For much of my life, I’ve heard it said that sound Christian doctrine does three things:
- It keeps the church secure from error;
- It unites Christians in truth;
- And it leads the individual Christian to a better understanding of God.
These are paraphrases of statements I’ve heard from the pulpit and individual pastors over the years. In short, doctrine is supposed to protect us from error, unite us in truth, and help us better understand God. The question I want to ask today is this: Is the focus on doctrine in the 21st-century church achieving these results?
Before I go on, I want to mention three criticisms of the above statements that I’ve heard:
- The first criticism is that many churches have introduced false doctrines, therefore true doctrine has failed to keep them secure from error.
- The second criticism I’ve heard is that Christianity is divided more now than ever, with thousands of denominations spread worldwide, each with its own unique set of doctrines.
- The third criticism is that Christian doctrines have failed to lead to a better understanding of God because there is as much confusion regarding matters of doctrine as there ever was while some Christian doctrines contradict each other.
What Is Christian Doctrine?
A Google search for “Christian doctrine” led me to some interesting reading. In many cases, the sources I found agree. In some interesting ways, there is a diversity of opinion about what doctrine is and what it is supposed to do. Here’s a sampling of what I’ve found:
- ++Pastor and podcaster Loren Hicks says++ doctrine provides boundaries for faith and practice, leads to a “biblical worldview”, protects from false teaching, provides truth to stand on for the next generation, and ensures we maintain a correct belief system about eternal matters.
- ++For Paul Tripp++, Christian doctrine is “shorthand” for a belief system based on the Bible that leads to a “transformed life.”
- ++Kathleen Nielson says++ doctrine summarizes God’s word (the Bible), determines the church’s health, and “bears fruit” in people’s lives.
- ++Got Questions posits++ that sound doctrine is important because the church’s teachings are specific, the gospel is a sacred trust, doctrine determines behavior, sound doctrine leads to life, and it encourages believers.
- ++Canadian church elder Tim Challies opines++ that doctrine is important because it summarizes the central themes of God’s biblical revelation.
- ++Hills Bible Church calls it++ a “body of belief” drawn from scripture.
- ++Banner of Truth lists++ four reasons to study doctrine: You love God, what you believe will shape your spiritual life, you can’t understand the world you live in without it, and doctrine informs you on what to say to unbelievers when you meet them.
- ++J. Gresham Machen++ boils it down to the content of Paul’s message versus anything that disagrees with it. (Yes, really!)
- ++For Kaynenn Parker++, doctrine is church teaching that determines how you live.
Here’s my response:
It appears the common theme among most of these attempts to define what doctrine is and its importance in the life of Christians today can be narrowed to three specific things:
- It’s based on the Bible
- It affects human behavior
- And it’s designed to prevent error
Two questions: Are these really what Christian doctrine is designed to do and, if so, is it working?
A Criticism of Current Understandings of Doctrine
Almost every Christian commentator you speak to today will agree that sound doctrine is important. Most will agree that doctrine should be based on the Bible, and it affects behavior (for good or bad). You’ll even find a wide agreement that one practical use for doctrine is to protect Christians from false teachings. Yet, while most commentators agree on these matters, they disagree on the specifics of doctrinal content.
Isn’t that interesting?
Biblical commentators (pastors, teachers, elders, etc.) are in near-universal agreement that doctrinal content is important even as they disagree on content specifics. Here are some examples:
- Robert Rothwell explains that Christians from a Reformed background believe the charismatic gifts are ++irrelevant today++ while author Phil Chan believes they are still ++operational in the church today++. Both use the Bible to back up their claims.
- There has been a wide range of views on free will and predestination, ranging from full human will regarding salvation to God’s sovereign predestination. Check out this chart created by ChatGPT:
- Regarding eschatology, there are ++four leading views++, and they all have prominent voices defending them.
I could go on. Pick a Christian doctrine and you’ll find disagreement on it. This disagreement is evidence of two things:
- We humans place prime importance on doctrine, and
- Doctrinal content can’t be the most important thing or the church would find some way to reach common ground and unity surrounding it.
