Doctrine Wars

Summary

• In our Revival Fellowship church we don’t really discuss doctrine. Many have no idea about doctrine, or they have a mistaken understanding of what doctrine is.
• We are following the well-worn revival path of rejecting Church tradition, and the wisdom of the historic Church’s teaching and creeds.
• Do we then reject all Doctrine?
• That’s not possible. Every Christian is a theologian, and all Christians are involved with doctrine (even if they believe otherwise).
• In this article I challenge the wisdom of rejecting most (or all) external doctrinal influences and the wholesale acceptance of home-grown doctrine.
• There is, I think, a new approach required where all our doctrine is carefully examined in the light of scripture and accepted, modified, or rejected on that basis.



There is scarcely anything so dull and meaningless as Bible doctrine taught for its own sake. Truth divorced from life is not truth in its biblical sense, but something else and something less.

A.W. Tozer

Should we go to war over Doctrine?

In our Revival Fellowship church, we don't discuss doctrine per se. Many have no idea about doctrine, or they have a mistaken understanding of what doctrine is. Can't we just walk a simple walk with God and not worry too much about the task of Bible study? Historically that has been our approach. 

We cling tenaciously to the approach of the revival movements that pre-date us and provided our foundation. Our revival forerunners felt quite justified in jettisoning Church tradition, the teaching and wisdom of the historic Church's teaching and creeds, and anything else that smacked of formalism, ritual or "dry, powerless religion". The wholesale abandonment of tradition, Church teaching and Creeds was justified by their experiences and various miracles. They interpreted these experiences and miracles as confirmatory. Because of their experiences, they claimed God approved their "Spirit-led" approach to handling, interpreting, and preaching the Word. (This is experientialism at work.) 

We have followed those well-worn revival paths eschewing “mainstream religion”, trusting ourselves (mistakenly in my view) to what the most eloquent, charismatic, convincing, or seemingly scholarly among us had to say. 

We claim that doctrine isn't important compared to the "simple truths" we affirm. We say, more or less, that all we need is to repent, be baptised and be filled with the Holy Spirit [1]. But then one must ask, "What's repentance?", "What's baptism?" or "What does the Holy Spirit have to do with it?". As R.C Sproul reminds us, the moment a person starts to answer any of those questions, they are inevitably and inescapably involved with doctrine. 

We were and continue to be, especially distrustful of what we call "vain repetition", anything said regularly or repeated in our estimation—any of the Creeds, for example. The Apostles Creed is reproduced here just in case you've never seen it. But what part of the Apostles Creed can I ask would cause consternation to a Christian?

The Apostles Creed, like many others, is simply a summary, short and memorable, of what the Bible teaches. If the occasion required, I could happily recite the Apostles Creed in solidarity with others who wanted to affirm basic Christian teaching (doctrine).

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in

the Holy Spirit,

the holy universal Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Ironically, we are delighted to get together in a prayer meeting and pray simultaneously in tongues. Can you see the incongruity in that? We will all pray as a group, each speaking in tongues (sometimes quite "fervently"), mouthing words that neither we nor anyone else understands (except God, of course). Yet, we would never recite the Apostles Creed together. A creed that summarises beautifully things that we can and should be happy to affirm. 

When we gather for prayer, we can pray for half an hour or more in a group and never say anything of value to the gathered fellowship (as we are praying "in tongues"). I find it extraordinary that we would do that, yet we would consider it spiritually inane to recite the Apostles Creed together. Go figure. 

For another example, consider what's called by the Church at large "The Lord's Prayer" (Matthew 6:7ff and Luke 11:1ff). Corporately reciting that prayer is anathema for us. And this even though it is word for word from Scripture (and Jesus' words no less). We could freely read it every day (it is Scripture, after all), but clearly, from our perspective, we would not ever say that prayer (or any rote prayer) in a fellowship gathering. We're Revival Fellowshippers – only extemporaneous prayer for us, thank you. 

We have even decided in the past not to sing particular songs in our church meetings because the song repeats certain lines "too many times", making it "vain repetition", in our view (and that is to be avoided at all costs). 

Nonetheless, lest anyone doubt what is suitable and appropriate, we have testimonies expected to follow the same pattern. Testifiers must never fail to mention as part of the testimonial liturgy, repentance, baptism "by full immersion", and "receiving the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues". 

