Clarity & Unity or Distraction & Tribalism?
by Jonathan Woodrow
Share Article
Do Confessions of Faith distract and undermine gospel unity? Does unity based on an extensive Confession elevate what are often called secondary doctrines and practices to the level of the doctrines of first importance? Do they promote doctrinal distortion or distractions from the core gospel? On the contrary, Confessions of Faith aid the church in protecting the gospel from distortion or distraction while boldly promoting concrete biblical Christianity.
"Confessions of Faith aid the church in protecting the gospel from distortion or distraction while boldly promoting concrete biblical Christianity."
Many argue for establishing churches and parachurch organisations only on the doctrines essential to salvation. The intention is to promote doctrinal orthodoxy in the church and unity between Christians. Putting aside non-salvation issues on which Christians disagree (for instance, baptism, church governance and the end times) and concentrating on promoting ministry on the essentials is encouraged. Thus, some claim that to be genuinely ‘evangelical’ means preaching and preserving the things of first importance, the non-negotiables of the gospel. These ‘non-negotiables’ are taken to be the substitutionary death and resurrection of Jesus and justification by faith and are considered the essence of Jesus’ and the apostle’s teaching.
According to this thinking, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith are maximalist approaches to theology. At best, they contain the gospel within them; at worst, they risk confusing, cluttering and distorting the simple apostolic message by inflating the spiritual currency of non-saving doctrines. The mantra ‘less is more’ becomes the key to maintaining evangelical orthodoxy and unity.
"A confessional approach avoids the clumsy primary/secondary framework which approaches, a priori, the content of Scripture with the disastrous question: what is important here?"
Clearly, not all doctrines are as weighty as others, and there are doctrines Christians must agree to disagree on for unity. The confessional tradition acknowledges that not all doctrines bear the same weight and does not raise all doctrines to the level of primary issues. The Second London Confession, for instance, does not make its doctrine of the church a salvation issue. The writers were extremely concerned not to unchurch people who held different opinions. However, a confessional approach avoids the clumsy primary/secondary framework which approaches, a priori, the content of Scripture with the disastrous question: what is important here?
Instead, the Confessions seek to communicate doctrines in their biblical order and relationship. The nature and shape of special revelation demand this. Confessions make sense of the gospel message of the new covenant established by the person and work of Christ. They lay bare doctrinal, covenantal, ecclesiological and pastoral settings and implications. The danger of the minimalist approach (if the confessional approach is referred to as maximalist) is that it comes with its own arbitrary dogmatic decisions about what ought to be relegated to the secondary doctrine category. This category is often code for “not of gospel importance”. It is not the observation that there must be differences in the weight and relations of doctrines that is concerning. That has been consistently recognised. What is worrying is how the minimalist camp identifies, weighs, relates and handles doctrinal differences.
Can the apostolic message be reduced to a short list of primary topics to the exclusion of other secondary doctrines- dividing doctrines into one of two buckets?
Consider Romans 11:33-36. Having contemplated covenantal history and God’s plans for Jews and Gentiles (Romans 9 -11:36), Paul praises the self-existent God as the source of the gospel. The gospel only makes sense as the gospel of this God leading us to praise him in terms of his being and works. The core of the apostolic message makes sense in the setting of theology proper, the doctrine of God and covenantal theology.
Another example is 1 Timothy 1. Paul calls Timothy to deal with false teachers in Ephesus who were misusing the law (1:3-7). It seems they were not using the law to bring people to Christ. Instead, they were making reputations for themselves as old testament scholars who traded in novel theories about bible characters. The tragedy was that, in so doing, they diverged from God’s plan or economy by which he works (1:5).
Faithful gospel ministry requires teaching the faith from a pure heart, an informed conscience and a faithful walk in the light of the whole counsel of God. In this context, Paul reminds Timothy of the core message of the gospel, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1:15). In this saying is the essence of Paul’s message. Here is the apostolic preaching: the things of first importance. However, the things of first importance, like a diamond on a ring, exist in a setting. In 1 Timothy 1, Paul explains the gospel in relationship to the ten commandments.
"Faithful gospel ministry requires teaching the faith from a pure heart, an informed conscience and a faithful walk in the light of the whole counsel of God."
