Worship and Doctrine

Don: What is the role of doctrine in worship? The word for doctrine is mentioned more than 50 times in the Old and New Testaments. The dictionary definition is: A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group. Synonyms include: Creed, dogma, belief, teaching, and ideology. In the New Testament, the Greek word is didache (Διδαχη), to teach, teaching, or what is taught and learned. In the New Testament, the teaching—the doctrine—is of course that of Jesus:

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching [didache], he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching [didache], do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (2 John 9-11)

If Jesus’s is the true doctrine, then logically there must be false doctrines as well. Timothy called them “doctrines of demons”:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,… (1 Timothy 4:1)

Jesus alluded to false doctrine as “leaven” when he warned his disciples to

“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy”  (Luke 12:1)

and he laid out the contrast between true and false doctrine in this passage:

“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:1-12)

He later amplified:

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” (Mark 7:1-13)

At the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount,

…the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:28-29)

Jesus provided the authority—the capital-T Truth of God Himself—behind his teaching…

“My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. (John 7:16-18)

… while he also put his finger on the small-t truths, the scripturally derived doctrines, we would rather turn to for the eternal life we yearn for in our hearts:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”  (John 5:39-40)

These doctrines divide us in our search for God. We argue over whether God is a trinity, over whose is the one true God, and much more. Our various doctrinal positions define us and shape us, but they also divide us. There are considered to be 12 major religions: Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Judaic, Bahá’í, Buddhist, Confucian, Jain, Shinto, Daoist, Sikh, and Zoroastrian. Christianity alone numbers more than 600 denominations. All these religions and their denominations are built on different interpretations and understandings of doctrine, different beliefs, different teachings. The question is how to distinguish the teachings of God from the teachings of Man.

But despite these many differences, there is a common core of belief, such as to…

“…love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40)

Virtually all religions espouse the timeless and immutable principles of loving God and one’s fellow Man.

I argue that God’s plan included a multiplicity of religions and doctrines in order to avoid any possibility of a universal but limited and wrong view of Him, a view that would fail to grasp His unapproachable majesty and impenetrable mystery. We are unhappy with this because we like to get to the bottom of things, to measure, define, understand, and be certain of everything, including God.

And so we try. The result is a multiplicity of doctrines. We would rather be wrong than admit we don’t know. Every religion and denomination claims to know God better than every other religion and denomination. This may seem evil, but I think it is not; I think it is part of God’s plan to teach us that God is far greater than anything we can imagine.

Yet we are so sure of our doctrines that many of us are willing to die for them. Martyrdom is holy; for example:

Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:35-40)

Because of doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses would rather die than receive a life-saving blood transfusion.

No religion will ever admit that its doctrines are wrong. But I have to say that I think my church, the Seventh Day Adventist church, can claim to be unique in having been born out of an erroneous doctrinal viewpoint. It began in 1844 as a group of Christian believers who concluded from a study of Scripture that Jesus was coming back down to earth on October 22 that year. (They had earlier predicted a different date but changed it after re-examining the Scriptures and discovering they had erred in the date.) Thus, the hand of God can be seen as working through human error; that a religion must be grounded on God and His work, not on Man and his.

Given our unique origin, surely we of all religions should be humble about our doctrinal positions. And I think we are. Our doctrine involves the principle of progressive revelation or progressive truth—the recognition that we do not know it all, we do not possess the whole Truth. The preamble to our publicly stated fundamental beliefs says:

Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. (28 Fundamental Beliefs 2015 Edition)

This all should make us open-minded to new thoughts and interpretations and not to consider ourselves “keepers of the flame” [see last week’s notes]. We cannot forget our past and should not only not discard our heritage but use it as a jumping-off point to explore new ideas that may bring us to a more authentic worship. The question is: Can we (or anybody else, for that matter) be doctrinal and progressive at the same time?

Donald: I wonder whether this issue would be viewed differently between an ordinary member of the church simply seeking God, an unpaid missionary seeking to spread God’s word, and a full-time church employee expected to stay within doctrinal guidelines. Does doctrine introduce problems and different standards among church members?

Anonymous: “Doctrine” is a bad word these days, because it is seen as belonging to a church or religion. But if it is defined simply as the teaching of Jesus, it might be more generally acceptable, even to non-Christians.

David: I am not sure so sure I agree with the idea that doctrinal variety is the spice of spiritual life. Taken to the extreme, one would end up with religious and spiritual anarchy and nihilism, where any old doctrine goes. I am sure there is a common doctrinal core in the major religions, partly because it is documented in all Scriptures but mainly because I believe every human being has the same inner light—the spirit of God within—which signals the same messages to everyone. I think these messages become those aspects of doctrine that stand the test of time and the test of being part of otherwise very different religions.

I wish religions would focus more on these fundamental aspects of their doctrines and spirituality instead of trying to shoehorn (often weird) Man-made doctrine into the same sacred space. From the Scriptures quoted today, it would seem that Jesus might agree—he brought the fundamentals down to a mere two: Love God, and love your fellow Wo/Man.

Donald: Some religions seek distinction by being “peculiar”.

Jay: Doctrines are useful guidelines to help us relate to God and to our fellow Wo/Man at all levels of life. In that sense they are Man-centric rather than God-centric. It would be impossible to imagine that every community everywhere and at all times would have developed the exact same set of timeless guidelines. God’s plan allows for these various sets of guidelines. The question is: Is there an optimal set? The set: “Love God and one’s fellow Wo/Man” might serve, but it is too broad for us. We are incapable of following such broad guidelines, so we start adding refinements—we expand the set, and that seems to make it easier to follow. Some of our refinements will seem weird or peculiar to others, but even some core principles (such as loving one’s neighbor as much as one loves oneself, or moving to the back of the line) also seem somewhat peculiar!

David: Jesus seemed to be saying in the John 5 quote above that the Scriptures are not the path, not the guidelines, to eternal life; but are merely a notification of the godliness of Jesus.

Don: Mankind’s nature is to interpret Scripture in ways that are meaningful to us and then declare it to be immutable doctrine. Jesus said that is not the way to eternal life: The way, which is shown in Scripture, is Jesus and his teaching.

David: By making the Bible its only creed, has not the Seventh Day Adventist church doctrinized the Bible?

Don: I think all faith groups doctrinize their Scripture.

Donald: We are born organizers, but something so simple as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” needs no organizing. So perhaps we start embellishing in order to be able to organize something that is not otherwise organizable. But then we start to believe that we have to live within the organization formed by our embellishments. Perhaps that is where things start to go wrong. Or, more charitably, perhaps it provides a level of comfort that makes us want to share it with others.

Jay: We don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world of diverse communities that have organized themselves. That is a given we must accept. They may change, of course, but tend not to. The real question is: Can our organization, can our group, tolerate the stranger not indoctrinated in our ways? Should an Adventist church open its arms to a wine lover? A meat eater? A jewelry wearer? A person careless of observing the Sabbath? And should they be welcomed not merely as casual visitors, but as full-blown members participating fully in our worship experience?

Sometimes a member becomes unhappy with our doctrines and ceases to participate fully or at all, and not necessarily voluntarily.

Don: It boils down to what to do with the doubter. How can their spiritual search be kept alive and even advanced as they transition through the stages of faith? To be an authentic church of Jesus I believe it is imperative to try to help them stay within the faith community and participate in some aspects of worship, to identify with the faith community even if they no longer share all of its beliefs. This is a great challenge for all faith communities, all religions. I believe that as Adventists, because of our history and our founding principles, we ought to be (but perhaps are not) better at overcoming this challenge. Despite our doctrine of progressive revelation, the notion that some new concept might be readily embraced and adopted is somewhat doubtful.

Donald: One recent Sabbath I attended the small church where “The Old Rugged Cross” was first sung. It was a service devoted to hymn-singing. There was a mix of denominations. It felt like a very rich experience. One could wish for more such experiences. We are held back by our certain belief in being “keepers of the flame.”