So, as we have followed our revival predecessors, we gained some great things [2]. Still, unfortunately, we threw the baby out with the bathwater when we leapt from formalism to experientialism, abandoning as …obsolete and aging [and] about to disappear... anything that had a pedigree associated with the "traditional churches" as we saw them. 

Yet, there is much the historic church has to say that is worth hearing and incorporating into our fellowship and our lives. 

For the Christian, doctrine is simply part of the Christian life – there is no escaping from it. The choice we have (to paraphrase R.C. Sproul) is not between doctrine and no doctrine but rather between sound doctrine and unsound doctrine. 

Jaroslav Pelikan[3], in his book The Christian Tradition, defined Christian doctrine as what the church believes and teaches. That is a straightforward definition to grasp - Christian doctrine is simply what the Christian church believes and teaches. 

Notice that Pelikan’s definition is not “Christian doctrine is what the Bible teaches and what we are to believe.” That’s because there are two parts to doctrine – what we find in Scripture and our (mine, your, humans’, the Church’s) reflections on and systematic analysis of Scripture’s content leading in the end to a set of consistent, codified doctrinal statements. 

What the church believes and teaches. Is that a workable definition? Isn't Christian doctrine what the Bible teaches and what we believe based on the Bible's authority? It would be wonderful indeed. 

The information we find in the Bible is the start and foundation of doctrine. However, doctrine is not simply a list of scriptures pulled together because they all somehow relate to the doctrine's topic. Deep thought, thorough reflection, prayer, and the Spirit's illumination are all tools to utilise. We may create a coherent and defensible, comprehensive position on a topic with all of those in play. A position that we say lines up with the Word. That solid and hopefully complete position, we call doctrine. It is that doctrine we want the church to teach (or that we think the church should teach). 

So, for example, doctrines like the Trinity and the two natures of Christ (He was fully human and fully divine) are not explicitly taught in Scripture. Instead, they result from the Church (at large) reflecting on the Scripture's various statements about God and His nature and then attempting to systematise those statements and propositions into a coherent account about what we, as Christians, believe. Doctrine is what the church believes and teaches because of its study and reflection upon Scripture. It is not just the Scripture's themselves but the whole teaching across the entire Bible along with any inferences that can and should be reasonably, rationally, and logically drawn out. 

In the end, we might not call it doctrine – we might say that we've "taken a position". However, it is "Doctrine" regardless of what label we apply. 

Once we have a doctrine which, for the sake of argument, I'll say began in God's Word and was developed with God's Word as our guide, we need to continue to subject it to the scrutiny and criticism of that same Word. View with suspicion any doctrine that can't stand in the light of Scripture. 

It's crucial to be discerning when it comes to doctrine. Many Christians are pretty free and loose with the scriptures and, without careful analysis and earnest thought, promote ideas (doctrines), which later are found to be incorrect or incomplete when scrutinised in more detail. Having a free and loose approach also produces a type of Christian who is content to believe – without examination – just about anything their Pastor or friend tells them. They're also open to uncritically absorbing and considering as sound, whatever the latest so-called Christian doctrine or idea is that comes from the most recent book they've read or YouTube preacher they've watched. As I said above, there is a propensity to trust ourselves to what the most eloquent, charismatic, convincing, or seemingly scholarly among us had to say.

What is Christian Doctrine and why study it?

Studying doctrine is a critical tool for training Christians to understand, express clearly, and defend fundamental Christian truths. That is, what do Christians believe?

If someone asked you exactly what you as a Christian believe, could you offer a logical and coherent story in reply? Could you explain why do you think those things are true? Could you explain the basis for your truth-conviction? Let's grant for the sake of argument that what you believe is, in fact true, what difference does that make to those to whom you speak - what's the importance of your truth?

Steven J. Lawson clearly explains another important reason for being theologically minded in his article Theology for the Glory of God. Here's an extract - I suggest you read the entire article - it's challenging and enlightening.

The teaching of Scripture is given to ignite our hearts with devotion for God and to propel us to live for Him. In short, robust theology must produce vibrant doxology.

We study theology not to be educated for the sake of appearances. Theology is merely a means to the highest end. We study the truth about God to know Him better and to mature us. Theology renews our minds. It ignites our hearts. It elevates our worship. It directs our prayers. It humbles our souls. It enlightens our path. It energizes our walk. It sanctifies our lives. It strengthens our faith. It deepens our passion. It sharpens our ministries. It fortifies our witness. Theology does all this—and much more. Every aspect of this life pursuit brings glory to God.

