Introduction
1. IT BEGAN IN SCOTLAND
   
2. THOMAS CAMPBELL WRITES HIS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
   
3. THE SPIRIT OF THE "DECLARATION AND ADDRESS"
   
4. PRINCIPLES OF THE DOCUMENT
   
5. HISTORIC NOTES ON OUR FIRST CHURCH
   
6. "LET CHRISTIAN UNITY BE OUR POLAR STAR"
   
7. THE NOBLEST ACT IN BARTON STONE'S LIFE
   
8. LEARNING FROM A BACKWOODS PREACHER
   
9. CHRISTIANS IN BABYLON
   
10. WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
    
11. THE ESSENCE OF THE CAMPBELL PLEA
    
12. THE DEATH OF A DREAM
    
13. THE SAND CREEK ADDRESS
    
14. A MUDDLED MOVEMENT
    
15. THE AUTHORITY TOTEM
    
16. THE PARTY SPIRIT
    
17. THE BED OF PROCRUSTES
    
18. OUR COSTLIEST SIN: EXCLUSIVISM
    
19. RESTORATION OR REFORMATION
    
20. A BOY LEARNS THE MEANING OF BROTHERHOOD
    
21. THE BUTTING BRETHREN
    
22. ANALYSIS OF LEGALISM
    
23. THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP
    
24. THOUGHTS ON FELLOWSHIP
    
25. ON THE ROCKS
    
26. WITHDRAWING FROM THE DISORDERLY
    
27. CAUSING DIVISIONS
    
28. TWO GREAT ERRORS
    
29. UNION IN TRUTH
    
30. ONE BODY IN CHRIST
    
31. UNITY AND IDENTITY
    
32. UNITY IN DIVERSITY
    
33. IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?
    
34. THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS
    
35. MUST WE GIVE UP OUR OPINIONS?
    
36. WHAT DIFFERENCES DO DIFFERENCES MAKE?
    
37. THE "ONE BAPTISM" AND FELLOWSHIP
    
38. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE UNIMMERSED?
    
39. OUR FATHERS ON "WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?"
    
40. "OUR BROTHERS IN THE DENOMINATIONS"
    
41. WHAT IS "OUR FELLOWSHIP"?
    
42. ARE WE TO FELLOWSHIP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
    
43. I WOULD ABDICATE
    
44. A BASIC FALLACY TO OVERCOME
    
45. CAN WE BE UNITED AND NOT KNOW IT?
    
46. SEPARATED BUT NOT DIVIDED
    
47. THE ONE CHURCH INDIVISIBLE
    
48. UNITY WILL COME, BUT
    
49. IF NOT BROTHERHOOD, THEN CO-EXISTENCE
    
50. THIS IS OUR GLORY!
    
51. THE UNIFYING POWER OF THE CROSS
    

IS DOCTRINE IMPORTANT?

Now and again a fellow editor refers to those among us who no longer consider doctrine important, that for the sake of unity they are willing to surrender most any doctrinal position they ever held. A recent editorial in Firm Foundation, for example, placed restoration over against unity, suggesting that the unitists tend to neglect doctrine while the restorationists stress doctrine to the neglect of unity. While the editor opted for a balance between the two, he clearly implied that the unity advocates put down doctrine as unimportant, especially as it relates to unity and fellowship.

While I personally know no one in the larger circle of Churches of Christ­Christian Churches who holds that the doctrine of Christ is unimportant, whether in reference to unity or not, it may be that some of us have failed to make our position clear, thus calling for these occasional statements from Church of Christ editors.

It would help to clear the air if we could come to one mind on the meaning of doctrine. The Greek term didache means instruction or teaching, such as in John 7:16: "Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me," and he goes on to say in verse 17: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." Acts 2:42 shows that the newly baptized on Pentecost "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine." These verses alone would place such significance on doctrine that it would take a careless Christian to say that didache in unimportant in any respect.

