Christian Doctrine
Christian doctrine is an area of theology that is
essential to the life of the intellectual Christian. It is in this area,
however, that the average Christian is largely unlearned. I say this as one who
was not raised in a liturgical tradition; this, to me, has been crippling and
paradoxically liberating. Crippling because of the lack of eloquence I am able
to refer to the formal teachings of the church and at the same time, this lack
of experience is liberating as it has afforded me the luxury of being able to
approach certain topics in the church from an objective point of view. “Christian
doctrine tells us that there is redemption for us and for the world, and each
particular doctrine articulates some aspect of this redemption.”[1]
Zizioulas articulates the driving power behind doctrine well in his first
chapter entitled Doctrine as the Teaching
of the Church. It is to the end of telling the redemption story of
Christianity that we use doctrine in our communities.
The purposes of doctrine are pointed out in the title of
this first chapter well. Teaching is the fundamental purpose for doctrine as it
is the retelling and reinterpretation of the dogmas or beliefs of a particular
system or people; in this case, Christianity. Without the tradition of
indoctrinating our children and new believers, the beliefs and convictions of
our original church fathers are not able to perpetuate into the next
generations. It is this line of doctrine that has linked the modern church to
its familial roots that were planted by the original disciples and authors of
the bible — it is our lifeline to remaining a distinct people. Along with the
purpose of keeping our beliefs relevant is the pragmatic reason of accuracy
that doctrine affords us. Without some standard of beliefs set down, it is easy
to see how any particular set of beliefs can be distorted until they no longer
resemble the original beliefs. Moving beyond simply maintain relevance,
Moltmann points out that the effect of the doctrines that we teach is to “develop
and practice…thinking as well [as working out our doctrines].”[2] A
theoretical doctrine is only so helpful if one does not allow it to affect
their thinking and practice. This is a major part in understanding why we use
doctrine as a means of communicating our faith.
All of this usefulness would be for naught, however, if
the Christian church at large does not maintain clarity. Our doctrines also
provide this for us; a base line of sorts to which we can hold all beliefs that
come our way in order to discern what is worthy of ascription. An example of
this is in a case of the original councils in which beliefs such as Arianism
were dismissed as heretical to the doctrines that were set forth. While this divisiveness
may superficially seem contradictory to the inclusive message of Christ, it
serves the function of keeping the truths that were learned and reasoned from
the God-man, Jesus untainted by personal preferences and cultural relevance.
Following from this clarity is the essential common ground that believers can
stand on. While there are definite differences between Eastern Orthodox, Roman
Catholic and Western Protestant theologies, the distinct common ground of Trinitarian
theology, the divinity of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit is an
essential bond that truly makes us “one, catholic, apostolic church”. Jesus calls
the church to exist as one functioning body and to do this there has to be some
agreement as to what metaphorical DNA we will have. The doctrines of the
Christian church are that DNA that unites the hand, foot and nose of the entire
church body despite our differences.
True to the purpose of distinguishing the Christian
religion from all other world religions, there are friction points that are unavoidable.
The most obvious to point out would be the great schism between the Roman
Catholic Church in the west and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the east. The
fact that what divided these two similar traditions was the minute
interpretation of a particular phrase that was contingent on dialectical
differences in concert with the political plights of Charlemagne gives
testament to the fragile nature of religious beliefs in general. It is because
of the great fragility of such matters that doctrine must be scrutinized
carefully because there is potential for unnecessary division among the body
which is against the basis of our faith that lies in Christ’s calling us to one
body. Another area in which friction has turned into permanent change is in the
Christian cults that have cropped up over time. Groups such as the Jehovah’s
Witnesses and Mormons find their roots in Christianity but became heretical
when they denied fundamental teachings of the church. In such cases, it is
right that those holding to the heretical beliefs be pointed out and publically
spoken against if they refuse to alter their beliefs. The friction that comes
along with definitively stating what one believes is a healthy friction because
it only serves to further purify the beliefs that have been set forth. A more
recent area of friction is in the doctrine of hell. A couple years ago,
pastor-theologian, Rob Bell released his book Love Wins which stirred up a lot of controversy in conservative
Christian circles and, in fact, indirectly led to my older brother leaving a
pastoral job at a church in Kansas. Many brought accusations of heresy against
Bell and his book but were unable to point out in exactly what way he deviated
from true Christian dogma. It is in the crucible of such friction that
Christians grow, mature and stretch their minds in a progressive way.
I myself have encountered several discussion indirectly
related to doctrines of the Christian church. One such example is when, in
December of 2011, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church decided to cancel
Sunday services in exchange for his entire church committing to doing acts of
service in their community. While promoting this event, some other pastors across
the country had opposing feelings; one such pastor, Erik Raymond, felt strongly
enough to write a blog about it. My best friend who lived near Raymond’s church
sent me the blog and asked my thoughts. The basis of Erik’s argument was to
pose a dichotomy by asking if churches are primarily called to meet formally or
to acting in service to the community. This gets right to the heart of the
ecclesial doctrines of the church i.e. what is our function? I unfortunately
never got a response from Raymond, but it is just as well since my purpose was
not to confront him, but to give my two cents in response to his two cents. As
alluded to before, I have also been privileged to witness my older brother who
is a youth pastor in Iowa confront different doctrinal issues in his ministry
career such as the aforementioned doctrine of hell.
Overall, I appreciate my experiences with doctrinal
debates and the education that I have gained from pursuing a Christian
academia. My understanding of doctrine is a little more liberal and abstract
due to my lack of liturgical upbringing, but is no less a large part of my
beliefs today. The purposes of defining ourselves, clarifying ourselves and
purging our beliefs of falsehoods is a noble and well working function that the
Christian church has yet to cease benefiting from.
Pax,
The Dread
No comments:
Post a Comment