Whose doctrine is right?

Ask a lot of people and they'll probably say, "Mine!"

 

Just like George "the Animal" Steele from the WWF in the 1980s. Mine. Nice. Soft. Okay, maybe you don't get the reference. If you don't, forget I said anything. ;)

 

Truth is, I used to be that way. I was so convinced I was right that I'd fight (verbally... never came to fisticuffs) anyone who challenged me.

 

But a friend of mine wrote an article while I was in graduate school. He published it in one of our denomination's theology journals. He basically made the point that "if we say we're all sinners at the core, why are we so afraid of admitting we might be wrong?"

 

This really hit me hard. Because at the time, that was me. 

 

I was more interested in being right than righteous. 

 

I also belonged to a denomination that believed we are saved not by works but by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). As I pondered the implications of all of this I began to realize...

 

Thinking is still a work. It's an action on my part. A mental action, but it's an action no-less. I'm going to write about this more tomorrow. It's what I call "right-thinking righteousness."

 

It's just another way that the human ego tries to insert itself into God's plan. It's a way of taking credit for our own salvation.

 

The thing is, I really can't say for sure who has it all right.

 

There are some who I believe are closer to the truth than others in terms of their doctrines. But it's not that easy.

 

Because the Bible doesn't give us a clear and concise list of doctrines to believe. And as the centuries have passed, and people came up with certain ideas that other people disagreed with, the result was adding layer upon layer of dogmatic complexity on our doctrines.

 

Sometimes these "layers" are technically correct. But at what point do we wake up and realize something that's really a pretty simple teaching has become convoluted beyond recognition? Have we mistaken the simple/Biblical doctrine for the system we've developed around it to the point that we're teaching the doctrines of men as though they were the commandments of God?

 

I'm not saying that's what happens in every instance. But it does happen.

 

Did you know how most doctrines developed in history?

 

Because someone was preaching something that was "wrong" and other theologians decided to dispute it... their biblical reasoning to counter the "error" became doctrine.

 

If you think about it, if "defending doctrine" sets the agenda of the Church... that means that "error" might be what's really setting our agenda.

 

Which is exactly what the "pure doctrine" crowd fears the most.

 

Don't get me wrong. I believe that if we say we follow Christ we should embrace all of Christ's teachings. That's part of what Jesus commanded just before his ascension (along with baptism) as a means of making disciples. Disciples follow the teaching of their master. (Matt. 28:19-20).

 

Pure doctrine is an ideal. Sort of like how being perfect is set out as an ideal to strive toward by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:48).

 

It might not be achievable in this life, but the journey is the point... we seek to grow in truth not because we're afraid of being wrong, but because we love God and our relationship with God drives us to want to know him more.

 

And it's very easy to get into a "defensive" posture about doctrine that overshadows the proclamation of the Gospel. Again, the pursuit of doctrine isn't the foundation of faith. We seek doctrine, learning things about God and His will, because our love of God drives us to want to know Him better.

 

Like how (as I told you in a former e-mail) I once sat down with my grandfather after he'd turned eighty to hear more about his life.  He passed shortly thereafter. But I didn't sit down with a random old person to learn about what life was like in the 1930s. I sat down with my grandpa because I loved him and learning about his past was a reflection of and a response to the love I had/have for that man.

 

We shouldn't be afraid of error. We all make mental mistakes. We all think things that are wrong on a regular basis.

 

God is a lot less concerned with "what we think" than we think. It's kind of absurd if you think about it. Do you really think God is going to sit us all down and put us through some kind of doctrinal examination at the end of time?

 

It's far more important that we be willing to recognize we might be wrong than to be certain that we're right about everything.

 

Doctrine was never meant to be a hammer that we can use to beat other people over the head with. It's meant to be a part of a deepening, intimate, relationship with God in Christ. It's meant to enrich our faith, give us a greater comprehension and appreciation of His gifts. In turn, it should inspire gratitude and an outpouring of other acts of charity.

