recovering a healthy view of doctrine

 Why Healthy Churches Need both Doctrinal Clarity and Missional Passion

“Doctrine divides, love unites.”  I’m sure most of us have heard a variation of this sentiment.

I once heard a person say, “There’s that dreaded D word again…”

The word doctrine has acquired a bad reputation in many Christian circles.

Is it fair?

To some, it conjures images of endless debates, theological pride, or churches more interested in winning arguments than reaching people. Yet the word itself is remarkably simple. It comes from the Latin doctrina, meaning "teaching" or "instruction." The New Testament was originally written in Greek, where the primary word is didachē (διδαχή), which likewise means "teaching" or "that which is taught." At its heart, doctrine is nothing more, and nothing less, than what God teaches us through His Word.

It is fitting, then, that the first time this word appears in the New Testament, it is connected directly to Jesus Himself. After finishing the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew writes, "When Jesus had finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at His teaching" (Matt. 7:28). Some translations render that last word as doctrine, others as teaching, but the meaning is the same. The crowds were amazed not only because Jesus was eloquent, but because His doctrine carried an authority unlike anything they had ever heard. Before doctrine became associated with theological commitments or denominational statements, it was simply the authoritative teaching of Jesus Christ.

The word for doctrine has morphed into a general word that encompasses teaching from a variety of disciplines.

Doctrines are simply values that guide how we live

If doctrine essentially has to do with authoritative teaching, it also represents the lens we view the world through, our guiding worldviews.  Christian doctrine is far from the only thing guiding people’s lives.  Legal frameworks, moral philosophies, theories of education, and political ideologies all act as doctrines (teachings) that make sense of the world for people and guide how they live their lives.

As Christians, this makes sense to us.  We all brought embedded ways of thinking into our Christian walk, and although they are important, we see Biblical doctrine as authoritative for how we live.  It is natural for Christians to expect biblical doctrine to supplant the doctrines or ideas we have imported into our Christian life.

In fact, we’re supposed to pay careful attention to it.

In 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”  The way we live our lives and the thinking (doctrine/teaching) that informs it represents a healthy map for life in a fallen world.

We also read Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:16, saying “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”  The word teaching here is the same as doctrine.  The scriptures are God-breathed, are essential for living according to His will, and if followed, will thoroughly equip us.

The doctrine we find authoritative informs how we live.  For us as regenerate Christians, that authority comes from the sound doctrine Scripture conveys.

So why are people down on doctrine?

Well, the simple answer is that humans have a really hard time building their Christian doctrines solely on the Bible. Our sinful nature, personal ambitions, traditions, and even our cultural influences can all tempt us to pick and choose what we believe. Instead of letting Scripture shape our doctrine, we often shape doctrine to fit our preferences.

History is filled with examples of people twisting God's Word to gain power over other people, justify sin, promote legalism, or advance personal agendas. When that happens, doctrine no longer reflects Christ's teaching; instead, it becomes the teaching of man.

Because of these abuses, many Christians today have concluded that doctrine itself is the problem. They have seen churches split over secondary issues, believers arguing more than loving, and theological pride replacing humility. Those are legitimate concerns, but blaming doctrine for those failures is like blaming medicine because some doctors commit malpractice. Abusing something good does not make the thing itself bad.

Here is what I think:  the answer to bad doctrine is not less doctrine; it is better doctrine.  It is teaching that is faithfully rooted in Scripture, held with humility, and lived out in love.

That’s easier said than done, but it is the goal.

A good chunk of Scripture deals with false doctrine/teaching

A remarkably large portion of the New Testament addresses preserving sound doctrine and the danger of false teaching. That is one of the dominant concerns of the apostles.

It starts with Jesus, who repeatedly warned about false teachers and false prophets.  Consider the following scriptures:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

Matthew 7:15

“Jesus answered: ‘Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.’”

Matthew 24:4-5

“At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

Matthew 24:10-11

“For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.  See, I have told you ahead of time.”

Matthew 24:24-25

The book of Acts consistently shows the early church dealing with issues of false teaching:

“Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

Acts 15:1-2

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.  Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.  So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.”

Acts 20:28-31

There are too many scriptures to list out, but we see themes of several of the New Testament letters center around protecting the Christians from false teaching, and defending sound doctrine:

One of the most repeated pastoral conversations in the New Testament is protecting the church from false teaching.

So why is doctrine so polarizing in the church today?  Simply put, we live in a world shaped by polarization, and since so much has happened to shape Christianity since the founding of the early church, even how we choose to move forward in building our congregations has become an “either/or” proposition. In other words, we either focus on something like doctrinal clarity, or we don’t.

Doctrine is a poor master, but a faithful guardian

I personally do not believe doctrine is a dirty word. Still, I do understand that what we emphasize, and how we stress what is important, can shape the trajectory and culture of our churches, so we need to be thoughtful and careful.

In my own fellowship of cooperating congregations, we are currently discussing how to devise a simple, concise shared statement of faith. This doctrinal summary can unify us and clarify core issues, especially the questions seekers ask as they search for a church home.

Forging a unified approach around this statement of faith has been very challenging.

