Why Emphasize Doctrine?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the importance of doctrine:

Q:  Why do many churches emphasize doctrine so much?  As long as a person is sincere, does it really matter what they believe? 

Christian doctrine, that is the content of what a Christian or denomination believes and teaches, has become a difficult subject in recent years.  The large number of Christian denominations today are a result of the fact that over the course of Christian history differing positions developed on certain teachings, with the result that those on opposite sides of the issue formed separate organizations as a result of their differing beliefs. 

In contrast to this, the most recent century of Christian history has been characterized by different church bodies either merging or reinitiating fellowship with one another across denominational lines.  However, as the various churches have come together, it has not been because they resolved their differences, but instead, because they decided to overlook those differences and agree to disagree. 

But many Christians sincerely question whether this approach is acceptable or beneficial to Christianity at large, because although it might be more comfortable to overlook differences rather than resolve them, it merely ignores the problem rather than solving it.  Look, for example, at a marriage.  A couple who overlooks or ignores their differences rather than solving them will not have a healthy marriage, or perhaps a marriage at all, for very long.  And so it goes for churches. 

Doctrinal compromise, rather than resolution, also has other risks.  Some teachings stray so far from the truth that those who believe them cease even to be Christians, because the definitions have changed so much as to result in not just different beliefs, but a different God.  This was the case when the Mormon and Jehovah’s Witness religions arose in the mid-19^th century.  Because they no longer taught that Jesus was God or that God was a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they became not just another denomination of Christianity, but a completely different religion.

Other teachings do not stray so far as to cause the loss of salvation, but they do differ enough from truth to pose a danger to those who believe them.  For example, I have had friends in the past who believed that it was necessary to contribute some small part, such as responding to an altar call, in order to be saved, rather than God doing 100% of the work of saving.  I witnessed people who responded to as many as a dozen altar calls, because they were uncertain whether they were sincere enough the previous time they went forward.  This seemingly small difference in doctrine became an occasion for the enemy to cause them doubt and attempt to shake their faith.

Ultimately, Christian doctrine could be compared a sweater.  When a snag occurs and a small thread is exposed, the sweater still serves its purpose, but if the thread is pulled, the damage continues to increase until the entire sweater is unraveled. 

We can see this happening in recent church history.  Around 60 years ago, some denominations began to question certain commands in the New Testament regarding church order and morality.  As they began to change their churches’ teachings over the following decades, more and more topics became open to question.  By the time a generation had passed, such foundational teachings came into question that their seminaries began to teach that Jesus did not really rise from the dead and that Mary was did not really conceive Jesus as a virgin.  This trend eventually reached the point that the presiding bishop of a major denomination declared a few years ago, that she believed that there were paths to salvation other than Jesus.

If Christianity were merely a mystical path to enlightenment, individuals could shape and form it to fit their personal preferences, but that is not the type of spirituality the Bible portrays.  Instead, Scripture makes factual claims that can be weighed according to the evidence and proven or disproven, trusted or rejected.  As such, it is not a customizable set of principles, but instead, a united proposition concerning spiritual truth which stands or falls as a whole.

Violent Sports

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Violent Sports:

Q:  Is it a sin when a person injures another person in the course of a sports competition?  Is it acceptable for Christians to enjoy or even to participate in sports which appear violent or have a high risk of injuring one’s opponent, such as Boxing or Mixed Martial Arts?

Participation in sports competitions is one issue which has never become significantly controversial among Christians.  This is probably because there are several occasions where Biblical authors, especially St. Paul, use athletic competition and the physical training athletes undergo as comparisons for the way Christians ought to approach the spiritual struggles they face. 

While there are a very small minority of Christians who have avoided all sports out of an understanding that it is an unfruitful use of their time, Physical training and athletic competition have typically been enjoyed by Christians throughout the ages, and have been a traditional part of the curriculum in Christian educational institutions because of the understanding that our bodies and our minds are connected, and when both are trained and disciplined, a person benefits more than if only one is emphasized.

