My Doctrinal Statement Can Beat Up Your Doctrinal Statement

I have been pondering about "doctrinal statements" lately. I have been around the loop a few times with various doctrinal issues, and where in my early days as a Christian I used to have around 28 things I would have listed in my "doctrinal statement" as certainties -  but through time, studying the history of theology and how various doctrines were actually birthed out of cultural situations - I have become more of a Nicene Creed doctrinal statement believer. I know that the Nicene Creed was shaped by cultural debates and theological issues they were facing at the time, but I think it still does address some beautiful things about the Christian faith. So in terms of doctrines or beliefs to hold to - I believe in the truths of the Nicene Creed.

I am also not afraid or embarrassed to say I do hold to some "foundational" or "fundamental" beliefs. However, both those words are loaded with all types of things, but in the elementary usage of the words, I hold to some core/foundational/fundamental doctrines. I have joked recently and wrote about in a forthcoming book Zondervan is releasing I think this Fall called "Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches" . That book has several different people including Mark Driscoll, myself, Doug Pagitt each writing out what we believe theologically in our churches. In that book, i jokingly wrote that I am a "fundamentalist" in the original sense of the word. It was originally used around 1910 to describe a response to what was seen as liberalism at that time, so they laid out a few "fundamentals" - the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, the atonement, the return of Jesus. I can say I believe those original fundamentals, so in that way I am a "fundamentalist" but not a cultural "Fundamentalist" as we think of the term as an adjective today.

I am writing this as I am preparing for a message I am giving at our church this Sunday on the importance of "doctrine" out of 1 Timothy 4:16. So I have doctrine on my mind.

However, as I am thinking about doctrine, what I have found so sad is the way we fight about doctrine sometimes. I understand from the very passage I am studying that we should watch our doctrine very closely. I fully believe this. But it is funny as most people assume they have all the correct "doctrine" to guard. I am not talking about what is written in the Nicene Creed or the five fundamentals - as those are doctrines I personally hold to and would "guard" as I imagine most evangelical Christians do hold. In my mind they are the "majors" as the corny cliche goes, we can focus on the "majors" and minor on the "minors".

But when you move beyond the inspiration of Scripture, the diety of Christ etc., Christians then get in bitter fights quite often about other doctrines. We fight and guard doctrine from all different perspectives.We drift into fighting about "minors" and not just "majors". But then the problem is that the "majors" for certain groups become all the "minors" too, rather than the core things of the Nicene Creed and Five Fundamentals. When I speak at conferences  (that are non-denominational) I quite often ask "who here believes women should be pastors and elders?" and about half raise their hands - then ask the same question reversed and the other half raise their hands. I then say "one of you is wrong" but we each love Jesus and is this an issue we should be fighting about or looking one one or the other as a "liberal" or a "Conservative"? Even those catagories almost seem meaningless anymore.

But, I go on certain web sites and blogs when "doctrine" is discussed (which it should be) and there are such mean, mean Christians who seem so bitter and angry and slam other Christians about issues and some doctrines that we just don't know for sure about. We can say we think we know for sure, but we just don't. As I said, I believe there are certainties to me, such as the five original fundamentals from 1910, the Nicene Creed etc. - but as we move beyond those things, I think we need to approach doctrine a little more humbly than some do. I think there needs to be grace and love with other followers of Jesus who may not hold to our view of the 5 Points of Calvinism, or whether the earth was created in 6 days or 6 million years etc.

Back to my original thinking, I would defend the Nicene Creed and the original five fundamentals and that is something I would "guard" to use the biblical word - but it makes me sad seeing Christian leaders and people in churches beating each other up so often about other things beyond that with doctrines and doctrinal statements. Could it be that some people are insecure, so they need to secure all their beliefs so tightly and defend everything that does rest as uncertain? Does knowing doctrine make us more like Jesus and loving? It should make us more loving - but judging by the words and attitudes of many Christians on blogs and web sites it seems it seems to makes many angry and meaner.

I do not want to paint a stereotype, as I know this is not the norm for everyone - but it seems there is a pattern to the ones who most hold to tightly detailed and long doctrinal statements with no room for mystery on the "minors". Again, I am not speaking about the Nicene Creed of five fundamentals (those are "majors" to me) - it's when you don't agree with being a five point Calvinist, or when the rapture will occur, or whether women should be pastors or not or some issues that are just not black and whitely laid out in the BIble. The Southern Baptists obvioulsy didn't think everything was balck and white, as they changed views when they used to have women pastors and then made a switch to not having them as pastors and elders. Some things are not super clear, and it leaves room for a variety of intepretations.

But there are some people, if you don't agree with their interpretation on the more minor issues, then they will beat you up as their doctrinal statement is better, bigger and badder than yours and you better watch out. I wonder if temperaments have to do with what theologies people gravitate to, more than the theology itself?

I am rambling as usual. Better get back to the sermon preparation. Even though i believe in doctrines and hold and guard doctrine, I hope I never become a mean Christian.

Comments

[Scott Baker]

What is it that you don't understand about Genesis 1:4 through 2:3? Where is talks about the first through the seventh day?

[Marvin Torgeson]

As long as we fight the straw man of 'mean christians', we will continue to ignore doctrinal error, insanely foolish conclusions of EC leadership and further departing adherence to Christ's Lordship. The "mean christian" term, this is only someones fears that they might not act like the kind of Christian that the psuedo-convert demands today.
I suspect the push to be nice instead of godly is more important to the carnal minded. It would not surprise me that Jesus would be called mean for driving out the moneychangers.

Thanks to crowd pleasing ministers and carnal minded professors it wont be long before they invent a Jesus of their own and remove themselves entirely from the teachings of scripture.

Jesus the managable, Jesus the crowd pleaser, Jesus the safe, Jesus the co-guru of religious mix-masters will never ask a Christian to actually chose truth over 'niceness'.

[Allie]

"Neo-liberal cult" of the Emergent Church? I read that and just about choked. I would call that unnecessary name-calling. While I don't consider myself Emergent (I don't like labels, simply), I would say that it's partly about conversation and listening to each other, not going into a debate with a closed viewpoint that says, 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong'. That's not love.
What's even more unloving is to denounce important methods of prayer, like Centering Prayer. It's NOT, Ken, "transcendental meditation", and I can't help but wonder where you got that information. Ever tried it? The goal is for a closer union with God by silencing the mind's chaos and learning to be still in order to really listen to Him. Some people, and I'm one of them, need those kinds of techniques in order to draw them closer to God, since I'm one of those poor, unfortunate, easily distractable souls! So, where, then, do you find your claim that "You are with an organization that is a move taking people away from God toward bringing all religions (and there “gods” which are demons) together through Contemplative/Centering Prayer (transcendental meditation)"?
I'm truly confused, Ken. The bottom line, as has been said, is love, and I'm really trying to understand where your love is in all this. (If I come across as overly harsh, I'm reacting from confusion, and a genuine desire to understand what's in your heart that prompted you to write as you did). Further, I can't help but wonder what Jesus will say to each of us when we stand before Him to give an account of our lives: will He commend us for keeping "correct doctrine", but find ground to question our love for Him as expressed in our love for others, if we used all the time we could have used to serve Him in our communities debating correct doctrine? I, for one, struggle to live my life in such a way that I will be commended for my love for Him expressed in service, not merely holding "correct doctrine" without its accompanying life of loving servanthood. James was right: "As the body (doctrine) without the spirit (living love) is dead, so faith (doctrine) without deeds (servanthood) is dead" (James 2:26; parenthetical commentary mine).

[rwren]

Ken,

What's not true? Is it the part where I may have knowledge but without love I am nothing? or is it the part where Love never fails while knowledge vanishes away?

Maybe you feel you're misrepresented, but the tone of your rants don't help.

[Ken Silva]

rwren,

I do appreciate your cocncern, however when you say: "It goes without saying that we as believers should strive for doctrinal knowledge as much as possible. It's better to have the correct information than not, right?" you bring out the very point I make. The Emergent Church is about doctrinal ambiguity and agnosticism in areas where we do have the correct knowledge.

"The problem is that when "Christians" don't have the love of 1st Corinthians 13 behind the knowledge." This is your view and I'm afraid it is this type of movement that keeps telling people that. But it just isn't true, for instance I've devoted this past year to personally studying these issues out of love for those who are being lied to by men Like McLaren (I do not say intentionally). I'd call that love; my love for God is first and after that mankind. The EC has it backward.

You say: "doctrine always takes a submissive seat to faith in Christ." Friend, who ever said it doesn't? The point is that faith in Christ is not subjective (though our existential relationship is to a point) it is a faith based on eyewitness testimony contained in the Bible which, because it was inspired by God Himself, is inerrant and infallible and can be understood as propositional truth because God created us as propositional beings. That is why I can even have this conversation with you.

What I am laboring to get EC leaders to do is to stop misrepresenting our positions. No one advocates worship of the Bible or forcing people to believe things. However, we cannot simply undo the Reformation to include other so-called "Christian" traditions such as apostate Rome because the Reformers were simply recovering what Dr. Walter Martin so often called the histoic orthodox Christian faith as followed by the ancient Church as "the doctrine of the Apostles." My appeal in love to those who will listen is to turn from these people who deny that.

[rwren]

In response to Ken, it seems like you're missing the underlying spirit of the original post. It goes without saying that we as believers should strive for doctrinal knowledge as much as possible. It's better to have the correct information than not, right? The problem is that when "Christians" don't have the love of 1st Corinthians 13 behind the knowledge.
Doctrinal correctness should NOT be ignored,(Christ even encouraged the crowds and disciples of Matt. 23 to "obey what the pharisees said" as it pertained to doctrine/law)
But doctrine always takes a submissive seat to faith in Christ.

[Chris P.]

How unfortunate that the ec wasn't around to instruct the apostles on "meanness"
Paul wished that the judaizer/circumcision sect would cut it all the way off, cursed those who preached another Christ (anathema), and one look at 2 Peter 2 and Jude's letter (verse 4 especially), well, we would be tossing these intolerant folk out of the fellowship. They are far beyond politically incorrect.

The Bible is not meant to be a mystery to the Church. Paul says many times,"this is a mystery", and then in the next breath tells us what it is. The word
"musterion" in the Greek, it is meant to be known. Mark 4:21-25

Deut 29:29 tells us, that whatever the Lord has kept to Homself is for Him,i.e. none of our concern/ however that which he has revealed is for us and our children in order that we may DO the words of the Law.
IOW our "praxis" is in order.
While no one can claim to know everything that the Scriptures say, it is wrong to say that we cannot ever know it in our lifetime.God gives us the revelation and the understanding so to say we cannot be certain violates His sovereignty and declars Him to be the incompetent oaf that open theists say He is.
The Hebrew words shema (hear),Deut 6:4 and shama (to obey) 1 Sam 15:22-23 actually mean that we are to hear, understand and do/obey the word God has given. How can this be done if there is no understanding or agreement on what that Word is?
This practice of divorcing "new" testament from old, and the Gospel narratives from the entirety of the Scripture must stop. The Nicene Creed is a good start, but the doctrine of Scripture is of equal import. IOW there is no such thing as "non-essentials" when it comes to the Scriptures.

[A True Evangelical Believer]

I have a question to add to the conversation. There is a lot of talk about "mean Christians" on a lot of posts these days. What is meant by "mean"? Who decides what is mean? What someone may say to me may not be "mean" but someone else may find it "mean". What is the authoratative voice on what "mean" is and how can we know?
I think that much of what is classified as "mean" is someone simply that is stating the honest truth and those who cant handle it or refuse to believe it stoop to being mean by classifying as mean. But hey when we have no authorative standard I guess even what I said could be "mean." Chew on that one!

[Ken Silva]

Dan,

You may also wish to consider that as you write "Christians who bash other Christians over doctrine," etc., can also be indication of a hardened heart. I've told you this before as nicely as I can but there are those of us quite tired of the Emergent Church misrepresenting to people what it is we actually believe. You see, this ”conversation” cuts both ways.

Perhaps a group like the Emergent Church, who decides they have the better way to do church in this day we live in and turns their back on the Biblical doctrine recaptured in the Reformation, is actually the ones guilty of being like “Pharisees” as Emergents seem so apt to toss that accusation around. Did you ever stop and think that those who practice Gnostic mysticism culled from long apostate Roman Catholic are the ones who are most guilty of:

"Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:6-8)

And on Slice I personally approved your comment where you say: “I am sadly amazed at the response of most people on this blog. So a guy goes and says that he believes in the Nicene Creed and also believes in the five original fundamentals of the faith - and you go about tearing him up anyway… I wonder if Jesus' toe went in this river, if He would get bitten as well.

I know from personal experience that a Mormon can also say they agree with the Nicene Creed as they have reinterpreted it, and the same holds true for any of those who reinterpret the five fundamentals, though I am sure you don’t. But more specifically in your case my point is there is a lot more to being a pastor-teacher Dan than what you are exhibiting, and that’s what you are being accountable to be.

You are with an organization that is a move taking people away from God toward bringing all religions (and there “gods” which are demons) together through Contemplative/Centering Prayer (transcendental meditation). You have violated Scripture to publicly yoke yourself with men like Doug Pagitt, I just spoke to Bob DeWaay yesterday about their debate, who is most likely not even a Christian – and the highly divisive Brian McLaren. Then as I try and help you privately you refuse my email to you, and so I ask you to very carefully look at the following Scripture that God wants me to share with you.

Here is an example of real Christian love Dan because this is where Jesus currently see you:

"As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm." (1 Timothy 1:3-7)

Please leave this neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church and I know I for one for one will welcome you.

[Dan]

I liked an earlier comment someone made here about making sure we aren't just puffing our heads or being so consumed with "doctrine" but we aren't obeying any "commands" or have our lives changed into more serving and loving people. The Pharisees were rich and knowledgable with doctrine - but hearts were cold.

It seems to be that some of the Christians who bash other Christians over doctrine (the ones that go beyond the Nicene Creed or five fundamentals of the faith types), can fall into the Pharisee-like hardened hearts catagory at least by their words and responses.

The passage in 1 Timothy 4:16 which I preached on this past weekend says watch your "life and doctrine" not just watch doctrine. If our lives don't reflect love and grace and humility, then we are only obeying half of that teaching.

[Kevin I]

Thanks for taking the time to write this entry, it better helped to pin down things that I've been reflecting on and helped me kind of pull my thoughts together, thanks for taking the time to write it.

[rwren]

I like what Dallas Willard wrote in "The Divine Conspiracy" when he said that "doctrinal correctness" is so often assumed to be the "narrow gate" referred to by Christ in Matt. 7. He correctly points out that "confidence in Jesus" (obedience)is the way into the Kingdom. He supports the premise by bringing awareness to the "doctrinally correct" whose hearts are filled with hatred and unforgiveness. He follows it up by stating "the broad gate, by contrast, is simply doing whatever I want to do".
It's good to remember these words the first time we begin to get puffed up with Bible knowledge. I know I need to hear them.

[Jeff Cook]

Hello all.

As one who takes the postmodern challenge to foundational language seriously (yet still longs to have a worthwhile response to the question 'who is Jesus') it seems we have to find a place for perspectives that matter, especially as they relate to the God we love.

The postmodern critique is about perspective: truth being relative to a few billions divergent points of view. It seems to me that the goal of Christian knowledge is not simply to know who God is, but to see God as Jesus does. For those who embrace postmodernity, why not make a leap. Since it is all about perspectives why not make my full ambition to see the world, God, and myself as Jesus does, to abandon my perspective as it were (as best as I can) and take on his.

Certainly a postmodernist could not argue that this is impossible. How could they know?

It seems that the creeds are the best we can do toward that end. The Nicene Creed specifically is the creation of the few hundred church leaders of the time over a fifty year period assembling to articulate their common experience of Jesus in worship, trial, and the scriptures.

Perhaps this pushes the problem now to the correct reading of the Nicene Creed itself, but at some point even postmodernity needs to be articulated. Why not say that this creed is--in Wittgenstien's language--a ladder to be climbed up and pushed away. (At some point you have to let a drip or two of insight in.)

I feel very comfortable identifying the Jesus I experience as the one articulated in its concise language.

Jeff

Healingmalchus.blogspot.com

[Jon]

Your post got me thinking . . .
The church has latched on to doctrines rather than commands . . . hmmm.

If we have the "right doctrines," we no longer have to preserve the unity of the church (universal--Eph 4:3) . . . we have a liscense to be critical . . . we no longer have to walk in love (greatest and second greatest command).

What is the differences betweeen doctrines and commands?
Doctrines are to be understood.
Commands are to be lived.

Both are important, but I would argue commands clearly have the emaphasis of the scriptures.

In the name of "doctine" I fear many have taken a pass on God's clear commands. I wonder which God thinks is more important?

(At the same time, Dan, you do a good job pointing out that one of God's commands is to watch our dotrine).

[Dan Wilt]

Cheers to the end of cranky, "taking" Christianity, in exchange for a living, "giving" faith.

[Casey Schultheis]

Hello Dan,

Have you been to this site yet?

http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm

I was not to sure how ture the info was on it but it seems good. I love what you have to say and what you are doing!

Casey-

[Frank Ball]

I became a Christian at age 30. They put us (my wife and I were saved on the same day) in an 8 month doctrine course. I soon learned what I believed!!I moved 20 times in 40 years due to my career. At first, I checked out church doctrine immediately. If they were wrong, I kept looking until I found a church that had it right. Then I noticed that correct doctrine did not always translate into correct behavior, friendliness, and compassion. Then I moved more towards how are the people? Then I started re-reviewing the Bible to see if any of the churches I attended were actually foloowers of Jesus Christ. Of course, most were, but they were caught up in their own traditions. Now that I am old, I just like reading my Bibles, using a prayer journal, read about emerging churches, and check out their web-sites. I receive your e-mail updates, and really like what you are doing.

Back to doctrine--I think you have it just about right. Just a simple, short doctrinal statement is enough.

God bless you all

Frank Ball

[Jon]

Congratulations on the Metro cover story. The best part had to have been when they showed a picture of you in which you looked a lot like Robert Namba.

[steve]

When we realize we don't know, then Christ becomes our Wisdom so we CAN know. When we are children we are apt to say, I know WHAT I believe. As we grow out of infancy and begin to wrestle with the deeper questions and issues of the Christian faith we will learn to say, I know WHY I believe. The ultimate experience, however, is to be brought to a place where we can say with confidence, I know WHOM I believe.

-This quote from Chip Brogden seems to fit.

[Lew]

I am going to start leading a small group at my church pretty soon and one of the requirements was to have a plan for our first six meetings. One of the meetings that I have planned is on the topic of doctrine. My hope isn't to say what doctrines are right and which are wrong. Instead, my prayer is that people realize the seriousness of doctrine and how it needs to be what impacts their living.

The difference between Christians and non-Christians is that non-Christians have no absolute authority to direct their lives. As believers, we shouldn't look to Dr. Phil or Oprah for guidance, but instead the truth of Scripture.

I love what you said about women pastors. The big issue is always Jesus and that is what we need to fight to defend. No one ever loves God more because of a church's stand on Biblical manhood and womanhood. To save the lost and increase the believer's passion for Christ it always comes back to the Gospel.

[Dan Horwedel]

I agree about the "mean" christians. It is so disheartening to read some of the comments on certain "leadership" blogs.

Makeesha - I agree that some of it has to do with passion and zeal, but I have never read anything you've written as 'mean.' Some people are just plain mean and, yes, they need extended a healthy dose of grace.

[Makeesha]

Ryan - I guess that's why I'm not necessarily opposed to doctrinal statements as long as they are used very carefully and with much grace...and I have yet to see that happen in my experiences.

