On "nonessential theology"

I think that this statement needs a little clearing up, because Steven is right that it doesn't come off quite right in the previous blog.

Let me be clear: I think that there is a right answer to every theological question. I don't think the God of the Bible comes across as a do it yourself kind of God. But I also know that we are deeply flawed beings who are rarely entirely correct on anything. We are the almost-there-people, the I-think-I-know's. In the flesh we are incapable of fully understanding God or our relationship with him. We are called to serve , follow and trust that he will reveal himself to us. If we keep this in mind, we can recognize that there will never be the kind of uniformity-of-thought that appeals so much to the logical mind. Our beliefs are in part a result of our personal, family, and community history, so theology is a very diverse field. I think this is okay, not because I think that all of these ideas might be right--clearly they cannot all be right--but because I can recognize my own inability to say authoritatively that I know.

So I think that discussion and argument are good. And I think that we need to continue to search after the one truth--God. Christ said he was the way the truth and the life. In seeking him we seek truth.

So this is where we come to my--perhaps artificial distinction between essential and nonessential theology. I think that there is a certain corpus of thought (I think the Nicene Creed is a good place to start) based on the Bible which is essential to Christianity. I also think that there are a lot of grey areas where uncertainty looms. This is the realm of thought, discussion and debate. But in this realm, even if we disagree we can recognize the Christian-ness of the other.

In this I follow Augustine who said--"In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in everything charity."