Then there are those instructions of Paul to Timothy: "By laying these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, being fed with the words of the faith and of the good teaching which you have followed (1 Tim. 4:6), and in verse 13 he tells him: "Until I come, pay attention to reading, to comforting and to teaching (doctrine)." This would not only make doctrine important but vitally important.

But these editors may have something else in mind by doctrine, such as this or that party's interpretation (or opinion) of what the scriptures teach, even including conclusions drawn from the silence of the scriptures.

The doctrine of the apostles, for example, makes it clear that drunkenness is a sin (Gal. 5:21), but it is only someone's opinion that it is a sin to have a cocktail with a meal or to drink or make wine at a wedding feast (like Jesus did!). Teetotalism is a matter of doctrine to some people, and they are inclined to make their opinion a law for everyone else.

That the Spirit has given diverse gifts to all of us is a fact of the apostles' doctrine (1 Pet. 4:10), but whether any of us today is to speak in tongues or have the power to discern spirits is a matter of opinion. Just as it is clearly the teaching of Paul that "when that which is perfect is come that which is in part shall be done away," but it is a matter of opinion as to what "that which is perfect" refers to.

The observance of the Lord's Supper is clearly New Testament doctrine, but the question of time, frequency, whether in a plurality of cups, wine or grape juice, leavened or unleavened bread, and other such questions are subject to varying interpretations. So there is a big difference between a fact of scripture (and the Bible basically is made up of facts) and an opinion growing out of that fact. They are not both doctrine!

That the early Christians sang and that they were urged to make singing part of their service to God is one of those facts of scripture. But whether we sing solos or congregationally, acappella or with accompaniment, chants or with tune are questions of personal interpretation where honest and good hearts have always differed.

The millennium (a reign of a thousand years) is another fact of the apostles' doctrine, but what one makes of what the Bible says is a matter of opinion.

Even Paul and Peter differed, with Paul writing things that Peter considered difficult to grasp-and they were both apostles! One church in the New Testament differed with another church, such as the diversity between Jerusalem and Antioch. But the differences were not in reference to the basic facts themselves. Freedom in Christ, for instance, was a fact of apostolic teaching, but they differed on how this applied to food sacrificed to idols or the celebration of certain days. Our differences should, therefore, not be surprising.

So what do these editors mean when they say some among us are indifferent toward doctrine? I am persuaded they cannot point to a single one of us who thinks the actual teaching of Jesus or the apostles is unimportant. What Jesus says or what the apostles wrote is not only important but crucial, but what some preacher or editor makes of what was said or written (or perhaps not said or written at all!) may not be worth the time of day. Doctrine as set forth in scripture I buy; someone's opinion about doctrine I do not necessarily buy. Now does that mean I do not consider doctrine important?

To a real believer doctrine is not merely important, but it is as the psalmist said, sweeter than honey and more precious than gold and silver. We are to long for the sincere milk of the word as a newborn baby. It is to be our meditation day and night. We are to revel in such glorious teaching as Paul's hymn of love in 1 Cor. 13, the seven Christian graces of 1 Pet. 1, and the beatitudes of our Lord. Some portions of scripture are power­packed, being inexhaustible sources of encouragement, such as Romans 8 and 12, Eph. 4, and Col. 3. How blessed it is to read: "Truly, He who did not withhold His own Son, but surrendered Him for us all, shall He not also freely give us all things with Him?" There is little reason for any real differences in regard to these great truths, for they are facts about what God is doing for us believers. Even when it comes to the doctrine regarding the work, worship and organization of the church we hardly ever have differences about what the Bible actually says, but on things wherein it is silent.

So let's keep the record straight. The doctrine of Christ is what is actually set forth in scripture, facts about what God's selected envoys have said and done. Interpretation (or opinion) is what we make of those facts. Jesus and his apostles said certain things about divorce, for example. If we stick with what is actually said, leaving off our footnotes as to what we think is implied, then we have the true doctrine of divorce. If we think interpretation or amplification is needed (which sometimes leads to still another divorce!), let's be fair enough to say that the teaching is now ours, our own opinion, and not necessarily that of Christ and his apostles. And let's be honorable enough to grant that folk are not necessarily rejecting the doctrine of Christ when they reject our interpretation.