Broad is the Doctrinal Gate (and narrow also)

Doctrines can be broad (as in the list below) or quite specific and focused.

You could, I suppose, include as doctrine any number of "one-liners" describing a Church's beliefs. For example, one could classify the traditional Revival Fellowship statement "Everyone who receives the Gift of the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues" as a Revival Fellowship doctrine. Perhaps you could say such a statement (and others like it) are Revival Fellowship dogma and form part of a broader Revival Fellowship Doctrine of Salvation. (We would never call it that, of course, that's far too churchy).

It's unlikely that you will find a well-argued, clearly documented Revival Fellowship Doctrine of Salvation anywhere. However, all of us Revival Fellowshippers should make it our business to be firmly convinced about the validity of our fellowship's position on how salvation works (that is, our doctrine of salvation). What could be more important than being convinced that you preach a salvation doctrine steeped in God's Word and faithful to it?

To preach anything else should be unthinkable.

How do we become convinced? Typically in the Revival Fellowship, whatever is presented, we absorb and treat it as truth. By process of osmosis, we submerge in the Revival Fellowship metanarrative and willingly (or perhaps unwittingly) allow the transfer of ideas and concepts from outside. These are then cemented in place as part of and interpreted by the metanarrative. There is little encouragement to engage in discussion and debate. My efforts at conversation within and amongst the fellowship about ideas, concepts and dogma have been actively discouraged. Scripturally-based disputation and a strong desire to get to the bottom of things are considered dangerous and divisive. Generally, the official approach is to shut down any interactions of that type.

The Revival Fellowship approaches doctrine from the perspective that what we know and believe is already settled, and it is God-given, Spirit-ratified, unshakeable truth. Which, ironically enough, is what the Catholic Church believes about their doctrine - as do the Jehovah's Witnesses. To be fair, so do most other churches and their adherents.

What I'm encouraging here is a continuing, thorough examination of what we hold as doctrine (whether we call it doctrine or not). This ongoing examination and thoughtful consideration are what we as individuals should do and indeed what the church as a body should do. Are we faithful to Scripture? Are our views coherent rather than ad hoc or piecemeal? In their explanatory scope and depth, do our distinctive Revival Fellowship views cover all we know of what Scripture says explicitly and what it implies from reasonable and logical inference? Or do we accept what our experience may lead us to believe and leave it at that? 

You'll be hard-pressed to find too many well exegeted Revival Fellowship doctrinal statements anywhere, but doctrines do exist. Those doctrines are often implicit, and although not officially documented (at least not all in one place), they are nevertheless "The way we do things around here." 

Another example of a more focused doctrine is the approach (the 'position') that we adopted in the Revival Fellowship to protect ourselves from "compromise", "thin edges of wedges", and "slippery slopes". One of our longest standing Pastors calls it "The Doctrine of Separation". In brief, it's a doctrine that compels us ("us" being the organisation, that is, the church and the church members) to actively refrain from organisational fellowship or fraternity with other Christian organisations. 

In its most extreme form, this doctrine also obliges fellowship members to do the same personally as we don't want any thin edges of wedges inserted or feet accidentally stepping onto slippery slopes. (It used to be a requirement to which we, church members, were expected to commit. Times have changed (a little), and some Revival Fellowshippers are not convinced about this approach's soundness. Officially, however, we still think it is the safest way). According to this doctrine, the only good reason to fellowship (worship, study, attend church) with other non-Revival Fellowship Christians is to convince them of how wrong they are. 

The outworking of this doctrine results in some anomalies. A Revival Fellowshipper could join the local Rotary Club or volunteer with the SES within the bounds of this doctrine. Still, they should not, according to this doctrine, go to a fellow Rotarian's church on Sunday.

Historic Church Doctrines

Leaving the Revival Fellowship situation aside for the moment, the church as a whole (the church militant) does have a broad collection of doctrines that are codified, believed (to varying degrees) and taught (with varying depth) by denominations and churches. The principal, broad doctrinal areas in systematic theology are in the table below. 

