“Doctrine is important. Obviously bad doctrine is bad. But there’s a tendency in conservative circles to improperly fetishize doctrine to the exclusion of other important things. This is the “America is an idea” of conservative Christianity.”
Aaron Renn
1.) Here we see Aaron Renn fetishizing the doctrine that fetishizing the idea that good doctrine is important is bad doctrine.
3.) What non-doctrinal realities (other important things) is Renn speaking of that can be enumerated w/o becoming doctrinal matters to be believed? In other words can Renn tell me what these “other important things” are without these “other important things” instantly becoming doctrine – something to be believed and acted upon.
4.) If Renn is talking about “other important things” like acting and/or living in a Christian manner one must ask how one gets to acting and/or living in a Christian manner apart from believing Christian doctrine or apart from believing the doctrine that Christians should act and live as Christians?
5.) Renn then segues from the idea that “doctrine is not the only important thing” to the observation that thinking that doctrine is the most important thing is an example of “America is an idea” conservativism. Presumably, Renn holds the doctrine that “America is an idea” is a bad doctrine that should not be held. If Renn, at this point fetishizing the importance of his doctrine that America is not an idea, or more than an idea doctrine?
Understand, at this point I am not weighing in on the subject of whether of not America is an idea is a good or bad idea. I am weighing in on the subject that whether one concludes that the doctrine that “America is an idea” is bad doctrine or good doctrine it remains doctrine, and clearly a doctrine that Renn seems to be fetishizing about.
6.) What we need from Renn in order to substantiate his claim about fetishizing doctrine — or to even understand his claim about fetishizing doctrine are some examples of things that are important besides doctrine that can be articulated without becoming doctrine.
If he cannot provide those examples his statement is completely self-refuting and he is exposed as a not smart man.
Renn then goes on to say;
“So when the creed says “I believe in the communion of saints” that means agreement on doctrine? When the Bible talks about “the body of Christ” that’s about agreement on doctrine? Again, doctrine is important but doctrinalism is missing important things. Never forget, demons are in agreement with perfect doctrine.”
1.) How can I believe in the communion of saints apart from having a doctrine of what communion of the saints means?
2.) Of course “communion of saints” means “agreement on doctrine.” Does it mean, per Renn, disagreement on doctrine? The Scripture asks, “Can two men walk together unless they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?” Agreed on what? Agreed on doctrine of course. So, “yes,” when the creed says “We believe in the communion of the saints,” a doctrinal belief is being articulated which includes the idea that having communion with the saints means, at least in part, a shared set of convictions and beliefs — doctrine.
3.) How can we know about the “body of Christ” unless we first have a doctrine of “the body of Christ?” So, yes, when the Bible talks about “the body of Christ,” we are talking about a doctrine which then gets fleshed out in our everyday living. If Renn is upset that Christians are not nice enough or that they are inconsistent with their doctrine then let him say that and let him realize that if Christians are inconsistent with their doctrine then it is because what they say they believe as doctrine is trumped by what they are really believing about doctrine. One cannot separate how a man acts from what a man believes.
4.) Ren then reaches for “Even the demons believe and shudder.” However, the demons believe as those who have lost their first estate. Their shuddering is the shuddering of those who, while believing, are damned for not combining their believing with works. Is this what Renn is fetishizing about? Is Renn trying to make the doctrinal point that too many Christians have right doctrine but wrong behavior? Well, the answer then is not to curse doctrine. The answer is connect the dots between unseemly behavior and unseemly doctrine and then to challenge folks on the difference between their stated doctrine and their lived out doctrine.
Renn then ends this anti-doctrinal explosion with;
One example: “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
1.) Ironic that Renn chooses the chapter in the Bible to make his point that elucidates most clearly the doctrine of Christian love.
2.) Of course we are to have love as Christians but does love really stand in opposition to doctrine? What does love look like? How does it respond to need? What does it mean? We cannot even begin to talk about Christian love without having a doctrine of Christian love.
All of life has meaning. Everything means something. All doctrine does is gives us handles in order to understand the meaning and purpose of life… of everything. Nothing exists that isn’t driven by doctrine. This is why Scripture explicitly teaches … “As a man thinketh in his heart (in the core of his being) so he is.”
