The Development of Doctrine?
The Development of Doctrine?
To what extent may Christian doctrine change? Ever since the beginning of the church this has been a key issue. The Judaising Christians in Rome fought hard to maintain Jewish beliefs and practices within Christianity but Paul and the other apostles affirmed that it was the will of Jesus to open the church up to Gentiles who recognised the Lordship of Jesus and did not insist that new Christians should follow the old Jewish teachings.
There was an important question asked at the recent General Synod of the Church of England. The question was asked,
“Will the house of Bishops consider publishing pastoral guidance for themselves considering how to walk with integrity by maybe resigning if they cease to believe, teach or hold to the doctrine of the Church of England in central matters?”
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, replied,
“My reflection would be, I understand we speak personally, but I probably speak for my colleagues. It is the job of bishops to teach the faith as we have received it and if we find ourselves unable to do that, then clearly that is a matter for conscience. For the rest of the church there are the mechanisms available that are not for the bishops themselves to administer as clearly that would be inappropriate. But as well as being the job of the bishops to teach the faith as we have received it, it is also the job of bishops and indeed the whole church, to explore what is sometimes called the development of doctrine, which in my thinking I tend to follow Newman on this. I am going to have to paraphrase Newman’s thesis on the development of doctrine, but I think it is something like, “Within the acorn there is potentially the whole of the oak tree,” and so doctrine doesn’t change but doctrine does develop. You may be aware, but I’m sure this wasn’t in your mind when you asked the question, you may be aware that there are some issues at the moment which are precisely in that area! We say, “No, no, doctrine doesn’t change,” but there is a discussion about the development of doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity would be the best example of that where we find, as it were, the acorn of the doctrine in Scripture, but some centuries later it becomes the doctrine as we know it. That is the view I take. I feel confident that is the view my fellow bishops take and if you want to read a book on the subject I recommend the New Testament.”
“My reflection would be, I understand we speak personally, but I probably speak for my colleagues. It is the job of bishops to teach the faith as we have received it and if we find ourselves unable to do that, then clearly that is a matter for conscience. For the rest of the church there are the mechanisms available that are not for the bishops themselves to administer as clearly that would be inappropriate. But as well as being the job of the bishops to teach the faith as we have received it, it is also the job of bishops and indeed the whole church, to explore what is sometimes called the development of doctrine, which in my thinking I tend to follow Newman on this. I am going to have to paraphrase Newman’s thesis on the development of doctrine, but I think it is something like, “Within the acorn there is potentially the whole of the oak tree,” and so doctrine doesn't change but doctrine does develop. You may be aware, but I'm sure this wasn't in your mind when you asked the question, you may be aware that there are some issues at the moment which are precisely in that area! We say, “No, no, doctrine doesn't change,” but there is a discussion about the development of doctrine and the doctrine of the Trinity would be the best example of that where we find, as it were, the acorn of the doctrine in Scripture, but some centuries later it becomes the doctrine as we know it. That is the view I take. I feel confident that is the view my fellow bishops take and if you want to read a book on the subject I recommend the New Testament.”
The meaning of Scripture
There is some truth in what the Archbishop is saying, but also a grievous error. He is right to affirm that bishops, clergy and indeed the whole church must hold to and teach the doctrines we have received. He mentions this twice and clarifies what we have received by affirming that this is ‘the doctrine of Scripture’, God’s teaching given by Jesus and his prophets and apostles. The only leeway we have is how we should understand these words. Jesus very often spoke in parables but his meaning was clear. When he spoke of Herod Antipas as ‘that fox’ (Luke 13:32) few understand those words literally. The stories at the beginning of Genesis that teach that God made this world, that mankind is the pinnacle of his creation and that he wants us all to live closely with him, under his authority, do not change. With the understanding of modern science it is possible to see these words as messages with a deep theological meaning and not precise scientific truth but the message does not change. The American bible teacher, Tim Keller, has described the first twelve chapters of Genesis as ‘poetry’ but in the sense that it still contains essential messages. Whether we understand the serpent speaking to Eve as literal truth or figurative language makes no difference to the warning that Satan is out to mislead us through lies. In this respect, although we cannot change the meaning of the words of Scripture, we can refine how we should understand these words.
