LATEST WRITINGS FROM PASTOR PHILIP HOPPE

Posted inTheology and Practice

Essentials vs. Non-Essentials

What is essential?

What is non-essential?

Most church seem to define themselves in this way. I have surfed many websites proudly proclaiming unity in essentials and freedom in non-essentials. But each of those sites defines those terms at least a little differently.

I would say that all revealed truth is essential. I am well aware that there are things not revealed, lots of them. But in those things, I would suggest silence rather than freedom. A lot of churches today seem to delight in speculating into the mystery of God in lieu of pondering the revealed truth. It is great to recognize, ponder, and be in awe of the mysteries left unrevealed to us since we serve eternal, invisible, immortal God. But it dangerous rather than helpful to speculate into that mystery to find truth. There is plenty actually revealed to fill all of one’s days on this earth with items to ponder.

I am not saying that I fully grasp all of the revealed truth. But I think it essential to continue towards that goal.

Perhaps I miss understand the term essential. It is foreign to my theological tradition. Essential to what? Essential to be faithful? Essential to fellowshipping with one another? Essential to salvation? I am working with the first idea. It seems to me that most of the churches website follow the second, but nearly hint that the second and the third are the same. Even if dealing in the third, I am not sure we can again call anything non-essential because each teaching affects the others and ultimately affects what one believes about salvation and how they talks about it. Non-essential seems like a term developed by the spiritually lazy.

It God reveals it, it is essential. Right?

13 thoughts on “Essentials vs. Non-Essentials

  1. Hey Phil,

    Good to see you posting again. Obviously my tradition has as a cornerstone: “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials freedom; in all things, love.” And that quote, after some searching seems to have been first used by a German Lutheran theologian. A guy named Peter Meiderlin. Also, we have a saying that states, “where God has spoken we speak and where he has remained silent, we remain silent.” That may not be word for word, but you get the idea.

    Can we totally separate the idea of silence and freedom though in this case? And perhaps its the linguistic game being played again. Let’s say we have an issue to which both you and i agree that God has remained pretty silent. And we have come to two different conclusions as how to best understand that issue. Our “silence” is because we believe you have the freedom to hold to your position (though we may disagree with it) because God has not given us a definitive understanding of that issue. You have the freedom to work at it, to understand it the way in which you do, to wrestle with it and try to plumb the depths of it to get closer to the truth (though we may never know the truth). But it seems from your post that discussion and dialogue may prove to be more unhealthy than healthy (and i agree when all we do is focus on mysteries it can be very unhealthy).

    I think you hit the nail on the head when you commented that the “term essential is foreign to your theological tradition.” Please don’t take that as a slam, because that is in no way how I meant it….what i mean is that we all come to theological discussions and understandings with biases, presuppositions, etc. We can’t get away from that. And we need to understand those the best we can in order to have honest, real, authentic, healthy and progressive dialogue in all areas (revealed and unrevealed).

    Your comment of, “nonessentials seems to be a term developed by the spiritually lazy” seems to be a bit unfair. Given your previous quote that “essential” is foreign to your theological tradition this latter quote is understandable. Yet, in knowing that essential/nonessential talk is somewhat foreign to you perhaps you could have rephrased that last quote a bit differently based on the bias you already bring to the discussion.

    Perhaps ‘nonessentials’ is a term given by honest followers of God in the way of Jesus who are doing their very best to speak where God has spoken and be silent where He has been silent and yet knowing that in silence there is room for freedom of various thought, opinions and understandings.

  2. Tom-

    Give an example of a non-essential? Everyone lists the essentials, no one an example of a non-essential.

    And as for the last statement I do apologize, way too general. However I do think some that do not like to really struggle to discern the revealed truth find that term all too comfortable. They expand it probably far beyond what the leaders of such churches intend.

    I am not sure we mean the same thing by silence either. I mean when God says nothing, you seem to mean when we doesn’t say it clear enough to dispel discussion and dialog.