Gospel and Doctrine

Some of us through the years have pointed to the distinction between doctrine and gospel, which among our own folk is at least as old as Thomas and Alexander Campbell. We have noted that it is the gospel (good news) that brings one into the fellowship of Christ, and that once he is in that fellowship he is to be nourished in the doctrine. This distinction, which our editors have for some reason been slow to accept, leads them to suppose that this makes doctrine unimportant. But similar distinctions do not seem to bother them: they realize it is one thing that inducts one into the army, and another that trains him once he's inducted; one process naturalizes one a citizen, another that cultivates him as a citizen; a child is matriculated in school and then educated. It would be some school that would keep on enrolling the students day after day, and some army that would continue to induct the soldiers instead of proceeding to train them. And it is some church that does not know the difference between the message of induction into Christ (the gospel) and the curriculum prescribed by the great Master once they are enrolled in his school, which is the doctrine of the apostles. Paul apparently understood the distinction or he would never have written: "For if you have ten thousand teachers in Christ, yet not many fathers-for I fathered you in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).

Brethren who cannot accept such a distinction are likely to miss what we say about gospel and doctrine as they relate to fellowship and unity: the gospel brings one into fellowship with Christ and all other believers; doctrine enriches, nourishes and deepens that fellowship once he is in the family of God. It follows, therefore, that there might be considerable differences in doctrinal understanding among believers, if for no other reason some are but babes while others are mature. The same matriculation process may enroll first­graders along with high­schoolers, but there is a vast difference in their grasp of what is to be learned in school.

A drunkard on skid row who accepts the gospel of Christ may have no understanding at all of the apostles' doctrine when he is baptized. But is he not in the fellowship? Is he not united with all others who are in Christ? Then unity and fellowship in Christ and with each other is not necessarily contingent on understanding doctrine but upon acceptance of and obedience to the gospel, right? If this is a "put­down" of doctrine, then the army recruitment officer is putting down the soldier's training manual when he tells a would­be recruit that it is the induction process that makes him a soldier in Uncle Sam's army. And when the recruit is duly inducted, he is as much a soldier in the army as the greatest expert in military science in the Pentagon.

There was a vast difference between Paul's understanding of the teaching of Christ and that jailer he baptized in Philippi. But the jailer was in the fellowship because he believed and obeyed the gospel as much so as Paul was. Put him with others in the Philippian church, such as Lydia whom the apostle baptized, and you will have people who may never attain to the same level of understanding as they pursue a lifetime of study of the doctrine. There will be doctrinal differences, but this in no way has to impinge upon the beauty of being in Jesus together. In one such situation the apostle put it this way, which is part of the doctrine: "One judges one day above another. Another judges every day alike. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom. 14:5).

Is Paul making doctrine unimportant when he says Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind? Could this not also apply to tongue­speaking, millennial theories, methods used in singing and evangelism and all other personal opinions? Part of our problem is that we want to impose our opinions on others. But we don't want others to impose theirs on us. If they practice what we oppose they are heretics or maybe "brothers in error," and if they object to what we practice they are hobbyists.

So it is not really a question of whether doctrine is important, which is absurd, for every sincere believer sees doctrine as not only important but precious. It is a question of whether we take our pet set of opinions and interpretations and bind them upon others as law, making them the doctrine of Christ and castigating everyone who does not see things our way.

If there is anything that is in opposition to the doctrine of Christ, it is this kind of attitude and practice, which will do nothing but continue to splinter and sub­splinter the Body of Christ and disrupt its fellowship. As per Rom. 14:4: "Who are you, judging another's servant? He stands or falls to his own master. And he shall be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand."

(Restoration Review: Vol. 22, No. 1; Jan. 1980)