After speaking at a conference in Poland I was asked to address a church that was facing a split. The issue was that the elders of the church were insisting that ladies should wear hats in church because that is what 1 Corinthians told the church of Corinth,
“And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head – it is just as though her head were shaved.” 1 Corinthians 11:5
In the past some Christian groups, such as the Amish in North America, have taken this teaching literally. Surely what is clear is that the apostle is stressing is the question of authority within a family. The answer to this problem for Christians who have a high view of Scripture is found in the previous chapter,
“‘Everything is permissible,’- but not everything is beneficial.” 1 Corinthians 10:23
We are not meant to insist on all Christians following detailed directives such as women wearing hats but we are to insist on what lies behind this teaching. There is meant to be an order of priority within a family.
The Scriptures are God’s way of speaking to people today. The Bible is the ‘Word of the Lord’, this phrase coming 347 times in the Old Testament and 18 times in the New Testament. The Thirty Nine Articles’, which all clergy affirm when they accept the Canons of the Church of England state,
6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Moses foresaw the coming of God’s spokesman who would have final authority,
“The LORD said to me, ‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. ‘I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” Deuteronomy 19:18-19
It is noteworthy that the Archbishop of York says that his thinking follows that of Newman who resigned from the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic church when he became dissatisfied with the doctrines of the Church of England.
The doctrine of sexuality
On this subject there is no ambiguity about the teaching of Scripture. In Genesis it is affirmed that marriage is intended by God to be between one man and one woman. God made the woman Eve from man, even though he could have made her independently.
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
Jesus was adamant that sexuality was created by God,
“ ‘Haven’t you read that,’ he replied, ‘that in the beginning the Creator made them male and female’, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer, two but one.” Matthew 19:4-6
The God of the Bible is clear about what God thinks of those indulging in sexual practices outside of marriage between a man and a woman. In Leviticus 18 there are 18 commands about whom God’s people may not have sexual relationships with and this includes homosexual relationships:
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because that is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; but you must keep my decrees and laws.” Leviticus 18:24-25
In the New Testament the detailed Mosaic Law need not be followed by God’s people but the principles of living in obedience to God remains. Jesus insisted that obedience to him is the foundation of the Christian life:
“If you love me you will obey my commands.” John 14:15
“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.” John 14:21
“If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching.” John 14:23
Obedience to God is a central Bible teaching. The word ‘obey’ comes 162 times in the Old Testament and 44 times in the New Testament. The book of Romans begins with the doctrine that true faith in Christ is marked by obedience:
“Through him and for his names sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.” Romans 1:5
Paul then goes on to contrast the righteousness demonstrated by Christians with the depravity of the world that rejects God.
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another . . . Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even the women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore since they did not think it worth while to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” Romans 1:24-28
When the Archbishop tries to justify the acceptance of same sex marriages and the practice of homosexuality, which part of the New Testament is he referring to? Perhaps 1 John 4 “...God is love…” or the famous passage on love in 1 Corinthians 13 “… the greatest of these is love…” ? It is important to read the Bible’s teaching on love and marriage as a whole and not to obtain a doctrine from isolated snippets. What many fail to realise is that the 1 Corinthians passage on Christian love is really a critique of the way the Corinthian Christians were behaving. Apparently sexual immorality was rife in the port town of Corinth with its temple of Apollo and its cult prostitutes. Paul urged the Christians,
“Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple to the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18-20
The ‘faith, hope and love’ that Paul longed to see in Corinth were self-sacrificial values, not self-serving ones. A visiting speaker at a local church said during her sermon that in a church she had belonged to earlier the vicar had fallen in love with his male curate and entered into a sexual relationship. Looking back she felt that she should have recognised that love is a gift of God and she should not have been critical of this relationship as ‘the greatest gift is love’ (1 Corinthians 13:13) Such a speaker has failed to recognise the difference between ‘agape’ love, the serving love which Paul is encouraging in this chapter and erotic love. The English language has an unhelpfully single word for 'love', whether its love for your grandma, your hot new boyfriend or your baby niece.