But with this kind of competition does come the risk of injury to varying degrees.  Certainly some sports have elements which lend them to a higher injury risk, and some sports appear more violent on the surface than others, but appearances can often be deceiving.  Many of us would guess that highly physical sports like Football or Boxing would have the highest injury rates, but I have heard that sports that seem very safe, such as Cheerleading and Basketball actually have higher injury rates.

Sports have rules intended to prevent serious injury, but the risk will always be there, and if a player competes according to the rules and does not act with the intention to injure, he ought not fear that he has sinned if an opponent becomes injured.  On the other hand, if one causes injury intentionally or as a result of going outside the rules of the sport, they may have sinned. 

Mixed Martial Arts is probably the sport that could cause the most concern among Christians as to whether they can participate in good conscience because of the apparent level of violence involved in competing.  The Bible has some very clear commands regarding murder, assault, and other acts intended to harm another person, but there are two significant factors which prevent us from concluding that all highly-physical sports such as MMA or boxing are sins and unfit for Christians to participate in. 

The first is that the intent of these sports in not to injure.  No one can deny that the nature of the sports leaves a competitor open to injury, but the intent of the sport is not to injure.  For example, in MMA, the goal of the competition is to use several disciplines (boxing, wrestling, martial arts) to cause one’s opponent to submit or to win by a judges’ decision at the end of the match.  In fact, there are numerous rules set in place to prevent the competitors from injuring one another in the course of the event.  If the goal were to injure, a sport like this would be unfit for Christians, but that is not the intent of the sport. 

Secondly, no one is assaulting or mugging their opponent.  Instead, both competitors enter the competition with knowledge of the risks and consent to participate according to the rules.  If the intent of the sport were to injure one’s opponent, this factor would not even come into consideration.  For example, dueling with pistols is an unfit sport for Christians, because even though both parties compete with consent and knowledge of the risks, there is no other intent but to injure. 

A Christian might certainly refrain from participating in such sports because of the guiding of his own conscience, and Christians certainly ought to consider the impact of all of their actions on their own reputation and that of their congregation and the Christian faith as a whole. However, for a Christian to impose commands on fellow believers based on their own preferences or weaknesses is inappropriate without a clear universal command from Scripture prohibit the action.

Doctrine vs. Life

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Doctrine and Life:

Q:  Which is more important:  to try to live the way that the Bible says we should, or to understand theology and doctrine correctly?

The best one-word answer to this question, when asked by a Christian, is “Yes!”   A person’s good deeds, their ability to closely follow the Bible’s commands, or their attempts to live in a Biblical fashion can never, under any circumstances earn them God’s blessings.  However, for one who is already a Christian, correct doctrine and a God-pleasing life are both things that they should strive for. 

Far too frequently, it happens that these two aspects of the Christian faith are placed as opposed to one another, and individuals, and even whole denominations, who strive for one often make the mistake of neglecting the other.   While the Christian seeks to keep these two aspects in balance, it is important to remember that neither of them can be the cause of salvation.  It is only trust in Jesus as the only savior which can do that.  At the same time, unrepented errors in either doctrine or life have the potential to endanger faith and salvation.

Without correct doctrine, a person could easily be misled into trusting in the wrong thing for their eternal salvation.  Even small doctrinal errors have the potential to grow into faith-destroying, salvation-threatening false teachings.  In addition, if one does not have a proper understanding of the Bible, how would he even know what a God-pleasing life really looks like?

On the other hand, a person who has correct doctrine, but pays no attention to their way of life runs the risk of developing a sinful pride which leads them to believe that their doctrinal understanding makes them spiritually superior, or of developing sinful habits, which if continued without repentance, have the risk of separating them from Jesus and the blessings He gives. 

Since God is the one who designed and made humans and all creation, it only makes sense that following His commands can bring blessing, but while living according to a Biblical morality has the potential to have earthly benefits for any person, good deeds can never earn them anything from God.