The doctrine of the Trinity (part of the Doctrine of God) along with the doctrine of the two natures of Christ (part of the Doctrine of Christ) are examples of how Scripture's teaching, having been subject to some pretty hard thinking and rational reflection, are explained and systematised codified by the church into a coherent statement of what "Christians" believe. Christian doctrine has its beginning and solid foundation in the Word of God. Deliberation and reflection on God's words produce carefully codified doctrine - codified in various statements or propositions that the church believes and teaches.

Why would I study doctrine at all?

Doctrine can be true, or false or it may be unclear (sometimes just to you – sometimes to most people) or perhaps, it might contain both truth and inaccuracy. Our job as Christians is to ensure we expend enough energy and resources (individually and as a corporate body) to discern what is true doctrine and what is not.

For the soul of a person to be inflamed with passion for the living God, that person’s mind must first be informed about the character and will of God. There can be nothing in the heart that is not first in the mind. Though it is possible to have theology on the head without its piercing the soul, it cannot pierce the soul without first being grasped by the mind.[4]

There's reading and enjoying the Bible as we absorb all the things our Father is telling us of His love and care for us - then there's bible study, with its pursuit of clarity and completeness. My wife, who can point out my many errors and encourage me to see things in a different (and most often, better, light), can get a little frustrated sometimes with "doctrine". 

“Why don’t we just take God’s words, as recorded in the Bible and simply enjoy them?” 

That is a good question. So why can't you or I read what we read, understand what we understand, integrate it however we can (or however we like) into our lives and then walk the Christian road in uncomplicated joy? Why not just rely on the Holy Spirit to illuminate your thoughts, go off to church, prayer meetings, evangelise, and find ways to demonstrate your love for your sisters and brothers? 

Simply reading and enjoying what we read (and learning from its plain meaning) is an excellent place to start. Greg Sheridan offers some wise advice[5].

But the best way to read anything, at least the first time you read it, is one book at a time, but reading a whole chapter or substantial section all the way through, preferably in one sitting. Even many churchgoers have encountered the Bible mainly through excerpts and readings. Once, at least, it’s worth reading the individual books of the New Testament, one at a time, from start to finish. Naturally the priority for New Testament reading is the Gospels. But Paul’s letters are fantastically rewarding. Even the longest is only a little over ten pages. You can certainly read them a letter at a time, one letter per sitting. Of course some of the theological matters are profound and have had scholars and many others writing and interpreting and debating for nearly 2000 years. But no one should be intimidated by the Bible. Least of all should they be intimidated by the layers of scholarship built up around it. Paul’s writings are among the most influential in human history. Often they are among the most beautiful. Most of the time their meaning is plain enough. And they sparkle with his personality, sometimes loving, sometimes prickly. Read them for sheer enjoyment first.

It’s important. Really Important.

Given Sheridan's sound advice, why should we burden ourselves with doctrine? Well, if you are a Christian, you have committed yourself, whether you know it or not, to specific, pointed, particular beliefs about reality – the way "things" (all things) are. You, as a Christian, are called to believe certain things. There is a "Christian Worldview" that guides your heart and mind even if you can't describe that worldview – even though you could not, perhaps, sit down and write a list with "10 Basic Christian Truths."

As a Christian, you are committed to trusting and using particular, fundamental beliefs as your life's guide. To be a Christian means that you are committed (if you are not going to be a heretic) to believing such things as the following (this list is not exhaustive): 

• God exists
• God is three persons (“one what and three whos”)
• God has created everything that exists outside of Himself
• We (all of us humans) are morally fallen before God (we are sinners) and in need of his forgiveness and cleansing.
• God has a plan for our forgiveness and reconciliation to Him
• The Word (who was with God in the beginning and who is God) intervened in human history as Jesus Christ is both human and divine
• Jesus was born of a virgin (A human man did not father him); he lived a perfect, sinless life and was killed (following God's eternal plan) because of and to purchase forgiveness for our sins.
• He was raised from the dead by God – for our justification.
• That everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name [6] and by this Jesus everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you. [7]

The things above, these bold ideas and liberating thoughts, are Christian doctrines or the subject of Christian doctrines. 

It is not uncommon for the saints of God to think that getting into doctrine is just for theologians. I agree. However, here is a newsflash: As a Christian, you are a theologian. Are you going to be a poor theologian or a competent theologian? An astute theologian must grasp what is true and conversely what is false, what is light and what is darkness, what is sweet and what is bitter. If that's not the case, how can you be discerning? 

