Does doctrine matter?

[Josh]

The other day in my blog, I posted a mini-rant about how I'm annoyed by the fact that so many Christians don't seem to care a bit about doctrine. Someone left me the following relpy:

Why should we care about doctrine? We're just as likely to be wrong as the next guy. If we're not going to get saved based on whether or not we believe in some obscure teaching of the church, shouldn't we be more concerned with evangelism than debating which side is right?

So here's my question: Who's right? Me or this guy? Does doctrine matter, or am I just being anal?

[DvChWi]

Yes, it most certainly does.  Bad doctrine can lead to major problems.  I believe that we can study the Bible and find a definative answer to many(but certainly not all) doctrinal issues.  I don't believe that small differences in doctrine should hurt the fellowship of believers, though.  

[beautifulmess]

I think you're both a little bit right. Part of evangelism is presenting people with the truth, the message that you believe in. If you don't hold true to some sort of doctrine, I don't think your message will be as powerful to a non-believer. They might see you as shaky, if that makes sense. But I also don't believe that you should be concerned with only doctrine. When presenting the Gospel, we should do just that: Present the Gospel as we know it and believe it, in its simplest form. But if we're presenting the Gospel to a person who wants to know our take and the things in and of the Church that we hold to and we have no answer for them, that won't look all that great on our part. I hope this makes some sort of sense. I find that's always helpful.  

[Josh]

I agree that doctrine should not lead to arguing and bitterness within the church, but I also think that churches should have clearly defined doctrines. They should have a specific stance on things like Calvinism, the Lord's Supper, etc. That doesn't mean that they have to feud with churches with opposing beliefs, though.

I also agree that, when presenting the Gospel to someone, matters of doctrine that are not mandatory to salvation can be left out. My original point had more to do with established churched, like I talked about in that last paragraph.

[DvChWi]

Yeah, bringing the whole free will/predestination thing into your gospel message is generally not a good idea.  It will generally confuse whoever you are talking.  Thats the kind of thing you bring up after someone is saved.

[Josh]

Well, I would obviously present the message from a Calvinist standpoint, but I wouldn't go out of my way to be propagandistic about it.  

[DvChWi]

Well, I would obviously present the message from a Calvinist standpoint, but I wouldn't go out of my way to be propagandistic about it.

I'm don't even do that.  It really seems to cause people to get sidetracked from the simplicity of the whole thing.  Not there is anything wrong with presenting the gospel that way, I just don't think its best.

[Josh]

Well, I try to avoid it, but if I found myself in a position where I simply HAD to explain exactly who chooses who, I'm not going to go against my beliefs for the sake of simplicity.

[Vlad!]

I'd tend to agree more with your anonymous antagonist. Although I enjoy a discussion (or argument...) on faith and doctrine, sometimes I think that debating these points do more harm than good to the church. The guy didn't state his point really well (or else hasn't thought it out as much as he should), because I don't believe we should just chuck all doctrinal issues out the window. But it does seem (as he said) that the more obscure doctrinal points of contention do the church more harm than they're worth. And half the time they're things we will really never know until we die anyway.

[beautifulmess]

You did a very good job of saying what I was attempting to say, Vlad!

[Vlad!]

Thanks. I guess that's a good sign for my future on this board. Nice to get off with a good start ;)

[Josh]

I shall again stress that I don't see the need to fiercely contest lesser doctrines; all I'm saying is that I'd rather churches have clearly defined doctrines (and still get along) rather than avoid discussing matters of interpreting Scripture altogether.

[Vlad!]

I think that churches should only have a definite doctrine on points that they feel are important. Churches should be humble and admit that they cannot know everything, so rather than spark pointless debates and risk division among the believers they should be flexible on certain points.

[leinad]

It seems as though a church emphasizing a stance on a divisive doctrine has the potential to create a lot of awkward situations.  For example, suppose that you, Josh, changed your mind and decided you believed in the free will of man to choose God.  Being in a church which emphasizes a teaching you disagree with could make things very uncomfortable.  You might decide you wanted to find another church, which could be especially problematic if you attend church with your family.

I'm certainly not faulting churches which do take definite stances on divisive issues, but I understand why some want to avoid creating those types of situations to the extent possible.

[Josh]

I'm sticking by my guns on this one.

There are probably some things that can be left to the individual churchgoers. But I still think that churches should take a clear stand on things like predestination, transubstantiation, etc.

For one thing, if a church does not define its position, then how can those matters be addressed from the pulpit? And those matters REALLY DO need to be addressed from the pulpit; they are, after all, part of God's truth, and are no less important to the kingdom than other parts of Scripture.

[Vlad!]

I don't think a church should define standards that its members should believe, and I certainly don't think that's what God intended. The church is intended to be a place where believers unite in love and in power, spreading the gospel, supporting the believers in Christ, and standing against the power of darkness in this world. It is not supposed to be a place of dissent and contention, and it is not supposed to 'rule over' the believers or establish what they should believe. If there was one thing Paul chastized the churches he served for more than anything else, it was fighting with one another. However, churches that spread the gospel in love and brotherhood were rarely rebuked for doctrinal problems (and when they were, the problems were pretty major, e.g. Thessalonica and the several churches under attack by gnostic philosophy).

[Josh]

I'm not saying that the church should tell believers what to believe, nor should Christians who hold opposing beliefs be disallowed to attend a certain church. I just think that the ruling body of the church (elders, in my case) should say, "This is what we as a ruling body believe, and this is the standpoint that will be taken from our pulpit. All are welcome, but these doctrines are what we officially believe and will dictate how this church runs."

Baptism is a good example. Not at all something worth fighting over, but you simply have to define your stance on it; otherwise, what will your church do when baptism time comes? Infants or adults? Sprinkling or dunking? Those are things that you need to make up your mind on for practical reasons.

[Vlad!]

True, especially your point about baptism. I was referring mainly to smaller doctrinal points, especially ones that have little Biblical support in either direction.

I think it's fine for a pastor to say "different people believe different things about this, but here's what I think:" but sometimes he has to break the flow of his sermon to give the disclaimer, and that's not always good. I certainly don't think a church should try to force all their members to think a certain way, and I don't even think all the elders should necessarily believe the same thing. But you do have to draw the line between open minded belief and a complete disregard of anything doctrinal.

However, I think the original dissenter (see post one) made one good point: maybe if the church focused more on evangelism and love, these points of dissention would stop mattering so much...

[leinad]

I'm not saying that the church should tell believers what to believe, nor should Christians who hold opposing beliefs be disallowed to attend a certain church. I just think that the ruling body of the church (elders, in my case) should say, "This is what we as a ruling body believe, and this is the standpoint that will be taken from our pulpit. All are welcome, but these doctrines are what we officially believe and will dictate how this church runs."

Baptism is a good example. Not at all something worth fighting over, but you simply have to define your stance on it; otherwise, what will your church do when baptism time comes? Infants or adults? Sprinkling or dunking? Those are things that you need to make up your mind on for practical reasons.

I guess some people who feel really strongly about certain doctrines probably do need to be in a church which has a clear position on them.  However, I do believe there is a need for churches which don't take a hard line on divisive issues.  What about cases in which close family members (husbands and wives for example) disagree on something?  Shouldn't they be able to comfortably go to church together if they want to?  For example, Josh, suppose you married a woman who believed in free will (I don't know if you would or not, but just hypothetically.)  Wouldn't you want to go to church together?  And she might not want to go to a predestinationist church, and you might not want to go to a free will church.  And if you had kids, you wouldn't want to have them taught something that you believe to be untrue.

[Josh]

And if you had kids, you wouldn't want to have them taught something that you believe to be untrue.

...so instead I should take them to a church where they won't be taught ANYTHING?

[Vlad!]

...so instead I should take them to a church where they won't be taught ANYTHING?

I think you're being a little obstinate, Josh: there's a difference between not taking a hard-line stance and not acknowledging that different positions do exist. If a church teaches children (and adults, for that matter) what the Bible says and how to interpret it, I think it would be an insult if they then did not allow the child (or adult) to then think for themselves about what it means. I'd much rather take my family to a church where they taught God and the Bible but didn't tell us what to think!

[Josh]

I'd much rather take my family to a church where they taught God and the Bible but didn't tell us what to think!

Wait- the church is allowed to take firm points on certain things but not on others? They're allowed to tell you with confidence that there is a God and the Bible is true, and yet they can't tell you that the elements at Communion are symbols, the Bible supports infant baptism, or whatever else?

We're not talking about doctrines that are matters of opinion, nor are they open to interpretation, like poetry. These are matters of absolute truth, right and wrong. Vlad! and I would probably both agree that the Bible takes a pretty clear stand on Calvinism vs. free will (though we're both on different sides of that one  :D ); the Bible isn't vague or incomplete in its teachings on the subject. So why should the Chuch vague or incomplete on its teachings on the subject?

[Vlad!]

Actually, you're only partly correct. The Bible IS open to interpretation, it's just that there's only one true interpretation. Do I know it? I hope so, but probably not. I'd rather have someone who disagrees with me but has thought out his position and listens to differing ideas with an open mind than someone who mindlessly agrees with me on all fronts. In the same way, I'd rather teach my hypothetical future children how to think and (with the Church's help) where to go for answers than just teach them what to think.

Wait- the church is allowed to take firm points on certain things but not on others? They're allowed to tell you with confidence that there is a God and the Bible is true, and yet they can't tell you that the elements at Communion are symbols, the Bible supports infant baptism, or whatever else?

Come now, Josh, we have to use some intelligence here--I'm not saying the Church is to be a weak-spined organization where we sing hymns around a campfire but never take a definitive stand on things. You have to realize (as you still don't seem to) that there is a difference between major ideas/doctrinal points (the existance of God, the inspiration of the scriptures) and minor ones. In short, the major ones are integral to the faith and to salvation; the minor ones are not. Christianity would not be Christianity if you denied the existance of Christ or the validity of the Bible, but the faith is still fundamentally intact regardless of whether you believe infants should be baptized.

[Josh]

Sure, but I ask again: What happens when it comes time to do a baptism? What if a new baby is born? Baptize now or wait eight years?

I guess my argument has shifted from spiritual to pragmatic at this point, but maybe that's not such a bad thing. And indluge me in a moment of redundancy and allow me to repeat myself: I'm not saying that these doctrines have to be huge deals, nor am I saying that infant-baptizers should be disallowed to worship in adult-baptizing churched. I'm just saying that, for a variety of reasons, the church government should outline their basic stances on these things. This is practical as well as (in my opinion) biblical.

[Vlad!]

The church would have to have a stance on that, even if their stance is just that they don't have a stance. Things like baptism, publicly using gifts of the spirit (especially tounges), and a few other things have to be determined just due ot the public nature of their execution. But, as you said, that's a practical detail that is, I would say, somewhat unrelated to the larger issue. Even churches that don't care about doctrine have to make a decision about those things to avoid chaos.

[Josh]

It would seem to me that we've come to the point where either I'm not understanding your arguments or you're not understanding mine, because I honestly don't know what to say other than what I've been saying all along, and I honestly don't know how my arguments aren't working. I'll try again if you want to keep going, but as far as I'm concerned this debate has reached its limit of usefullness.

Or is that just me?  =)  

[Vlad!]

Ha, a milestone for the new phorum: only one day and Josh and Vlad! are already beating their heads against a brick wall, trying to make one another understand.

I guess we might call off the dogs on this one. It's too bad, though; with each iteration I think we both got a little closer to homogeneity

[Josh]

Oh, we can keep stabbing away at it if you want to; I'm just not sure what I can say that I haven't already said...    

[Vlad!]

Well, I would like to make sure to reiterate that total agnosticism is not the way to go--a church has to make sure to prevent outright heresy. But just as Christians shouldn't just surround themselves with other Christians but instead reach out into the secular world, I think believers of one Christian tenet shouldn't lump together but should instead fellowship with other believers.
With this in mind, I don't see it as the church's place to say "this is what we believe to be true." Not that there isn't one (and only one) correct interpretation of the scriptures, but I don't think God wants the church to be a fragmented group with each division forming a faction that tells its churchgoers what to believe.

[Josh]

I am suddenly reminded of Jesus' promise that His Word would be like a sword, creating division among people. Not that I feel the church should be divided; I just don't think that having clearly defined doctrine has to equate being divided.