This is the vast difference which exists between Christians and their Bible compared to every other religion of the world and their respective holy books.  Every other religion of the world has a code of behavior or a path to enlightenment proposed in their holy books, which, if followed, claims it will bring divine blessing or good fortune to its adherents.  Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that humans are incapable of satisfying God by their deeds, and therefore, God Himself took up the task of satisfying His commands by taking on Human flesh in the person of Jesus, then gives His blessings to humans by grace, that is, as a gift. 

The purpose of the Bible’s commands, in light of this, is to show humans how badly they have failed to live up to God’s moral demands and force them to look outside of themselves, to Jesus, to obtain the righteous status that God demands.

I’ve seen often two slogans on bumper stickers and t-shirts which reflect the failure of Christian preachers and Bible teachers to properly convey the Biblical truth regarding these two aspects of correct doctrine and a god-pleasing life.  Both of these are usually imposed above a picture of the Bible, and they say: “When all else fails, read the Instructions.” or “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.” 

In Christian teaching, the Bible is far more than mere instructions.  From beginning to end, it is the true story of God’s actions throughout history to bring about the salvation of humanity.  This message emphasizing the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are the Bible’s central message, and the commands and moral teachings contained within are never intended to dominate over that message, but instead to act in service to it.

Law and Gospel

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Law and Gospel:

Q: I have heard preachers say that a person is saved by “grace alone,” as God’s gift, but when I read the Bible, I see so many laws and instructions that tell us what God expects. If God saves as a gift, why does the Bible spend so much time saying what we should do?

These two messages in the Bible can often be an obstacle for Christians when they are reading their Bibles or attempting to understand theology. On one hand, the Bible has very clear statements such as, “By grace you have been saved, through faith, not by works…” while there are others that say such things as “Do this and you shall live.”

This is because there are really two types of teachings in the Bible. The first is called the Law. The Law tells humans what God expects them to do. The clearest example of this kind of teaching in the Bible is the Ten Commandments. The trouble with this teaching, if we look at it in isolation, is that requires perfect obedience for anyone to be saved through it. If any person would present their good deeds to God as a reason to be rewarded, they must keep God’s Law flawlessly. Since no natural human has ever accomplished this, we would be led to believe that all people will be eternally condemned.

Thankfully, the Law is not the last word in the Bible. This is where the other teaching comes into play. This teaching is called the Gospel. This teaching states that, in spite of the fact that no human can satisfy God’s demands by their good behavior, God Himself took on a body, becoming a man Himself, and fulfilled it in place of humanity. After Jesus had done this, He was abandoned by God while He was being crucified, and in that event, He also suffered punishment in place of humanity.

The Law tells us what we must do. The Gospel tells us what God has done. Anyone who trusts that Jesus has fulfilled the Law in their place and suffered punishment in their place, receives the reward earned by Jesus’ perfect life and innocent death—namely eternal life.

The Law has absolutely no power to save anyone, because no person can keep its demands. Instead, the Law works in service to the Gospel. First, it shows every person who hears or reads it how badly they have failed to please God, and forces them to seek a solution outside of themselves. When a person has been forgiven for their sins by God, through trust in Jesus, they then desire to do God-pleasing things, and the Law shows them which things are God-pleasing.

These two teachings create a balance which Christians, even preachers, often have difficulty maintaining. When one strays to one side, it is often tempting to say that one must behave according to the Law in order to be saved. In that case, our behavior, not the work of Jesus would be the cause of salvation. When one strays to the other side, it might be said that because we are saved as God’s gift, our behavior is unimportant. In this case, the Law is completely irrelevant. When the tension between these two teachings is maintained appropriately, we say that Jesus saves without any human contribution, but that the Law of God still stands, first to reveal sin and force people to look to Jesus, then to guide and inform Christians, not as a cause of salvation, but as its result.

Pastoral Qualifications and Assignment

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pastoral Qualifications and Assignment:

Q: How does one become a pastor, and how do they become the pastor of a particular congregation? How is it decided if/when pastors will move from one congregation to another?

The assignment of pastors to particular congregations is a subject for which there are no commands in the Bible. As a result, there are a wide variety of processes and arrangements by which this occurs.