Paul, talking about the gifts that God has given to the church, says:

…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:13-14)

So Paul, interested in how we grow and attain Christian maturity, says we need to stand as mature adults, not children. To avoid being tossed about by competing ideas, we must strive for clarity about truth and falsehood.

Each Christian is a theologian. Mature Christians will develop doctrinal discernment and a solid grasp of correct, right doctrine. Paul tells the Colossians:

…he [Jesus] has now reconciled [the once strangers to God and His enemies] in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:22-23)

New ideas or novel doctrines (perhaps, just new to you or your Christian circle) are not necessarily bad, they are not always evil, but they are always to be assessed, not just accepted.

In everything give thanks. For this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt. But examine all things; hold fast to what is good. Stay away from every form of evil. (1Thessalonians 5:18-22)

Right living requires right thinking.

To live before the face of God (Coram Deo, as the Reformers said) in the manner we should, requires thinking rightly about God and about what He thinks of us (and requires of us – if anything). When instructing the Ephesian church, Paul's approach is an excellent example of linking right thinking and right living. Not unusually for Paul, he spends the first part of the letter giving some pretty clear and deep instruction in Christian doctrine. He then pivots with a "therefore", and then he begins to instruct them in the application of the principles he's just explained as he describes for them "the calling to which you have been called".

I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called… (Ephesians 4:1)

That pivot is a transition between “So, now you know what things are true, what you’ve been called into by God’s grace, how does that affect the way you live?”. 

"If this is true", says Paul, "apply it." 

Logically, to live appropriately for Christ as the disciples we are, then we need to understand correctly:

1. Who our Master is
2. What He has taught us
3. How we apply that to daily life – every day.

If our thinking is off, then our discipleship will be flawed.

Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38)

Loving God involves all the constituent parts of each of us, hearts, souls and minds.

Each of us has a different capacity to learn, grasp, and comprehend truths about God and Jesus our Lord. Each one of us, when it comes to our mind, to our thinking, has different proclivities. We each learn uniquely. We each like some subjects and can't be bothered with others. Each of us has various resources, and each of us has a raft of "other things" (like work or raising a family) that restrict the time we have available for "loving God with our minds".

However, if you want to love God with your mind, then study His truth. Meditate on it, strive to grasp it accurately, explore it and look for ways to teach it.

The truths about Christ cannot be separated from Christ Himself

In 2John 1:9-10, John is warning about people claiming to be Christians – claiming to follow Jesus – but who are teaching false doctrine.

Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.

2John 1:9 (NASB77)

The genitive phrase "of Christ" could refer to

1. The teachings of Christ – what Christ taught.
   
2. The teachings about Christ
   
3. Both “of” and “about”

Context is really the only way to determine the intended meaning and in this case I think there is a double meaning - both "of" and "about".

A test for a professing Christian genuinely having "both the Father and the Son” is not that they “abide in Christ". Instead, the possessor of "both the Father, and the Son" is the one who abides in "the doctrine of/about Christ". John does not seem to be worried about speaking in tongues, miracles, prophecy, or any of the rest – whether we are abiding in the doctrine of/about Christ concerns him. And that should concern us, too. 

To be firmly rooted in your faith and grow a right relationship with God involves abiding in "the doctrine of/about Christ". To say "I love Jesus" or "I follow Jesus" or "I have warm and fuzzy feelings for Jesus" or "I'm filled with the Spirit" or "I speak in tongues" means little if you are not abiding in the doctrine of/about Christ. 

Both doctrinal wisdom and a spirit-filled committed enthusiasm are needful. 

Doctrine without belief, doctrine without saving faith (and therefore without the Holy Spirit), leads to legalism. Words that settle in your mind but do not take over your heart, soul and Spirit don't (can't) change you. The Gospel is God's power for salvation, not the power of intellectual prowess.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

Romans 1:16-17

On the other hand, a Holy-Spirit-experience driven Christianity along with (commonly) a no-creed-but-Christ, just me and my interpretation of the Bible, fundamentalist approach, without sound doctrine, leads to fanaticism. 

A person living a full life in relationship with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit should be a beacon of strength, faith, doctrine and knowledge. Any so-called Christian experience which excludes or separates itself from the doctrines of and about Christ is not the scriptural way.