Illustration time! My church is a member of the PCA denomination, and, apparently, at this year's big PCA convention, several new bits of legislation were passed that my church didn't agree with. So, simply put, my church is going against it. We're not adopting or agreeing with any of the new PCA policies. In fact, it seems like my church has been going against the grain just about every year for quite some time. But elders from my church still go to the convention every year and worship with the other PCA pholks, even though there is disagreement among them.

Not sure if that helps or makes things worse...

[PriestofDasani]

Yes, it most certainly does.  Bad doctrine can lead to major problems.  I believe that we can study the Bible and find a definative answer to many(but certainly not all) doctrinal issues.  I don't believe that small differences in doctrine should hurt the fellowship of believers, though.

well said. I think that doctrine is definitely important. However, we don't need to let things like carpet color split churches and get in the way of God's plans. (I have heard that this has happened)

[Josh]

I feel it worth mentioning that a human being couldn't get in the way of God's plans if his life depended on it, but yeah, I see what you're saying. I was thinking more along the lines of predestination or communion rather than carpet color, which isn't really doctrine anyway.

[Vlad!]

For intelligent, thinking people, doctrine doesn't have to be divisive. But the more monolithic a church's approach to doctrine is, the more likely it will drive off any who have a different view. And let's e honest here: not every Christian can necessarily be described as an intelligent, thinking person, much as it pains me to admit it. If the body of Christ could be as uniformly intelligent and rational as the members of this phorum, I'm sure churches could be much more decisive about what they believe and teach without being afraid that half the congregation will get in a huff and leave.

[Vlad!]

I feel it worth mentioning that a human being couldn't get in the way of God's plans if his life depended on it, but yeah, I see what you're saying. I was thinking more along the lines of predestination or communion rather than carpet color, which isn't really doctrine anyway.

Yeah, but he does have a point--these people clearly need to learn how to think for themselves, and being sthingy-fed (or possibly force-fed, depending on the church) each doctrinal belief by a is not going to help them with that.

[PriestofDasani]

I don't think a church should define standards that its members should believe, and I certainly don't think that's what God intended.

If we had a church for each set of beliefs we would probably have a church for about every 10 members to start out with. Then there would be a conflict and the church would split into two five member churches ...

Churches need to agree on basic principles. There are other things that churches will need to agree mostly on because you probably aren't going to the right church if you only agree with one out of every 10 sermons. (I hope you have sermons. (I have an "uncle" who is a pastor and is in between churches and sometimes he gets asked to be the pastor of "different" churches. (i can go into detail if you like)))

[Josh]

sthingy-fed

Heh heh heh...

[Vlad!]

Yeah, I added that feature yesterday

[smartash]

hi, my name is ash and i'm new to this board (having found it on relevantmagazine.com, the most fabulous magazine ever) and i appreciated the initial comment made here about the importance of doctrine and the contemporary christian community's lax in accumilating real biblical knowledge.

yes there are debates and "gray areas" but i think the point is that it's absolutely true that people don't know alot of the teachings that are crystal clear in the scriptures. people get so emotionally wrapped up in mulit-media worship experiences and "i kissed dating goodbye"/"prayer of jabez" books that they forget the source-- the Bible!
i remember becoming very jaded and lost because i wasnt "feeling God's presence" or "hearing his voice" like others claimed (and i'm in no way insinuating that they were liars/fakers), and someone said to me something i'll never forget: "ash, you speak to God when you pray, and he speaks to you when you read his Word."

whatever "doctrine" we follow for  our lives, we cannot lose the one tangible connection we have to our faith, the Bible.

there's my soapbox and contribution.

josh-- i highly appreciated your review of "hail to the thief" on relevantmagazine.com where i found the link to this site. and am i mistaken in thinking you're a calvinist? i myself am a fellow predeston-ator.
 

[Josh]

Ash, you have just become my hero of the day. Some great words there, phriend. I agree with a lot of your complaints about the feel-good nature of modern Christianity.

And yeah, I'm a Calvinist, as well.

Anyway, welcome aboard! Glad to have you here.

[smartash]

well, thanks for the welcome. i like this site alot. after reading about all of you in the staff pages i'm so depressed none of you hail from virginia. i could use some friends like you! i mean, wow, you guys love the emperor's new groove, only the coolest unsung/underestimated piece of comedy EVER.
but yeah, GREAT website, i think i'll stick around for awhile!