# unimportance of doctrine



## Scott (Nov 8, 2005)

Can anyone point me to anyone who argues that doctrine is unimportant? I need a foil for a discussion I plan to give on the importance of doctrine. I know allot of people these days see doctrine as divisive and the like.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2005)

Would you like me to play the protagonist? I can do it. ( I don't believe in this but... ) I believe that doctrine is unimportant. Problem is, I can't give you any reasons because those reasons would have to consist of doctrines that I think necessary. So I would be undermining my position as soon as I argue it. So all I can do is say that doctrine is unimportant. That is my doctrine, and it doesn't matter to me. 

So, here goes my argument:

  

then,

  

then,

  


That is to say, Scott, I can't help you on this one.


----------



## DTK (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Can anyone point me to anyone who argues that doctrine is unimportant? I need a foil for a discussion I plan to give on the importance of doctrine. I know allot of people these days see doctrine as divisive and the like.


I can't point to anything like this as such, but given all the "hype" we hear today about Seeker-sensitive churches, Thom Rainer (from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) has done some research in this area concerning the "unchurched." The results can be seen in his book, _Surprising Insights from the Unchurched_. While I certainly don't endorse everything he said in this book, I do think it's good for pastors to be aware of certain trends in our culture.

The difference in Rainer's research, as opposed to other studies, was conducted in the following manner. Instead of surveying people who are presently unchurched, he surveyed people in "Evangelical" churches today (a wide variety of denominations) who had been unchurched, but now had been churched for over a year, in order to ascertain from them what priorities led them to their present church. Their answers were interesting, and the top three reasons they gave for attending the church they are in are as follows in this order of priority.

1) The preaching - these people placed a priority on preaching above any other factor.

2) doctrinal certainty - i.e., they were in churches which had taught them biblical doctrine and they knew what they believed.

3) relationships with other people - Rainer found that when these people visited a church, if they did not connect with one or more families in the church in order to cultivate meaningful relationships, they left and found those relationships elsewhere.

I found this aspect of his research interesting.

DTK


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 8, 2005)

I would also like to add that the impression I get from charismatic churchs is that there anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine in better words. Except when it comes to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

blade


----------



## cupotea (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Can anyone point me to anyone who argues that doctrine is unimportant? I need a foil for a discussion I plan to give on the importance of doctrine. I know allot of people these days see doctrine as divisive and the like.



The Evangelical Lutheran Church in American had its national meeting this past summer and the highlight of it was the discussion of whether or not to accept active homosexuals. The results were ambiguous, leaving the door open to a number of possible interpretations.

Mark Hanson, the national bishop of the ELCA, recently said that such ambiguity is a good thing. (This is the same Mark Hanson who is now in serious talks with the latest pope on uniting Lutherans with papists.) 

The direction is clear ... doctrine is (relatively) unimportant because it divides. But then, divisiveness is one of the primary purposes of doctrine. 

Thus, a la' Hanson, if one wants to stress unity-at-all-costs, then doctrine will have to go by the wayside.


----------



## Scott (Nov 8, 2005)

"The direction is clear ... doctrine is (relatively) unimportant because it divides. But then, divisiveness is one of the primary purposes of doctrine."

Is that one of Hanson's quotes?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2005)

Here is one example:

"The implications of all this to unity and fellowship are weighty. It means that the gospel itself, not our doctrinal interpretations, is the basis of our being one in Christ and in fellowship with each other. That is, when one believes in Jesus and obeys him in baptism, he is our brother and in the fellowship..." Leroy Garrett, "The Word Abused," _Restoration Review_, XVII, No. 3, pp. 42-46.

The ecumenical creed is: "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all other things unity." This article traces the origin of the phrase and how it has been picked up by those that would emphasize unity over divisive sectarian doctrine: http://chinesetheology.com/Kiven Folder/ThePeaceFormual.htm

The Disappearing Doctrine of the Evangelical Church


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "The direction is clear ... doctrine is (relatively) unimportant because it divides. But then, divisiveness is one of the primary purposes of doctrine."
> 
> Is that one of Hanson's quotes?



Here is a source of explanation for the old ecumenical slogan (c. 1925) "doctrine divides, service unites."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_16_122/ai_n15674440

This might also be useful:
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/earnest.htm

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 8, 2005)

How about this: http://www.ulc.net/

You can become ordained in minutes, without cost, without statement of faith.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 9, 2005)

"œI´m not certain that I have any convictions other than one, that [we must end] ... the divisions which have separated the believers historically and have weakened the impact of Christianity on 20th Century America. ... You know, I am in a very ecumenical position. I´m an Episcopalian. I love to go to Baptist churches nearby, particularly one Baptist church where the pastor is on the board of Prison Fellowship Foundation. My wife was Roman Catholic when I was converted, and she´s remained in her church, organizing a little Bible study. ... we must seek a fresh unity of spirit and A HEALING OF THE DIVISIONS which many historians write has crippled the impact of Christianity..." -- Chuck Colson, Feb. 1977, statement at 35th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals


----------



## Scott (Nov 9, 2005)

Thanks for all the replies. Here is a nice excerpt I found in an editorial in World Magazine called "œPacked But Still Empty." The article is talking about an interview with sociologist and mega-church pastor Leith Anderson:



> [mega-chuch pastor Leith Anderson] points out that today, one can go into a church (especially a megachurch) of nearly any denomination"”Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Lutheran"”and be unable to notice any difference among them. They all are likely to use the same praise songs and contemporary worship style. The sermons will tend to be about practical biblical tips for successful living, and go light on doctrine and sin. Also, all of these different denominations tend to use Sunday-school curriculum and other material from the same nondenominational publishers. These companies purposefully avoid all controversial issues and doctrinal distinctives, which would limit their market share. As a result, "generic Christianity" is erasing denominational differences and giving churches a brand-new theological framework. Mr. Anderson thinks this is a good thing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 9, 2005)

Spoken by somebody (?):

"The difference between here and in Europe, is that we have people *in our big, empty churches.*


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

When in doubt, blame Finney.

Or the Methodists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 9, 2005)

How about the Emergent Church movement?


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "But then, divisiveness is one of the primary purposes of doctrine."
> 
> Is that one of Hanson's quotes?



Nope. One of mine. 

Doctrine is, by nature, a knife that rightly divides not just the Word, but also unbelievers from the Body of Christ. 

The postmodern relativists call it discrimination, prejudice, divisivenenss ... etc. But it's one of the central purposes of Christian doctrine and I think we need to stand very strongly upon it.


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> "œI´m not certain that I have any convictions other than one, that [we must end] ... the divisions which have separated the believers historically and have weakened the impact of Christianity on 20th Century America. ... You know, I am in a very ecumenical position. I´m an Episcopalian. I love to go to Baptist churches nearby, particularly one Baptist church where the pastor is on the board of Prison Fellowship Foundation. My wife was Roman Catholic when I was converted, and she´s remained in her church, organizing a little Bible study. ... we must seek a fresh unity of spirit and A HEALING OF THE DIVISIONS which many historians write has crippled the impact of Christianity..." -- Chuck Colson, Feb. 1977, statement at 35th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals



This is one of the reasons I would avoid Colson like the avian flu. Like the UCC, he's one of those who would love to quote John 17:21a, while ignoring the context that includes v. 14 on ... and especially v.17.

As one who has come out of the papist religion, I am always abhorred by those who claim to be Christian, yet remain within it doing things like "organizing a little Bible study" so as to try and reform it from the inside-out.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

The only sources I could cite would be informal ones. I have some acquaintances who hold to the idea of the umimportance of doctrine. To some degree I can see their point. Underneath their objections they've seen the fact that doctrine kills, but I think they miss the fact that doctrine doesn't kill; it is the people who abuse the doctrine to kill that they are really objecting to. They are really objecting to the excuse of doctrinal or traditional justification for overbearing and overlording practices that take place. 

In my own experience, when a church begins to wander doctrinally, what usually happens first is that some people jump on the opportunity to slam doctrine, citing the wrongs of the church as their justifications. But they fail to see, it seems to me, that the wrongs they are objecting to did not come about through the doctrines, but through the fact that the church was not following the true doctrines. They object to abuses, but blame the holy truths of Scripture, when it is clear that it is perpetrated by men, not God's Word. It is their "out" from under the yoke of truth, so that they can follow the inclination to suppress it. It follows both from their own willfulness as well as from the lack of spiritual guidance, as a church begins to fall to the sway of the times. I can feel for them, and yet they will not hear of it when it is suggested that doctrines are not to blame. I try not to leave those conversations with the bottom line, that they have themselves become what they have objected to, but that is hard to do sometimes.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Here is one example:
> 
> "The implications of all this to unity and fellowship are weighty. It means that the gospel itself, not our doctrinal interpretations, is the basis of our being one in Christ and in fellowship with each other. That is, when one believes in Jesus and obeys him in baptism, he is our brother and in the fellowship..." Leroy Garrett, "The Word Abused," _Restoration Review_, XVII, No. 3, pp. 42-46.
> ...



Another article on the origins of the saying credited to Augustine, "In essentials unity..." Philip Schaff on the same.

[Edited on 6-19-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 19, 2006)

Rod Parsley, a fiery Word of Faith preacher in Pentecostal circles, is critical of serious doctrinal study, and in particular has a catch-phrase that "Exegesis X's out Jesus."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Rod Parsley, a fiery Word of Faith preacher in Pentecostal circles, is critical of serious doctrinal study, and in particular has a catch-phrase that "Exegesis X's out Jesus."


----------

