The title of this post begs the question, who are the doctrine-obsessed and is that an accurate assessment of them? In the Washington Post’s Evangelicals Feel a Need for Renewal, this is one of many perspectives on what’s wrong with evangelicalism as discussed at a recent conference at Gordon-Conwell:
Richard Alberta, senior pastor of Cornerstone Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brighton, Mich., said preoccupations with doctrinal purity help explain why he struggles to round up other evangelicals to join him at anti-abortion events.
“When you get evangelicals among themselves, instead of addressing the social and moral issues, they get backwatered into some debate about dispensationalism or Calvin or Charismatic Renewal,” Alberta said. “There’s lots of suspicion, and those worries seem to act as filters that keep evangelicals from getting together.”
Similar frustrations were expressed by Travis Hutchinson, pastor of Highlands Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church in America) in Lafayette, Ga. He said he routinely gets a cool response from other evangelicals when he asks them to join his efforts to minister among undocumented immigrants.
The problem, he said, is that the doctrine-obsessed have lost touch with the heart of Jesus. “The missing ingredient is not the primacy of the mind and doctrine,” Hutchinson said. “It’s the willingness to suffer.”
Is it the lack of cohesive doctrine that inspires the focus on doctrine? Scripture calls us not only to unity in mission, but also in unity in message.
October 25th, 2009 | 9:44 pm | #1
Ben Myers, over at his Faith and Theology blog, has an excellent post on the importance of confessing and defending what many Protestants are ignoring, even denying, as an irrelevant point of doctrine: the filioque.
[http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-i-still-confess-filioque.html]
Just one example of why doctrine matters.
October 25th, 2009 | 11:12 pm | #2
Sarah – Great post, raises a lot of interesting issues. I grew up in a fundamentalist church that wouldn’t participate in ANY local ecumenical events amongst evangelicals on precisely these grounds, so I’m quite familiar with what some of the people quoted are talking about.
That said, while it’s easy to blame this on doctrine-obsession, I don’t think that’s the most helpful way to frame the discussion. Rather, I think it’s an issue of American Christianity and it’s tendency to isolate itself from the larger Christian tradition. Obsession with doctrine isn’t the problem – doctrine is what tells us we should be out helping the poor in the first place. Rather, it’s the way we do doctrine in the US. Whenever Christians disagree amongst themselves over here, we form a new church with our own distinctives unique only to us. As a result, many secondary and tertiary matters have come to be seen as essential by different subgroups of Christians. (For instance: In non-denom churches, dispensationalism becomes an essential. In Presbyterian churches, five point Calvinism becomes an essential. In Pentecostal churches, speaking in tongues becomes an essential.)
I think a healthier model to approve is a more historically-grounded, basic sort of confessionalism. Take a really simple statement of faith like the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed and build on that. Sure, it may not be perfect, but it’s something we can build on. The point is we need to develop a common understanding of mere Christianity and allow that to shape our relationships with other Christians. Then we can have the Baptists, non-denoms, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, E-Frees, and any other members of the evangelical world joining together for these worthy causes outside their local churches, while also maintaining a healthy understanding of their own distinctives.
My two cents, thanks for posting this :).
October 26th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #3
Is the issue the “doctrine obessed” or being unsure about which doctrine we should obess about and divide over?
We’ve already seen, in guys like Randall Terry (and others) what happens when the Protestant pro-lifers get too cozy with Catholic pro-lifers. Inevitably the doctrinal lines become too blurred and disappear altogether, to the detriment of men’s souls.
I would agree with the issue, along protestant lines, but it just doesn’t often go that way.
This would be why, even (or perhaps especially) when the church beings to live out the truth in a social setting (as if there were any other setting in which to live it out…) the whole thing needs to be gospel-centred from beginning to end. That way the doctrinal divide can be limited to essentials, but it will be less likely to blur those same essentials.
Doctrinal divisions are, I think, important and not to be avoided. The question is, which doctrine to divide over, and when?
October 26th, 2009 | 9:58 am | #4
I like how Francis Schaeffer puts it, that knowledge precedes belief. Similarly, doctrine, I believe precedes action. No doubt we can talk and talk and talk and there is the risk of never “doing,” but so often those who are motivated by a more pragmatic approach pit belief and action against each other, unnecessarily so.
October 26th, 2009 | 12:07 pm | #5
Instead of “deeds not creeds” why not “deeds AND creeds”?
October 26th, 2009 | 12:26 pm | #6
@ Jake: Great insights, and well put.
October 26th, 2009 | 12:54 pm | #7
The day we set aside doctrine is the day we forget why anti-abortion events are necessary.
October 26th, 2009 | 2:39 pm | #8
Jake,
I think a healthier model to approve is a more historically-grounded, basic sort of confessionalism.
This is what the Evangelical Covenant Church (of which I am a member) seeks to do. Its basic philosophy: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” It also seeks to work with members of other denoms as well as local relief groups to do missions both at home and abroad.
October 26th, 2009 | 2:56 pm | #9
Bonnie – I’ve heard of the ECC before, a couple favorite bloggers of mine are from the ECC, in fact. I’m a pretty happy resident of the PCA church I go to right now, but if I ever move away from my church, I’d definitely check out any ECC churches in the area.
October 26th, 2009 | 6:20 pm | #10
I am quite sure there can be such a thing as an unhealthy obsession with doctrine, but I find the opposite is usually true in our churches, doctrinalists are routinely pooh-poohed by activists and emotionalists. Also, I understand we don’t know all that went into these criticisms but I do sense in these critics the common mentality of judging others according to their own passions and agendas.
October 27th, 2009 | 3:18 pm | #11
Here’s a science experiment for you:
You and one of your buddies stand up in the “announcements” time of church:
You say, “Hey we are starting a study at my house on Sun. nights looking at the Heidleburg Catechism. We will meet from 6 to 8 and look at the frist 3 questions starting in two weeks.
Your buddy, “Hey we are starting a study at my house on Sunday nights looking at a Beth Moore study entitled “Emotional God: How to laugh, cry and love God with all of your heart.” We will meet from 6-8 starting in 2 weeks.”
Conclusion from said goat or sheep:
“That Heidleburg thing is all head knowledge and no heart knowledge. My wife says we should do the Beth Moore study.”
October 27th, 2009 | 3:22 pm | #12
Danny, that happens all the time…sadly.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact