- a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true
- teaching, instruction
- something that is taught
Perhaps it’s time to consider the Bible’s doctrine on doctrine. Before we can teach anything, we should give thought to what can and can’t be taught, right? What the Bible teaches about teaching should be what we teach about teaching, should it not?
“Doctrine” as used in the Bible is just a synonym for “teaching.” There is no separate meaning of “doctrine” as distinguished from “teaching” or “judgment.” Whenever something is taught, whether that’s a private opinion or supposed “judgment” of the church, it is a doctrine. The fact that it’s taught is what makes it a doctrine, not the fact that it was run up the flagpole and approved by superiors at a previous May/March Week.
Of course, the corollary of this is that any doctrines that have been taught in error–whether personal opinions or “judgments”–were erroneous doctrines. If they were taught by someone who wasn’t fully convinced of their veracity, then I believe that is the Biblical definition of “false teaching,” which is “disingenuous teaching.” Even more problematic for the church is the inevitable conclusion that the church, via its various spokespersons through the years, has in fact taught certain false (incorrect) doctrines. To argue that it hasn’t, is to argue for the infallibility of the church on those doctrines, which I don’t believe anyone is prepared to defend.
So what is the proper Biblical teaching about teaching? The meeting’s stated goals can be spun all they want to put lipstick on the pig, but it seems that any fair analysis would conclude that May/March Week is really about individuals discussing their private opinions, and bringing them back to the local congregations with the expectation that they will be adopted as the new “official doctrines.”
This line between private and “official” doctrine is not really Biblically supported, though. I believe there is no such thing as “official church doctrine,” Biblically speaking. We only have personal opinions–i.e. the beliefs we personally hold, as we individually understand them–and we are individually accountable for their truth and merit. We can’t slip responsibility for the veracity of what we believe or teach to “the church,” or “tradition,” or “our teachers,” or “May Week 1986.” Our opinions are ours alone, and if we choose to teach them, the buck stops there.
Because private opinions are fallible, they have no guarantee of being true. They may be true, of course, but they may not be. We arrive at various conclusions in life by adding to our knowledge, experience and maturity–physically, intellectually and spiritually.
This is a really important point. Since our opinions change throughout our lifetime (at least they should, if we are growing intellectually and spiritually), we can know that our private opinions have not always been true. We can therefore project into the future with a high degree of certainty that our opinions will never be 100% true. As long as we are encased in human flesh, we are likely to hold incorrect opinions.
However, each of us obviously believes that the opinions we currently hold true right now are in fact true, or we wouldn’t believe them. What are we to make of these two seemingly contradictory conclusions? We know we’re wrong on some things, but we’re not certain which things are wrong. We also believe and teach those things we think we’re right on.
What we need, then, is a proper sense of humility. We should not think so highly of our own opinions, believing them so strongly to be true that we take outlandish risks and preach them as if they were proven, verifiable fact. We have to acknowledge the possibility that we may grow in our opinions next week, next month, next year, or ten years from now, as long as we are not speaking infallibly directly from the Holy Spirit (and I know no one in the church who claims this).
We may have numerous logical or interpretational roadblocks in our path to apprehending what is actually true on a particular point, and this is true whether one has the Holy Spirit or not. As evidence, we just need to look at the sect’s history and see a series of many changed doctrines and opinions over time. These same people are believed to have had the Holy Spirit, so how did they arrive at different conclusions in 1978 vs. 1998? Because they’re human, that’s why.
Our opinions should not be forced on other people as a condition of fellowship. What my conscience allows or does not allow is not my job to enforce on my brothers. We can hold opinions, of course, but we must hold them as our own private property, as Alexander Campbell once said.
So at what point do our private opinions become doctrines? They become doctrines precisely at the time we teach them. This is true whether the “church” agreed that this opinion is the correct doctrine, or whether outside counsel was sought and approved it. The minute I take my opinion on, shall we say, whether a Christian may share a prescription contrary to the laws of the land, and teach it as the “official doctrine” of the church circa March Week 2014, I have made my opinions into my doctrine.
Instead, what Christians ought to do more of is share their opinions for the consideration and investigation of their brothers, and let their own consciences apprehend their truth (or not). “Let every man be convinced in his own mind,” right? But as soon as they go about teaching it, they are “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
The reality is that we may believe our opinions are true with all our heart, but that doesn’t make them true or infallible. The whole concept of “official church doctrines” is impossible to define without making a creed of some sort, whether that’s a written statement of faith, or a body of “official thought” that is passed down verbally through teachers, evangelists, and May/March Weeks.
Does the church have a creed–a body of “official doctrines” outside of the Bible alone? I would suggest it does. It is embodied in 45 years of tape recordings, notes, May/March Week conclusions, judgements, and teachers’ counsel. It is, therefore, a house of cards:
Matthew 15:9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.
