Thursday, September 15, 2005
Primary vs. Secondary
Pyromanic ponders and interesting problem
One of the examples of a "problem issue" that Phil cites is "Sabbatarianism."
I would hope that most of us will agree that as Christians we have vast doctrinal differences with our Jewish cousins, but I would hope we have more ethically in common with them than not. There are few richer sources for thinking about ethical issues than Jewish literature. This is a vein of thinking that few Christians mine, and in my opinion, more ought to.
To be sure, some Jewish ethics have been explicitly changed in the New Testament -- the dietary laws as the prime example -- but much has not. Given that we draw on the same ethical codes and they have had about 4000 more years of dealing with them than we have, it is a rich source for understanding. If nothing else it is a great way to learn how to think about ethics, even if you arrive in a different place.
At the core of Phil's post is the question, "What is worth fighting over?" I would answer in part doctrine is, while in large part ethics is not. It should also be noted that ethics flows from doctrine, and this will help define a boundary aroound "reasonable" ethical disagreement. For example, some might argue that homosexuality is purely an ethical issue -- but it flows from doctrines about idolatry and the supremacy of God (He created the plumbing to work is certain rather specific ways), thus arguing it as "not worth fighting over" steps out of the boundaries of reasonable ethical disagreement.
Before you tell me that I have discussed myself in a circle here, what I am saying is that when we have fights over something like homosexuality -- we should not fight over the purely ethical issue, we should instead fight over the doctrine that underlies the ethic.
I wish I could describe a precise and definitive line between doctrine and ethics, but alas I cannot. What I can say is that I have found the distinction nonetheless important.
Does the Bible recognize a valid distinction between fundamental and secondary doctrines? How would you refute someone who insisted that all truth is of equal import? How do you answer those who claim no truth is worth arguing over? Could you make a biblical case for a hierarchy of truths, or for recognizing a distinction between core doctrines and peripheral ones? If so, how do you tell the difference? Do you have biblical guidelines for that? What if we disagree on whether a particular doctrine is essential or secondary? How is that question to be settled?These are some of the more essential questions of our times. Phil provides some good answers, but asks for more resources and ideas, so I thought I'd take a shot.
One of the examples of a "problem issue" that Phil cites is "Sabbatarianism."
...committed Christians might differ among themselves on the question of whether and how rigorously the Old Testament Sabbath restrictions should apply to Christians on the Lord's day...I first ponder this question, is the issue of Sabbath practice a doctrinal issue or an ethical one? To put a business spin on it -- doctrine is a "policy issue" while ethics is a "practice issue." When Phil is discussing this he uses Sabbatarianism as an example of a "secondary truth." I would argue that the questions concerning Sabbatarianism tha Phil rasies are in fact ethical questions, and not necessarily doctrinal ones. So why is that distinction important?
I would hope that most of us will agree that as Christians we have vast doctrinal differences with our Jewish cousins, but I would hope we have more ethically in common with them than not. There are few richer sources for thinking about ethical issues than Jewish literature. This is a vein of thinking that few Christians mine, and in my opinion, more ought to.
To be sure, some Jewish ethics have been explicitly changed in the New Testament -- the dietary laws as the prime example -- but much has not. Given that we draw on the same ethical codes and they have had about 4000 more years of dealing with them than we have, it is a rich source for understanding. If nothing else it is a great way to learn how to think about ethics, even if you arrive in a different place.
At the core of Phil's post is the question, "What is worth fighting over?" I would answer in part doctrine is, while in large part ethics is not. It should also be noted that ethics flows from doctrine, and this will help define a boundary aroound "reasonable" ethical disagreement. For example, some might argue that homosexuality is purely an ethical issue -- but it flows from doctrines about idolatry and the supremacy of God (He created the plumbing to work is certain rather specific ways), thus arguing it as "not worth fighting over" steps out of the boundaries of reasonable ethical disagreement.
Before you tell me that I have discussed myself in a circle here, what I am saying is that when we have fights over something like homosexuality -- we should not fight over the purely ethical issue, we should instead fight over the doctrine that underlies the ethic.
I wish I could describe a precise and definitive line between doctrine and ethics, but alas I cannot. What I can say is that I have found the distinction nonetheless important.
