Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 135

Embracing a Pastoral Approach

What does it mean to be “pastoral”?

I’m a pastor. Have been for ten years. Best job I can imagine. I get to serve the God I love and work with the things our God loves most deeply: his word and his church. As the Senior Pastor of University Reformed Church I am 100% in favor of being “pastoral.”

So long as the word means what the Bible means for it to mean.

When I see the adjective “pastoral” placed in front of a noun it seems to me the word is almost always meant to convey, in contemporary parlance, a truncated set of virtues. A “pastoral approach” implies gentleness, patience, and a lot of listening. If someone is “pastoral” he is good with people, sensitive, and a calming influence. “Pastoral care” means comforting the sick, visiting widows, and lending a shoulder to cry on. These are all find examples of being a good pastor.

But these examples do not exhaust what the Bible means by “pastoral ministry.” My fear is that the soft virtues of pastoral care have so eclipsed the hard virtues that for many people a “pastoral approach” is another way of saying “amiable, personable, and psychological.” At worst, “pastoral” becomes that wonderful temperament we exude when we get through being preachy and theological. Slap the pastoral adjective in front of something and that thing becomes a whole lot sweeter. The biblical approach might be nasty and theological approach nefarious, but the pastoral approach sounds nice.

And yet, what is the “pastoral approach” except the approach of a shepherd? By definition, a shepherd is pastoral. That’s what the word means. So think about what shepherds must be like. According to Psalm 23, a good shepherd feeds, leads, guides, protects, and preserves. Shepherds in the ancient world were “remarkable and broadly capable persons.” As Timothy Laniak observes, “They were known for independence, resourcefulness, adaptability, courage and vigilance. Their profession cultivated a capacity for attentiveness, self-sacrifice, and compassion” (Shepherds After My Own Heart, 57). Shepherd leadership involves the use of authority, expressions of compassion, and protection of the flock. A “pastoral approach” may entail sympathy and patience, but the adjective pastoral must not be reduced to these things. The work of the shepherd encompasses everything from watching little lambs, ordering the sheep, and fending off wolves.

At its most foundational, pastoral ministry, Laniak concludes, “is the subtle blend of authority and care” (quoting Tidball, 247). Above all, the shepherd aims to serve the flock, even at great personal cost to himself. The shepherd is accountable for the sheep as their “protector, provider, and guide.” He must be the type of leader who can rule with a rod of iron (Psalm 2) and tenderly carry the nursing ewes (Isaiah 40). To be “pastoral” is to be tough and tender, courageous and comforting. The adjective must be sufficiently broad as to make sense of the broadness of the biblical imagery. Being pastoral is different than active listening combined with non-offensiveness. A truly pastoral approach exercises authority with compassion, provides protection through self-sacrifice, and looks after the weak by offering leadership that is strong.

PCA General Assembly 2012

Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos

Location: This year’s General Assembly was held in Louisville, Kentucky.

Moderator: Dr. Michael Ross was elected Moderator of the PCA’s 40th General Assembly. Dr. Ross is the senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, N.C. Dr. Ligon Duncan, senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, MS., nominated Dr. Ross and he was elected by common consent.

Numbers: The PCA increased in churches and mission churches from 1,757 in 2011 to 1,771 in 2012. There were 10,067 professions of faith in this past year. The membership of the PCA increased by 4,176 individuals to 350,990. The number of family units in the PCA saw an increase of 245 to 137,508. In 2012 the PCA will have 655 long term missionaries, 120 two year term missionaries, 380 intern missionaries, and 5,000 two week missionaries. RUF grew this past year to 140 campuses in 37 states and 58 presbyteries. There are four new RUF ministries scheduled to begin in 2012.

Major Issues/Actions of this Assembly

Theistic Evolution: The General Assembly chose not to make an in thesi statement regarding theistic evolution. Both in the Overtures Committee and on the floor  of the Assembly no one advocated for the theistic evolutionary view. However, there were many who argued that the Assembly needed no such statement because the Westminster Standards were sufficient in speaking to this matter.
 Paedocommunion: The Assembly has in consecutive years spoken pretty strongly against paedocommunion. The Assembly voted  down a motion to bring the Pacific Northwest Presbytery before the Standing Judicial Commission regarding its “persisting in the error of granting an exception which is out of accord, ‘that is hostile to the system or striking at the vitals of religion.’” However, the Assembly then proceeded to say that Pacific Northwest Presbytery’s response to the      General Assembly regarding its ordination of men with such an exception was its self unacceptable. It appears that the Assembly was not comfortable charging a Presbytery, but was equally uncomfortable with the      Pacific Northwest Presbytery ordaining men with such an exception and allowing the teaching of this practice.
Intinction:  The closest vote of the week came during the debate regarding intinction. The Overtures Committee came forward with both a majority and minority report. The majority report proposed to answer in the negative an overture which would have forbidden intinction in the PCA. The minority report was substituted for the majority report and passed by only 14 votes (348-334). The minority report was then approved by the Assembly. It is the first      step towards inserting language in our Book of Church Order which would      exclude intinction in the distributing of the Lord’s Table. This must now be approved by 2/3 of the Presbyteries and next year’s Assembly.
National Association of Evangelicals: An overture was sent to the Assembly requesting that the PCA leave the NAE. The Assembly decided to stay in the NAE for the time being, but asked that there be a report next year regarding the activities of the NAE. As was stated on the floor, this will be a time of “patient observation.”
Insider Movement: The first half of the study committee regarding the Insider      Movement was presented to the Assembly and was overwhelmingly adopted. The chairman of the committee rightly stated that Bible translation is “first and foremost a theological issue, not a contextual issue.”

Personal Encouragements

I continue to be amazed by the respectful tone of debate and discussion at the PCA General Assembly.
The  action taken by the Assembly on the Insider Movement was expected and encouraging. This is the PCA at its best. This denomination is filled with wonderfully gifted men, who should be speaking to issues such as this for the benefit of not only the PCA, but the wider body of Christ. How good it was to hear in a discussion of this magnitude, “This is first and foremost a theological issue, not a contextual issue.” Amen and Amen.
The PCA is rightly thinking through its sacramental theology. Intinction and paedocommunion are relatively new practices in Reformed circles. It is a blessing to see the PCA discussing, deliberating, and detailing what is acceptable      practice in regards to the Table.
Some of the NAE’s actions in the recent past have been questionable. And the PCA is patiently observing the NAE’s current practices in order to determine whether it should leave this association. This action seems wise. It is not overly reactive and yet notice has been given of our concerns and  therefore will not be a surprise to the rest of the NAE if the PCA does choose to leave.
Many overtures this year sought to correct a problem in how the Assembly operates. The corrections were welcomed in light of some of the problems witnessed at last year’s Assembly. Actual amendments to our constitution now require the overture to be referred to the representative Overtures      Committee. This helps to provide a little more balance between the permanent committees and the Assembly itself.

Personal Concerns

My greatest disappointment in this year’s meeting was the reluctance to issue a statement regarding theistic evolution. The arguments were numerous: the PCA has spoken to this in previous assemblies, our Standards already speak      to the issue, an in thesi statement does very little and is non-binding, etc. I have sympathies with each of these arguments. However, I think a true opportunity was lost. The PCA had an occasion to speak to a current issue that has arisen in our own circles. Have we spoken to this before?  Yes. Do our Standards speak to the issue? Yes. But could we not speak again? I believe the answer to that question, is, “yes,” as well.  Making a declarative statement in the      midst of a popular and growing discussion would have hurt nothing and could have actually been a loud and resounding voice in the midst of this cacophony.
I have now attended 8 or 9 General Assemblies running and floor debate over the past few years has become confusing. I have listened as dear brothers argue that judicial process should not have been sought against a man for his      views, but rather that amendments should be made to the constitution, when amendments are offered to the constitution arguments are voiced we should have erected a study committee to examine the issue, when a study committee is      erected it is argued that the proper way would be to charge a brother or amend the constitution, etc. Increasingly, it seems that whatever route is chosen is the wrong route.
The PCA  continues to grow and yet attendance at the Assembly is poor. There were only 1,075 delegates to this year’s GA.. Presbyterianism only works as we participate in its courts.
Only 278 Ruling Elders attended this year’s Assembly. That always makes me nervous. Presbyterians have tended to wander theologically by the driving force of liberal pastors. Ruling Elder involvement is essential to the      safeguarding of our denomination, its theology, and its practice.

Overall

It was a very good General Assembly. The PCA continues to be committed to the Scriptures and the Great Commission as evidenced by its Insider Movement report. It continues to be committed to the Reformed faith as demonstrated in its discussions regarding paedocommunion and intinction. Regardless of where one stands on these issues, the fact that a Reformed denomination values this means of grace enough to enter these discussions is encouraging. I continue to pray for my beloved denomination that we would persevere in truth, unity, love, and faithfulness—all to the glory of God.

The Idea of America

It has often been said that America was founded upon an idea. The country was not formed mainly for power or privilege but in adherence to a set of principles. Granted, these ideals have been, at various times in our history, less than ideally maintained. But the ideals remain. The idea persists.

If one sentence captures the quintessential idea of America, surely it the famous assertion contained in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Almost every word of this remarkable sentence, 236 years old today, is pregnant with meaning and strikingly relevant.

The United States of America began with the conviction that a nation should be founded upon truth. Not simply values or preferences, but upon truths. Self-evident truths that were true, are true, and will remain true no matter the time, the place, or the culture.

And central among these truths is the belief that all men are created equal. No one possesses more intrinsic worth for being born rich or poor, male or female, artisan or aristocracy. Of course, this truth, as much as any, unmasks our history of hypocrisy, for 3/5 of a person is an eternity from equality. But truth is still true. We all come into the world with the same rights and the same dignity–whether “gated community” in the world’s estimation or “trailer trash.”

These unalienable rights, we must note, are not granted by the Declaration of Independence. Our rights do not depend upon government for their existence. They are not owing to the largesse of the state or the beneficence of any institution. The rights of man are the gifts of God. The Creator endows; the state exists to protect. These unalienable rights can be suppressed or denied. But they cannot be annulled. We possess them–no matter what kings or parliaments say or presidents and congress decree–by virtue of being created in the image of our Creator.

And what are these rights? The Declaration mentions three: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Obviously, these rights are not untethered from all other considerations. Life should not be lived in a way that means death for others. Our pursuit of happiness should not make others miserable. The Declaration is not calling for anarchy. It believes in government, good limited government rightly construed and properly constrained. But the rights enumerated here are still surprisingly radical. No matter how young, how old, how tiny, how in utero, or how ill, every person deserves a chance at life. Every one deserves a chance at self-governing. Everyone has the right to pursue his self-interest. There’s a reason the Founding Fathers did not wax eloquent about safety and security. It’s because they believed freedom and liberty to be better ideals, loftier goals, and more conducive to the common good.

I understand the dangers of an unthinking “God and country” mentality, let alone a gospel-less civil religion. But I also think love of country–like love of family or love of work–is a proximate good. Patriotism is not beneath the Christian, even for citizens of a superpower.

So on this Independence Day I’m thankful most of all for the cross of Christ and the freedom we have from the world, the flesh, and the devil. But I’m also thankful for the United States and the freedoms we enjoy. I’m thankful for the big drops of biblical truth which seeped into the blood stream of Thomas Jefferson. I’m thankful for our imperfect ideals. I’m thankful for God-given rights and hard-fought liberty. I’m thankful for the idea of America.

TGC Atlantic Canada Conference

The Atlantic Chapter of The Gospel Coalition will hold its first regional conference, August 7-9, 2012, at Grace Baptist Church in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.