In summary, the modern church places higher importance on doctrinal content than we do on unity in Christ. Am I the only one who sees this as a problem?
Doctrine vs. the Supremacy of Unity
Ask any serious theologian today if Christian unity is important. Most will agree that it is. Yet, these same theologians will spend countless hours picking a position on a doctrinal matter and defending it against other positions. Why is that?
I believe there are three reasons why theologians, pastors, teachers, elders, and Christian leaders are geared toward argumentative approaches to Christian doctrine:
- Money
- Ego
- Fear of error
Many of these leaders are authors and conference speakers, both of which they are often paid to do. Secondly, they are as subject to falling into the ego trap as the rest of us (full disclosure: I’ve fallen into that trap a million times myself!). After all, they are human. Thirdly, fear of error is so prominent in the church today that we’ll tolerate anything (including gross sin) to avoid it. I once heard a pastor admit the reason he didn’t collaborate with other pastors and teachers was because “you never know what they’re going to say.”
Wow! My thought was this: They don’t know what you’re going to say, either!
Of course, I’m not arguing that doctrine is not important. What I am saying is that unity in Christ is important. In fact, it’s so important it is a central theme of the New Testament. Consider:
- In ++John 17:20–23++, Jesus prayed that his followers would be united so that unbelievers would see God’s love in action.
- In ++1 Corinthians 12:12-13++, the Apostle Paul states that Christians are one body, united by the Holy Spirit.
- In ++Ephesians 4:3–6++, a Pauline letter about the mystery of the church, Paul says emphatically there is only one Spirit and one body, the church itself.
- In ++Colossians 3:14–15++, a superlative letter, Paul says love is the glue that binds the church together in unity. That cannot happen unless each individual allows the “peace of Christ” to reign in his or her heart.
- In ++Philippians 2:2–4++, Paul says that unity is strengthened by humility and love toward each other.
- In ++Titus 3:9–10++, a pastoral epistle, Paul exhorts his disciple Titus to avoid foolish arguments for the sake of unity. By contrast, many of today’s Christian leaders rush to defend their doctrinal statements, thereby creating disunity, just because they don’t want to be wrong.
- In ++Galatians 3:28++, Paul says Christian unity transcends class, social status, race, and gender differences.
This is just a smattering of verses in the New Testament that exhort believers toward unity. There are many others!
It appears that unity in Christian love is one of the chief Christian doctrines. It also seems to be one we have abandoned in favor of ego-driven posturing. Could there be a connection between the loss of the church’s influence in the U.S. and a focus on heady, ego-driven—even divisive—church doctrine?
Solution: How Can the Church Fix This?
As I’ve said, I’m not suggesting that doctrine is unimportant, nor am I suggesting the church abandon doctrine altogether. But allow me to present a different definition of doctrine, one that is more closely aligned with the New Testament:
Doctrine is a set of dogmas taught by a particular sect, church, or denomination.
Note: A dogma is a statement of belief based on authority and remains inflexible.
Given that Christian leaders today are focused on doctrine (examine any church website and you will see a doctrinal statement, a canon of faith, or something similar), and that these doctrines are dogmatically adhered to by both leaders and congregants, the clear message is that you must believe in those doctrines to become a member of a particular church or sect, and if you don’t, then you may be disqualified from receiving communion, being baptized, or participating in other activities (selectively chosen by the leaders of that church or sect). This common practice is divisive on the surface and at its core.
Here are three things the church universal can do to fix this collective brokenness:
- Stop propping up Christian leaders who go beyond the basic tenets of the Christian faith. There are core beliefs that all Christians everywhere believe and that cannot be dismissed without doing damage to the gospel. There are not many, but the primary one is that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah of Israel.
- Refuse to play the denomination game. Some will defend sectarianism on the basis that it simply denotes “differences between brothers/sisters” of the faith. This is untenable. A denomination is a division, plain and simple.
