Determining Doctrinal Rank
One of the questions that often comes up in the study of theology is, which doctrine or doctrines are primary and should be held as essential? And how do we determine that? This is a really good and important question for us to explore. Why? Well, we’ve all been in a Bible study or a small group, and we’ve had someone share a perspective or theological understanding that wasn’t wrong or out of the bounds of historic Christianity, but they shared in a way that implied that their perspective was absolutely essential to the faith and any understanding outside of that was wrong. I remember many years ago, I had a well-intentioned brother in Christ share with me his perspective on the order and timeline of creation. His perspective and convictions were within the bounds of historic Christianity and were a legitimate understanding of the text. But, he concluded by implying that anyone who understands the creation account in any other way couldn’t really be confident of their salvation. I gently pushed back on this brother by asking, does the Bible teach that? What does the Bible actually say is required for salvation? A good conversation followed where we were able to say that yes, the doctrine of creation is important, but it is not a salvation issue. The reality is that we can hold very important convictions that, if we’re not careful, we can elevate to the realm of essential when the Bible or historic Christianity hasn’t. So, how do we establish doctrinal rank? Below is an excerpt on that very thing from “Evangelical Convictions,” which is an expanded volume on the EFCA’s statement of faith.
Majoring on the Majors: Determining Doctrinal Rank
One of the most well-known sayings of our Free Church movement is “We major on the majors and minor on the minors.” This phrase reflects how we have historically approached doctrinal matters in our Statement of Faith and in our life together in the EFCA. We have long lived with the notion of the “significance of silence,” that is, our Statement of Faith is silent on many issues that have divided Christians. This silence allows us to debate these issues, but we agree not to divide over them. A spirit of unity is an essential part of our ethos as a movement. Our position regarding the relative importance of certain doctrinal matters has sometimes been referred to as a distinction between “essentials and non-essentials.” We prefer to capture this notion with the term “doctrinal rank.”
In assessing doctrinal rank, we must affirm that the whole Bible is inspired, inerrant, and authoritative (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In one sense, everything in the Bible is essential, for nothing in the Word of God is inconsequential. However, the Scriptures themselves reflect different weight or rank placed on different doctrinal truths. For example, Paul can identify the resurrection as of “first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3), and he can also consider whether to eat certain foods or to celebrate certain days to be “disputable matters” (Rom. 14:1).
Along these lines, Reformation and post-Reformation scholars, theologians, and pastors delineated dogmatic rank using the categories of “fundamental articles of faith,” “secondary fundamental articles,” and “nonfundamental articles,” based on the degree to which the various doctrines relate to the core of the saving message of the gospel.
With the Bible and the gospel foundational to our doctrine and life (1 Tim. 4:16), we have identified four categories of dogmatic rank, simply identified as:
- Of First Importance
- Of Second Importance
- Of Third Importance
- Disputable Matters
This four-level framework has been chosen because it allows enough nuance and distinction between levels without becoming overly complex. The two poles of this four-level framework are drawn directly from the two Scripture passages previously mentioned, in which Paul says, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance …” (1 Cor. 15:3), and “Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters” (Rom 14:1).
In determining doctrinal rank, the Scripture alone is our absolute authority and norm, and as such it serves a magisterial role. But there is also a place for creeds and confessions, which set forth the truths of Scripture in a systematic fashion. They always stand under the authority of Scripture, and therefore can only serve a ministerial role, assisting us in our understanding of Scripture. This applies also to historical theology, which helps us understand how the “faith once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3) has been articulated, defended and applied by the church through time. Again, historical theology is not an absolute authority, which is the Bible alone.
We have developed six key factors articulated through six diagnostic questions to weigh the relative importance of a particular doctrinal formulation:
- Relevance to our understanding of the nature and character of God: To what extent does this doctrine or practice reveal the person and nature of God?
- Connection to the gospel and the overarching narrative of the Bible: How directly is this doctrine or practice connected to the gospel and to the storyline of the whole Bible?
- Exegetical clarity: To what extent does Scripture unambiguously affirm this doctrine or practice?
- Biblical prominence: How prominent is this doctrine or practice in Scripture?
- Historical consensus: How widespread is the consensus on this doctrine or practice in the Church of both the past and present?
- Application to the church and the believer: How relevant is this doctrine or practice to us today?
Evangelical Convictions consists of the “theological exposition” of our Statement of Faith. We are now in the process of writing a book on this area of doctrinal rank, to be entitled Evangelical Unity. Certainly, decisions regarding doctrinal rank are not cut and dried. Even if we all agree with the notion of dogmatic rank, and even if we all agree on the key factors for determining where various doctrines ought to be classified, we still may not all agree on where to place certain doctrines or practices. But delineating some objective criteria can help us to carry on these discussions in a healthy manner, as we continue to “major on the majors and minor on the minors.”[1]
[1] EFCA. Evangelical Convictions, 2nd Edition (pp. 350-352). Free Church Publications. Kindle Edition.