actually significantly newer - from the 400s, 500s, or so). There were plenty of other important things that they talked about, sometimes disagreeing, sometimes agreeing; but with the rule of faith, they put together what they saw as the essentials. It was not done as a disjointed list, just some random doctrines in any order; rather, it was a story, a narrative of God's actions in the world, from creation, to incarnation, redemption, and final judgment. It kept the gospel God-centered rather than man-centered.

Ignatius said this:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

Tertullian:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith, that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend - it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of this world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ.

Irenaeus:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all.

There are plenty of other important things to talk about and implement in our lives and churches - as I mentioned in the previous post. They did, and we do or should, as well. But the rule of faith, as presented above, keeps the gospel centered on the work of Christ.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In the first couple centuries of the church, they had the "rule of faith". (The "Apostles' Creed" is actually significantly newer - from the 400s, 500s, or so). There were plenty of other important things that they talked about, sometimes disagreeing, sometimes agreeing; but with the rule of faith, they put together what they saw as the essentials. It was not done as a disjointed list, just some random doctrines in any order; rather, it was a story, a narrative of God's actions in the world, from creation, to incarnation, redemption, and final judgment. It kept the gospel God-centered rather than man-centered.

Ignatius said this:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.

Tertullian:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith, that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend - it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of this world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ.

Irenaeus:

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all.

There are plenty of other important things to talk about and implement in our lives and churches - as I mentioned in the previous post. They did, and we do or should, as well. But the rule of faith, as presented above, keeps the gospel centered on the work of Christ.

Why not just start form the Nicene Creed?

[MaxPC]

How do we distinguish more important doctrines and practices from less important ones? It's common sense that not all doctrines are equally important.

Excellent topic, MattY. I look forward to more insights.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I have to weigh more thought on how to judge different "tiers" of doctrine. But I have put a lot of thought into weighing out "tiers" of praxis. I think I would define 3 or 4 tiers of praxis.

First off, there are two different types of praxis:
obedience to a command
and
application of a principle
I think there are clear commands in scripture and then there are principles that ought to be applied by every Christian. In conservative Anabaptist churches, application of principles is usually done on a corporate level, while in most of pop Christianity it is done on the individual level.
An example of a command would be the veiled/unveiled head during prayer and prophesy given in 1 Cor 11. Paul makes it clear that this is a command he had already given previously, and he commended them for observing it well, and he explained the reason for it in terms that showed it was deeper than a principle, it had roots in creation.
An example of a principle would be modesty, or gender-specific attire. We ought to dress modestly and avoid clothing that is culturally coded to the opposite gender; however, every culture defines both of these things differently, so application would probably be different in different settings.

There are also two sources of commands and principles: those given by Jesus (in the gospel accounts), and those given by Jesus' apostles (in the epistles).
Two quick notes: (1) Our source of Jesus' words come from his apostles/disciples anyway, so ultimately, all these things come from the Apostles (they wrote the gospels and recorded his teachings there); and (2) the commands and principles written in the epistles (for example, Paul's talk of the headship order) are assumed to come from Jesus, they just aren't recorded in the gospels. This second note might not be agreed upon by everyone, but some might insist on this reading of scripture.

So ultimately, there are 4 quadrants of praxis:
Commands given by Jesus.
Commands given by his Apostles.
Principles given by Jesus.
Principles given by his Apostles

If I had the time, I'd illustrate it on a 2x2 matrix.

If I had to list these in order of "importance", I think the order I gave above would be what I would come up with. Maybe the two in the middle would swapped, or considered equal.

[joshuabgood]

The essentials in my view are the first and second greatest commandments. The rest is less weighty.

[barnhart]

Praxis+Theodicy, I'm glad to see you have put quotation marks around "important" when discussing commands vs. principles. Principles are quite important. It's hard for me to say the principles of the new covenant are less "important" than the commands, but like you I recognize flexibility in application.

[steve-in-kville]

Another category: good ol' church politics. For example, making a mountain out of a mole hill to divert attention from the real mountains that need to be dealt with.

[NedFlanders]

I wonder if today Apostle James was amongst us he would be accused of making mountains out of molehills?

James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

But if we would couple James’ thought on not doing right being sin with Paul’s thoughts on seeing sin as exceeding sinful we may stay far away enough from sin doing what Jesus said to do that the troubles of disagreeing in the church may be more like molehills than the mountains we see. I don’t think discussions relating to doctrine minimums and/or core beliefs that we can agree on would come up much at all with mature believers.

Romans 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

[Josh]

This is a spinoff from this other post. How do we distinguish more important doctrines and practices from less important ones?

In my opinion, here are some categories.
(1) essential doctrines or dogmas (the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, the Return of Christ, God being Creator of all things) which divide genuine Christians from heretics;

This is an interesting list to start with as "essential", particularly since the word "Trinity" never appears in the Bible and the New Testament sure doesn't ever claim it to be foundational to the faith. But the NT does teach that following and obeying Jesus is.

Which leads me to ask why...

(2) important or urgent doctrines (believer's baptism, nonresistance

Shouldn't nonresistance be in list #1?

, separation from the world, church government, male headship in the church and home, Arminianism vs. Calvinism, how church discipline is practiced, sacramental vs. nonsacramental view of the ordinances), which affect the health of the church (both now and for future generations) and how Christians live and worship, and generally require believers who disagree to be in different congregations and fellowships; so they are important to discuss and get right, while acknowledging the genuine faith of those who believe differently;

I can agree that people may disagree with the particulars but I would disagree that some of these things are not "foundational". For example, the Bible is very clear about the requirements for a deacon, presbyter, or deacon; there can be no dispute that it is intended to be male, unless one is talking to someone who feels comfortable tossing out clear readings of the NT.

The type of church discipline to apply, if any, also might vary. If a Mennonite church member joins the army, that would require excommunication. (Some Presbyterians - not all - excommunicate members who leave to go to a church that doesn't practice infant baptism). But what you do with someone who holds a different opinion on it is probably different than someone who actually does it. Or for another example, if they believe in, let's say, unconditional eternal security, that could prevent them from becoming a church leader, and it probably would require more of a teaching/dialogue/guidance approach, unless they become divisive about it, which would require firmer discipline no matter what the issue is.

In my church circles, we would excommunicate or place under church discipline (including a leader) someone who embraces "false doctrine", but there is no distinction of "tiers" of "well, this false doctrine is OK, but this false doctrine is really bad so it's not OK". For example, teaching against the headcovering would be false doctrine. So would teaching against nonresistance. So would teaching against the Trinity.