It seems like the study of doctrine in Christian circles is pretty polarizing. There are those churches who major on doctrinal issues, using classic Christian terminology and stressing the importance of knowing these key issues to faith; issues like justification, sanctification, predestination, foreknowledge – you know the drill.
Then there are those churches who would argue that kind of study does little to further real life change in the people. The people need something practical, something that’s going to help them hang onto their marriage, get through the recession, and parent their children. So they lean toward this “application oriented” strategy of teaching and preaching.
I think there’s a balance in the middle to be found, where one feeds the other and vice versa, but I also see how a group of people might find the study of doctrine antiquated, boring, and useless.
And it’s because of the classic abuse of doctrine.
We have the tendency to use doctrine as nothing more than an arguing tool. We use it to be “right” in conversations, as a mark of spiritual superiority, or as a means of furthering our own arrogance which is already considerable enough.
In short, the fact that doctrine is falling out of favor in alot of circles is because in alot of circles doctrine has been abused.
It’s not supposed to be like that. Paul reminded Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:5 that “the goal of our instruction is love…”
Love. That’s the end of doctrine. Anything else is abusive.
Subscribe to MichaelKelley.co
Never miss a new post. Subscribe to receive these posts in your inbox and to receive information about new discipleship resources.
Michael,
Your basic point here has much validity. Throughout history, doctrine often has been, and still is, abused in many churches. Too often, Christians do not show the love that Biblical doctrine should inspire. Too often, I have been guilty in this way. For this reason, some Christians shy away from “doctrine” or even claim to dislike it.
However, there are also many people who use the word “doctrine” in a negative sense, simply because they want to believe in the God in whom *they* want to believe, i.e. not the God of the Bible but the God of their imaginations– without all of the Biblical “baggage.” This can be (not always, but sometimes) a danger when one hears people say things like, “I don’t care about ‘doctrine’– just give me Jesus.”
However, it is important to ask questions to find out– which Jesus do they want? The one of the Bible, or another one (a false Jesus)?
One thing is certain– whichever Jesus people do want, everyone ultimately holds to some sort of “doctrine” about Him. There simply is no “Jesus without doctrine.” Is the doctrine true or false though?
Your main point does hit home though, and I thank for you it, brother. May Christian doctrine *always* inspire us (especially me) to sincere, evident love for God and for people– and may we (I) repent when we (I) sinfully fail in this way!
I think you’re on point here, Chris, especially with your comments about knowing the true Jesus.
To add one more caution, my temptation is to want to know doctrine for the sake of knowing it. Too often my interest in doctrine doesn’t translate into much practical action in my daily life.
Good stuff Michael. I think there is a balance. Doctine and Heart go hand in hand. Doctrine paints the picture of who God is, what he is like…his heart. And Heart is response to that. Correct doctrine should produce correct heart and action. As we grow to understand this our heart and love for him needs to grow; not our ego or cynacism. I think if pursued in humility Heart and Doctrine feed each other as our understanding and relationship deepens.
Good word, Andy. Thanks for your comments.
By way of continuing the discussion, why do we think that there is a tendency to emphasize either “application” or doctrine, but so difficult to hold them in balance?
good thoughts.
i agree that balance is the key to this dichotomy.
however, if we make the goal trying to find the balance, we shoot ourselves in the foot. i think Paul had it right when he said that he aimed to solely know Jesus Christ and his story.
as a church planter, and pursuer of Christ, i’m enjoying your provoking thoughts. keep them coming.
Michael K.,
I think that there are different answers to your questions, most (or maybe all) of which go back to either 1) our finiteness or 2) our sinfulness or 3) a mixture of both.
Some people, due to a mistaken understanding of what doctrine is, think of it as wooden, dull, and impractical, not having any relation to daily life. These people want to “get on to application”– not realizing that application itself is based on doctrine, and that Biblical doctrine is the result of having read and meditated upon the Bible (with the empowered understanding of the Holy Spirit). Perhaps they also haven’t come to understand that *everyone* has doctrines, to which they hold, about many, many things?
These mistaken understandings (or lack of understandings) could be a result of finite reasoning, or having been poorly taught, or simple (but possibly sinful) impatience about taking time to understand and think through God’s word.
Some people, as you have written about here, may dislike what they think of as “doctrine,” and major on “application,” because they have seen Biblical doctrine spoken about or used in an sinful, unBiblical, unloving manner. This reaction is understandable, but for these people, it is to their detriment, because “application” can’t truly function well without doctrine as its foundation.
Then there are the “doctrine” majors who don’t always apply doctrine so well to their own lives, and/or simply don’t *think* to apply it. I am, all too often, one of these people.
I think that, simply put, many of these “doctrine major” tendencies are due to sin (although not always– some may be because of limited understanding). We may want to study and think about doctrines in an abstract, overly academic way, because then, they don’t necessarily *challenge* us to actually *change* the way that we think and live in everyday life.
On the “limited understanding” front though, almost everyone who is passionate about Biblical doctrine has trouble “connecting the dots” in one or more areas of his/her life. This why we have men of great Biblical understanding, such as John Piper and Mark Dever– and men like me, who go to them, for help with my limited understanding. 🙂
Um, sorry for the dissertation! 🙂
No worries – write on, Chris.
Good discussions. Here’s a thought from Dr. Bob Utley, former pastor of mine, with which I was challenged many years ago: What’s the least a person must believe in order to be a Christian in the Biblical sense?
I’m going to go Acts 15 on us here where it seems like a similar question was being asked. Some Gentiles had believed in Jesus, but some of the Jewish Christians were arguing that they had to be circumcised before they believed. I love the response that came out of the council:
“For it was the Holy Spirit’s decision—and ours—to put no greater burden on you than these necessary things…”
That tells me that the minimum is important, but there are some essentials. So in order to not chicken out, I’ll start a list:
– One God
– Jesus is His son
– Jesus is our propitiation for sin
– He rose again
– We are right with God by grace through faith alone
Michael K.,
What if one believes that Jesus is God’s son but not necessarily God Himself? As that is Unitarianism, I think I know what your answer will be, but I don’t want to assume, since you didn’t put that one on your initial list here.
Also, what about Hell for all non-Christians– essential or non-essential? These two topics were hot ones tonight in the “Christianity Explored” class (which I’m helping with as a discussion leader) that we are doing for non-Christians at our church.
Chris – You’re right – my entry should have said “Jesus is His divine Son.” Agree that is imperative because, especially in the current culture, is the defining characteristic of the real Jesus.
While I know I might be risking the wrath of commenters, I would say that an explicit belief in hell might not be absolutely essential. I would argue this mainly because in point 3 above, I wrote that Jesus is our propitiation. So I think wound up in that word is the definition of propitiation, that without it, you incur the wrath of God which is in essence hell.
So I may be talking in circles here, but it seems like focusing on the cross is more imperative and essential than on what happens without the cross.
Of course, you could argue that by focusing on hell you are actually magnifying the work of the cross…
Michael K.,
I definitely agree that for *Christians,* focusing on the cross (rather than on Hell) is important in our daily relationship with God. However, a healthy awareness of, and sobriety about, the reality of Hell is quite important (I think) when it comes to our doing evangelism.
I’m curious– if you wouldn’t necessarily say that an explicit belief in Hell is an *essential* for a Christian, does that mean that you would consider annihilationism (John Stott’s view) to be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? I go back and forth on this one. From what I can tell, the Bible teaches God’s wrath, expressed in eternal punishment, for non-Christians, but some see God’s wrath as simply being annihilation. Thoughts?