Don: We are discussing whether doctrine helps bring us closer to God. In the Gospels—which contain the teaching, the doctrine, of Jesus—doctrine centers around the two great Commandments to love God and to love one another.
For Protestant Christians, doctrine grew out of the Reformation, when Martin Luther developed a view of salvation different from the accepted view as he studied the Book of Romans. Remarkably, however, as soon as the Reformation began, several other viewpoints arose, and doctrinal division quickly took root. While Luther was nailing his Ninety-Five Theses to the church doors of Wittenberg, the equally influential Ulrich Zwingli was publishing his own reformist doctrinal views in Switzerland. Because of their geographic and ethnic (Germanic) closeness, they inevitably found themselves in theological and doctrinal conflict.
It must be understood that in the 16th century, doctrinal differences were not just grounds for debate, but for war. The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, in some ways rival to the Pope as head of the Roman Catholic Church, was intent on violent suppression of both of these heretics. In 1529, Philipp I, a high noble of Hessen (approximating to a duke), invited Luther and Zwingli, along with several lesser-known reformers, to a conference at Marburg (the “Marburg Colloquy”) to try to settle their differences and unite their doctrines to form a theological foundation for a common Protestant force to fight Charles.
Zwingli participated in the colloquy willingly; Luther, reluctantly. After three days, they agreed on 14 of the 15 major doctrinal points of Christianity. The fatal 15th was the Eucharist. Luther insisted that the bread and wine was both bread and wine and the body and blood of Jesus (consubstantiation; Catholics belief the bread and wine turns into the body and blood during the ceremony, and call it transubstantiation). Zwingli considered the bread and wine to be merely symbolic of Christ’s body and blood.
The Scriptural basis of this was:
And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:19-20)
The issue sufficed to sink the conference, and from that point on hundreds—perhaps thousands—of denominations, each with a more or less unique doctrine, have developed and continue to multiply to this day.
Why do we find doctrine so attractive yet so divisive? Like Luther and Zwingli, we believe we know God better than others do; that God has revealed more to us than to others. Why would two intelligent people, each seeking a mature, complete view of God, come up with such different viewpoints? It is ironical that the Reformation, which sought a new and better picture of God, also produced a “priesthood of all believers” [the doctrine that ordinary Christians share a common priesthood in that they have direct access to God through their prayers without requiring a human mediator]. It began the triumph of individualism over community, of personal paradigms over the ecclesiastical and community interpretations of God’s word.
In the Gospels, Jesus makes frequent reference to the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. For example:
“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)
But as Doug Reed pointed out in his book God is a Gift: Learning to Live in Grace self-righteousness is not just about behaviors; it can also be about belief, as well. Just as the Pharisees thought that their superior deeds brought them closer to God, so today we think that our superior doctrine makes us God’s favorite, at least in some ways. But any effort on our part to possess God, to own Him, be it by good behavior and practices or by proclaiming we have good theology and better doctrine, invariably leads to the problem of self-righteousness. We look down on those who do not comprehend God as well as we do. Alternatively, when we see ourselves as God sees us, we see ourselves as sinners in need of God’s grace; we find ourselves more fully appreciating Paul’s beautiful words:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2)
Great wisdom should not cause us to look down upon others. What is the value of expanded knowledge if it only serves to divide us further? True knowledge of God is not based on better data or more information. What does Man really need to know about God?
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
To love one’s fellow Man is to know God. Not just those we whom we agree, but even (Jesus says) our enemies. It clearly encompasses those with whom we disagree theologically. The kingdom of heaven is not a community of like-minded individuals with like-minded beliefs, but of people with unlike-minded beliefs but like-minded love. I am convinced that belief and love are not incompatible, and that a faith community founded upon a doctrine of humility and love is possible and can help us in our understanding of God. The more we understand true doctrine, which is the teaching of Jesus, the more we see the possibility of loving and communing with those who think and see things differently from ourselves.
A lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life. Essentially, Jesus replied: “Love God and your neighbor,” but this prompted the lawyer to ask Jesus to define “neighbor”:
And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.” But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:25-29)
Jesus then defined neighbor through the story of the Good Samaritan:
Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.” (Luke 10:30-37)
This story does not suggest that Judaeans should become like Samaritans, that Jews should become like Gentiles. Jesus came to establish a kingdom where diverse, unlike, people could love one another despite their diversity and unlikeness. We can do so because we all share the same DNA of God inside us. We are all brothers and sisters, only brought up separate from one another. Can we understand that? And if we can, can we “operationalize” it—can we live with doctrinal diversity and even disagreement yet be united in the harmony and peace of the kingdom of heaven?
David: I don’t think we can. The doctrine of Jesus could unite us, but the problem is we will never agree on what that doctrine is, because it has been written down and interpreted by flawed human beings. What has been written down may appeal to us individually, through the intellect, in different ways; but in accepting someone else’s (in this case, the Gospel writer’s) interpretation of it we are already on dangerous ground. It is dangerous because our interpretation of the Gospel writer’s interpretation might be wrong; and right or wrong, it might disagree with our neighbor’s interpretation of the interpretation.