    I hope you know that I cherish dialog with others.

  3. Phil,

    I will list some non-essentials, but bear in mind that this comes from my bias, my theological presuppositions, etc. So upfront, what I see as non-essential may not be non-essential to you whatsoever.

    I believe how one views the “end-times” is a non-essential issue.

    I believe. while not charismatic myself, that one’s adherence to charismatic gifts is a non-essential (though one insistence that they are necessary then moves it into a different category)

    I believe how one views creation (in terms of how -as long as God is the starting point – though i really, really struggle with theistic evolution) is non-essential.

    I believe the mode of baptism is ultimately non-essential.

    I could list more, but hopefully these help.

    And i know you enjoy and cherish dialog…except when it comes to those blasted Sooners. The discussion seems to end!

  4. Tom-
    What are these things non-essential for? Fellowship? Salvation? Faithfulness?
    Phil

  5. Phil,

    Again, based on what I have been taught in my theological tradition…i would say those things i listed above would fit all three categories.

    If “faithfulness” is being defined as “faithfulness to scripture” then a question could arise as to which position on a non-essential is more faithful than another position. But since, to us, it would be on a non-essential issue that wouldn’t be a huge concern for us, in terms of us breaking fellowship with them, or somehow believing they weren’t truly saved, or in regards to their “faithfulness” to honestly and passionately follow God in the way of Jesus. And honestly all denominations feel like they have the market on faithfulness and to some degree or another question the faithfulness of others. Not in their relationship with God, but their correct understanding of scripture on certain issues.

    Honestly, in our tradition, and this may not make sense to someone looking in on the outside, we may believe someone is flat out wrong on a non-essential but we wouldn’t question our fellowship with them, their salvation, or their faithfulness to God or their honestly trying to understand scripture to the best of their ability.

    Hope this makes sense.

  6. Alternately, are the essentials necessary for salvation? Or Fellowship? Or Faithfulness?

  7. If God reveals it, it is essential. Thus, we agree. However the revealed truth was the norm of practice and belief for the first thousand years, give or take, of Christianity. Then the Romans of the West insisted on new doctrines and added to the original deposit of the faith handed from Christ Himself to the Apostles. Then the Reformation occurred and threw out many of the abuses, but then changed the rules. Then the Lutherans, mainly under Gerhard and following generations from his influence, insisted that only what was revealed specifically in Scripture was essential and everything else was non-essential or, to use the most common popular buzzword, adiaphora. So, when you don’t like what was revealed and taught for everywhere for all time (St. Vincent of Lerins), change the rules for what is the standard for revelation.

    But it hasn’t stopped there. Even LUtherans today do not hold to the Book of Concord and the exposition of the Lutheran faith contained therein, which are supposed to be subscribed to unconditionally as the true exposition of the faith (a quia subscription). Now today, most of what is contained in the Book of Concord is now considered adiaphora. Cases in point, the semper virgo, the near abolition of the Liturgy and the near obliteration of the practice of private confession and absolution to be used before anyone presents himself for the Eucharist every Sunday. All of these are revealed truths and practices with a theological purpose. Now these are regarded as unnecessary. If it’s inconvenient, it is thrown out. How sad that the faith handed down and practiced and taught from Christ to the apostles now has to be divided up into essential vs. non-essential. This rigid categorization of the faith makes Lutheranism more an academic exercise then a lifestyle.

  8. Hi Chris,

    I’m sure at this point that you’ve got a fair grasp of my personality and theology from these posts, and you probably have figured out that I’m no theologian — always a student. I’m always a bit hesitant to respond to you since sometimes I feel like the boldness and passion I admire in you sometimes translates into harshness… at least toward Phil. 😉 So… let me just say that I’m not attacking Orthodoxy in this post; I’m just trying to gain a better understanding. (Be gentle, please!)