- Stop worshiping the Bible. This one is difficult for anyone who claims their doctrines are based on the Bible. In reality, every doctrine is based on someone’s interpretation of the Bible. It amazes me how many people do not see the difference.
Now, I’m going to spend a little time unpacking that third statement. To what extent should the Bible play in what Christians believe?
The Three Pillars of Christian Authority
The church has somehow lost its bearings. Most Christians today—because this is what their leaders have taught them—believe that the Bible is the most authoritative source we have for teaching what we believe. In fact, they’ll often say it’s the “final authority on matters of faith and practice.”
I’m going to shock the Nutella out of you and say this is patently untrue, and the Bible agrees with me.
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Here’s a lesson in logic: If all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ, then the Bible cannot be the final authority on anything.
That is not to say it is no authority at all. Let’s make that point crystal clear.
How important, then, is the Bible, and what other sources of authority should we rely on for faith and practice? Here’s my disclaimer: This is my opinion. I am not suggesting this be elevated to some high doctrinal position or that everything else be abandoned so that the following statements become the official doctrine of all churches. But I have given this a lot of thought, and it makes sense to me.
There are three important sources of authority every believer should consider in determining what to believe. Note that I am talking about what individual believers choose to believe, not in what churches or denominations choose to teach. I hope you see the difference.
- The Bible is inspired - Some sects have taken it upon themselves to go beyond the statement in ++Timothy 3:16++ to say that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and somehow written by the hand of God Himself. This is patently absurd. This belief hinges on a particular interpretation of the Greek word ++theopneustos++, which has been translated as “God-breathed” in some translations. Theopneustos simply means inspired by God. Scripture’s sole purpose—Old and New Testament—is to point us to Christ. It is inspired by God so that believers can learn who their God is and what is at the center of His heart. Elevating the Bible to a status that the Bible itself does not demand of us is, in a word, idolatry. Take it for what it is, but nothing more.
- The Holy Spirit is within you - In ++John 14:16-17++, Jesus tells his disciples that he will send the Spirit of truth (the Holy Spirit), who will take up residence within them forever. In ++verse 26++ of the same chapter, Jesus tells his disciples the Holy Spirit will teach them everything they need to know. Keep in mind that many of them were illiterate and couldn’t read or write. They didn’t have access to the Bible as we know it, for the New Testament had yet to be written. Their guide was the Holy Spirit. And he is our guide, too.
- The Christian faith is about fellowship - In ++Hebrews 10:25++, the unknown author exhorts believers to not abandon meeting together. He or she was not merely saying to “go to church on Sunday”. Believers were giving up on the faith in light of intense persecution. Their abandoning the meetings were evidence of them losing heart in the face of discouragement. They were abandoning the faith. The application for us today is to continue in fellowship with each other as we continue to fellowship without our Lord and the Holy Spirit within us. In fact, fellowship with other believers is fellowship with the Lord.
I contend that our authority for faith and practice is hinged on these three spiritual realities. ++Acts 2:42++ tells us the newly formed church devoted themselves to three things:
- The apostles’ teachings (the New Testament writings)
- To fellowship (with each other), and breaking of bread (a part of the fellowship)
- And to prayer (interactions with the Holy Spirit)
These three pillars of faith are all equal. None of them are above the others. The Bible, guidance of the Holy Spirit (from within each of us individually), and the fellowship of believers (or, if you prefer, the witness of the church body itself, both local and universal) are all equal in authority. They must align with each other. If any one of them contradict the others, something is off.
Note that your pastor is not listed among these pillars of authority. No Christian teacher, pastor, elder, or alleged human authority should ever be your guide to spiritual truth. Rather, it should be the scriptural canon illuminated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the consensus of the church universal (with 2,000 years of church history serving as backbone).
With that, I’ll leave you with this final word: Go in Christ’s peace and love your neighbors.
Allen Taylor is the author of ++I Am Not the King++.
