Doctrine: its nature and function
Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:00:55 PM PDT
Spinning off some discussion about "correct" or "valid" religions in another diary, and trying to reinforce some stuff I learned in class tonight -- I wanted to write about this and thought it might make for some interesting discussion.
What is the function of doctrinal statements? (In your opinion, and in your faith tradition.)
First, let me define my terms here. A doctrinal statement is a relatively short statement that encapsulates some element of church teaching. For example, "we are justified by faith alone" is a doctrinal statement.
(For purposes of this discussion, issues of what makes such a statement authoritative, or who gets to make them, or the difference between doctrine and dogma, are entirely irrelevant.)
So how do they work? What are they for? What do they do? What do they signify?
We discussed three possible approaches to doctrinal statements in class tonight, and I promise to come back at some point and doublecheck my terminology and add sources, but for now I'm going to just forge ahead.
One school of thought is that these statements are truth claims: they are things that we know about God. In this sense, they are objective statements, that crystallize or summarize public (common, communal) revelation. They are the kinds of statements that one could conceivably say "this is true" or "this is false" or "this is partly true"; one could argue that "this is correct" or "this is incorrect". This is a fairly intellectual approach.
In this way of thinking, "We are justified by faith alone" is a statement about the nature of salvation, and how God works to save us.
Another school of thought is that these statements are symbolic expressions of inner reality. In this sense, they are subjective statements, that crystallize or summarize private revelation, private religious experience. They are not truth claims, but experiential claims; one might discuss them in terms of validity, but not in terms of correctness.
In this way of thinking, "We are justified by faith alone" is a statement about Luther's personal experience that transformed his relationship with God, his feelings about himself, and his feelings about God; and about similar experiences that other Christians have had, many of whom then chose to call themselves Lutheran.
Another school of thought is that these statements are performative language that tell us to do something. In this sense, they are prescriptive statements, that crystallize or summarize the way of life according to which the followers of the religion are supposed to live. They are neither truth claims nor experiential claims, but praxis imperatives; one might discuss them in terms of importance, but not in terms of either correctness or validity.
In this way of thinking, "We are justified by faith alone" is a statement about how Christians are to live concerning our salvation: namely, in humble gratitude towards a gracious God who alone accomplishes our justification, and not in pride over our own accomplished merit that earns our salvation.
My professor described the first of these as "head", the second as "heart", and the third as "hands".
So what do you think?
- Do you buy that doctrine can be anything other than truth claims about God, with which a person either agrees or disagrees?
- Do you think one of these approaches to doctrine is more valid than the others? More useful than the others?
- If your tradition has doctrinal statements at all, which of these three approaches (or some combination thereof) describes how they function?
- Do you have a completely different understanding of doctrine? If so, please explain! Ideally with an illustration using the same "justification by faith alone" example.
Permalink | 50 comments