In my opinion, the only way to a universal and correct interpretation of the doctrine of Jesus—which boils down, as expressed in the Good Samaritan, to loving one another—is through the inner light.
Donald: That explanation might suit someone with no prescribed doctrine but is challenging for someone who belongs to a faith group with a prescribed, definitive doctrine. Doctrine is rather like data in that it is perceived as a matter of fact, but people can and do disagree about data, too! Should we instead look upon doctrine more as guardrails for our spiritual journey? They will help in that journey but only if we do not waste all our time looking at the guardrails rather than looking at what is ahead on the path they guide us along.
Jay: Guardrail is an apt and useful metaphor for doctrines that prevent our falling off the path. But it seems to me that the crux of the issue is whether the guardrail is reliable—whether our doctrine is correct, is leading us along the right path. The problem is that we use doctrine to justify itself. The great mystery, to us, is Death and what (if anything) succeeds it. It is scary and complicated, so we create comforting, simple answers and call them doctrine. But that does not condemn doctrine as worthless, if that we also accept the overarching unifying principle of love for and service to one’s fellow Wo/Man. If our diverse guardrails—doctrines—were to guide their followers along the path of love, then we would have the kingdom of heaven. The inspiration and motivation that stem from doctrine are ephemeral because doctrine itself is time-bound, but the inspiration and motivation that stem from love and service, which are timeless, are lasting. It is a matter of recognizing—and if necessary changing—the priority we give to doctrine on the one hand and to love and service on the other. Whether we are capable of that, I don’t know.
Donald: Parents serve as guardrails, keeping their children in a tight grip but gradually loosening the grip as the children grow older. The child initially follows the path strictly defined by the parents’ guardrails, but is allowed increasingly to find its own way along the path, with the guardrails diminishing. Religions tend to treat their followers as young children in need of confining guardrails. Would a religion—a church—suffer if it allowed and even encouraged its congregation to mature, as parents do their children?
Jay: It harks back to identity with the group—with being seen to hold tight to the group’s guiding hand, to go where it leads, and to accept that direction as Right. Too often, this serves as a deterrent to love and service. What a difference there is between doing something because it’s what we are told to do, versus doing something because it builds our capacity for love and service! But we tend to live by the former.
David: Does…
“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” (Matthew 18:20)
… mean that we should aim to gather around the teaching, the doctrine, of Jesus, which amounts to the fundamental principle of love? Or does it mean we should aim to gather to discuss the interpretation of his words as given in Scripture? To me, a group of Muslims gathered to discuss the principles of mercy and compassion (Allah’s primary attributes, which also amount to love) has Jesus in its midst. But a group united around the Bible or the Koran and gathered to discuss finer points of a given hadith or verse does not.
Jay: Christians interpret “My name” in that passage literally as “Jesus,” rather than as standing for the principle of love and service. Paul appears to support this:
“…there is no other name [than Jesus] under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
The literal interpretation is narrow and confining, and it is time-bound. But God is the God of all time and of all peoples, not just of people who happened to be born near Jerusalem around the first century A.D. This is a major source of confusion and contention, it seems to me. If only we could view—and seek—a God who transcends our time and our place and our group!
Donald: I attend an annual Leadership Conference of nearly 8,000 Christian believers. It is very difficult to get a place at the physical venue in Chicago, and thousands more have to be (and are) content to listen to the live stream. Its goal is to help preachers and other Christian leaders to enhance their service. The feeling of common purpose is itself inspirational, and there is a distinct absence of division among participants. So when it comes to doctrine, geography does make a difference—it can add meaning. Our own Seventh Day Adventist church has been in existence in a relatively small part of the world for a mere blink in world history, and it struggles hard to extend its presence to other parts of the world, where its doctrines are interpreted differently.
Don: But a doctrine that holds a timeless, culture-free understanding of God cannot represent reality. What is a Christian church to make of a Christian convert from Islam who has four wives? What happens to the four wives? It would be silly if it were not also deadly serious, stemming as it does from doctrines rooted in a time and a culture. It surely must be a stretch for people worldwide to accept a church, like ours, that only came to fruition in the middle of the 19th century and that offers a doctrine never before offered in the history of the world. And yet, arrogant as it may be, I believe we do have something unique to offer the world. However, I am not sure that what we have to offer is necessarily what we always do offer.
Donald: Some Nigerians I met recently spoke as though they were part of an Adventist “tribe.” If doctrine promotes tribalism, how can it promote a wider community?
Don: The Hutus and Tutsi tribes of Rwanda were both Christian, yet slaughtered one another in a tribal warfare that clearly trumped their Christian faith.
