The Bible favors doctrine. Paul told the young pastor, Timothy,
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11)And his depiction of those who teach a different doctrine is not "user friendly" (1 Tim 6:3-5). Instructing Titus in the selection of elders, Paul told him, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) He warned Titus of those who profess to know God but deny Him by their works (Titus 1:16) and countered, "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1) The author of Hebrews complained about his readers being "unskilled in the word of righteousness" (Heb 5:13) rather than having their "powers of discernment trained by constant practice" (Heb 5:14). Doctrine, biblically, is good. Unfortunately, it appears that many preachers these days disagree.
I was in a church in 2001 where the pastor was preaching through Ephesians. On the Sunday following September 11th, I wasn't exactly excited to go to church. I figured the events of 9/11 would be the topic and, frankly, I was tired of the topic. I wanted a break. But then I realized that the passage of the day would include Eph 1:11, including the claim that God "works all things after the counsel of His will." Now that would be a message I'd like to hear from the pulpit on this particular Sunday. He didn't do it. He skipped the concept. When we got, a few weeks later, to chapter 2, he turned "You were dead in your trespasses and sins ..." (Eph 2:1-10) into a sermon on marriage. That is avoiding doctrine.
The early church "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship ... day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes ..." (Acts 2:42-47) We've diminished that whole "day by day" thing greatly, and now we've largely dropped the "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching." We barely even believe in "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3), let alone contending for it. When a man named Simon offered the Apostles money, Peter didn't take it with thanks. He berated him for His false beliefs (Acts 8:18-23). Today we gladly limit our preaching and doctrine in favor of some extra cash (beginning with "501c3"). Brethren, we do not well.
Elders are required to "give instruction in sound doctrine" and "rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) In some congregations, the elders are the pastors. In others, they're the ruling body. In either case, if either the pastors or the elders are not teaching sound doctrine, is it because they don't have it or is it because they're refusing? If so, are they qualified to be in that position? If elders are the ruling body and not teaching sound doctrine, is it because pastors have failed to teach them? Do we even know what "sound doctrine" is anymore?
Paul warned Timothy that the time would come when people would not endure sound doctrine, "but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." (2 Tim 4:3-4) I would argue that the time has arrived. The remedy, according to Paul, is "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching." (2 Tim 4:2) The alternative is a group of people misguided and misled, without genuine truth. Look around and see what you find.
9 comments:
Doctrine divides. we fear this division, we fear the separation from the world. we fear the division within our churches. the prevailing attitude is that we must provide a Gospel that that is palatable to the masses. we believe that preaching to the whole world equals trying to save the whole world. we are led to believe that we are here to make the world a better place.
pastors are led to believe that a full church with quasi doctrine is preferable to a half empty church with adherents of sound doctrine. some pastors are more concerned with the negative impact on the bottom line, than they are about the fidelity of their teaching.
i believe we should go back to the streets, and shake off the burdens of managing buildings, congregations and properties. lets go back to being poor in material things so that we may be rich in the WORD...
Meet from house to house like they did at first?
The place of business is irrelevant if sound doctrine is not taught.
I would agree and would charge further that many pastors are making their churches irrelevant by refusing to teach doctrine.
when we have nothing, we have nothing to lose... how often do we hear about how we need to fill the pews. bean counters determining the amount of money is needed to support the megalith. ground fees, pastor's salaries, mortgage, heating, air conditioning, paving the parking lot. taking up collections for a new roof... with all these factors in the mix. the leading elders have to consider the risk. do we decide to teach a doctrine that will cause division? the loss of membership translates into loss of revenue. there goes the building, there goes the salaries, and there goes the church... now i know that this is not true for all churches, i am just being a malcontent. just think about how free we would be to preach the truth if we weren't so dependent upon a congregation to support our material super structures.
remove the fear of loss, and we become courageous...
For some reason, church leaders have got it in their heads that their supposed to be the ones preaching the Gospel to the unsaved. I don't find that in Scripture. Their job is to teach believers how to go out and preach the gospel.
Other problem I have with the avoid doctrine to attract more people, it ignores the history of the American Church that had a major resurgence due to doctrinal teaching, not by making the people feel comfortable.
I once had a pastor completely miss an excellent opportunity to teach the gospel in his own church in his sermon, and in so doing, I think he actually lead many astray. He was teaching about perfection. His conclusion was to not worry about being perfect because we can't be perfect. He missed the opportunity to teach that we need to be perfect to make it to heaven. But we can't be perfect. Thankfully, Christ is available to give us His perfection.
Bob, we'd be freer to preach the truth if we'd just drop the 501c3 requirements, but no one seems to care about the government limitations on free speech over against the "tax break" we get, so I can't imagine the "bigger loss" of preaching the truth.
David, I just read an article about the "damage" that expository preaching has done in our churches. His premise was exactly your point. "Expository preaching does nothing to make converts." Missing the point entirely.
I've heard it said the the churches that do experience growth, or at least are stable in their memberships, are those that teach doctrine unflinchingly.
As to worry about costs, that's a righteous worry as there will be costs regardless of the venue...be it a huge cathedral or someone's home. The preacher ain't supposed to go hungry, though I suppose a dedicated one might be willing to risk it in order to preach properly.
As to costs, I think that to look at where a church spends its money is to find where its heart is. If it's in stuff -- buildings, trappings, appearance, etc. -- rather than people, we can see a problem.
Post a Comment