The theme of the conference is “Magnificent Holiness: Growing in the Grace of the Gospel“. The good folks in PEI asked if I would mention the conference since I’m speaking at it. Mike Bullmore and Tim Challies are the other plenary speakers. As a special feature, Logos Bible Software will have products available and be there to help pastors and ministry leaders enhance their study and preparation time.

While the conference is aimed at pastors, leaders and students of pastoral ministry, all are welcome to attend.

You can register here.

Worth Weeping For

Dealing with sin is always hard, whether its owning up to our sin or confronting someone else’s. I know it is possible for Christians to be giddy in pointing out the sins of others. We all run the risk of getting pride and vindictiveness wrapped around the axle of truth.

But I also know the struggle a good many Christians have in calling sin “sin.” They feel terrible because someone’s feelings might get hurt. They hang their heads low to know that sincere people disagree with them. They get wobbly in knees at the thought of offending the culture, their family, or their friends. Very few of us enjoy confrontation, especially with those who also call upon the name of Christ. We dislike the whole business of discipline, rebuke, and drawing boundaries. We hate to see the tears of those who believe with all their might that a certain doctrine, practice, or sexual behavior is commended by Scripture when we know that Scripture does not.

And yet, something should eat us up inside even more. Something should disturb us more than the feelings of those with whom we disagree. Something should move us to tears more than the tears of those who feel pained by our convictions and correction.

Psalm 119:53 Hot indignation seizes me because of the wicked, who forsake your law.

Psalm 119:136 My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law.

Psalm 119:139 My zeal consumes me, because my foes forget your words.

Psalm 119:158 I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands.

With all the sensitive emotions and wounded spirits in the church today, who will weep for the forsaking of God’s law? With all the attention given to the feelings of others, even those who disobey the word of God, who will consider how God feels about our actions? Is it not worse to grieve the Holy Spirit than to grieve those who call sin “holy”?

The language of the Psalmist may sound harsh to us, but that’s a testimony to how much little we treasure the commands of God. If we truly want our hearts to break for things that break the heart of God, we will weep to see the word so badly handled and so boldly broken in our day. God have mercy on us all.

Monday Morning Nostalgia

It was nice to watch some of the U.S. Olympic Trials this weekend. Gets me excited for the real deal in London in a month. And since it’s America’s Independence Day on Wednesday, I start feeling patriotic and decided to highlight a few of our famous moments in summer Olympic history. I would have embedded more videos but apparently the parents of NBC executives never taught their children to share.

What are you favorite moments from the summer Olympics, for your country–U.S., Canada, or something else? Here are a few of mine. The video quality is not the greatest.

Defending the Faith Requires Definitions

J. Gresham Machen:

Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definitions of terms. Men discourse eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, and faith, but they are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms. You speak of Christ? What Christ? You speak of atonement? What atonement? What is the nature of the atonement? Faith? What kind of faith? What is the nature of the faith you speak of?

It can feel tedious at times, and perhaps some of our rigorous “definers” lack charity, but where would the church be without careful attention to precise language? How weak and impoverished would the faith be if we never bothered to define the Trinity, or justification, or inerrancy? And how much healthier will we leave the church if we carefully define terms like missional, social justice, and gospel? Liberalism grows where meanings are assumed and careful definitions are eschewed.

What Happened at the RCA General Synod?

The short answer is: a lot. Some of it was incredibly heartening–making new friends with some dear brothers and sisters, laughing with old friends, and having sweet times of prayer and fellowship outside of Synod. Some of Synod was goofy, like putting sticky notes on paper cubes and walking by the massage tent (no joke). It was an exhausting week, one from which I still have not recovered. I’m glad I don’t have to go back for five years.

But while there are many experiences and frustrations to share, let me cut to the chase and summarize the two biggest issues. Both items are not being described entirely accurately in the outside press.

Homosexuality

The RCA has been embroiled in the homosexuality issue since 1978. Since that time the General Synod has consistently said that homosexuality is a sin according to the word of God. Increasingly, this understanding has being challenged and sometimes outright ignored. The denomination is clearly divided.

This spring several classes (think: presbyteries) sent overtures to the General Synod urging the Synod to restate and strengthen its position on homosexuality. One of those overtures came from our church, through our classis (South Grand Rapids). Overtures do not automatically make it to the floor of Synod. Instead, they go to an overtures committee, and then that committee makes a recommendation to approve or deny the overture, or they can recommend something else. In this case, they essentially denied the overtures from the classes and offered a new recommendation. On Monday morning, the Advisory Committee on Overtures and New Business put the following R-56 before the Synod:

To instruct the General Synod Council to appoint a study group of up to twelve members, representative of the diverse views of the denomination, and including at least two members of the Commission on Theology, and one General Synod professor, to prepare a paper and study guide that provide a biblical, theological, ethical, and pastoral perspective on homosexual persons and relationships, and to recommend next steps in the church’s ongoing discernment, for report to the 2014 General Synod; and further,

during this time of study and discernment, the General Synod calls upon members of the church to regard one another with the love of Christ, and that the church’s office bearers and assemblies exercise mutual forbearance by refraining from:

ordaining or accepting the ordination of persons in same-sex relationships
performing same-sex marriages, civil unions, or blessing ceremonies
disciplinary actions against persons in same-sex relationships
disciplinary actions against office bearers and assemblies that support the ordination and union of persons in same-sex relationships
deliberative debate and policy decisions relating to persons in same-sex relationships.

Reasons:

1.   The RCA is committed to careful, comprehensive study of all matters that impact the life and ministry of the church. The most recent studies concerning homosexual persons and the church were received by General Synod in 1978 and 1979, thirty-four and thirty-three years ago. During this time, our socio-cultural and ecclesial contexts have changed:

In the U.S., some states have legalized civil unions and same-sex marriages.
In Canada, the Civil Marriage Act defined marriage, for civil purposes, as the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others, thus legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide, while also protecting the right of the church not to perform such marriages.
In some contexts, God is drawing large numbers of homosexual Christians into RCA congregations.
The General Synod has received and heard a request for help and guidance as we respond to our changed situations.

2.   Restating the interpretive position of the General Synod by resolution is unnecessary, and asking the General Synod by resolution to direct classes concerning the discipline of their members is a violation of the church’s order.

3.   As the body of Christ, we are called to mutual love and accountability and to make manifest the unity of the church which is both gift and obligation.

This recommendation was a major disappointment to conservatives in the denomination. We argued that we do not need another study committee or more dialogue. We know what the Bible says and two more years from a study group like this will only muddy the waters. More importantly, we felt we were being asked to suspend the third mark of the church by refraining from disciplining in the situations outlined above. Had this recommendation passed, it would have been disastrous for the RCA and could have precipitated a number of departures from the denomination. This recommendation did NOT pass.

Instead, we offered a substitute motion:

While compassion, patience, and loving support should be shown to all those who struggle with same-sex desires, the General Synod reaffirms our official position that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Holy Scriptures, therefore any person, congregation, or assembly which advocates homosexual behavior or provides leadership for a service of same-sex marriage or a similar celebration has committed a disciplinable offense.

And further, the General Synod Council shall oversee the creation of an eight member committee made up of representatives appointed by each of the regional synods to pray and work together to present a way forward for our denomination given the disagreement in our body relative to homosexuality. The purpose of the committee is not to revisit our stated position, but shall operate with the understanding expressed earlier in this recommendation and issue a report with practical recommendations to the General Synod of 2013.

The debate on this substitute motion was, according to many long time observers, the most torturous they had ever seen. The Synod had to vote to substitute the motion and then vote to approve the motion itself. Along the way, more liberal voices challenged that the motion was out of order. The chair ruled in their favor. Each time, we had to appeal the ruling of the chair and put it to a vote before the house. At one point in the parliamentary confusion, the motion survived by a vote of 109-108. All told, there were four votes taken just to overturn the ruling of the President. Several good men and women spoke articulately and courageously in favor of the motion. In the end, despite opposition on the floor from the a seminary president, a General Synod Professor of Theology, the Past-President of Synod, and the two previous General Secretaries, the motion PASSED by a vote of 120-91.