Where To Find Me This Week
This week, I’ll be selling books at Kroger in Mansfield, Texas. Location: 3001 Matlock Rd, Mansfield, TX. These are the hours you’ll find me in the store:
- Wednesday, February 5, 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
- Thursday, February 6, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
- Friday, February 7, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
- Saturday, February 8, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
I hope to see you there!
First published at Substack. Lead image from Unsplash.
Posted Using INLEO
An interesting post ! I'm not Christian, but have respect for those who believe. As a historian, I find it helps to understand the past if I have a little bit of theological understanding.
Logic tells me that appealing to the Bible as the final authority doesn't make sense, because it's a text that has grown and evolved over time, and can differ from denomination to denomination. There are quite a few books that were previously included that are now just part of various apocrypha - often based on inter-denominational politics.
Looking from the outside in, I feel that the Church has historically been most effective when united. Unless we resort to the techniques of the Inquisition, perhaps a more charitable solution might be to stop worrying about the (often minor) differences between denominations and approach things with a bit of mutual forgiveness and open-mindedness. In a sense, agree that unity and love of Christians of whatever denomination is more important than the details of doctrine.
@alonicus, thanks for your well thought out comment. You're right that history is more easily understood with some backing in religious studies. After all, much of history has to do with the intersection and conflicts between faiths.
Another great insight about the interdenominational differences regarding the importance of biblical and apocryphal literature. Which books should be included in the Canon is still an ongoing discussion that will never be resolved.
This particular line made my heart flutter:
That is, in essence, the point of my post. Christ expressed this sentiment when he exhorted his followers in John 17:20-23 to be united so that unbelievers would see God's love among them. We express the love of Christ best when we put aside our differences and focus on what we have in common. I'm glad you see that, and thanks, once again, for your awesome comment.
Your comment is upvoted by @topcomment
More info - Support @topcomment - Discord
Very thought provoking write-up. I agree with much of it but I am not really fond of typical ecunumenical movements as they tend to water down gospel essentials in what seems to be misguided effort to remove the offense from the cross.
I will preface this by saying I am a staunch sectarian when it comes to the gospel but also staunchly opposed to they that would try to divide on the basis of non-essential doctrine. You mentioned a few of those contentions that is cessationanism vs continuationism and those pertaining to soteriology i.e. Calvinism, Semipelagianism etc. but another one I have been dealing with lately is the issue of Conditional Immortality vs Eternal Conscious Torment.
Indeed, there are some (false) teachers that would anathematize those of us in our High Calvinist circles for suggesting that the human soul is not eternal and immortality is conditioned on Christ alone. This was a shocking development as one of the main drivers of this condemnation speaks just as my brethren and I do concerning grace, salvation, the sovereignty of God etc.
Anyways, I think the point I am trying to make is that some division is healthy when and only when it pertains to gospel truths that is the doctrines that pertain to the nature of Christ, His sacrifice, and what His work on the cross accomplished for His elect. These are non-negotiables as denial of any would constitute another gospel.
It is true we need unity in the body of Christ yet we need the right kind of unity. The monster of Frankenstein comes to mind, an amalgation of parts that should not belong together. That's what we don't want.
Conversely, we don't want needless division and quarreling which sadly I have oft noticed among professors of what we call the gospel of Sovereign Grace. Lately the topic has been the timing of justification and, at present, I refuse to condemn others for their particular views on the topic while there are more ready to do so.
Anyways, it's just too bad because we already know that the way is narrow and there will be few that find it but these dividers would have us walking on a tightrope of they had their way. May it not be so.
I wish you success with your book sale. Read the description and think I will order a copy. Thanks for the write up!
Thanks for the great comment. Excellent thoughts.
I do want to say that I am not talking about any type of ecumenical movement here as that would imply that the divisions caused by different views over the centuries have some form of validity. As you say, the essential doctrines of the faith must be adhered to without flex, but I have noticed that what many call essential are, in fact nonessential. It is in those areas where the sword of Damocles is most likely to fall, slicing and dicing the body of Christ in the process. Many denominational distinctions aren't necessary and have already done much damage.
Again, thanks for your magnificent response.