IRRELEVANT DOCTRINE

(As I read this through preparing to post it I am a little embarrassed. This was written at the same time as all the other posts in this section [about four years ago] but this one in particular demonstrates how torn I was between the institution and my faith. There is no doubt that I was obviously frustrated with the church, but I was also trying to defend it, or at least give it the opportunity to redeem itself. As I have developed over the past few years and began to seek out places where I might fit, it is with the doctrine of the church that I find myself most different. Whereas when this was written it showed an allegiance to the doctrine of the church but a frustration with the institution that manages that doctrine, I have now come to be less concerned with the institution and much more focused on my own theology and how that will shape my “calling”. So I guess all that I ask as you read this entry, if you can make yourself read it, is to observe my struggle with making sense of frustrations with a system that I no longer at home in and a theology that didn’t fit me.)

I see there being a distinct difference between doctrine and theology. This is not to say that it is not the goal of doctrine to reflect sound theology. However, doctrine is rooted in principles while theology is rooted in understanding. Therefore, doctrine is rooted in cultural perspectives while theology is rooted in experience. Both should be in a constant state of progress, but because of the rigid nature of principles, doctrine is less fluid. That said, some doctrine is birthed out of progressive culture and is beneficial to the church. The argument of sanctification is an excellent example of how a theology and doctrine coincided and birthed a model that enhanced the scriptural integrity of the institution. However, there is some doctrine that has not undergone scrutiny in the 20th century church that perpetuates a doctrinal allegiance rather than a theological foundation such as tithing, forms of worship, understanding of evangelism, and what the authority of scripture means. These are but a few of the examples that have found their way into the church through cultural perspectives that are neither scriptural nor productive for a postmodern church.

To completely exhaust the inconsistencies between doctrine, theology, and scripture would be, well, exhausting. Not to mention well beyond my competency. However, I do believe that there are many doctrinal issues serving the institution that are turning people away from Christ. Many of these doctrines, or at least the principle of these doctrines, are less about scriptural integrity than about territory, control, and the continued exploitation of church goers. As long as the church continues to fear addressing these issues, the church will grow in its doctrine that is irrelevant and destructive. I believe that the local church, however, can lead the way in what it means to be a community of believers. I believe that the local church can learn to be an organic and learning community. I believe that it is possible to learn to listen to people’s questions and to question the way we do things without the fear of losing authority. This again can be led by individuals in positions of influence that will stand up and question these things, people that do not fear the repercussions that come from standing out. I believe that the church is in need of great men and women of God that will lead the church into a new world. There are no practical steps that I can offer here. To question such things will surely be viewed as rebellious. To stand for truth has always been encountered with resistance. But true leaders will rise in or out of the church that will make a stand. Think of how great it would be if it came from within the church rather than outside of it.