Part of the challenge is that we all bring different experiences and concerns to the table. Some fear that emphasizing doctrine too heavily can lead to legalism, division, or an inward focus that distracts us from our mission. Others worry that if we fail to define what we believe, we will slowly lose our theological identity and become vulnerable to confusion and cultural drift.

I suspect, however, that these two perspectives have far more in common than either side sometimes realizes. Both care deeply about the church. Both want to reach the lost. Both want to honor Christ. The real question is not whether doctrine or mission matters more, but how they are meant to work together.

I have become convinced that sound doctrine and faithful mission are not competitors; they are partners.

Orthodoxy (right beliefs) without orthopraxy (right practice or action) can become cold, proud, and disconnected from the people Christ came to save. Orthopraxy without orthodoxy can lose its biblical foundation and eventually lose sight of the very gospel it seeks to proclaim. The New Testament refuses to separate the two. It consistently joins truth with love, conviction with compassion, and sound teaching with faithful witness.

Properly understood, doctrine is one of mission's greatest safeguards.  But we have to be honest about the legitimate concerns both sides raise.

Two sides of the doctrine debate

Those who advocate for more clearly defined doctrine raise some important points.

Here are a few that come to mind:

You eventually don't know what you're evangelizing.

The gospel has content.  That content must be understood correctly, especially in a world where Satan is actively trying to confuse people and blind them to the truth (2 Cor. 4:4). Paul told the Corinthians that the gospel he preached was "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:1–4).

If we become reluctant to define doctrine carefully and specifically, we can eventually stop defining the gospel carefully. Evangelism may continue, but the message slowly changes, and can morph into something very different than what we read in Scripture.

New believers remain spiritually immature.

Jesus didn't simply say, "Go make converts." He said, "Make disciples...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19–20). Evangelism is the front door; doctrine furnishes the house.  We owe it to the people we are converting to do our very best to help them understand the truth of what they believe.  The more they understand the truth of God’s message, the stronger they will be as they move forward in a secular or religiously pluralistic world.

The next generation becomes vulnerable.

Children and young adults are growing up in a culture full of competing worldviews. If they inherit a faith built primarily on enthusiasm, relationships, or community, without understanding what Christians actually believe and why, they often struggle when challenged.

Whatever captures the hearts and minds of our children first goes a long way toward shaping their worldview.

Churches drift slowly, not suddenly.

Very few churches wake up one morning and decide to abandon biblical truth. More often, they stop talking about it. Over years or decades, each small compromise seems harmless until the church eventually believes something very different from what it once confessed.

Okay, so those are a few concerns of folks who strive for more doctrinal clarity.  What about those who take the opposite approach?

Those who are cautious about writing down doctrinal statements also raise some important points to consider.  Here are some I have heard:

Doctrinal precision can become a substitute for spiritual maturity.

You can know a great deal about the Bible without becoming more like Jesus (Matt. 23:23-28). We can measure spiritual health by how accurately someone can articulate doctrine while overlooking whether that knowledge is producing humility, holiness, compassion, and love. Sound doctrine should lead to a transformed life, not merely a well-informed mind.

The fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-24) are evidence of a Christian life, not necessarily knowledge.

Secondary convictions can become tests of fellowship.

Not every biblical teaching carries the same weight. When churches fail to distinguish between the essential truths of the Christian faith and secondary matters about which sincere believers may disagree, doctrinal clarity can become unnecessarily divisive. We can end up drawing lines of fellowship where Scripture itself does not require us to draw them.

Romans 14 would be a good chapter to read and study for more insight into how to handle disputable issues.

Our interpretations can become confused with Scripture itself.

We believe the Bible is authoritative, but that does not mean every conclusion we draw from it is equally infallible. Faithful Christians can study the same passages and sometimes reach different conclusions. Healthy doctrine requires enough humility to continually ask whether our convictions truly arise from Scripture or whether tradition, culture, experience, or our own assumptions have influenced how we read it.

We can become better at detecting error than loving people.

Discernment matters, and the New Testament clearly calls Christians to recognize and confront false teaching. But there is a danger in developing such a defensive posture that we begin looking at people primarily for what is wrong with them. Biblical truth should make us more like Jesus—full of both grace and truth—not simply more skilled at identifying everyone else's errors.  Let us never forget that mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).

 

Striking a good and healthy balance

What strikes me is that the New Testament never forces us to choose between a robust mission and doctrine.

Paul was arguably the greatest evangelist in history, yet he also wrote lengthy letters correcting false teaching. The same apostle who crossed continents to preach Christ also urged Timothy to "guard the good deposit" (2 Tim. 1:14) and to "watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16).

Likewise, Jesus welcomed sinners, preached the kingdom, and sought the lost, but He also spent considerable time correcting false interpretations of Scripture and warning His disciples about false teachers.

That suggests the healthiest churches refuse both extremes. They are passionate about reaching the lost because they value the truth, and they value the truth because it is the only message that can truly save the lost.

Can we recapture that healthy balance?  Or will this remain an either/or proposition?

How we answer will say a lot about what we hand to the next generation of Christ-followers.

Daren Overstreet

Daren is a Senior Leader at Anchor Point Church in Tampa, Florida.  He has been in ministry for nearly 30 years, and holds a Master’s Degree in Missional Theology

You can contact him at

daren@anchorpointtampa.org