Doctrine will always cause friction

A word of caution. Every doctrine is not a cardinal or core doctrine, but cardinal doctrines are those that make you a heretic if you disagree with, do not believe or will not teach. What, then, are cardinal doctrines? That is, what doctrines are essential to salvation?

1. The existence of God?
2. Jesus is the Son of God?
3. Jesus is divine?
4. Jesus Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead for your justification by faith?
5. Full immersion Baptism? 

Correctly grasping this information is vital if for no other reason than we need to take a Gospel of Grace to a broken world full of God's enemies. (God loves His enemies, and Jesus didn't tell us to love our enemies without doing the same Himself and not without providing us with the power we need to exhibit that love.) 

If we take the wrong gospel to the people to whom we speak and impose burdens that God does not command or require on them, then we are found to be false apostles. 

It would be an extraordinary circumstance and much preferred if the church militant could agree on its doctrines and theology. Alas, that is not the case. To the delight of the church's detractors, doctrinal disputes plague the church and are the fuel for (what are in some instances century-spanning) intramural debates. For example, baptism's mode, reason, purpose, necessity, and worth are much disputed. One may wonder how that came to be the case, particularly if you view your baptismal doctrine as sound and obvious.  

Many doctrines demonstrate the breadth and depth of the dogmatic divide. You can discover this yourself by reading the doctrines of various denominations. If you are exceptionally courageous, further discovery awaits if you make a hard and fast statement at a Revival Fellowship Pastors' meeting about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit existing as three persons in a single being. (A statement like that will quickly demonstrate the wide diversity of views between well-meaning and conscientious Christians). 

The church seemingly has a limitless capacity for not agreeing. R.C. Sproul has said:

How desperately sad is the fact that the church is known by schism, not unity; ignorance, not knowledge; and indecisiveness rather than maturity. How it must break God’s heart to see us continue in such a poverty stricken condition in light of what He has done, stands ready to do, has the resources to accomplish, and has defined as our calling in Christ.

Do we "agree never to agree" and remain adversaries?

How should we deal with our doctrinal differences? If a disputed doctrine is not a core doctrine, then the solution is likely to just live with the differences with various degrees of charity and tolerance. However, what if we determine the doctrine is a core doctrine, that is something necessary for a person's salvation? 

In that case, there is often no viable solution. If a doctrine is "core" and two groups (or individuals for that matter) hold contrasting or opposite perspectives - then they both can't be right. 

Do we then live with something false at the core of the church? That is an excellent question for we Revival Fellowshippers to answer. 

The classic example, about which I have written thousands of words (The Conversion of Paul, In the Spirit, The Need for Good Answers), concerns what happens when someone "receives the Holy Spirit". The Revival Fellowship says the first thing that happens is that the one "receiving" will speak in tongues. No tongues, no Holy Spirit and no exceptions. Almost everyone else in Christendom would repudiate that tongues dogma and provide several alternative scenarios which do not include the necessity for speaking in tongues as the sign of being a Spirit-filled Christian. Both sides can't be right. We in the Revival Fellowship maintain (erroneously in my view) that we are right and the others are wrong. We can't convince them because our arguments lack the ring of truth. Our opinions are significantly biased to experience and fervour but lack biblical support that is clear and incontestable. So what do we do? We cut ourselves off from the rest of the Church who do not see things our way. We don't fellowship with them. Organisational or ecumenical engagement is off our agenda, and we preach against them and denounce what we consider their pernicious, weak doctrines. 

We won't countenance any internal dissension. We're anxious about a robust, logical, biblical approach as we fear (rightly so) that the positions we've taken on various issues will not stand up to scrutiny under the light of the Word. But we should welcome, not fear, what the Word has to teach us. We should be genuinely concerned that we have a minority view on fundamental doctrines. 

Indeed there is a better way. And that better way starts with an honest assessment of our position.

You ought to be teachers…yet you need milk, not solid food

Many people are unmotivated about studying the Bible. Reasons can vary, but often they do not see the value in God's Word. Perhaps (this is not uncommon) they are content to leave the heavy lifting to others, being spoon-fed Pastoral opinions (or their Bible study leader's insights) instead of coming to solid, supportable conclusions based upon their hard work. Many who have that approach inevitably arrive at rash, simplistic, and wrong interpretations of the Bible. 

