There is No Such Thing as Doctrineless Christianity

It is not uncommon to come across someone who says that they love Jesus but hate doctrine. Doctrine divides, and we really don’t need it to be faithful followers of Jesus—so the sentiment goes. But is the anti-doctrine, pro-Jesus position even possible?

History vs. Doctrine

One of the core problems with a so-called doctrineless Christianity is its failure to account for even the most basic doctrines inherent to any belief related to following Jesus. Anyone can easily say that they believe that “Jesus died on a cross two thousand years ago”. A believer could say that. A non-believer could say that. A demon could even say that (James 2:19). Although it is a necessary belief for a follower of Christ, it is by no means sufficient in and of itself. To say that Jesus died on a cross is merely a statement that declares it as a historical event. It makes no claim as to its meaning.

Now, to say that we believe that “Jesus died on a cross for my sins” is a statement about what we think that historical event meant. There is no escaping the fact that to believe anything about the meaning of something is to have a doctrine about it. The belief in Jesus dying for something takes the necessary historical fact and combines it with its significance and meaning. It takes the raw materials of history and builds a house of value, meaning, and purpose.

Importantly, this meaning is not inserted into the historical facts from afar, but rather it arises from them and the events that surrounded them. It takes the fact of Jesus’s crucifixion and makes a statement of belief related to who He claimed to be and what He claimed to believe. These claims are doctrines about Christ. To confess them means that we confess to believe Him. We believe both the history and the teaching about who Christ was and is.

In his classic text, Christianity and Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen made this same point. He stated: 

‘Christ died’—that is history; ‘Christ died for sins’—that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity.¹ 

And again:

The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. ‘Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried’—that is history. ‘He loved me and gave Himself for me’—that is doctrine.²

Many who lean in the doctrineless direction still love to talk about the love of God and Jesus. Few would deny the statement that “Jesus loves them.” And yet, this simple (and yet deeply profound) belief is itself a doctrine. There’s no escaping it. Without doctrine there is no belief.

Another Doctrine in its Place

This inability to escape doctrine is even further exposed when we consider what is means to disagree with a belief. If someone wants a doctrineless (or even a doctrinally shallow) version of Christianity, they will run into the problem that there are a lot of doctrines that they will end up having to deny.

Do you believe that Jesus was a substitute for us and that He took the place we deserved on the cross?

Do you believe that God is going to judge the living and the dead?

Do you believe in Hell?

Do you believe that Jesus is the only way to a true relationship with God?

To deny any of these is to have a doctrinal position. Even if that position is entirely filled with negation, it is still a doctrine. And, when we consider the other claims that tend to follow those who prefer to think they are not bound to doctrines, there is almost always a more complex set of views they hold beneath the surface. These underlying views are typically held in opposition to more traditional views of the Christian faith.

It might sound cool to say that we don’t like doctrine. It even has a flare of a positive desire for unity attached to it. And yet, so often, it is really just another form of doctrine that is being advocated for in place of the one on offer.

Once more Machen makes the point:

Such is the way in which expression is often given to the modern hostility to ‘doctrine.’ But is it really doctrine as such that is objected to, and not rather one particular doctrine in the interests of another?³

Embracing Doctrine

When we better understand that there is no getting away from doctrine for anyone making a faith claim towards Jesus Christ, it helps us understand the importance of being clear about what we believe. If doctrine is inescapable, it might as well be embraced. And as we start to develop our doctrinal understanding of Christianity, we can see the beautiful way in which it deepens, enriches, and protects our understanding of what it means to believe that Jesus is more than just a historical fact. Not only is He that, but He is also the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). And that, like many others, is a doctrine worth knowing and believing.

Notes

1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 23
2. Ibid. 25
3. Ibid. 16

Photo by Emmanuel Phaeton on Unsplash