Doctrine and Unity
By Harry Moore
[Page 168] |
In the New Testament it means simply "teaching," sometimes the act and sometimes the content. Often it applies to principles of godly living, so "sound doctrine" ("whole teaching" -- NEB), includes matters such as temperance, gravity, faith, love and endurance (Titus 2:1), and the "good doctrine" is that which "accords with godliness" (1 Timothy 6:3). More generally, doctrine denotes a truth or fact, such as the fact that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7-11). It may denote a false teaching, such as unwarranted restriction that people should not marry and that they should not eat certain foods. These are "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1-3). So doctrine means teaching, whether factual, hortatory, or imperative, and whether true or false.
But words are living things. They grow and change, and our word doctrine is a changed word. In theological circles the word has grown more abstract. It means concept, theory or idea. We speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, or Inspiration. Here, a "doctrine" is a rationally structured truth. In Church of Christ circles (I speak of what I know), the word has grown more restricted. It refers more to the group than to the individual. Thus we speak of the "doctrine" of baptism, the Lord's supper, or the organization of the church, but not as Paul did, of the "doctrine" of honesty, chastity, or of submission to one's husband. In our circles the word has grown more factional. A "doctrinal issue" is usually a heatedly controversial and partisan issue.
Finally, in some circles (and these are the "unity-minded") the word has grown less meaningful and practical. "Doctrine" connotes "excessively theoretical," "nicely philosophical," "rigidly and artificially systematic." Here the word has not only grown, but also spoiled. With these,
[Page 169] |
It is hardly feasible to insist upon a literal New Testament usage of the word doctrine, but it is both feasible and desirable to examine the thinking and the attitudes behind our emotional uses of the word. (The middle-aged woman who has eaten herself into obesity will hardly return to her virgin shapeliness, but that is not tragic unless she entertains the delusion that she retains that shapeliness). So I submit the following two points of clarification. In the sense of "thought-out theory" a clear "doctrinal" basis is exactly what any meaningful "unity movement" needs; furthermore, many of those who defend "doctrine" against unity-minded believers have not themselves examined their "doctrine." (By "unity-minded" I mean those who hold for a recognition of fellowship among all who are in Christ -- for me this means immersed believers -- in spite of differences about the name, organization, or formal policies of the faction or denomination.)
To take the most basic example, the "doctrine" of grace is central to a meaningful fellowship of believers. "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). "By grace you have been saved through faith...not because of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8, 9). "We shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11). If salvation is by the unmerited favor of God (and it is!), then our entire perspective of "works" changes. Works are the results, not the means of justification, that is, of standing guiltless before God. It is being genuine in trust and commitment, not perfect in performance, that is most important. In this perspective, baptism becomes a trusting acceptance and a willing pledge, not a "step" in a heaven-climbing exercise. Jacob did not climb the ladder; the angels did!
The Lord's Supper becomes a feast of gratitude and humility, not an "item" in a works scheme. Evangelism becomes a joyful sharing, not a "soul winning game. In this perspective also, such quasi-"doctrinal" issues as instrumental music, hired ministers, Sunday school classes, and national television programs, are logically of secondary importance, and do not disrupt the fellowship, though they may certainly lead to separate congregations with different practices, precisely because "doctrine," the doctrine of grace, has been clarified and affirmed, and not because anything has been compromised. The one who insists that salvation depends on a particular organization and policy of the church, has, wittingly or not, assumed a "doctrine" of human merit. He errs precisely because his "doctrine" is false. Thus a clearer doctrinal understanding of grace underlies our emphasis upon unity.
More broadly -- more as a Christian movement than as a unity movement -- there are other "doctrines" which we need to clarify and emphasize. Our doctrine of evil is one. Too often we labor under the naive (and, strangely enough, modernistic) notion that all a sinner needs is to be told what his duty is, as though evil were a mystery instead of a power! Knowing good is not doing good! To do right, we need divine power. We need the Spirit of God.
Our doctrine of conversion is another example. Our advertising and persuading -- as opposed to convicting and informing -- campaigns are often very shallow things because they assume that conversion is a totally human operation. We forget that God must "open the heart," and until he does so, a sinner will not "see" the kingdom of God. He may or may not choose to enter it after he "sees" it. We cannot restore sight to the spiritually blind but we can help make the truth in Jesus available to those whose eyes have been opened. We cannot cure the disease, but we can make our fellow sin-sufferers aware of their illness and point them to the One who can cure the disease. We are workers with, not for, God.
[Page 170] |
My main point is that our faith should be thought through, and in that sense should be "doctrinal." Behind the practice there must be a meaningful theory. Being a Christian will immediately, of course, be a matter of personal experience -- loving, trusting, deciding, choosing, resisting, acting. But it must ultimately be a matter of "doctrine." We must know the assumptions upon which we stake our lives. Whatever this means for others, it has meant for me a broader (and more joyful!) sense of fellowship with all of God's children. He knows them! I can only accept them when I meet them! Our present concern for unity has a solid "doctrinal" basis. We have traced out faith to its roots and have found them more widespread than we thought. "We too believe, and so we speak."