These Are Not Polite Suggestions

There is a notion that I have noticed becoming increasingly popular in the Evangelical church (but is no way limited to that body; I’m not pointing fingers here, just making a critical analysis). It is a notion which I find somewhat troublesome simply because I cannot uncover its purpose or its logic. This is the idea that doctrine is a bad thing.

My first question is, of course, why? Why has doctrine gained such a negative connotation in some modern churches? I think that it spawns out of the equation of doctrine with dogmatism and closed-mindedness. The Evangelical movement sort of bills itself as not settling on one denomination’s teaching or interpretation of scripture (thus the frequent “non-denominational” nomenclature), so I think that maybe it is an extension of that line of thought. Doctrine is associated with denomination, and it would be a terrible thing to close off the potential of valid viewpoints outside of one’s own, so this type of “doctrine” is rejected.

In response to that I must only sigh, because it is such an egregious logical fallacy. Allow me to explain:

doc·trine [dok-trin]
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Source: dictionary.com entry: “Doctrine”

So really, any discussion or opinion of the gospel is doctrine, purely and simply. One can attempt to remove the doctrinal concept from one’s church or belief structure, but it is effectively impossible. If one had a church without doctrine, one would not have a church. Anything that is taught is automatically doctrine.

What I’m getting at is that this view has a wrong conceptualization of the nature of doctrine. It sees doctrine as a frame or hermeneutical mode imposed upon the scriptures, when in fact, doctrine and truth are analogous. Christian doctrine, that is, the truth as proclaimed in the gospel, is an objective reality that we are responsible for discovering and discussing. We are also responsible for holding ourselves accountable to the truth, and since we are fundamentally depraved, our discussion is automatically subject to flaw. It is of utmost importance that we girder our readings of the scriptures with a comparison to those whom God has placed in pastoral and guiding authority. We must constantly check our understanding of scripture and Christian doctrine with that of our pastors, apologists, and ministers, who have been trained in the finding of truth. That’s the part of the whole “quiet time” concept that I think is missing. It’s dandy to read the Bible, and I’m not saying that God can’t or doesn’t reveal His truth by way of that, but just because you read the Bible and think that you’ve had some revelation or understanding doesn’t mean that it necessarily is God’s truth. You, as an interpreter, are responsible for checking yourself, or better yet, getting someone to check you.

Someone said something to me the other day about the words of a friend of mine being “saturated with doctrine” as if that was a negative thing. I challenge that directly. I think that straying away from having what one says being “saturated with doctrine” strays away from a firm stance in the truth. I hope that everything that I say is saturated, and I expect that if my reading of doctrine is off-base that someone will call me to question on it. Mine is the voracious pursuit of truth, and I will use all the help that I can get on the way to that end.

That is what I worry about in the trends that are surfacing in many modern churches: the idea that somehow doctrine will keep the Church from fulfilling its love portion of its mission. Somehow we’re putting making people feel comfortable over proclaiming the truth. Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on that. Our primary responsibility as saints and ministers of the word is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in spirit and in truth, in season and out of season. We’re not responsible for bringing people into the church building by streamlining or the imposition of “relevance.” God’s word is relevant. Truth is relevant. The danger of the church movements of today is that they seek to couch the truth in a package that won’t turn anyone away. The sad fact is that the truth, the real truth of Jesus Christ will be despised and rejected by men. This is its nature. Though He came offering salvation for all, not all will be saved. By changing the face of the truth to be more universally pleasing we in fact cut at the core of the truth. In our efforts to accept everyone, we try to make everyone acceptable, and this just can’t be so. I’ve been a big Bright Eyes fan for a long time, but I’m sorry, his music has no place being mentioned with positive review in a Christian magazine (Here’s a quote: “There is no truth. There is only you, and what you make the truth” or http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/brighteyes/whenthepresidenttalkstogod.html ). Conor Oberst is pretty open about his rejection of God, and though I would recommend his music to select listeners with discerning ears, for Relevant Magazine to endorse it is pretty frightening to me. I think that that is just one example of the rejection or refusal to hold the world to account of the truth in the name of coolness. “See, we’re a legit, edgy, cutting-edge magazine, and we’re Christian.” In that same magazine there is ten pages where multiple big-name megachurch pastors like Brian McLaren, Erwin McManus, and Rick Warren answer the “7 Big Questions for Christians Today” and in those ten pages, the Bible is not directly referenced even once. I’m sorry, but how do you answer the “Big Questions” of today without the Bible? I usually try to give the Emergent movement a lot of leeway (see my previous posts…I’ve gone to battle for some of these guys before) but in this case, I’m pretty disgusted. I mean, that is intellectually irresponsible. Who gives a shit what these guys’ opinions are? I want to know what God has to say are the answers to those big questions, and it makes me question the validity of their pastoral roles that they would even think to answer them without looking first to the bible. I encourage everyone to get a copy of that Relevant. It is the one with Ben Folds on the cover. You may be able to find the article in an archive on the site, I’ll check.

Anyway, my point is, the fear of doctrine is irrational, and leads to a dangerous take on Christian ministry. It is fine to love people and I think that that is a huge part of what Jesus’ ministry was about: going out of his way to find the people in the gutter and loving them. It absolutely cannot be overlooked, however, that when he found these people, he loved them by holding them to the standards of His truth, and expecting them to “go and sin no more.” My source for this is all four gospels. You should read them, they’re rocking.

Go forth in the way of the Truth. Seek it, and may it always light your path.

-Spencer-

“The question is not how far. The question is, do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as is needed?”