Doctrine vs Practise

[The edge]

I hear lot's of people telling me that this is doctrine & that is doctrine & they are the unchangeable.

But often, I find some of the area raised seems more like pte interpretation.

Where to we draw the lines between fundamental doctrines that are held by "most" Christian churches, vs differences in practises...which may be changeable with time & understanding?

[Canuckster1127]

I hear lot's of people telling me that this is doctrine & that is doctrine & they are the unchangeable.

But often, I find some of the area raised seems more like pte interpretation.

Where to we draw the lines between fundamental doctrines that are held by "most" Christian churches, vs differences in practises...which may be changeable with time & understanding?

Pretty General question so all I can give is a general answer.

It's not always easy to separate practise from doctrine and there can be cultural issues to take into consideration.

The classic examples of these for which there still remains no consensus would be the admonition for women to cover their heads. Culturally in the context of that culture, a woman without her head covered in public was presumed to be outside the authority of her husband if married or if unmarried to be drawing attention to herself as a prostitute or loose woman.

Some look at that passage, take it a face value and carry on the practise without really understanding or caring about what that context was and, in my opinion, what they accomplish is a form of legalism or attempting to draw attention to themselves by their differences and celebrating that. It is a little ironic given that the original context admonished against drawing attention to themselves outside of the cultural context.

So there definitely are issues in which cultural considerations are important and good exegesis requires a drawing out of the principal that is being forwarded and then putting it into a context today that has meaning.

I don't know if that answers your question, but then if you want more detail, maybe you can provide an example of what you are thinking?

[B. W.]

I hear lot's of people telling me that this is doctrine & that is doctrine & they are the unchangeable.

But often, I find some of the area raised seems more like pte interpretation.

Where to we draw the lines between fundamental doctrines that are held by "most" Christian churches, vs differences in practises...which may be changeable with time & understanding?

Let's see, there are doctrines from men and also certain theological doctrines that the bible does teach. Also, there is a third category, the doctrines of men.

One central doctrine that Christians agree upon that is non-negotiable is that Salvation John 3:16. Salvation comes through Christ. Even the late Pope John agreed with this as do all Catholics and Protestants. This is an example of bible based theological doctrine or dogma.

The women wearing head coverings and silent in the church is a doctrine from men that needs to be examined in the light of the historical circumstances, culture, time period, place, and context of entire bible. Paul wrote this for a historical cultural problem at that time and thus can be termed a doctrine from man concerning a certain problem for the era it occurred.

There are doctrines of men that are religious and produce bad fruit in ones life. Jesus warns of those.

Doctrinesfrom men were meant for building up the Church and address issues within the church usually in light of some historical context.

Hope this helps decipher between doctrines.
-
-
-

[The edge]

I get frustrated when some church members uses the "doctrine" term lossely especially on areas that may be silent in the bible "e.g. music style" & things that different denomination might practise differently e.g. open vs close or closed communion.

Recently, I introduced the idea of delinking membership from baptism. While I do believe that baptism is a pre-requisite for membership, I felt that membership does not always automatically followed after baptism.
Reason being is that the candidate may not fully subscibe to all the churches convenant or rules/practises or the member is a visitor to the country (short visit), but yet want to obey the Lord's call for salvation & baptism. I've no problem with the leaders, or members not agreeing to my proposal & wishes to continue to vote on a candidate membership or to even provide a class on church practises prior to a candidate baptism.

My main problem is that, for some to use the term doctrine on all the above, would create the culture of
1) separating our church from many other Christians (from other denomination).
2) inculcate tradition / men's interpretation into the foundational teaching of Christ. This could in turn promote a closed mindset in viewing issues.

Am I wrong? Do be frank.

[Canuckster1127]

I get frustrated when some church members uses the "doctrine" term lossely especially on areas that may be silent in the bible "e.g. music style" & things that different denomination might practise differently e.g. open vs close or closed communion.

Recently, I introduced the idea of delinking membership from baptism. While I do believe that baptism is a pre-requisite for membership, I felt that membership does not always automatically followed after baptism.
Reason being is that the candidate may not fully subscibe to all the churches convenant or rules/practises or the member is a visitor to the country (short visit), but yet want to obey the Lord's call for salvation & baptism. I've no problem with the leaders, or members not agreeing to my proposal & wishes to continue to vote on a candidate membership or to even provide a class on church practises prior to a candidate baptism.

My main problem is that, for some to use the term doctrine on all the above, would create the culture of
1) separating our church from many other Christians (from other denomination).
2) inculcate tradition / men's interpretation into the foundational teaching of Christ. This could in turn promote a closed mindset in viewing issues.

Am I wrong? Do be frank.

Your concerns may be legitimate.

Each Church has its own doctrine and practise and if it is in the charter and practise of the Church to operate in a certain way, then they have an obligation to do so consistently.

I have not been part of a Church yet where there was not some element that i was not in full agreement as to its necessity or its consistency with Scripture.

However, if that is what that church as a denomination or an individual church has instituted then my choice is to tolerate it or to leave it.

Hows that for frank?

[bluesman]

he women wearing head coverings and silent in the church is a doctrine from men that needs to be examined in the light of the historical circumstances, culture, time period, place, and context of entire bible. Paul wrote this for a historical cultural problem at that time and thus can be termed a doctrine from man concerning a certain problem for the era it occurred.