I’ve seen it reported that what we mainly did was appoint another committee. This is not accurate. The discussion centered around the first paragraph, especially the language about a “disciplinable offense.” And the committee, it should be noted, is not an open ended study committee, but one that is to make recommendation for a way forward in our denomination given our established position and the continuing diversity of theological opinion.

Women’s Ordination

In 1980, the Synod approved a set of amendments to the Book of Church Order (BCO) which have become known as the “conscience clauses.” These clauses, later adopted by more than two-thirds of the classes, were designed to protect women seeking ordination as well as those in support or in opposition to women’s ordination. On a number of occasions, various commissions or classes have wanted to remove the conscience clauses. At this Synod several different bodies were aiming for their removal, most directly the Commission for Women.

After about an hour of debate on Monday night the Synod, by a margin of roughly 2-1, voted to remove the consciences clauses from the BCO. This does not mean the clauses have been officially removed. The change still needs approval from two-thirds of the RCA’s 45 classes. Last time the Synod voted to remove the conscience clauses (2004), the classis vote was 28-17 in favor of removal, just short of the two-thirds necessary for approval.

If the clauses are finally removed–and we won’t know that until next spring–it’s unclear what all would change for complementarians in the denomination, but at the very least it would make it difficult for them to continue in the denomination and to continue to raise up men with similar convictions for ministry in the RCA. And given the fact that complementarians are the ones on the front lines laboring to maintain a biblical stance on homosexuality, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the future of the RCA rests on razor’s edge.

NOTE: There has been some confusion about the so-called conscience clauses and what they do. The clauses refer to a series of amendments added to the BCO in 1980 to “maintain peace in diversity in the RCA concerning women as church officers.” The conscience clauses were designed (a) to protect women by prohibiting classes from obstructing their ordination which would now be legal, and (b) to protect those who did not agree with women’s ordination by not forcing them to participate in the ordination of women. One key section reads:

Ministers shall not be pressured in such a way as to lead either one who supports or one who opposes, on scriptural grounds, the ordination of women to church offices to offend against one’s conscience; nor shall any minister be penalized for conscientious objection to or support of the ordination of women to church offices; nor shall any minister obstruct by unconstitutional means the election, ordination, or installation of a woman to church offices. (BCO Chapter 1, Part II, Article 12, Section 15)

Although the clauses were designed to protect both sides, as the denomination has become more thoroughly egalitarian, the clauses are now seen chiefly as a protection for those opposed to women’s ordination. Many egalitarians see the clauses as inconsistent and demeaning to women. Complementarians see the clauses as giving them a home in the RCA.

A Call to Remember

The only thing more difficult than finding the truth is not losing it. What starts out as new and precious becomes plain and old.  What begins a thrilling discovery becomes a rote exercise.  What provokes one generation to sacrifice and passion becomes in the next generation a cause for rebellion and apathy.  Why is it that denominations and church movements almost always drift from their theological moorings?  Why is it that people who grow up in the church are often less articulate about their faith than the new Christian who converted at forty-five?  Why is it that those who grow up with creeds and confessions are usually the ones who hate them most?

Perhaps it’s because truth is like the tip of your nose-it’s hardest to see when it’s right in front of you?

No doubt, the church in the West has many new things to learn.  But for the most part, everything we need to learn is what we’ve already forgotten.  The chief theological task now facing the Western church is not to reinvent or to be relevant, but to remember.  We must remember the old, old story.  We must remember the faith once delivered to the saints.  We must remember the truths that spark reformation, revival, and regeneration.