David: The ultimate community of the kingdom of heaven contains all the tribes and nations. Jesus doesn’t exactly dismiss them but he does seem to ignore them, as time- and culture-bound irrelevancies. Neither did he disown Leviticus (25:44-46) for clearly accepting the slavery that was a part of most if not all cultures of the time. What he did was say, in effect: “Love the slave, and the slave-owner too.” I can see a kingdom of heaven that has slaves in it—but slaves who love, and are loved by, their masters. Slavery and tribalism are time-bound, worldly, human cultural artifacts. Love is an eternal divine attribute. I conclude that doctrine based on culture is worldly, even profane; while doctrine based on love is Godly, divine; and I observe that most doctrine seems to be based on culture.
Robin: The characteristics of the kingdom of heaven are the key, rather than its geography. What did John the Baptist mean when he said the kingdom of heaven was at hand? If the king is just, what are the characteristics of his kingdom? Do his subjects see the righteousness, fairness, mercy, and justice of his laws?—Only, I think, if the subjects’ personalities reflect that of the king rather than being molded by their geography and culture.
This is a difficult discussion. It feels like walking on eggshells. I don’t believe that Jesus and Mohamed are equals, that they are two good men who showed us the right way to live. I believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the foretold Lamb of God. It makes me nervous to hear Jesus spoken of as though He personally does not matter, as though His sovereignty does not matter; as though what matters is only that we act like Him—just so that He will appeal to more people.
Jay: I would hesitate to limit God’s connection to people to being only via the literal name of Jesus. Jesus the man, Jesus the in-person manifestation of God, was a time-bound incarnation—specific to an approximately 30-year timespan beginning in the period approximating to the transition from BC to AD. People before that time, and many people at that time and since who lived outside the middle east, could not have known of his incarnation. But in all places and at all times, have there not been people who acted as though they were in the kingdom of heaven? What was their characteristic?
Robin: The spirit of God.
Jay: Yes, or love, or the inner light, etc. The point is that the spirit is timeless and place-less. I believe that Jesus came to save us, but I can’t believe that this belief alone, which is connected with a specific time and place, is the only way into the kingdom of heaven. I don’t seek to minimize Christ and his role, but I also don’t want to minimize God’s ability to admit people to His kingdom.
Don: …which, Scripture tells is, is indeed a tribal, national, and ethnic hodgepodge:
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; (Revelation 7:9)
The hodgepodge is simply the human condition, even as we stand in line at the gates, waiting to get in. Revelation does not say we will form a single tribe with a common language. We are tribal, national, ethnic, and even denominational. We just are. In the end, those attributes are not taken away; they are simply covered up in an universal white robe, and all differences between them are rendered moot by the universal grasping of a palm branch. We are not required, it seems, to give up our human condition.
David: I hope at a future meeting we may discuss the relationship between leadership and doctrine. “Christian leadership” would seem to be an oxymoron. The doctrine of Jesus requires only followership. It is the doctrines of Man that dictate leadership. The notion of a formal leader in a group of only “two or three gathered together in My name” seems slightly preposterous. But at bigger scale, leaders are like tribes: Part of the human condition.
Donald: One can lead by serving. One can be a leader who serves. One can serve by striving to present one’s faith to others in a way that is attractive but not divisive.
Don: The mission and the ministry and the message of Jesus are time- and geography-bound in this world but not in the divine sense. They are like the law of gravity—true whether or not you happened to “be there” at the time, or heard of it later, or can understand it, or believe it. It does not change the fact that Jesus is the savior of all Mankind.
Robin: I am concerned that anyone who stumbles across this blog could easily misinterpret our remarks and question our belief in Jesus.
Anonymous: At the same time, it can be divisive to cling to one’s beliefs—unless one’s beliefs boil down to love. We may pick and choose among doctrines, and even encourage others to share our doctrine, but above all we should not allow doctrine to hinder our love for other people. Whether our neighbors accept our doctrine is neither here nor there; what matters is that we love them.
David: The moment anything is written down—from the Gospels to the Interface blog you are reading now—it becomes subject to the reader’s powers of interpretation, which are themselves limited by the writer’s powers of expression. Intellectually, then, the truth may be perceived through a glass darkly at best; but it can also be “felt” (for want of a better word!) somewhere inside (perhaps “soul” or “inner spirit” is the right term here). Personally, I trust the feeling more than I trust the intellect. I don’t believe that our small group—this class—should have as its aim a common, group understanding of the truth; rather, I think we should aim at personal, individual, enlightenment of the mysteries of existence and beyond. Caveat lector!
Don: To me, it boils down to humility. It is wonderful that we can discuss and disagree, but in the end we all here seem humbly to agree that God is a great mystery who will never be fully explained. Any doctrine that claims or even seeks to explain God fully must intrinsically be in error. The particular advantage of the Seventh Day Adventists, I believe, is that humility is demanded of us by our emergence from an acknowledged error in doctrine. It tells us continually to question even cherished viewpoints, in case they are wrong. But as Jesus and Revelation tell us, at the end of the day, even that will not be a particular advantage as we line up with other denominations wearing our white robes and holding out our palm branches at the gates to the kingdom.
* * *