Comments on: Have the Doctrine-Obsessed Lost Touch with the Heart of Jesus?

By: Sarah J. Flashing

Sarah J. Flashing — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:22:55 +0000

Danny, that happens all the time…sadly.

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:18:52 +0000

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.”

By: David Wayne

David Wayne — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:20:54 +0000

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.

By: Jake Meador

Jake Meador — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:56:53 +0000

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.

By: Bonnie

Bonnie — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:39:51 +0000

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.

By: Anthony Mator

Anthony Mator — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:54:51 +0000

The day we set aside doctrine is the day we forget why anti-abortion events are necessary.

By: Jeff Schultz

Jeff Schultz — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:26:47 +0000

@ Jake: Great insights, and well put.

By: Drew K

Drew K — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:07:23 +0000

Instead of “deeds not creeds” why not “deeds AND creeds”?

By: Sarah J. Flashing

Sarah J. Flashing — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:58:43 +0000

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.

By: Daryl Little

Daryl Little — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:35:08 +0000

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?

By: Jake Meador

Jake Meador — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:12:51 +0000

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 :).

By: Anthony Sacramone

Anthony Sacramone — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:44:54 +0000

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.