The Scriptures are fully true. Jesus is fully God. The Father appoints. The Son accomplishes. The Spirit applies. God created the world from nothing. God oversees everything. God can do whatever he wants, and he wants you to work hard. We are forgiven at the cross. We are justified by faith. We must show our faith with good deeds and holy lives. Jesus is our substitute. Jesus is the only way. Jesus is coming again to judge the living and the dead. Hell is terrible and forever. Heaven is eternal and better than we can imagine. Come to Christ. Come to the cross. Come and die, and behold, we live. Keep on saying these things over and over. And don’t ever forget.

Portions of this post were taken from The Good News We Almost Forgot.

Where and How Do We Draw the Line?

I returned yesterday from a grueling week at our General Synod. It is so good to be home. I’ll probably write more about the experience later. But suffice it to say, the theme of unity was heard early and often (and late and frequently and repeatedly).

Which brings me to the article I wrote in Tabletalk for the new July issue, “Where and How Do We Draw the Line?”

*******

“In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, charity.”

Sounds nice, but which are which? Everyone wants to be unified in what really matters, agree to disagree on what isn’t as important, and exercise love in all things.  But no one seems to agree on what really matters a lot, a little, or not at all. As hard as it can be determining the content of our faith, it can be even harder figuring out where to put our fences.

This business of deciding where and how to draw doctrinal lines is incredibly complex. I can’t begin to do all the necessary biblical, theological, historical, and practical exploration in this short article. But perhaps I can sketch an outline of some important considerations.

In that vein, here are seven steps we ought to pursue in establishing doctrinal boundaries. The explanation of the points will get shorter as we move through the list.

1. Establish what are the essentials of the faith. This is the most critical step. We need to know what constitutes the irreducible core of the apostolic gospel. One way to determine the essentials is to look at the Pastoral Epistles (1, 2 Timothy and Titus). In these letters Paul talks a lot about the importance of right doctrine. We can get a good indication of what doctrines matter most by looking at several categories of passages in the Pastorals.

First off we have the “trustworthy sayings” (1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:11-13; Titus 3:4-8). With the possible exception of the saying in 1 Timothy 3, each “trustworthy saying” deals with salvation. We see several interlocking truths: Jesus Christ is a Savior who came to save sinners. Salvation comes not by works but through faith and Spirit-wrought regeneration. Those who truly believe will devote themselves to good works and persevere to the end.

Second, we can look at the various creedal formulas (1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; 3:16; 6:15-16; Titus 2:11-15). With these verses we get an even better sense of what constitutes the good deposit of the gospel. There is one God and he is unspeakably glorious. There is one mediator, Jesus Christ, who gave his life for ours. Jesus is a great God and Savior who appeared in the flesh and ascended into heaven. He is coming again. We have been saved by the grace of God that we might live holy lives.

Third, Paul oppose certain doctrines associated with false teaching (1 Tim. 1:8-11; 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 2:18; Titus 1:16). These errors boil down to two mistakes: legalism and license. Some false teachers were leading people to perdition by calling darkness light and insisting that a life of sin was consistent with the gospel. On the other hand, others were pushing an unhealthy asceticism and imposing manmade rules. Both mistakes threatened the gospel.

Fourth, we get a glimpse of the essentials of the faith by noting what beliefs are explicitly linked with the gospel and sound doctrine (2 Tim. 1:8-10; 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:14-17). We see in these verses that sound faith is determined by our fidelity to Scripture. We also see that the gospel is a message about Jesus Christ who gave us grace before the ages began and saved us unto works and for immortality. This is all because of grace, not according to our works, but in accordance with God’s eternal purposes.

From these four sets of passages we can begin to sketch what the essentials look like: God is glorious; we are sinners; and Jesus Christ is our Savior and God. Jesus Christ is the son of God and God in the flesh; he died and rose again; he ascended into heaven; he is coming again. Salvation is by sovereign grace, according to the converting power of the Holy Spirit, through faith, not according to works. The Scriptures are all inspired and all true. Jesus Christ saves us from sin, saves us for eternal life, and saves us unto holiness. Any gospel which denies these essentials—or ignores them, or marginalizes them, or leads people to doubt them, or is ashamed of them—is, in effect, a different gospel.

2. Listen to the communion of the saints. Tradition must never trump Scripture. But if we love Scripture we will learn from the traditions of the church. We are not the first people to read the Bible. We are not the only ones who have had the Spirit to help us. God has been at work over the centuries to shape and protect the truth by means of his church (1 Tim. 3:15). This means we should be extra cautious before believing something almost no Christians have believed (like the goodness of homosexuality) and extremely hesitant before rejecting something almost every church has accepted (like the reality of hell). By the same token, we should be less dogmatic about issues that have divided Christians for centuries (like the millennium or the nature of the creation days).

Ancient creeds like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedonian Definition are not infallible, but they have served as effective guard rails keeping God’s people on the path of truth. It would take extraordinary new insight or extraordinary hubris to jettison these ancient formulas. They provide faithful summaries of the most important doctrines of the faith. That’s why when the Heidelberg Catechism asks the question “What then must a Christian believe?” it refers us to the Apostles’ Creed, “a creed beyond doubt, and confessed through the world” (Q/A 22, 23).

Similarly, Calvin states (as a kind of throwaway comment) that the “principles of religion” include: “God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like” (Inst. 4.1.12). John Owen provides a similar list, asserting that the “principal fundamentals of Christian religion” affirm “the Lord Christ to be the eternal Son of God, with the use of efficacy of his death, as also the personal subsistence and deity of the Holy Spirit” (Works 15:83). Later he expands the list to include: believing in God the Father, looking for salvation in Christ alone, professing obedience unto him, believing that God raised him from the dead, insisting on personal holiness and “many other sacred truths of the same importance” (84). These short statements—and they are too short!—confirm that we were on the right track with our summaries statements in point one.

3. Distinguish between landing theology and launching theology. Some doctrines represent different conclusions reached from basically the same premises. Other doctrines are starting points that set us on a wildly different trajectory. For example, the difference between postmillennialism and amillennialism is not a difference over first things. The two sides simply disagree how best to interpret a few disputed texts. It’s a matter of landing theology. By contrast, the doctrine of Scripture (to give just one example) is about launching theology. Get that doctrine wrong and we are bound to mess up everything else.

4. Distinguish between the explicit teaching of Scripture and the application of scriptural principles. The Bible clearly teaches that parents train their children in the way of the Lord. It is less clear about how to do that. The Bible does not definitely answer the question of public school, Christian school, or home school. Different Christians make reach different conclusions based on good Christian principles. To make the Bible speak dogmatically on this issue is to force the Bible into all sorts of anachronisms.

5. Distinguish between church existence and church health. Lose some doctrines and you no longer have a church. Lose other doctrines and your church is not everything it should be. Still a problem worth correcting, but you can exercise more patience and gentleness in getting there.

6. Avoid foolish controversies. This is another common theme in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 1:4-6; 4:7; 6:4, 20; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16, 23; 4:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9). Some doctrinal disputes are worth dying for, while others are just dumb. We should steer clear of theological wrangling that is speculative (goes beyond Scripture), vain (more about being right than being helpful), endless (no real answer is possible or desired), and needless (mere semantics).

7. Allow for areas of disagreement, especially in dealing with “conversion baggage.” The Apostle Paul is most flexible when it comes to traditions of new converts. He is willing for Christians to be convinced in their own mind about certain days and foods (Rom. 14:5). This isn’t because Paul doesn’t know what to think. He knows that these external habits aren’t necessary. We cannot insist on them. But he’s willing to let others continue in them so as not to violate conscience. You may know that drinking alcohol and eating meat on Fridays during Lent are perfectly fine, but it’s not worth upsetting the sincere Christians who still have trouble with such practices.

Over, around, and in all these steps we should put on love—love for God, love for neighbor, love for the truth, and love for the church. The point in drawing lines is not to be right or even courageous. The goal is that we love God by proclaiming and protecting his word and love others by putting up fences to keep out the wolves and nurture the green pastures. The hard work of setting boundaries should not be ignored. God gives us the task for his glory and for our good.