In contemplation this morning, I began to mentally navigate and probe the multi-faceted angles of church doctrine and their continued importance to the direction and future of the church. Of course, by doctrine I mean to employ the Biblical Greek understanding as outlined by the word Didache. Simply put, things taught that serve as unchanging, concrete beliefs that further establish and engender one’s unique identity within a Biblical frame of understanding.
Biblical doctrine is a fluid word that has given rise to a diverse range of “systematic theologies” and, without question, is the primary reason for the complex differences between the broad array of Christian denominations today. While we could navigate the contending points of varying systems of beliefs, I am wanting to narrow the focus of this topic to the Oneness Pentecostal’s. That being said, let’s examine some of the fundamental teachings that we have established among us as being “Core Doctrines.”
Core Doctrines
- The Existence of God
- Original Sin
- Infallibility of the Word
- The Oneness of God
- The Identity of Jesus Christ
- The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ
- New Testament Salvation: Repentance, Baptism in Jesus Name, Infilling of Holy Ghost (death, burial, and resurrection of the believer).
- The initial evidence of speaking in tongues
- The Church, Five (Four)-Fold Ministry, Gifts of Spirit, Members and Body, etc.
- Holiness of believers
- Hair
Now, I understand that the above-listed doctrines are abbreviated and in no way thorough. Seriously, how could we attempt to exhaust the sum-total of doctrinal points of belief without eventually running an exercise into exhaustion? So, if I missed any, it was not intentional. I think though, unless I am mistaken, that the above represent things that we are all confident in defending as core, unchangeable doctrines that help establish what we often consider to be our Apostolic identity.
I tethered doctrine to identity because the link fits. The Nicolaitan’s in the Bible were known for the things which they taught and practiced (Rev. 2:15) and further likened to the teaching and practices of Balaam (Rev. 2:14). We are also made aware of the doctrine of Jezebel that was being espoused in Thyatira (Rev. 2:20-24). Clearly, beginning with Acts 2:42 and the steadfast continuation of the Apostles’ doctrine, the church was known and defined by teachings and beliefs that stood in sharp contrast to worldliness, falsity, and profane narratives (cf. 1 Tim. 1:10; 4:7; 6:1). We are encouraged to sound doctrine and, as such, we must clearly establish some important distinctives.
Why so Many Differences?
Someone may immediately point out, “where was modesty in that list?” Well, that is a fair question and one that I am keen on answering. First, I left it out for a key reason and that reason comes down to the highly contentious nature of what we have determined as “modesty” throughout our varying circles of fellowship. Furthermore, most would have intertwined modesty into the doctrine of Holiness which–I’m not sure I will have time to address this–sometimes defeats the foundational premise for the biblical call to Holiness when every aspect of Holiness major on the external aspects of modesty and dress. Holiness is much, much bigger than this.
That being said, if we are to posture the idea of Core Doctrines, what then are all the other things that we commonly see as being major points of contention? Take, for example, the idea of modesty. Yes, modesty in behavior and dress is a biblical doctrine that is taught in the New Testament and grounded in the Old Testament. But, can doctrines be pulled into preferences? What I mean by this is best summed up in a threefold outline that best describes things that are taught and practiced within each of our local churches. They are as follows:
- Doctrines
- Traditions
- Preferences
Doctrines
These, as already established, are teachings and practices that have been adopted by the larger whole of the Apostolic Pentecostal church and are founded upon and defended by undisputed biblical teaching and instruction. That being said, anything that is not firmly founded upon biblical teaching and instruction must not carry the same tone, weight, and gravity as the things which fall under this category.
If we make the mistake of defending, teaching, and demanding the same measure of obedience to non-doctrinal issues as we do doctrinal issues, we are grossly overstepping our bounds of authority and we undermine a culture of biblical administration. Take a look around at those who make this mistake and they often become a fountainhead of contradictions–demanding as doctrine one thing, but making allowance for another thing that is, in likeness, really the same thing as that which was opposed. Such confusion!
Traditions
Traditions, in contrast to doctrines are things which have been established over a period of time that we adhere to out of reverence and an understanding of how important enduring traditions play into the future choices of succeeding generations. Cultures are established through traditions and, when taking a look at America, much of the erosion of its values are rooted in the wholesale abandonment of “time-tested traditions” we once held dear. The Apostle Paul acknowledged the importance of traditions (II Thess. 2:15; Gal. 1:14) and we ought to acknowledge their importance as well.
