It seems like almost every time Christians from different backgrounds and theological persuasions get together and talk about their beliefs, it either ends up in a battle where each side tries very hard to assert that their own interpretation is closer to the original meaning of the Bible and to God's intent than the other (some favorite battlegrounds are questions of free will and predestination, timing and modes of baptism, symbolism or realism in the sacraments in general, women in church leadership, the role of certain spiritual gifts, the question how the church ought to engage or not engage contemporary culture ... the list goes on) or the conversation purposely steers clear of all these minefields and tries to stick to common ground as much as possible to avoid those kind of debates altogether for the sake of peace or because of aversion toward tension and conflict..
Some have pointed out that the New Testament in general emphasizes the priority of the way of believing over a mere assent to orthodox content. Some examples in that context would be John 5:39f., 17:3; 1 Corinthians 13:2; James 1:26f., 2:19.
Yet at the same time, doctrine and the soundness of doctrine was considered anything but irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it played a crucial role in the life and preservation of the church through both teaching and defending the truth: Matthew 28:29; Acts 2:42; 18:24-28; 20:30f.; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Galatians 1:8; 2:5; 1 Timothy 4:1-6+16; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7-9; Revelation 2:2,14-16,20-24; 22:18-19.
I think it's important to note that all the warnings regarding false teaching and doctrine were directed at attempts to either pervert grace into legalism or a license for immorality, or tried to diminish Jesus and his incarnation by focussing on secret knowledge, asceticism or a spirituality that neglected physical needs and an active expression of love towards the poor. Orthodoxy was important for one reason and one reason only: false belief leads away from God, away from love and grace, and thereby leads people into sin and self-destruction.
Maybe the best way to understand orthodoxy is to look to sound teaching as both the nurturing ground of our faith and also as signposts. Without correct teaching, we wouldn't know what God is like, what he's done for us and how we can find life in a new relationship with him. It's not the teaching itself that gives life or the degree of our understanding of these truths. But God has designed them to lead us to Himself by pointing to His Son. Sound teaching will always make Jesus central. And because Jesus is central, both his own teachings in the 4 gospels and their continuation and application through the teaching of the apostles do remain central to our faith as well.
So next time you find yourself in a theological debate, ask yourself: how important is this issue really? Is Jesus being diminished by this other view or someone's faith in Him endangered? Is grace under attack here or an attempt towards legalism made? Is this an issue that could lead us away from loving God with our whole being or our neighbor in his or her needs?
Or is it more or less in the same category as "useless debates regarding genealogies" (1 Timothy 1:4; Titus 3:9) or controversies over possibly "demonically contaminated meat" or certain "sacred days" (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2:16)?
Also, will my way of debating serve to build the other person up or to tear him down? Am I actually trying to purposely exclude someone from the "true church" just on the ground of disagreements that never amount to anything close to what the apostles were fending off?
We'd all do well to stick to the old advice in what we need to be striving for: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity!"