The apostle Paul does give several qualifications which pastors must meet, which are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. These include that married pastors have only one wife; that they be capable of teaching; exhibit self-control; avoid drunkenness, violence, and greed; that they manage their family well; that they would not have become a Christian only recently; and that they have a good reputation.

Various Christian traditions develop and verify these qualities in different ways. The traditional route in modern Christianity has been that a pastor attend a seminary in order to receive Masters level theological education and spend time under the supervision of the faculty to verify pastoral character. This typically meant 7 years of classroom education along with at least 1 year dedicated to supervised experience in the field.

In more recent times, some denominations have required only attainment of a Bachelors degree, or attendance at a specialized Bible College in order to enter ministry. In a small number of denominations and in some non-denominational congregations, pastors may be accepted with no formal theological education, in which case their qualifications and character would be judged only by the leadership of the local congregation.

In the Bible and the history of the early church, we see many models by which pastors come to lead particular congregations. At times, a man seems to have risen up from within the congregation to become its pastor. On other occasions, Paul has assigned one of his students to pastor a congregation under his care, and at other times, it appears one of the Apostles may have come to lead a congregation, either because they were called upon to do so, or because they happened upon the congregation and saw their need.

So today, the means of assignment to a particular congregation also varies widely among the various branches of Christianity. In my experience, which included the traditional 8 year educational route, the leadership of my denomination compared my strengths and qualifications with the needs of several congregations seeking pastors and assigned me to my current congregation.

In many denominations, assignment by denominational officials continues to be the norm throughout a pastor’s ministerial career. In others, such as mine, the process is different for later ministerial calls than it is for the initial assignment. In the case of my denomination’s churches, congregations take the initiative in calling pastors. Pastors then prayerfully consider the needs of their current and prospective congregations, and accept or decline the request to become their pastor.

In other traditions, the process resembles that of the corporate world. Congregations make known their need for a pastor, and candidates submit applications, interviews are conducted, and a pastor is chosen.

In a small number of denominations, as well as some non-denominational congregations, pastors are not sought from outside of the congregation. Instead, they identify a candidate for ministry from among their own members, and either send him off for training, or even immediately raise him up to be their pastor.

Regardless of the model by which one becomes a pastor or a pastor arrives at a particular congregation, what matters is that congregations seek pastors who meet the Biblical qualifications, and that pastors are faithful to carry out the God-given work assigned to their office—namely to preach Jesus and bring His forgiveness to the people of the congregation through the means He has specified.

Ordination and Anointing the Sick

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Ordination and Anointing the Sick:

Q: Do churches outside of Roman Catholicism practice Ordination and Anointing of the Sick? Are they considered Sacraments in those churches?

There is a wide spectrum of sacramental theology among non-Catholic Christians. On one end of the spectrum, the Eastern Orthodox recognize all seven Roman Catholic Sacraments (and allow the possibility for even more). The Anglican tradition recognizes two Sacraments, but considers the other 5 to be Sacramental Rites. Lutherans recognize at least two Sacraments, but do not specifically limit the number, and most in the Reformed tradition recognize only two Sacraments. Finally, at the opposite end of the spectrum, those in the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions typically recognize no Sacraments, but do still practice Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “ordinances.”

Specifically regarding Ordination, its use varies widely among the different protestant traditions, and even within them, but it is still retained as a practice in many denominations. There is Biblical evidence for the practice in the many cases, especially in Acts and 1 & 2 Timothy, where it speaks of the Apostles “laying hands on” those who would become pastors. In the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, Ordination is a requirement to perform certain ministerial duties, but is not considered a Sacrament.

Other denominations may make use of ordination for some, but not all, ranks of their clergy. For example, they may allow recognition as clergy and placement into pastoral duties without completion of the full requirements for ordination. They would consider those clergy with lesser training to be licensed or certified for ministry, while reserving ordination only for those clergy who have completed the full educational requirements and have been thoroughly examined by church authorities. In such cases, clergy are often required to complete a probationary period of several years before becoming eligible for ordination.