Don: Society is deeply polarized along many dimensions today—ethnic, political, and so on. In light such seemingly unprecedented divisions, and of the doctrine of Christ that we should tear down barriers, it seems we ought to be working hard at it.

Anonymous: The church organization must eventually go away. Nothing stays but God. The inner conviction will remain, whether or not there is a church. Believers will continue to believe in the doctrines they read in the Bible and will reflect it in the way they live their lives. It is in our nature to organize things under one umbrella, but faith will outlast the umbrella. It would be wonderful to see the world under one umbrella, loving God and one another, but it doesn’t seem likely any time soon.

Donald: Perhaps the diversity of thought relating to God is a very good thing. Variety is the spice of life. Why should we want one narrow doctrine?

[Before class proper got under way, Donald mentioned that the much-loved and much-visited Seventh Day Adventist 800-acre camp in Grayling, northern Michigan, was kept beautifully manicured—DE.]

David: Is the manicured Camp Grayling really better than the natural Camp Grayling? The more manicured a natural setting, the more uncomfortable I feel in them. In creating our creeds and doctrines and dogmas, are we in effect manicuring spiritual space to make it more appealing to our physical senses?

Don: I am reminded of Paul’s beautiful words:

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. (1 Corinthians 13:8)

Our church is built on prophecy and doctrine, which may be said in this case to equate to knowledge, and which are transient. What is permanent is love. That is the teaching of Jesus: Love of God and of one’s fellow Wo/Man is the doctrine. We are perhaps manicuring that doctrine, though I am not sure that is what we are doing. It needs more thought.

Chris: The Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18) asked Jesus what he must do to earn eternal life. Jesus answered basically that he must obey the Ten Commandments. The young man happily affirmed that he had always done so. But Jesus hadn’t finished. He told him there was one more thing he must do: Distribute his entire wealth among the poor, and follow Him. What did Judaic doctrine do for the young man? Nothing, it would seem; but is it possible that doctrine helped transform his heart and led him to seek the teaching of Jesus? Perhaps doctrine can play a part in transforming our personal relationship with God. Our mistake is to treat it as the be-all and end-all.

Anonymous: Moses approved of following doctrine. Perhaps the benefit is earthly, but it is still a benefit. If we manicure doctrine to make it more attractive to others, perhaps that’s not a bad thing. It may be a matter of how we present it: Either as a spiritual guide, or as a religious creed. If we love our neighbor enough to recommend they lead a healthier life by becoming vegetarian, our proposal will likely be more attractive to them if it is presented (“manicured”) as a health benefit rather than if presented as a religious rule. The outcome of this love expressed in this way is more likely to succeed.

Jay: It is impossible to live in a world without doctrine. But we are capable of prioritizing, Perhaps that is what Jesus was suggesting to the RYR: Love (proved by giving away one’s wealth and following Jesus) takes priority over doctrine, over following the commandments; but it does not negate them. We are capable of prioritizing, but we don’t find it easy, and often our choice of priorities is often disastrously wrong. This is what polarizes and divides us.

Donald: Students generally don’t graduate from Andrews University with Christian love as their priority. I’m not entirely confident that if they did, their parents would be happy about it. There are practical, worldly considerations that take precedence. Do the Amish do a better job of prioritizing, in eschewing modern education and technology? We tend to focus on how to keep the faith and to skip quickly past the bit about giving up our worldly wealth.

Chris: We skip it because it is impossible for us, as Jesus said. But it is not impossible for God.

Donald: It leaves us guilt-ridden. If only we could focus on the fact of having been saved!

Don: There is bound to be tension in an academic institution devoted to educating and thereby liberating the mind, and a church with doctrines designed to keep the mind in check.

David: As a practical, worldly matter, which is more likely to make their parents proud: The son who graduates from Andrews and then decides to become an Adventist pastor, or the daughter who graduates in medicine and decides to go to Calcutta, distribute her parents’ graduation gift among the poor, and live and work among them? And how would Andrews fare as a viable university if a substantial proportion of graduates took after the daughter?

* * *