A Popular Saying
You may have heard the saying within Christian circles: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase first appeared in 1627 during the Thirty Years' War, a time of intense religious violence and division.
In that context, the expression held profound significance. It reminded Christians that not all matters of doctrine are equally important. Some essential or primary issues are worth dying for, while non-essential or secondary beliefs are matters of opinion or personal conviction. The saying also emphasizes the biblical call to treat others with love and charity.
In the first century, this principle would have been equally relevant. The Jewish-Gentile divide in many congregations created diversity in beliefs and practices on secondary issues, such as celebrating ceremonial feast days and adhering to dietary laws (Rom. 14:1ff). Christians then, as now, needed the reminder that these differences were not grounds for division.
Today, we are no longer waging war over secondary issues. We have grown accustomed to diversity in belief and practice and often place religious liberty above all else. Because we value diversity and liberty over unity, the unity in the life and practice of a church is often pushed to the side or sacrificed for the sake of personal opinions. But is this right? How are Christians called to participate within the body of believers?
A Different Context
I recently attended a gathering of Presbyterians, Baptists, and non-denominational pastors and church leaders. Differences on secondary doctrinal matters—such as baptism, ecclesiology, eschatology, and cultural engagement—were numerous. Yet, there was no conflict, debate, or argument. Despite diverse practices and beliefs, the atmosphere was one of mutual respect and charity.
This is largely because, in 21st-century Western society, religious tolerance and liberty are highly prized. In the United States, freedom of speech and religious assembly are constitutionally guaranteed rights.
However, this cultural bent toward liberty has led American Evangelicals to redefine “liberty” on secondary issues in ways that undermine church unity. What began as a call to tolerate differences has become a justification for unbridled individualism. Whereas Jesus prayed that the church “may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:11), many evangelicals have prioritized personal preferences at the expense of the church unity Jesus prayed for.
Liberty That Undermines Church Unity
I recently encountered this tension during a membership class at our church. While teaching about baptism, I was asked by a prospective member (let’s call her “Jane”), “Why won’t you immerse people in baptism?”
I explained that, in my view, mode of baptism is a secondary issue and not essential for church membership. I shared that our church elders had agreed to administer baptism by pouring and believed the mode of baptism was not essential to the sacrament. I emphasized that we gladly welcomed those who had been baptized by either immersion or sprinkling into membership. Finally, I explained that our church sought a unified practice on secondary issues to promote unity, given that they were not essential to salvation.
A few weeks later, I learned that Jane, disagreeing with our practice, had a close family member immerse her teenager in a local pond. She invited several members of our church to participate in the event.
This negatively influenced church unity in several ways. Not only did it create confusion within our congregation about our practice of baptism, but it also created a sense of mistrust between those who participated in the baptism and church elders. What is more, it unintentionally communicated that a person’s personal preferences on secondary issues should be prioritized over unity in the church body.
The Difference Between Primary and Secondary Issues
So, what distinguishes primary from secondary issues?
A primary issue is a doctrine or practice essential for someone to believe in order to be a Christian. For instance, denying the true humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ places someone outside the Christian faith. Similarly, denying the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit disqualifies someone from orthodoxy.
Primary issues are also worth dividing—or even dying—for. If a church denies the authority of Scripture, a family should leave and join a church with an orthodox view of the Bible. Likewise, Christians facing martyrdom for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus should willingly lay down their lives.
Secondary issues, by contrast, are not essential for someone to be a Christian. These include the mode of baptism, the type of bread used in communion, musical styles in worship, views of the millennium, and church government.
Secondary issues are not worth dividing or dying for. No one should be martyred over a preference for episcopal church governance, nor should a family feel obligated to leave a church over the mode of baptism.
Rethinking Liberty in the Church
In contemporary American Evangelicalism, however, liberty on secondary issues has come to mean “freedom to do what I want,” often at the expense of church unity. For many, this liberty becomes an excuse for individualism, where personal preferences supersede communal harmony.
This attitude stands in stark contrast to the example of the Apostle Paul. In his letters to the Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians, Paul consistently approached secondary issues as opportunities to sacrifice personal preferences for the sake of unity. For him, liberty on secondary matters was not about personal freedom but about loving surrender.
Take, for example, Paul’s response to eating food offered to idols. He asked rhetorically, “Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” (1 Cor. 9:4). The implied answer is, “Yes, Paul, you have liberty!” Yet, Paul chose to forgo his liberty for the sake of unity, saying, “Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12).
For Paul, liberty on secondary issues meant sacrificing personal preferences to promote church unity.
A Call for Sacrificial Liberty
We need to rethink our understanding of liberty in 21st-century Evangelicalism. While the saying, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity,” was helpful in its original context, it may no longer suit our current cultural climate.
Today, individualism and the prioritization of personal liberty have eroded communal unity in many churches. Perhaps a revised version of the saying would better reflect the biblical ideal: “In essentials, we will die; in non-essentials, we will sacrifice; in all things, we will love.”
This reframing reminds us that true liberty is not about asserting personal rights but about laying them down for the sake of love and unity in the body of Christ.
Footnotes
Mark Ross, In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/essentials-unity-non-essentials-liberty-all-things
