Fundamentals (Christianity)

To begin, let me state clearly what this category is not:

  • It is not a defense of theism against atheism (or pantheism or panentheism or…)
  • It is not a defense of Christianity against other theistic religions
  • It is not a defense of my specific doctrinal beliefs against other orthodox Christian beliefs
  • It is not an assertion that in order to be a “good” American, one must be a Christian (though Judeo-Christian morality likely must be rather pervasive)

It is instead a series of essays making the case that some of the same ideas (largely postmodernism and related ideas) that are corroding civic life in 21st century America are also corrosive to orthodox, historical Christianity. If USA (version 1 or version 2) is to survive long-term, it needs its Christians to possess a mature, accurate and robust theology, and to engage with the public square, “speaking the truth in love.

Note also that this category is addressed specifically to Christian readers (unlike all the other categories on the site).

Because it will be necessary subsequently, I want to be very clear about what I mean by “orthodox, historical Christianity” (or, as C.S. Lewis put it, “mere Christianity“). Christianity exists in many forms, with many different doctrines. These doctrines have been categorized by theologians into three levels:

  1. Primary doctrines – the fundamental beliefs that mark the broadest outlines of orthodoxy. Refining and clarifying these doctrines was the focus of the “creeds” of the early church. Generally speaking, an orthodox Christian can affirm both* the Nicene Creed (usually the later 381 version) and the “Apostles’ Creed.” There may be preference for one or the other, but it’s quite rare to affirm one and deny the other. Examples of these doctrines are the deity and humanity of Christ, the authority of scripture, et al. Read the creeds for (essentially) an exhaustive list of these.
  2. Secondary doctrines – beliefs derived from the use of a particular intellectually coherent hermeneutic framework to interpret the Bible as a whole (and, in my view, such a framework should have a fairly ancient intellectual lineage – novel hermeneutic frameworks are highly prone to error, subtle heresy and wishful thinking**). Differences in these doctrines produce congregational and denominational boundaries, but do not normally prevent joint work across these boundaries. Examples are the mode and meaning of baptism, women in the pastorate, forms of church polity, et al.
  3. Tertiary doctrines – beliefs derived from specific church traditions or perhaps a choice of a specific “systematic theology.” Often these doctrines arise not so much from application of a specific hermeneutic framework, but rather from opposition to other such frameworks. Differences in these doctrines do not normally rupture close fellowship within a congregation. Examples are eschatology details, Calvinism (or not), et al.

There are other ways to organize the Christian doctrines – there is, for example, the Anglican*** tradition of the “three-legged stool” of scripture, reason and tradition (derived from the 1593 writings of Hooker, though the “stool” image was a later addition by others). One might harmonize these two by observing that primary doctrines tend to be scriptural, secondary doctrines tend to be reason-based, and tertiary doctrines tend to be tradition-based (though this is certainly not an exact correspondence). I would note that there are Christian theological traditions in which the claim is made that only scripture is used in their tradition. Even in those, though, the Bible is not self-interpreting – hermeneutics always comes into play, even in simply making scripture internally consistent. Thus, reason is always used to some extent, and tradition always influences the way in which reason is brought to bear on scripture.

My focus in these essays will be primary doctrines. I certainly have my own beliefs about lots of secondary and tertiary doctrines (namely, the correct beliefs) but they’re not really relevant to the task at hand. I would also mention that I try very hard to hold my secondary and tertiary beliefs loosely enough so that, should I find out in Heaven that I was wrong about some of them, I won’t be too disappointed.


* I am omitting here the later Athanasian Creed for clarity, as it has always seemed to me to be more catechistic than creedal in nature. In any event, I am hard-pressed to see any area where one could affirm either of the other two creeds and deny the Athanasian Creed (or vice versa).

** I will mention here that moving theology into academia has been somewhat of a problem for orthodox Christianity. A Ph.D. dissertation is supposed to be a novel contribution to the field – the easiest path to a novel contribution in theology is, well, heresy. Not the only path, but certainly the path of least resistance.

*** One might deduce from this statement and a few other statements in this series of posts that I am, perhaps, an Anglican. This is incorrect, though I do have an appreciation for Anglican theology, and regard theological differences between myself and orthodox Anglicans (for example, GAFCON) as entirely secondary or tertiary in nature.

† I would be remiss if I did not mention, though, that there are some severely exclusive groups within the Christian tradition (the Campbellites come to mind) who really believe that they are the “only Christians.” These are very much the minority within the Christian church at the moment. I would put them into my framework by saying perhaps that they possess a secondary doctrine which says, “all doctrines are primary.” For the rest, we are much more like the early 20th century New York bishop William T. Manning, who reportedly, when asked if there was the possibility of salvation outside the Protestant Episcopal Church, replied, “Perhaps so, but no gentleman would avail himself of it.”