    Where is the distinction drawn in your faith tradition between what is done and believed as an essential and God-revealed truth, and what is done out of habit? Is it possible that some of the practices of the church have stayed not because they were revealed by God as the only appropriate way to do things, but simply because people have always done them? Does the Orthodox church have any sort of formula or guide for examining tradition to determine if it’s God-revealed or man-made? How do you determine what is revealed and therefore essential?

    From my understanding of your last past, it seems like you would categorize every church practice at the time of the Reformation as either abuse (and thus, rightly tossed out) or revealed truth. Isn’t it possible that there are/were some traditions that fall into neither category?

    Thanks,
    Jaime

  9. Jaime,

    You ask if we Orthodox have a formula for establishing the faith. Yes, we do. It is what has been taught, everywhere since the beginning. That is the catholic principle. This particular line is borrowed from St. Vincent of Lerins.

    Again, you must realize that we do not view tradition as simply an affectation that can be cast aside at a whim. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. That goes especially for our Sacred Tradition and even for our small “t” traditions. The Russians and the Greeks do conduct the Liturgy the same every Sunday, whereas the Greeks prefer the old Byzantine chant and the Russians prefer 4 part music. But we don’t throw stones at each other for things of that sort or whether the vestment is the right color. I think those are the traditions you are referring to in your last paragraph. The things which I specifically listed were definitely tradition in terms of the Sacred Tradition which we have universally kept, taught and maintained for 2000 years.

    As far as the faith is concerned, what we pray is what we teach. Lex orandi, lex credendi. If it is not found in our prayer offices, our Liturgies, anything like that, then it is alien to the faith and cast out. Western Christianity started, at the time of the Schism, to turn things around and so went lex credendi, lex orandi. Thus the Liturgy had to be dismantled and reworked for the reformers. But at the same time, it threw out a lot that was still proper and good.

  10. I will write more later. But Chris I think if it is not broke don’t fix it is the mantra of true Lutheranism. I believe the true mantra of orthodoxy is if is was manufactured before “insert date here,” don’t fix it.

  11. Warning: politically incorrect and blunt statements ahead. Read with caution.

    If the statement, “if it isn’t broke don’t fix it” is the mantra of true Lutheranism then I will be so bold as to say as there is no such thing as true Lutheranism anymore.

    And your assessment of Orthodoxy is, as always, incorrect. We of course have added many (small “t”) traditions over the course of our 2000 year history. New feast days, new commemoration of the various saints, especially those who have been martyred recently in Soviet Russia and in the Middle EAst. But our tradition which we have inherited from the Christ, the Apostles and our Holy Fathers among the saints has remained unchanged, i.e. the essentials of the faith as you call it. WE do not believe in a development of doctrine as the RCs and various Protestants do. The faith is as it was given to us neither subtracted from nor added to. We “manufacture” nothing. Everything has been revealed to us. As we sing at Matins, “God is the Lord who hath revaled himself to us. Blessed is he that cometh in the Name of the Lord.” I don’t think that the Lutheranism of today can make a claim; and if any of its adherents do, then they are naive.

  12. Chris-

    All you did was establish a date to insert in your response, assuming a date when the apostles and the Fathers, wherever you cut that designation of, were gone and their teaching established. Your answer was, we don’t fix it, because as along as it is ancient enough, it wasn’t broke, which is exactly what I said you believe. Lest I remind you that Peter erred and had to be corrected by Paul. Not everything the apostles did or taught was necessarily holy.

    I agree that some Lutherans no longer hold to the principle Luther held to in regards to tradition. I am not sure being faithful to God requires doing so, but I think it quite a wise way to work with tradition.

  13. What teachings do you find among the Holy Apostles, such as Peter or Paul in any of their epistles is not established as the dogma or the doctrine of the Church? The faith has been revealed through them and has been preserved untouched and unfangled through the Most HOly Orthodox Church.

    I would agree that the Apostles were sinners as I am. Saintliness is not living a life totally devoid of sin for everyone is in need of the cross of Christ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *