What I find to be disturbing (and maybe this is proof of my immaturity) is the "no big deal" attitude in the church over the importance of doctrine. My former friend and employee George cut ties with me over doctrinal issues. Other blog sites have stated that the only thing that is important is Jesus. Well, yes, I agree to a point. Jesus is all that matters as He is the central focus of our faith and salvation. Is it only the Arminians who want to cut loose doctrinal ties to "The love Jesus only group". The other day I visited a blog site of a person who used to defend the Arminian position over reformed faith. Now he has become a bit more "center". In other words (and this has been said before) the bible agrees with both opposing views. Is this about as oxymoronic as ever a statement was spoken? Hello? Agreeing with two opposing views? If you doubt it, read my earlier posts! Paul made a big deal about making sure our doctrine is right. Right doctrine is important and cannot be underestimated. These statements about "I don't have time for doctrine, it is counterproductive to the vision God has for this church" and "I just want to love Jesus" are revelatory as they expose the lack of real biblical teaching the church is commanded to make. Church vision is held in check by church doctrine - or at least it ought to be. Doctrine is for the mature because it defines who this Jesus is whom we say we love and serve. If Paul makes a big deal about getting our doctrine right then we should not dismiss it offhandedly either.
What does "Love Jesus" mean anyways? Doctrine is not about wanting to pick a fight with our fellow Christians. It's not about wanting to separate from others either. You cannot have real unity in the body of Christ unless a body of doctrine that defines who we are and to whom we serve and why is embraced. It's not about "Can't we all just get along". We can agree to disagree on biblical issues. Disagreeing does not break the unity of the body. Pretending to agree when we don't does. This is what churches do when they refuse to consider right doctrine a priority. That means debate, discuss and wrestle. These are the things that sharpen us, not in not dealing with the hard things. Silence on this end does not help the body to grow and get strong in dealing with the world that seeks to get us off track at every turn. Not dealing with doctrine only leads to complacency and ultimately, to compromise.
Know what you believe and why is the beginning of doctrine. The why is as important as the belief. Many people hold beliefs but when asked the why, they are offended. The why is the doctrine. A body of doctrine is useless if the why cannot be answered. If I ask my Baptist friends why they reject paedobaptism it would be good of them to be considerate to answers why Presbyterians reject believer's baptism. If Arminians reject Calvinist theology, it would be good of them to consider why Calvinists reject Arminian/Wesleyan theology. Already I have had some Catholic judge me for my reformed stance while dismissing key Calvinistic principles out of hand without hearing anything I or anyone else has to say. This is like someone plugging their ears while yelling "I can't hear you!" when you are trying to explain your position. This is wrong and has no place in the church. I might disagree with my Baptist, Assemblies of God and others of the Arminian camp but I will give a reason that will require a response. The "No Doctrine" crowd doesn't want to answer the retort; they just want you to be satisfied with their, "Love Jesus" line. I do love Jesus. But I want to know what Jesus you know. If he is mine then doctrine will easily show it.
In case you are poo pooing these things, how about taking it from the world's perspective. You "Just Jesus" folks who refuse to "get into" doctrinal issues for fear of chasing away prospective converts; what substantive teaching are you offering that will change a life for the long haul. Is it merely changing perspective that a new believer stops worrying over temporal things? Will just saying, "Don't worry because Jesus commands us not to" help him any better than what a psychologist can do? I want to know the deeper reasons; not the superficial icing people give to one another that does very little to edify the other for the long run. Is it up to me to maintain my Christianity or is there another factor I have failed to grasp? My previous posts discuss doctrinal issues that are important. They give light to when a man slips into heresy. Left alone, without counsel or guidance every person is susceptible to pride and a falling off of the straight and narrow. We are finite and are more than capable of wandering off without even realizing it. No one is immune to sin. Human pride has a deadly bite. It comes suddenly and without warning. This is why doctrine is so important. A cult is called so because its teachings; its body of doctrine; is skewered from its biblical moorings. Some biblical teachings are indisputable because there is wholesale agreement - direct teaching. But other teachings require a deeper look and a more careful exegetical treatment to come to a body of knowledge of the nature of God. The Trinity, for instance, is not a direct teaching found in the scriptures. To get to the teaching or the doctrine we must draw from many passages that show emphatically the triune nature of our God. Because it is not direct there are many cults that deny the trinity. The Mormons have a false understanding of the Godhead because of this. They believe, in essence, that the Godhead is really three separate gods working in conjunction with each other. They reject the Nicene Creed which states that our God is one made up of three distinct persons each with distinct roles - Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The Christian church has little trouble with these doctrines and so can promulgate them without any fear of a challenge. But when we get into other doctrinal truths, such as what the Calvinists hold - we get some raised eyebrows. We are not afraid to talk about the things we hold in common with each other all the while ignoring the differences - the hard things that require debate and discussion. These things are labeled "unimportant and disputable" and brushed aside as divisive to the edification of the people of God. This really is ridiculous and cowardly. I think they are ignored simply because these doctrines require more conscious thought and meditation that many church leaders are just not willing to employ. But if they are willing to meditate on them they are ignorant on the knowledge of how to incorporate their teaching into a sermon.
If we are afraid to bring these things up because of the fear of offending someone, well we are called to come out and be separate. I offended George because I was unafraid to share my doctrinal beliefs. I never judged him if he thought differently but then again he should have been ready to challenge me too. I pray for him because he allowed these things to separate brothers. But I don't, for one minute, wish to recant everything I so earnestly believe in. I will argue for it with the next and if that brother has any bit of maturity, he will learn and grow as I as we teach each other the deep things of God.
-Joe
4 comments:
HI Joe,
Not to pick apart your writings, (which I enjoy and appreciate), I question a train of thought here. You state that knowing what you believe and why is the beginning of doctrine. I believe that it is not the beginning of doctrine per-se but the root of dogma.
Doctrine is a teaching or instructional postion and dogma is more of an established opinion (personal or expressley taught).
You ask in this blog if doctrine is really important and I think it is. I would venture to say that by pressing your train of thought the way you do (a body of doctrine is useless if the why cannot be answered) it is written as if the "just Jesus" folks are the ones who do not know doctrine.
With no Poo Poo here, I no very little doctrine but by faith have accepted the doctrines within the Word of Go as Truth. I may be erroneous in my understanding of the way I have been taught and so to further your thought, we should not fault or condemn those who do not hold educated opinions or theological erroneous doctrine. The Holy Spirit teaches doctrine to our hearts, man, ourselves teaches doctrine to our brains which if used for anything other that edifying and building up the body of Christ is nothing more than dogma.
So, is Doctrine really that important? No, not if it is education for ones brain (like I recieved in seminary), It is Wholly important if the Holy Spirit gifts it to the heart.
The majority of the World population is undereducated and even illiterate. This means that Doctrine as we typically see it in America is not available to them. The result is that education is not important but doctrine is.
Hopefully that made sense. I have no time to proof this now so we will see how it posts,
Later, Matt
You leave some interesting points to think about. I understand the distinction between doctrine and dogma. But no, I am definitely speaking about doctrine. your distinction between doctrine and dogma is a clear and present danger we must ward against in the church. The Pharisees come to mind. They knew the Holy Scriptures - the law that points toward the source of salvation - but they turned it into a set of dogmas - outward dos and don'ts. But we know the law is spiritual as it reveals the inward condition of the heart. So if we turn right doctrine into a set of dogmas we've missed the point. Good doctrine is our guide to right living in Christ. The "Just Jesus" folks as I describe them in my post are those who poo poo doctrine and think (subconsciously or intentionally) that they don't need doctrine to guide them into an understanding of scripture. I think that this is a mistake. Paul says to check your life and your doctrine closely (1 Timothy 4:16; Titus 2:1). There is a problem with the world being uneducated in the Word. Aquilla and his wife took Apollos aside to teach him more adequately right doctrine. He had great zeal for the Lord but his doctrine needed tweaking. So we would call him uneducated in rightly handling the Word of God. You are right that this process of knowing rightly comes from the Lord who humbles us as submit to Him and to His servants who are called to teach us what the Word says. This is maturity.
-Joe
Matt,
Dogma actually used in scripture to denote governmental decrees. Two passages in the N.T. use the word as a designation of the Mosaic ordinances. The use of the term in Acts 16:4 is important because it speaks of ecclesiastical decision. I will quote Louis Berkhof at this point: "It is true that the assembly at Jerusalem did not formulate any doctrine, but its decision certainly had doctrinal bearings. Moreover, this decision was clothed with divine authority, and was absolutely binding on the churches for which it was intended." So when we speak of dogmatics we are dealing with the accepted doctrines of the church in a systematic way. The Greek word for dogma is derived from the verb dokein. It has meaning of opinion but also "I have come to the conclusion", "I am certain", "it is my conviction".
It is interesting how the word seems to have changed from its original connotation because I agree with you that the "mere man's opinion" is how I would've believed it to mean. But biblically it carries with it a more weighty meaning - that of conviction, etc.
Berkhof gives a great explanation in his Systematic Theology work on dogmatics. Of course when you are dealing with dogma in theology verse philosophical dogma, or political or scientific dogma we are dealing with a completely different animal.
-Joe
More on dogmas:
Dogmas, as it applies to biblical dogma, is not merely opinion, as both you and I have been trying to figure out, because they have their grounding in the scriptures. If their grounding was on say, the church, it might amount to mere opinion. But dogma, as I am presently making effort to understand, is the human expression, thus it is fallible, of doctrine contained in the Word of God. So to help put feet to this I might say that the Bible teaches about Grace being unmerited etc...this is clear biblical doctrine taught in scripture. But how we understand and articulate it is dogma. So the concluding matter on this distinction between doctrine and dogma is that dogma is a bit more than mere opinion since it must be founded on scripture. It embodies doctrine found in scripture and strive to best express that doctrine (only if it is reformed!) So doctrine is infallible; but dogma that humanly expresses that doctrine is fallible.
-joe
Post a Comment