This is a question that I received from one of our readers here on Parchment and Pen. It is a good question that cannot be answered easily.

     You mentioned in this blog the conversation you had with a Pastor regarding the blessing of same sex marriages.  This is an issue that the denomination (Episcopal) that I attend is struggling with.  We had a Parish discussion about this last year with about 25-30 out of 200 active members voicing their opinion. Myself and a few others were in the minority against blessing these relationships. I came to this conclusion after researching all the known biblical passages regarding this issue, which I plainly read as viewing homosexual activity as sin. Therefore this is not behavior we should be celebrating.  I also read several scholarly papers for and against and was not persuaded by the arguments for.

    I guess my question for you or anyone else who wants to comment is at what point has one crossed the line in terms of throwing out orthodox teaching.  I’ve followed your discussion on the emerging Church with the charts in terms of essential beliefs for salvation, essential beliefs for orthodoxy.  How many orthodox beliefs/doctrines can you abandon and still call yourself a Christian? 

The reader was not asking for an actual number. It cannot be answered with a number. One cannot say everyone gets to abandon five traditional Christian beliefs, but once they throw overboard that sixth one, they also throw overboard their right to be called “Christian.” It has more to do with the types of beliefs they are abandoning.

There are a lot of beliefs being abandoned today as people question “established” traditional Christianity.

Here are some big ones:

  • Can one abandon the idea of God’s eternality as openness theologians do, believing that God is in a give and take relationship with mankind and does not know the future with certainty?
  • Can one say that the resurrection has already happened like the preterists do?
  • Can one abandon the traditional Christian belief about the sinfulness of homosexuality and ordain homosexual ministers as many mainline churches are doing as well as bless same-sex relationships?
  • Can one abandon the historic belief that abortion is wrong as many Christians are doing?
  • Can one abandon belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel?

My first thoughts are that one cannot abandon these doctrines and beliefs and remain within the confines of orthodox Christianity with regard to these particular issues.

Christianity is first and foremost about who you say Christ is and what you have done with him. To be Christian means that Christ is your savior and God and you have called upon him to have mercy on you based upon what he did on the cross.

These other issues, while very important, do not form the bedrock of what being a Christian means.

  • The openness theologian, from my perspective, does not have a biblical view of God’s essential nature. But this alone does not mean that he or she is not or cannot be called Christian. They simply don’t have a Christian view of God’s essential nature.
  • The preterist falls outside of the bonds of Christian eschatology, but this does not mean that they cannot be called Christian. Their eschatology is simply not representative of Christianity.
  • The church that ordains homosexuals has compromised their morals and their ecclesiology (i.e. qualifications for leadership in a church setting) from a historic Christian standpoint. Because this issue is an ecclesiological issue, it is my conviction that the Church itself cannot be called Christian, while the members who believe such can still be called Christian—albeit Christians with an unchristian ecclesiology with regards to the qualifications for leadership.
  • The Christian who abandons the traditional Christian belief that abortion is wrong is unChristian with regards to their anthropology—their view of man and human dignity. This, as well, does not mean that they themselves cannot be called Christian, simply that their belief about the unborn is unorthodox.
  • The exclusivity of the Gospel has to do with the message of the Gospel, not the essence of salvation. The question is not Is Christ necessary for salvation?, but is knowledge of Christ (i.e. the Gospel message) necessary for salvation. This is more tricky since we have not only those who have not heard the Gospel message (i.e. the unevangelized), but also those who are physically unable to hear the Gospel message (e.g. the unborn, mentally unable, etc.). I would say that this issue is an open debate and good Christians throughout Church history have disagreed. Therefore, I believe that one is within Christian orthodoxy whichever side they come down on this issue so long as the question is not concerning the essentiality of the atonement, but the essentiality of knowledge of the atonement.

But this does not necessarily settle the issue. It only reveals my presuppositions.

Most of those who would deny a traditional Christian doctrine do so believing that they are reading the Bible more faithfully than those who have gone before them. In other words, they are not always denying the truthfulness of Scripture, but the truthfulness of “orthodoxy” as defined by historic Christianity. In their mind, they are restoring the true intent and teachings of Scripture by abandoning the views of the historic Christian faith.

To these the phrase “historic Christian faith” is a power play that may confine truth to the consensus of the masses. Therefore, terms like “orthodoxy,” “traditional,” and “heretic” are not only unhelpful, but quite destructive. They believe themselves not to be searching for “orthodox” Christianity, but biblical Christianity. They would claim the lineage of Martin Luther who went against the “orthodoxy” of his day to reclaim a lost Christianity. As well, although they would be less comfortable with the association, they would be in the line of the Anabaptists and restorationist churches of the nineteenth century such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Disciples of Christ.

For what it is worth, these renegades, revolutionaries, and reformers are those in the both the heroes and villains section of Christianity.

This, again, speaks to my presupposition in answering the questions above—the importance of the Church as a regulating body that defines Christianity by regulating how the Bible is to be understood. When we talk about the “historic Christian faith” do we mean that this undefined body—this errant spiritual entity—has the ability to define the boundaries of Christianity?

Most ill-informed Protestants have a catch 22. They feel that they are supposed to approach these and other issues shod with only the Bible. Yet others appeal to the Bible and find beliefs that are against historic Christianity, these ill-informed Protestants end up appealing to tradition. Maybe not consciously, but subconsciously they say “The church has never had such a belief.” “The Church has never allowed the ordaining of homosexuals.” “The church has always stood against abortion.”

Yet, historic magisterial Protestantism has always had a great respect for tradition. No, it is not just that we like tradition or are fond of its beauty, but we actually see the hand of God regulating the church. We see the hand of God establishing orthodoxy. When people begin to abandon traditional Christianity in favor of novel ideas, we say you can’t do this because the Bible does not allow. How do we know the Bible does not allow it? Because the history of the church, the body of Christ, those to whom the Gospel was entrusted, those from whom we receive our lineage, those upon whose shoulders we stand have not allowed it.

Yes, this regulation is an imperfect regulation. The Bible is the only perfect regulator. It is the norma mormans sed non normata (”norm that norms by is not normed”). But, at the same time, this norm must be read by imperfect people.

“Evangelicals have historical amnesia.” This is what Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Bradley Nassif said when I asked him what he believed to be the biggest problem in the evangelical church to be. I believe he may be right. I think that this historical amnesia is not so much that Evangelicals do not know history (although these is a lot of that), but that Evangelicals do not respect history. This is not something that we should be proud of.

Therefore, the question How many beliefs can one abandon and still be called Christian? must be answered Biblically and historically. For we cannot expect to answer it biblically until we have confided in those who have gone before us. Right or wrong, they must be respected and feared as part of the body of Christ. To fail to do so is not only unbiblical, but, from my point of view, evidences the influence of the modern ideal of individualism and resulting arrogance.

This does not answer all the questions, but it may give us a starting place to justify our approach.

 How would you answer this reader’s question?

There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.

Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.

Theological Word of the Day

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!