Much of the division within churches and denominations has to do with disagreement over the list of essentials. The essentials of one are not necessarily the essentials of another.

This thought came to mind when reading about an address given by Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Seminary, during a conference on “Southern Baptists, Evangelicals and the Future of Denominationalism” held in October at Union University in Jackson, Tenn.

According to a Baptist Press report, Akin said Southern Baptists hold a common belief in the triune God, rejection of evolution, the full deity and perfect humanity of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the need for regenerate church membership, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the reality of an eternal heaven and an eternal hell, and the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.

He prefaced that list with an affirmation of biblical “inerrancy” and the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message doctrinal statement. Then he added that Southern Baptists also agree on the “sanctity of heterosexual marriage, the goodness of sex in marriage and the gift of children, lots of them.”

But, according to Akin, some other much-discussed issues should not be placed on the essential/non-negotiable list. Non-essentials for Akin, according to the article, included: “Calvinism, elders, whether certain spiritual gifts are still active, the time of the rapture and the nature of the millennium.”

My interest is not in arguing with Akin’s list, but simply to note that division into denominations and within denominations is most often tied to whose list of essentials wins out.

It is curious to note, however, that Akin considers opposition to evolutionary science to be an essential belief while tagging the Calvinist position that Jesus died for a predetermined, limited number of persons rather than the whole world as nonessential. The reasoning for that conclusion, of course, is that Akin opposes evolution and affirms Calvinism.

However, it seems extremely odd that a particular viewpoint on a debated scientific matter would make the essentials list while a doctrinal position on the offer of salvation would not.

Where Southern Baptist leaders draw lines these days matters little to me. I’ve been on the outside of their efforts at exclusion for a long time and prefer life out here. But my interest lies in the ways in which dividing lines are drawn with markers of so-called essential doctrine.

One criticism of the moderate Baptist movement, sometimes from within and often from without, is an uneasiness with spelling out a list of essentials that participants are asked to affirm. Charges are made that moderates are wishy-washy on doctrinal and moral issues or too willing to accommodate any and all beliefs.

However, it is the heavy-handed use of an ever-changing list of “essentials” by some Baptists that makes other Baptists shy away from even the appearance of imposing their beliefs on another. And much of it has to do with a historic Baptist understanding that no one Baptist’s interpretation of scripture should be forced upon another.

Yet even some moderate Baptists, displeased with or excluded by the narrow doctrinal exclusion of Southern Baptists, feel the need for some clear, even if very limited, parameters. Others feel such fence-building should be left to local congregations — out of respect for church autonomy — while denominational groups simply coordinate the mission and ministry opportunities of these diverse congregations.

From a practical standpoint, it is hard to rally around the “essentials” when essentially everyone has a different set. Yet it is possible to rally around shared commitments — to missions, disaster relief, religious liberty, etc. — despite holding different lists of beliefs.

Someone asked about my own list of essentials. My surprise was how little desire could be mustered up for producing one. It has nothing to do with my lack of belief in Christian doctrine, but my keen awareness that my list carries little weight with others.

It is one thing to sit down with a group of fellow believers and discover what we hold in common. It is another for a select few to create a list of beliefs deemed essential — and start excluding everyone who can’t sign on the dotted line.

Of course, it’s even more challenging when those calling for allegiance to their “essentials” keep changing the list.

My resistance to producing or affirming a list of essential beliefs is not because doctrine is considered unimportant — but because such efforts in my recent memory have been used more as wedges than unifiers. And, for me, the essentials seem to get fewer and firmer as I get older.

[This editorial stems from a recent blog entry and feedback.]