[Ryan]

I'm with you in how troubling it is the way folks will use right doctrine to beat one another up. I know that in my own denomination, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, this is a continual problem.

The difficulty, though, is figuring out when we're in non-essentials territory. For example, in the Nicene creed we profess "one baptism for the remission of sins." Now, from a Lutheran, sacramental viewpoint, this statement is cut-and-dried. And in fact, it's central to our theology. Other traditions (or "non" traditions, as the case may be), that would purport to not take a stance on the topic, are nevertheless taking a stance in their non-stance. Does that make sense? So, to a Lutheran, something like that is of paramount importance.

Maybe what's necessary isn't eschewing doctrine, but being more intentional in our loving, as you said. Blessings in your preparation.

[Makeesha]

Eric - I'm not sure I would fully agree with the idea that doctrines explain creeds. I would somewhat agree with your examples though and suggest that doctrines interpret creedal points and those interpretations are reflective of personality, culture, exposer to other doctrines and sometimes just the mood of the person writing the doctrine at the time.

I would be more "into" doctrinal statements if they were understood as being fluid, flexible and launch pads for dialogue but first off, people reading them don't see them that way and second, the people writing them don't even usually see them that way. I grew up in and currently minister within a charismatic culture and if I see one more statement of faith that addresses tongues I'm going to lose it.

Our ministry within our parent church has one statement of faith - the Nicene creed, and one vision statement that is 2 sentences long but people in our church, mostly those who don't attend our service (i.e. they're outside our culture and our conversation), are constantly asking us "where do you stand on xxxxx?" our response to that is "why do you ask?" or "where do you stand on xxxx?" hehe. People want the security of labels, they want to know where you stand because it's safer, it's not as involved as actually building a relationship and it's easier to segregate one's self that way.

[Mike McMullin]

My tradition (Church of God) said from their beginning (1896) that it rejected "man-made creeds" with the idea that it created division within the body. However in the 1940's they were forced to write a "Declaration of Faith" in order to be affirmed into the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

They gave in and wrote 14 points of faith in order to be accepted into the mainline of American Christendom. While this declaration is in some points general to leave room for different ideas, that very thing we were required to do for "membership" is what alienates and divides the members of that body.

I like the distinction made in the comments between creed and doctrine. Perhaps the body should focus on the "fundamentals" of our creed and not on specific divisionary doctrines.

[eric]

Dan,

I feel there is a big difference between being Creedal and Being Doctrinal. The Christian faith has always been creedal and creeds have always been explained with doctrine. My definition of creeds is like being in the state of Ohio. Creeds give us the boundaries of the Christian faith. Once a person steps outside of the creed, they have stepped outside of the Christian faith. Doctrines are more the step-by-step explanation of the creeds. But, the doctrines are not the creeds.

For instance, Jesus death and resurrection are part of the creed-when we start talking about different theories of atonement, then we have moved into doctrine.

I don't know if that makes sense, but that is how I have been explaining it to my anti-Christian friends who reject large portions of the faith due to doctrinal differences. The do, however, understand the use of creed.

[Makeesha]

I think you make a very interesting point about people's personalities affecting the doctrines they profess...I think that is a very real possibility. I certainly am confident that one's cultural experiences affect their doctrine. (as you mentioned). And I agree, there are some MEAN Christians out there. I think though, to be fair, it's easy to confuse passion and zeal with mean spiritedness, esp. in type. I know that I come across more mean sounding in type than I do in real life (i.e. what I type doesn't sound as mean in my head when I'm "saying" it). Which is why I think we all need to remember the limitations of online "relationship" - it tends to not be very authentic. And it's also why we all need to extend healthy doses of grace.

[Dan]

Amen. I am seriously grieved by all the bashing going on within the body of Christ over serious, but peripheral, issues -- doctrine, politics and the way to do church seem to stand out. Everyone is guilty.

"Do not speak against one another," James said. He also said, "be quick to listen and slow to speak and slow to become angry because anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desired."

I think it would be well if we paid close attention to that advice whenever we debate these issues within the body.