 

If the pursuit of doctrine is leaving you angry and defensive all the time you're missing out. If you're constantly distressed about everyone else's errors (they are the wrong ones) and can't see your own errors... that's just another instance of pointing to the speck in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

 

Doctrine should be a source of joy. Not something that we get cranky about defending.

 

But you'd be surprised how angry people can get when arguing over things like...

 

... must baptism be done by full immersion or is pouring/sprinkling valid?

... is there going to be a rapture?

... [insert any social issue here, e.g. IVF, abortion, gun control, homosexuality, gender ideology, etc...]

... is it okay to use grape juice instead of real wine when having the Lord's Supper?

... are guitars okay in worship or is the pipe organ inherently more holy?

... is it okay for women to preach?

... is x, y, or z a sin?

 

I could go on and on...

 

I'm not minimizing any of these issues. They are important and how you understand them can have a profound impact on your life. They can have a big role in how you experience the faith. But we aren't equipped to examine any of these issues if we've put the cart before the horse.

 

Theologians call this the ordo salutis. It usually refers to the "order" of faith and good works. This is more of a logical order than a temporal order. Our good works do not merit salvation. Faith comes first, and in God's grace we are saved. Out of gratitude, good works follow from faith like heat and light radiate from fire.

 

Doctrine itself is not a good work - but our mastery of it is. Getting it "right" doesn't save you. This practice will leave you in complete despair, because you'll never know if you got everything right. At the same time, it will leave you angry and defensive, because if anyone challenges you, or you even open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong... well... that would mean your salvation is at stake.

 

That's not the way it is.

 

Good doctrine flows from faith, it comes from a fervent desire to know our Lord more. We love because He first loved us.

 

When we approach doctrine like that we're less angry about it. It becomes a genuine joy to learn more, to go deeper... to even get a little nerdy about it.

 

There might even be instances when a righteous anger is warranted. But most of the time the basis of that anger is misplaced. It doesn't flow from the heart, but from insecurity. It's a "symptom" that we've got the ordo salutis wrong, that we've placed "doctrine" before salvation/grace/faith...

 

Discernment on doctrine/interpretation follows from a fervent faith that pursues God vigorously.

 

And a willingness to check our biases/presuppositions, to admit the possibility of being wrong (we sin not just in word and deed, but in thought), and to seek the truth of Scripture in a deeper way that honors the context of the relevant texts in question.

 

Consider again the ordo salutis. It's just a Latin phrase meaning the order of salvation. What comes first? Faith or works? The tree or the fruit?

 

Good works follow from faith. They are not the basis of faith. The same goes for the works of our mind. We grow in our doctrinal knowledge about God because of our faith. Our head-knowledge isn't what constitutes our faith.

 

The point is that if our obsession with "pure doctrine" becomes a good work that we think merits salvation, it's no different than any other brand of works righteousness...

 

... and when we have that approach to it, it tends to overshadow the love we're supposed to have for one another.

 

It makes us a lot more like the Pharisees who taught truth without a heart for God's people.

 

One of my teachers at seminary once preached a sermon about how we're awfully hard on the Pharisees. It's easy to point out the Pharisee in other people. But what about the Pharisee in each one of us? Perhaps that's the one we need to be the hardest on.

 

Again, specks and logs in eyes.

 

I'm not perfect at this. There are still a few "hot button" issues in theology that get under my skin. There are certain views and doctrines I don't have a lot of tolerance for because they don't flow from the broader principle of love of God and love of neighbor. Doctrines that are sometimes used to perpetuate injustice. Theologies that treat certain people different because of ethnicity, background, or even their past actions.

 

But (I think) that's the kind of anger we're supposed to have.

 

A righteous anger flows out of our love of others... not from the love of self.

 

It's the result of compassion, not ego.

 

The addiction to "be right" and the refusal to admit one might be wrong is just another form of self-love gone awry.

 

Because the big thing is the big thing. LOVE is the lens through which we should consider/pursue any doctrine. Because truth can only be comprehended in faith, hope, and love. And love (the greatest of these three) is enriched by - but does not presuppose - our pursuit of true teachings.

 

Blessings,

Judah