Not too sure about the head covering part. I do agree with most of the above.
However, if we too quickly jump to the historical cultural context explantion,
we might be skipping over the true meaning of verses that Paul and others wrote.

To address the women silent in the church part

From
http://www.gracecentered.com/women_in_ministry.htm

Those statements (Scriptures) in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 never ORIGINATED with Paul. Paul only REITERATED them as a rebuke to the Corinthian church in the letter we now read as Scripture. The Corinthians originally wrote them TO Paul. Paul told them how absurd it was for them to say that the Law commands women to be silent in the church - THEY ARE THE CHURCH. Paul said that they WERE NOT commands from the Lord but "ignorance" of what they were teaching God's people

in chapters 7 through 14, Paul was RESPONDING to questions and statements that the Corinthians WROTE TO HIM.

Paul actually used their words in his letter when he addressed some of their concerns and said they were foolish and they weren't of God. We have come to the place of turning the classic bondage Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 into a liberating Scripture for you.


Then in verses 34-35 he repeated what they first wrote to him: "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the Law. And if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Immediately after Paul wrote this, the next word he wrote was, "WHAT?" (v36). In the Greek, the word "what" is a negative disclaimer. We would say, "What, are you nuts?" Paul said, "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or did it come unto you only?" (v36). Meaning, that the previous statement that he wrote from the letter he received from them referring that women are to keep silent in the church was not from God at all. In fact, it was pure silliness.

Michael

[FFC]

he women wearing head coverings and silent in the church is a doctrine from men that needs to be examined in the light of the historical circumstances, culture, time period, place, and context of entire bible. Paul wrote this for a historical cultural problem at that time and thus can be termed a doctrine from man concerning a certain problem for the era it occurred.

Not too sure about the head covering part. I do agree with most of the above.
However, if we too quickly jump to the historical cultural context explantion,
we might be skipping over the true meaning of verses that Paul and others wrote.

To address the women silent in the church part

From
http://www.gracecentered.com/women_in_ministry.htm

Those statements (Scriptures) in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 never ORIGINATED with Paul. Paul only REITERATED them as a rebuke to the Corinthian church in the letter we now read as Scripture. The Corinthians originally wrote them TO Paul. Paul told them how absurd it was for them to say that the Law commands women to be silent in the church - THEY ARE THE CHURCH. Paul said that they WERE NOT commands from the Lord but "ignorance" of what they were teaching God's people

in chapters 7 through 14, Paul was RESPONDING to questions and statements that the Corinthians WROTE TO HIM.

Paul actually used their words in his letter when he addressed some of their concerns and said they were foolish and they weren't of God. We have come to the place of turning the classic bondage Scriptures, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 into a liberating Scripture for you.


Then in verses 34-35 he repeated what they first wrote to him: "Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the Law. And if they will learn any thing let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Immediately after Paul wrote this, the next word he wrote was, "WHAT?" (v36). In the Greek, the word "what" is a negative disclaimer. We would say, "What, are you nuts?" Paul said, "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or did it come unto you only?" (v36). Meaning, that the previous statement that he wrote from the letter he received from them referring that women are to keep silent in the church was not from God at all. In fact, it was pure silliness.

Michael

That is very interesting! It makes a lot of sense and clears some issues up that I have always pondered. Thank you.

[The edge]

I get frustrated when some church members uses the "doctrine" term lossely especially on areas that may be silent in the bible "e.g. music style" & things that different denomination might practise differently e.g. open vs close or closed communion.

Recently, I introduced the idea of delinking membership from baptism. While I do believe that baptism is a pre-requisite for membership, I felt that membership does not always automatically followed after baptism.
Reason being is that the candidate may not fully subscibe to all the churches convenant or rules/practises or the member is a visitor to the country (short visit), but yet want to obey the Lord's call for salvation & baptism. I've no problem with the leaders, or members not agreeing to my proposal & wishes to continue to vote on a candidate membership or to even provide a class on church practises prior to a candidate baptism.

My main problem is that, for some to use the term doctrine on all the above, would create the culture of
1) separating our church from many other Christians (from other denomination).
2) inculcate tradition / men's interpretation into the foundational teaching of Christ. This could in turn promote a closed mindset in viewing issues.

Am I wrong? Do be frank.

Your concerns may be legitimate.

Each Church has its own doctrine and practise and if it is in the charter and practise of the Church to operate in a certain way, then they have an obligation to do so consistently.

I have not been part of a Church yet where there was not some element that i was not in full agreement as to its necessity or its consistency with Scripture.

However, if that is what that church as a denomination or an individual church has instituted then my choice is to tolerate it or to leave it.

Hows that for frank?

I totally agree with you & is a strong advocator for members to"tow the line" as far as submitting to church authority is concern, including areas that are grey.

Just that I believe that there are things that may have to change with time or with new understandings. When "Doctrine" is being slap upon grey stuff, we've cut off ourselves from changes which may hinder church growth. All grey areas should be re-considered by the leadership every once a while to determine if the circumstances & logic behind them still stay....instead of a sweeping statement of "No".

I just find that the closed mindset have permeated into the education portion of the church, rendering lesson to become one way thumb down delivery instead of challenging students to think & reason for themselves the "why" behind church policies. I sense that many of the youngs & 2nd generations Christians felt that too stiffering & is about to leave church.