Help - What is Doctrine?
March 10, 2008 by Jonathan Brink
I’m going to chart into the deep side of the ocean here for a bit and ask a question that has been on my mind. I know there are much better minds out there that can help me on this one. So I’m asking for your help.
What really is doctrine? The dictionary defines doctrine as:
- a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
- something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
- a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Wikipedia provides almost no insight into the word, whatsoever.
Princeton’s definition is, “a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.”
From these general sources, the use of the word leads me to believe that doctrine is some school of thought by a specific group of people. It’s a way of believing the Gospel. And my wonder is, have we generalized, even expanded, the word beyond what Paul was intending? Have we lost the original meaning of it in such a way that it now provides license to validate what WE believe? I’m just asking.
Scripture list only seven uses of the word, all listed in Timothy and Titus. The general theme among all these passages is sound doctrine or warning against false doctrine. So what was the primary false doctrine that Paul was encountering?
I would offer that Galatians points to the central issue within Scripture that Paul was dealing with: Are we adding to grace and returning to religion, or the law? Are we returning to earning God’s love in some way. This was the central issue of the church. It was the basis of his confrontation with Peter.
Paul is clearly speaking of returning to the law in Timothy,
“6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They 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 1:6-7)”
And so my question is this. Have we expanded the word doctrine to suit our purposes in such a way that it has become the opposite of what Paul intended? Have we created a doctrinal stance or position that is essentially a specific way of believing, which is a return to the law? In other words, if I don’t believe these specific creeds, doctrines or set of beliefs, then I’m not “in”. Isn’t this adding to grace, which was Paul’s original concern and use of the word?
Or another way of putting it. Is my salvation dependent on knowing the creeds and doctrines, which are different across denominations and sects? And even within the church there are general doctrinal agreements but there are also significant disagreements, which leads to sects or denominations. And what if I don’t understand a specific doctrinal point? Am I now out? Is my salvation dependent on comprehension? What then do people who can’t comprehend, such as mentally impaired individuals? And which version do I pick? (And btw, this is not a question of Jesus being the son of God, which is the center of the Gospel.) Isn’t this approach returning to the law which is then dependent on my very specific actions? What happens if I get a word wrong or forget to add a period? What happens if I forget a specific doctrinal point that I wasn’t even aware of? What about my kids?
And my concern is this. When we distort the word and add to grace, doctrine becomes a tool for fear as opposed to a beautiful story that releases people from oppression. It ceases to become about what he did and then becomes about what we do. It requires the individual to return to the law by believing a certain way, determined by someone else, as opposed to inviting them out of the law and into relationship. The question then is, when we add to grace, when do we stop adding. We can’t. The boundaries are endless and get blurred because its based on our interpretation of Scripture, which is a human construct. People get scared and worried, and wondering about their own faith. We create doubt rather than encourage faith.
I love Scripture. The Bible is one of the most influential books of my life. But isn’t grace about its simplicity, the cross, God’s unending love that we can’t earn, rather than about its complexity that we control.
Help me with this one. Inquiring minds want to know.
“I love Scripture. The Bible is one of the most influential books of my life. But isn’t grace about its simplicity, the cross, God’s unending love that we can’t earn, rather than about its complexity that we control.”
I agree completely! The gospel is simple and I’m afraid that too many times we get so caught up in minor disputes about secondary issues (everything is secondary to the cross) that we forget the gospel.
I do think though that doctrine is very important. It helps us to know what we believe and the limits of our Christian liberty. Joe off the street should not care or even be aware maybe of our doctrinal differences but Joe out of the church should.
On the other hand I think of 2 men who were on opposite ends of the theological/doctrinal debate: John Calvin and John Wesley. Who’s right, Who’s wrong, it doesn’t matter, God used them both in a great way to change the world.
Some schools of thought are harder to understand than others (I’ll not get into it) , but the way I see it is that if you believe in the cross then you are ok in my book.
I think doctrine, like scripture, can be helpful when it comes to instruction and illumination. But I think that doctrine becomes meaningless unless it is used to support what we experience individually, as well as corporately, in our relationship with God.
In Romans, when Paul talks of the Law (in a positive fashion) I think he is talking of that law that sums up all of the biblical laws and the prophets; the law that was visibly demonstrated through the life and death of Christ. He seemed to be all right with those who had accepted Christ as Messiah and still held to tradition, as long as that tradition was not forced on others. Conversely, those Gentiles who were unfamiliar with Mosaic law and Jewish tradition should not create problems for those who continued those practices.
Essentially he was encouraging, exhorting and pleading for the family of believers to accept each others way of practicing religion. But, unfortunately, they did not listen and disaster ensued in Rome.
So, has religion, what we call the church, behaved much differently over the years? Has doctrine been used as a tool to assist, to encourage people with their faith or has it more often been used as a club to compel obedient thinking?
[...] Help- What Is Doctrine? by Joathan Brink @ Missio Dei On Community by David Hayward @ Nakedpastor [...]
I’ve asked this question, as well at Keep Sound Doctrine So Why All The Noise and Why Do We think Doctrine Means Various Ologies?
In fact, I did a search for What is Doctrine on my blog and there are actually several posts where I’ve hit on this topic.
I have begun moving toward the idea that doctrine as discussed in the New Testament is more orthopraxy than orthodoxy. It seems doctrine is more about who we are in Christ, what we do as a result of our being New Creations, and our love for God than it is an academic exercise. I’ve come to this based on an inductive read of the texts you cite as well as reading them in the context of the call to unity and love.
Great post.