Colossians 2:22 – These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings.
It’s much better to build our doctrines on a solid foundation of the Bible alone. We’ve always told other religious organizations to do that. Stanton, remember the Suitcase of Books?
I wholeheartedly agree with you Kevin. How any Christian can deny the wrong of 'official church teaching' is baffling to me since the church constantly berates the religious world for this exact wrong doing. You have explained exactly what has been plaguing me for many years. I pray that eyes will be opened and hearts will embrace the truth of this erroneous practice. Keep writing.
Anon 4:07 – For the longest time it baffled me how they could deny their doctrines had ever changed when they so clearly had. Then it dawned on me that their definition of doctrine is not the same as the one everyone else uses. In their minds, their "judgements" have changed, but their "doctrines" have not. In order to make this work, however, you have to get into some outrageously Pharisaical lawyering.
The simple fact is that a judgment is an opinion, and an opinion taught is a doctrine. Establish a set of doctrines as an organization and you have a creed.
Excellent post Kevin. I agree with Anon 4:07, please keep writing!
Great blog Kevin, wonderful words of wisdom and I pray that hearts and minds will be opened to see and hear what you are trying to say. Keep writing!
Wow. Kevin, this is serious matters we are talking about in regards to "The Group". They do not believe they have personal opinions about the Doctrine of Christ, but Doctrine of Christ it is all back up by scriptures. Judgment are not opinions, but decisions thought carefully through using scriptures as to What God's will is in regards to situations. No different than what a Judge does in Court. They fully understand they will be judged and therefore, are carefully with what they teach and make sure it is backed up by scripture. At least that is the "The Group" that I know as. I may have left this group years back, but I will never forget their love and their zeal for the Word of God. It does take a sincere heart to be in this Group, but I pray that they understand and see God's mercy extends so much more.
You said: "They do not believe they have personal opinions about the Doctrine of Christ, but Doctrine of Christ it is all back up (sic) by scriptures."
That is simply not borne out by the rules of logic.
1) The Doctrine of Christ, devoid of personal opinion, cannot change
2) Their teachings have changed
3) Therefore, their teachings cannot be the the Doctrine of Christ devoid of personal opinion
Our only conclusion can be that their teachings are some mix of the Doctrine of Christ and/or personal opinion.
You said: "Judgment are not opinions, but decisions thought carefully through using scriptures as to What God's will is in regards to situations."
On what basis can you possibly say that judgments are not opinions? We may each have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own dictionary.
o·pin·ion – (1) a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something; what someone thinks about a particular thing (2) advice from someone with special knowledge; advice from an expert (3) a formal statement by a judge, court, etc., explaining the reasons a decision was made according to laws or rules
Even if we do accept your view of judgment as a legal "ruling," it is still an opinion. Haven't you heard news headlines like "the Supreme Court handed down its opinion on XYZ today?"
Judgment = Opinion
You said: "No different than what a Judge does in Court."
This is not the role of any fallible human. We are not to sit in judgment in the same sense that a judge does in court, because we don't have that kind of infallible authority–not even close to it. To sit in judgment to that degree is to literally play God, which is otherwise known as playing Pharisee, because the Pharisees thought they stood in the place of God.
Word games are easy to play here, because this of course does not mean we are not to use good judgment. What I'm saying, however, is that the church has no place, as an organization, issuing rulings to decide official judgments on doctrines and people like a judge does in court. That is WAY above our pay grade.
You said: "They fully understand they will be judged and therefore, are carefully (sic) with what they teach and make sure it is backed up by scripture."
As this blog has clearly shown, they have many judgments/opinions which have not been carefully thought out, and are not at all backed up by scripture. That makes them (a) unscriptural, (b) opinions, and (c) doctrines of men, not the Doctrine of Christ.
See also:
Changing Doctrines
2 Opinions Chapter 3
Rules on Recreation
Kevin, I completely understand what you are trying to state here about opinions and how it is mixed with their judgment and teaching. But for a member to be in this group, they can not take any teaching, any judgment, as opinion of man. It will cause havoc to their faith. God's will is not an opinion of man. God's will is God's will. I believe part of my recovery from this group is when I learned that God's will is to heed his greatest commandment.
Anon 4:36 – Yes, I understand that they can't take any teaching or judgment as an opinion of man and still remain in the group (at least in good standing). It will definitely cause havoc with their faith, but that's not a bad thing, because our faith should be based on truth, not contrived exegesis and word games.
And I totally agree that the best path to recovery is to understand the Greatest Commands. Amen to that, brother (or sister). 🙂
Wolves in Sheep's Clothing (saw this on the web)
What is it about wolves that cause people to believe that wolves represent Jesus Christ? Here are some clues:
Wolves come as innocent sheep.
Wolves come as angels of light.
Wolves seem friendly.
Wolves smile.
Wolves often have flattering titles.