Several examples of traditions are as follows:
- Two services on a Sunday
- Timing of midweek services
- Pre-Service prayer
- Church Service Times and Arrangement of Services
- Ministry and Department Titles
- Worship styles
- Standards of modesty
The above-listed are traditions that we often hold very dear and we vigorously defend. I’m sure some of you raised your eyebrows on “pre-service prayer” as a tradition but, yes, it is a tradition and a tradition that makes sense. A two-service Sunday has been a time-honored tradition that has been extremely important for so many. Yet, I have heard the disparity of men toward those who decided to opt for a one-service paradigm. As a church-planter, I have opted to only have one service on Sundays which, much to my chagrin, is almost considered to be an irreparable compromise by some.
We run a tremendous risk by dragging traditions into the realm of doctrines. Absolutely, changing time-honored traditions comes with a tremendous amount of risk and we have seen too many men make changes to doctrine following a deliberate change to various traditions. But this cannot mean that every time someone decides to make adjustments to service times, arrangements, or various other traditions that we immediately cry foul and throw them under the bus!
Now, you are probably wondering why “standards of modesty” is in this category? Well, it will also be in the last category as well! The reason for this is simple: while the Bible makes an objective and absolute call for modesty, the Bible does not define specific and determined measurements for modesty. One church, based on time-honored traditions that were established on a biblical call for modesty and the preference of a pastor (which we will discuss), believes that the sleeve must reach the wrist while, another church, due to some of the same reasons, believed the elbow was just fine.
Traditionally, for these churches, these are things that have always been done and, based on this, each church developed a “modesty standard” that was unique to the culture of their church, their fellowship, and their circles of influence. It doesn’t mean that either church is wrong but, should one seek to make changes, it can be harmful due to the longevity of the established tradition. It’s why I always say, “let sleeping dogs lie!”
We are seeing a lot of traditions that are being altered and we are becoming very uncomfortable with many of these changes because we are observing a correlation between these changes and an erosion of the bulwarks of doctrine. Yet, on the flipside, we can also observe the change of some traditions that are not correlated to doctrinal decay but, instead, are helping to engage demographic and culture head-on. This is a tricky thing, and one we need to discuss.
Preferences
Finally, preferences (what I often call “pastoral preferences”) are certain things that are typically established via leadership in a local church that often become associated with membership and leadership growth within the church. For example, I have a position within my local church that the men who engage in certain ministries within the church (primarily those that function as implied or delegated leadership) be clean-shaven. This is a pastoral preference of mine that I feel to establish in my local church for those who seek to operate in an implied or delegated position of leadership within the church. Sure, it has been developed via traditional upbringing as well, but this is not a doctrine; it’s a preference and we see way too many preferences that come to be espoused as biblical doctrines. Make no mistake, I will not teach preference as a biblical doctrine! My reasons must always go beyond merely what I “like or dislike,” but must be tethered to principles of wisdom, unity within the body, and strong concepts that can stand on two legs and make sense to others!
Many preferences can reflect a certain “present distress” regarding present cultural realities. The Apostle Paul, when considering the present distress of persecution and troubles the early church was facing, essentially argued, “it’s better to be single right now…who needs to add the additional burden of marriage to all these present distresses that we face?” (I Cor. 7:1-12). Paul wasn’t establishing a doctrine–contrary to certain monastic practices–but he was at that time, voicing something he felt very strong about that might have saved some people from future grief and distress.
Other preferences that may originate from a pastoral position are things like, styles of music, platform attire, various policies in the church, how funds are administered, and various other locale-specific things. It is important to note, traditions can influence preferences and preferences can often establish and found future traditions. This is why I am deeply careful before I establish a preference within my local church.
Another preference that we see a lot of exposure with is in reference to the use of video and media. Once again, churches often reflect both a pastoral preference and a traditional stand when approaching this issue. Some pastors, doing their best to lead their local congregation, have set a preferential standard against any video whatsoever (though this is getting rare due to the technological culture we live in). Other pastors, to the best of their ability, set specific guidelines and seek to educate their congregations in a way that develops a maturity and accountability while having a clear-cut policy on what is and isn’t acceptable. I prefer the latter of the measures, but every man will have to establish what he feels comfortable establishing. One thing we ought NOT do is establish preferences our of peer-pressure. Do that, and you become a hypocrite that demands from others what you yourself never fleshed out.
While I could incorporate 10,000 more words into this discussion, I pray this has sufficed. I should not have to qualify myself nor should anything be read into this discussion other than the surface-level idea the article sought to establish. We stand at a dangerous time in church history and it is important to clearly articulate doctrines, traditions, and preferences. Furthermore, I issue caution to those who seem to find constant fault with the latter of the two and who have taken it upon themselves to become crusaders of change while ignoring the divide and destruction being employed through a bitter, wounded, or carnal spirit.