The gospel makes sense only in the context of the history of the covenants and the relationship between law and gospel. Get this wrong, and the minister risks forfeiting the purpose of God’s economy (1:5). Paul erupts in praise as he contemplates how he was made an example, by Christ, of a saved sinner. He praises God as King, eternal, immortal and invisible (1:17), layering up divine attributes. The reliable saying itself, the diamond in the ring, contains muscular theology. For instance, Paul was referring to the doctrine of the incarnation when he wrote, “Christ Jesus came into the world”. The Son of God came into the world through the line of David as the Christ. Moreover, the reliable saying communicates the union of the two natures and the fulfilment of promises made in the Davidic covenant. Furthermore, the phrase, “He came into the world to save sinners”, contains biblical anthropology, the doctrine of sin and the fall. Therefore, many doctrines must be handled to interpret and declare the apostolic message faithfully, such as:
- theology proper
- trinitarian theology
- covenantal theology
- biblical anthropology
- the doctrine of sin
- and substitutionary atonement.
The goal of this saying, in its broader theological context, is pastoral; it is love (1:5). The gospel makes sense in the wider setting of doctrine and practice. The confessional tradition seeks to set all this out so the church can heartily confess the gospel.
However, the ‘less is more’ view risks artificially reducing the apostolic message to personal conversion. It risks doctrinal distortion by cutting away the supporting doctrinal structures of the gospel. The doctrine of God, covenant theology, good church order and governance become secondary issues, or worse, distracting maximalist clutter. This minimalist approach means these doctrines are not allowed to inform the gospel, resulting in familiarity with only key doctrines. Thus, biblical orthodoxy is lost, and novel theologies and pragmatism are promoted in their place. For instance, Jesus said that eternal life is to know the one true God and the one whom he sent (John 17:5).
"The ‘less is more’ view risks artificially reducing the apostolic message to personal conversion. It risks doctrinal distortion by cutting away the supporting doctrinal structures of the gospel."
But is this God of the bible the God described by classical theism or a divine social trinitarian community? Surely this matters; they are different Gods.
Doctrinal distortion becomes more likely when doctrines are extracted from their biblical setting within which they are related to other doctrines in weight and contribution. Free-floating doctrines promote distortion by losing their place and interrelations. They are pressed into saying more than the Scripture, taking over the biblical function of other neglected doctrines. The doctrine of the church is an example. In modern theology, it has been inflated to function as a pattern for the doctrine of God as the older doctrines of God’s aseity (self-existence) and simplicity have been neglected or marginalised. The careless and often clumsy modern evangelical razor of primary and secondary issues enables a functional deleting and corporate forgetfulness of supporting doctrinal structures. It acts like a scalpel in the hands of an unqualified surgeon who has been told that only hearts and brains are important. The result is cutting away the supporting organs and systems, killing the patient while claiming to have saved the heart and mind of evangelicalism.
"The minimalist approach risks setting up its own selection of doctrines and methods as the standard of orthodoxy and the only ground of true unity."
Furthermore, the minimalist approach risks setting up its own selection of doctrines and methods as the standard of orthodoxy and the only ground of true unity. It closes down the discussion, demanding the maximalists calm down while accidentally promoting a historically novel kind of dogmatic and exclusivist approach to the bible and theology. On the other hand, the confessional tradition seeks to listen to and teach the whole counsel of God revealed through the writings of the prophets and apostles.
It sets out to articulate doctrines in their biblical order, relationships and weight. It does this to guard against distortion and promotes healthy biblical unity by standing on the common notebook of the church throughout the ages (the creeds and confessions of the past). It publicly identifies differences, enabling mutual understanding and cooperation.
The drafters of Confessions believed they were producing tools for maintaining orthodoxy, communicating the gospel in its setting and implications while promoting cooperation and unity. The minimalist approach risks losing the things it seeks to maintain, the gospel, biblical orthodoxy and connection to the body of Christ throughout all history, past and present.
Share Article
Jonathan Woodrow
Minister, Christ Church Herbert Street, Loughborough, UK and Theological Editor at Broken Wharfe