Many (too many) are content to allow others to do their thinking rather than invest the time and effort needed to come to understand, appreciate and apply the original thought of the inspired biblical writer. Again, at the risk of being repetitious, I note that we'll take on the teaching of the most eloquent, charismatic, convincing, or seemingly scholarly among us but lay aside as irrelevant everything the historic church has contributed to doctrine and theology. Well, we lay it aside until we find some thought where they appear to agree with us. 

On that basis, we have ended up producing our own Revival Fellowship "Teaching Magisterium", where the shepherds (who are, in my experience, quite often not brilliant Bible students themselves) hold sway over vulnerable (sometimes lazy) sheep. In that environment, our Pastors, teachers, and fellowship members find it easy (and convenient) to ignore the consensus of Bible scholarship and historic Christianity and arrive at entirely novel (and sometimes peculiar) interpretations of the Scriptures. 

Multiplying the challenges arising from peculiar interpretations are unqualified, unrestrained, and unchecked teachers. They have a platform in which to espouse their strange views. In this way, wrong opinions of the Bible's meaning are perpetuated within our fellowship - in many cases without correction. 

It is also true that some Christians feel disinclined to be mature interpreters of Scripture. I know some. They will never "get into the Word" in any depth because they feel ill-equipped - convinced they don't have the wherewithal to be bible students. I happen to believe that view is mistaken in most cases. In my opinion, almost everyone can become (should become) a bible student – a theologian.  

Bible study involves – believe it or not – study. Bible study is not simply bible reading and certainly not listening to someone speak to you as if they are divulging the very oracles and the deep mysteries of God and expecting you to roll over and accept it. Bible study involves delving, digging for nuggets of truth, grappling with challenging concepts. It is a process of becoming more acquainted with God's thinking.  

Bible study equips you with familiarity and understanding of doctrine, and this is not a passive pursuit. There is no place, in my view, for complete reliance on an external person, source or authority. That source or authority could be a favourite televangelist, author, or proponent of philosophical theology (a possibility I need to be careful with).

For many of the Revival Fellowshippers I know, a word or idea from the Pastor is the final word on any matter. Many succumb so easily to trusting what the most eloquent, charismatic, convincing, or seemingly scholarly one has to say. Then, on the other hand, some do the opposite by completely ignoring the interpretations, doctrines, and theology of the current generation of Bible scholars. These same people will, most likely, also ignore the insights and teaching of the historic church. Dismissing those who have gone before us over the last 2,000 years is detrimental to clear understanding of the Word of God. 

So, on the left hand, there is naive acceptance of the church's cumulative wisdom or complete trust in your Pastor or teacher; on the right hand, there is isolation and personal interpretation. 

Is it all too hard? I don't think so. Rather than abandoning the search for meaning and understanding, we should wait on God as He works with us and progress further in our growth and maturity while we live in the tension between the extremities above. 

Another major contributor to theological missteps and doctrinal aberration in the church at large is tradition. Our Revival Fellowship is no different. We hold to our "distinctives" (the doctrines and dogmas that are peculiar to us) with a tenacious attitude "That's what we have always believed." (This is itself incorrect – much of what we believe now, especially about salvation, is not what we once thought.) 

We even maintain a firm conviction in our heroic historical development from Scripture of our distinctive doctrines. However, our reliance on our tradition fosters incorrect interpretations of the Bible as there is a stubborn refusal even to countenance the fact that there may be other, plausible, robust, true-to-scripture views that are different to our own. 

Paul told the early church that apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers were gifts to the church from God himself (see 1Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11). In the Ephesians' reference, it was Jesus who was the gift giver: And he [Jesus] himself gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers… 

Now, these gifts are necessary and valuable. Jesus called, selected, anointed and sent the original Apostles (including Paul). They wrote Scripture, and when they spoke and wrote as Jesus' Apostles, the church was to heed them as Jesus' direct emissaries. Yet for all that, in "the warts and all" descriptions of the Bible, they were human, sometimes failing and falling short of the standard they were to uphold. No one should follow Peter's example of withdrawing from the Gentiles as he folded under pressure from the Judaizers in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). 