Wolves focus on their "authority."
Wolves focus on giving them money.
Wolves use the name of Jesus Christ falsely.
Wolves often are obsessed with issues other than Jesus Christ.
Wolves take scriptures out of context.
Wolves twist scriptures to fit their purpose.
Wolves sometimes are very strong personalities.
Wolves sometimes claim to be healers.
Wolves sometimes claim to be apostles.
Wolves sometimes claim to be prophets.
Wolves sometimes claim to be pastors.
Wolves love control and power over your life.
Wolves are sometimes obsessed with your pocketbook.
Wolves are often legalistic.
Wolves cause people to live in fear of their authority.
Wolves cause people to fear for their salvation if they don't yield to their authority and teachings.
Wolves sometimes act as if they are infallible in spiritual knowledge.
Wolves lead astray and away from the truth in Jesus Christ.
Wolves (at least some of them) focus on the Old Testament, instead of Jesus Christ.
Wolves sometimes focus on issues in the Old Testament that have long been fulfilled in Christ.
Wolves love the praise of men.
Wolves often brag about their charitable deeds (Jesus said to do your alms in secret–Matthew 6:1-4).
Wolves love to build great temples, cathedrals, church buildings and monuments that glorify themselves (God does not dwell in temples made with hands–Acts 17:24).
Wolves deceive even themselves as well as others.
Wolves are often very forceful in their personality.
Wolves do your thinking for you and expect you to follow them.
Wolves tell you that they represent the will of Jesus Christ.
Wolves often tell you they have a special anointing.
Wolves are obsessed with themselves and their self importance.
Wolves will tell you that you are obeying God if you sow "seed" money into their ministry.
Wolves promise you healing, financial blessings, and spiritual rewards that they have no power to give.
Wolves may be spiritually abusive.
Wolves are often very defensive when others point out their false teachings.
Wolves never cease to prey upon others.
(from: http://www.batteredsheep.com/wolves.html
Ezekiel 34:4 (KJV) (Read the whole chapter about the good shepherd – God). He will judge bad shepherds.
4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
Great info: Earmarks of a cult
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-rescue-someone-cult-including-yourself-7507490.html
Well said Kevin! I would also like to add Romans 14, the whole chapter into this discussion. It would take up too much room to quote it all here, so please read it for yourselves. For brevity's sake I will only quote verses 2 and 3: "For one believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not; and let not him which eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him."
This lets me know that it's ok to have a different opinion on something, here Paul is using the example of food. He is very explicit that we are NOT to judge each other on these kinds of issues, and yet that is what Merie's group does.
Did you know that one more rule was that you aren't suppose to eat during the break after worship and just before the morning class? Only children and diabetics and the ill were allowed to do this without being rebuked.
The evangelist in SV even gave a talk one time, praising himself for not going across the street to the store during that break. He said he had a right to go, as he was on medication that required he have food in his stomach when he took it. But he wanted to set an example, so he refused to be one of those who went to the store during the break. And then he proceeded to rebuke those who were using the break to go to the store and eat!
The thing I finally understood with this scripture is that the evangelist in SV was actually the one with the weak conscience! There is nothing wrong with going to the store during break, or eating at that time. It is only someone with little understanding or knowledge of scripture that could possibly think it would be a sin to do this!
And lest someone accuse me of judging this brother in SV, I only believe he shouldn't have put his conscience onto other brethren. And I believe that I am backed up by the scripture in Romans 14.
You hit the nail on the head Kevin, about the word games they play. It's one of the signs of an oppressor, changing the meaning of words. They use judgments, instead of opinions and laws. They will even go so far as to tell ones that it's their choice, to go by their conscience, and then rebuke them if they make the "wrong choice".
For years I really believed them when they said that judgments weren't binding. But when I became a teacher and openly taught that, I was severely "corrected!" That's when I began to understand that the leaders speak with a forked tongue, or with double meanings.
I say this not to castigate them, I still love them. It still breaks my heart to hear the things they are still doing, and still teaching. While some may know exactly what they are doing, I believe that most are sincere in what they try to believe and practice.
Thanks Debby, I can tell you've been down some of the same paths in studying the scriptures to get out of the Stanton errors of thinking. Romans 14 and 15 were huge in my realization that unity does not mean unanimity. Unanimity is only possible via human oppression. If humans are allowed to think for themselves and exercise their own conscience commensurate with their level of knowledge and maturity, it is impossible to have unanimity. But unity is still commanded. That means they have an erroneous definition of unity, plain and simple.
You're right Kevin! Uniformity does not unity make! If we all dressed alike, spoke alike, walked in the same exact manner, we still wouldn't be united! 🙂
PS Thank you for the warm welcome! I'm glad that I found our blog, and get to meet all of you! Lynn, were you in the Tacoma congregation? If so, we know some folks in common!