I recently helped a friend of mine move some furniture around. There were several of us; but I was probably the biggest guy in stature. One of the people, though, that was helping was a really sweet person from, well, the South. Some how, as in many cases, we got on the topic of Jesus, the Bible, and what Churches are missing from the pulpit and from the people. This man, who was very quick to speak up, said the following (not word for word):

“The problem with churches is that they teach church history, church doctrine, and they don’t teach Jesus.”

I was fortunate enough to hold my tongue at that point, because what I had to say was significant. It is not that I have some special understanding of the Bible, or of the Gospel. But, what I often come across in the south is a particular breed of, shall I say, “Christianism.” This is a doctrinal dichotomy that many Christians seem to thrive in that touts some form of the following:

1. No Creed but Christ.
2. Doctrine Divides.

The doctrinal dichotomy that this sweet person I met is living in is a reaction to common forms of “theraputic deism” (hereafter, TD) and relativism. In fact, since these two moralistic (or a-moralistic) forms of religion are sold in whole sale quantities in the West, many lay-people in the deep “bible-belt” South have taken the liberty to swing way to the right to compensate. For many of them, they wouldn’t have known different until their pastor, elders, or church significant-others told them a sweet cookie-cutter answer to such monumental problems: “If it ain’t about Jesus, it doesn’t matter. Doctrine creates division in the Church.”

The first comment I would like to make is towards the pastor, elder, or spiritual significant-other that makes this kind of statement. The problem with this kind of statement for a lay-person is you are giving them a product, rather than tools, to use. You don’t tell them how to come to a conclusions like that, and reinforce its “no-buts-about-it” policy by giving lite, refined-starch, bible verses to back it up. This is a problem. It is contributing to the ignorance of people, and it’s not encouraging them to exercise the spiritual muscles of their mind. It’s like if a master carpenter told an apprentice that a perfect sphere looks like “this” and then says, “I’ll give you one, so you know how to make it.”

Second, Pastors and Elders must take all attempts that react to relativism and TD, and swing way to any side, and adjust them within your congregation. By taking things back to the Gospel and moving out from there, necessarily talking about the implications of said Gospel.

After saying these things, however, there is something more pressing on my mind, and that is responding to the two tenants of the above conclusions: 1) No creed but Christ; and 2) Doctrine divides. First, the phrase, “No creed but Christ” came from Jehovah’s witnesses, which doesn’t necessarily have the best track record for being orthodox. This isn’t conclusive, however, in my argument, but certainly understanding the intended meaning of the phrase by understanding it’s roots certainly brings light to the subject. Logically, however, saying “no creed but Christ,” is exacting a creed. Logically, it is self-defeating. Suppose, though, that I were to run with this statement; what then, do I know about Christ? Where do I learn it from? The Bible. And Christ, doctrinally, was very clear on many things. So, if we proclaim that Christ is our only “creed,” then shouldn’t we follow what he said doctrinally? How about his credos? The argument falls apart the deeper one searches into everything.

If one affirms that the totally sinful man cannot save himself apart from the Grace of God, then we must believe that as long as sin exists in the world, and even in the flesh of a believer, then we will always have disagreements and division. My next point, about “doctrine divides,” is precisely along this line of thinking. Doctrine does not divide us, it only makes us more aware of disagreements we have already. Think of it in terms of marriage: If a man and wife are married for years, and then suddenly the husband alludes to something that the wife is uncomfortable with, thereby uncovering a secret and pervasive, but before unknown, belief, then saying that “he believes in X,” wouldn’t it be likely that that tensions was present before in the marriage? Of course it was! The wife might not have sensed it directly, or the husband be able to identify it on command, but it surely was there. The phrase “doctrine divides” is categorically the same. Talking about doctrine, especially when there is disagreement, is only uncovering what was already previously present. And, if Christ cared about doctrine (which is certainly present in his teaching) and about beliefs, wouldn’t we, as churches and peoples, work them out and edify the Body?

The person who prompted this post was a spiritual example of reactive, skin-deep, doctrinal convictions which is leading to a soft-bigotry towards even some brother’s and sister’s who deeply care about unity, and wish to work it out by declaring (or confessing) what they believe. Remember Hebrews 5:11ff – “About this [referring to the previous paragraph] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” (emphasis mine)

It is so important to press through possible hurt and pain from discussing doctrinal divisions within the Church, and it is important to distinguish what Christ, what he believed, and what he would want us to do. The hurt and pain from avoiding these “confrontations” could be devastating and apocalyptic to the souls of others.