The statue in Piccadilly Circus in London was made by the sculptor Alfred Gilbert as a memorial to Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury, in 1886. Gilbert considered various ideas to celebrate the charitable life of the Earl. He eventually decided on a fountain, topped with the winged figure of Anteros, the ancient Greek symbol of selfless love. The Greek word for this selfless love is ‘agape’. Gilbert selected Anteros because he portrayed “reflective and mature love, as opposed to Eros or Cupid, the frivolous tyrant.” In spite of this the statue became mistakenly known as ‘Eros’, the god of sexual passion. This illustrates the confusion many have between understanding erotic love and serving love.
Such a misunderstanding has crept into the thinking of many. The love the vicar had for his curate was an erotic, promiscuous, family breaking love that God’s people have always been called on to shun. Christians are called to be a ‘holy people’ and this means a people who are obedient to the will of God. The apostle Peter wrote,
“As obedient children do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written ‘Be holy for I am holy’” 1 Peter 1:14-16 (quoting Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:7)
Compromise
It is so easy for our morals to come from the society we live in and not from what God says. Man does not have the right to decide what is good and what is evil. This is what went wrong when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit from the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’. Right and wrong are ultimately determined by God. If the vicar had fallen in love with a thirteen year old girl, today’s society would understandably be outraged. But who knows what might become acceptable in the future if a new definition of good and evil is allowed to develop? Society has changed its views over the last century or so into accepting sexual relationships outside of heterosexual marriage even though these are clearly opposed in Scripture! Now it appears that churches are again under pressure to follow society’s standards.
Such compromise is not a new problem for churches. Jesus warned the church in Pergamum not to compromise with sexual sin (Revelation 2:12-17). There were some in that church who held to the teaching of Balaam who, for his own worldly benefit, had encouraged compromise in the worship of idols and in accepting sexual immorality. The Nicolaitans were a group in that church who felt it was acceptable to compromise with the world. It was as if the worldly desires of the people were being victorious over those who were Christ centred in their teaching. It is significant that both the word Balaam and Nicolaitans have the same root meaning – victory of the people. The same pressure from Nicolaitans was also active in Ephesus but there they were opposed by church members and they had less success (Revelation 2:6).
Paul had earlier written to the Ephesian church urging them to live lives that honoured the Lord Jesus.
“I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love (Greek agape). Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:1-6
The role of the teachers within the church is to maintain this unity by teaching the Word of God so that all Christians can prioritise becoming ministers for their Lord, Jesus Christ.
“It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we reach the unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.” Ephesians 4:11-13
Only when Christians have been taught that they are on this earth to live for the glory of the Lord Jesus will churches not be blown around by every new wind of doctrine:
“Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Ephesians 4:14
Speaking about such godliness is not easy but it is lovingly serving others – doubtless the Nicolaitans in Pergamum found John’s comments difficult to cope with – but those following the apostolic faith do have a duty to speak out:
“Instead, speaking the truth in love (Greek agape), we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” Ephesians 4:15-16
So how should the church respond to church leaders who have turned their backs on what Scripture clearly teaches? Their new doctrines are advocating the acceptance of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage although this is clearly contrary to what the Bible teaches. These new teachers are not developing the teaching of Christ, his prophets and his apostles for our society but are blatantly attempting to rewrite what God has taught us in his Word. Everyone must decide whether this new teaching promotes the Lordship of Jesus Christ or whether it really originates from man’s sinful desires. Paul had no doubt that the doctrines of the false apostles in Corinth, that had some similarities in trying to rewrite what is right and wrong, were not of God. Similarly Jesus repudiated the teachings of the Nicolaitans in his letters to the churches in Revelation.
Was the Archbishop of York right when he said, ‘I feel confident that is the view my fellow bishops take’? Even if that is true, we should remember that the Lord Jesus opposed the erroneous doctrines of the religious leaders of his day. Thank God for Athanasius who stood up against those bishops advocating the widespread Arian heresies. Thank God for Martin Luther, who maintained that Scripture alone must be the source of God’s teaching in his church. Bishops have no right to change doctrine that was taught by Jesus, his apostles and prophets.