Once convinced of the Apostles' credentials, the subjects of Apostolic authority accepted their words as authoritative. We do not have New Testament Apostles today. (We could argue whether there are apostles, but that's not the same as Apostles). In any case, the recipients of prophecy, the sheep led by the Pastor, or the students of the teachers should not be gullible, credulous children tossed to and fro… Paul encourages us to test the spirits, judge prophecy and compare teaching with Scripture. 

One of our Pastors, when disagreeing with me about the need for bible study and clarity in doctrine for all God's people, said quite seriously, "It's a Shepherd and sheep model. The Shepherds teach and lead, and the sheep must follow." 

I could not disagree more. 

Yes, some will be teachers as they are called to it and have gifts for it - a God-given ability to lead, teach and influence. However, the sheep are vulnerable to predators. They are equally vulnerable to the well-meaning shepherd who, in their ignorance (or conceit and pride), lead the sheep all over the place, including some sites not near the still water and the green grass. In these circumstances, undiscerning sheep who don't think, with no more than a passing interest or acquaintance with the depths of God's wisdom, can quickly become lamb chops.

Teach! Prophesy! Feed! Encourage discerning sheep who think.

Teachers teach! Prophets prophesy! Pastors feed the sheep! And with all the feeding, teaching and prophesying, make sure God's sheep are thinking and discerning sheep. Get them intimately acquainted with God's Word so there is no need to be ashamed, as they rightly handle the word of truth. 

On the part of the sheep, all of this requires the inquisitive, questioning approach of a truth-sleuth looking to clearly and accurately understand, as best they can, the mind of God. 

Poor teachers among the church contribute to wrong views of the Bible's message. Had the members of our fellowship been appropriately skilled and discerning bible students who carefully applied themselves to study, our distinctive doctrines would not be what they are today. We would not have such variegated appreciations of crucial Bible themes, nor would we be sponges readily soaking up unhelpful ideas. Areas, where this has occurred, include:

• The leaching of the word of faith approach into the church,
• The wholesale acceptance by the fellowship of the divisiveness of the doctrine of separation 
• The mixing of the simple - salvation by faith - with complicating legalism.
• The acceptance of experientialism as the founding tenet of our salvation theology
• Our confusion about the deity of Jesus
• Our misunderstanding and, commonly, the repudiation of the concept of God as triune

Theological ignorance and scriptural illiteracy starve the church and prevent both growth and mission. 

Our church is not unique in refraining from instruction in hermeneutics (the science of Bible interpretation). Too many pastors act as if such a study is irrelevant or impractical. But the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation should not be left to professional theologians. To find understanding, to find a path to clarity through complex, challenging or contested Bible passages and ideas requires having the skills to logically and reasonably work through all of the material.

The idea that such instruction and training is too intellectual for the average church member is simply untrue. Of course, it is typical in our Revival Fellowship to believe we already have a solid approach to Bible study. Well, I've been in this fellowship for more than 45 years, and I can tell you we do not - not even close. What we have is a method for maintaining mythology in the form of our Revival Fellowship metanarrative.

We need a reformation (but not a revolution). Like the alcoholic's breakthrough in an AA meeting, we need to recognise we have a problem. A step on the path of enlightenment would be abrogating our arrogant attachment to the belief that we have all the answers and are justified in rejecting outside teaching, influence, and fellowship.

Having the foresight and the fortitude to develop and introduce a comprehensive, systematic approach to practical Bible study is not optional in my view. Our Revival Fellowship distinctives must be thoroughly, publicly examined and with an openness to the correction I expect we will find in God's Word.

Bible study will be a lifelong pursuit for all Christians (or should be). We all need – we all must have – training for correctly interpreting and applying Scripture without falling into error.

Endnotes

1. And I would ask – Where’s Jesus in the Revival Fellowship gospel liturgy? He seems to have gone missing!
2. As examples; a fresh perspective with an expectation of God being active among us in a way that was detectable by our senses; a new fervour for the scriptures and evangelism; and newfound confidence in the effectiveness of God's word and its usefulness in our daily life.
3. Jaroslav Pelikan Jr. was an American scholar specialising in Christian history, Christian theology, and medieval intellectual history at Yale University. He is widely recognised as one of the foremost historians of the Christian church.
4. R.C. Sproul in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith
5. Greg Sheridan. Christians: The urgent case for Jesus in our world (pp. 156-157).
6. Acts 10:43 About him all the prophets testify, that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
7. Acts 13:38-39 Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you.