Still other denominations may not practice ordination in any formal sense. These either take a more corporate approach to certifying their clergy where they license them either permanently or for repeated terms of a definite length. In other cases, denominational officials may practice what amounts to self-ordination where any person who feels they have been called to engage in ministry is recognized as clergy by the denominational authorities.

When it comes to the Anointing of the sick, there is Biblical evidence for the practice found in James 5:14, where it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (ESV) Based on this verse, the use of oil in prayer, especially prayer for the sick, is found on both ends of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, although not as frequently in the middle.

On one end of the spectrum, Lutherans have a tradition of using this practice, although not requiring it or considering it sacramental, and many Lutheran pastoral texts provide a ceremony for anointing the sick with oil during prayer.

On the other end of the spectrum, the use of anointing is also frequently, but not uniformly, found within the Pentecostal tradition, where physical contact as an element of fervent prayer tends to be highly valued. I am not personally aware of instances where anointing is used commonly among those in the middle of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, such as Methodists and the Reformed.

Doctrinal Diversity

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Doctrinal Diversity:

Q: If all Christians get their teachings from the Bible, why is there so much doctrinal diversity among the various Christian churches? Is Christian doctrine a matter of opinion or fact, and is every individual interpretation of the Bible equally valid?

In today’s churches, there certainly is broad diversity in the doctrines that are taught, even on the most foundational teachings of Christianity. For example, one church might teach that God saves people purely as a gift, while another teaches that God requires that humans port forth a majority of the effort from their own ability in order to earn salvation. One Church might teach that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead, while another might teach that Jesus’ resurrection is merely a myth meant to inspire us to hopeful living.

The first thing to consider when examining this diversity is whether the question is a doctrinal issue or something called an Adiaphoron (something the Bible has neither commanded nor forbidden).

On the issues of Adiaphora, there may be wise or unwise choices, but there is no Biblical command regarding how they must be handled. This type of issue would include things like church government (whether a congregation’s business affairs are decided by the pastor/priest, a group of elders, or democratically by every member) and the style of music used in the worship service. In this sort of question, there is room for diverse conclusions.

In doctrinal questions, such as whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or whether God actually forbids theft, murder, or sexual immorality, there are definite factual answers, and when disagreement arises, only one position can be correct.

The reasons behind the doctrinal diversity we see today are complex, but I can see three primary factors that account for a majority of the differences:

The first of these is what a church believes about Scripture. Some churches believe that the Bible was given by God to human authors who accurately recorded the message they were given. As a result, they believe that the Bible (in its original languages) is without errors and completely trustworthy. Others believe that the Bible is a recording of human contemplation about God, and as a result, contains both elements of divine truth and elements of myth or opinion. This difference will certainly play a large role in accounting for the differing conclusions reached on important questions.

Secondly, what a church considers valid sources of doctrinal authority will play a role in determining its answers to doctrinal questions. Many churches see the Bible as the only authority for Christian Doctrine while others see the Bible as one authority alongside of others, such as traditions, the past rulings and proclamations of church authorities, or personal revelations claimed by individuals or church leaders through such means as dreams or visions. Again, this question will have a significant impact on conclusions reached regarding other doctrinal questions.

The third of these factors is assumptions that are brought to the table when discerning what the Bible says on a given topic. For example, Americans tend to highly value personal freedom and the value of individual effort, which has the potential to distort our understanding of what the Bible is saying. On other occasions, we may approach the Bible with a conclusion we are seeking for it to affirm rather than a question we desire for it to answer. If we are not careful to clear away these sorts of assumptions while we study the Bible, we may find ourselves making the Bible say what we want to hear rather than listening for what it has to teach.

When Christians arrogantly approach the Bible seeking to affirm their existing opinions or trying to harmonize it with what is taught by the world or human authorities, they will probably come to whatever conclusion they desire, but when Christians humbly approach the Bible, acknowledging its authority, they will certainly be led to a deeper understanding of Him about whom all the Scriptures bear witness—namely Jesus, who is the Truth in human flesh.