The Decline of Doctrine

by   R. Albert Mohler, Jr.                                                                                                                                    Vol. VI, No. 4, May 1993

[Al Mohler is editor of the Christian Index, the Georgia state Baptist paper, and newly elected president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. Because some 20% of all Southern Baptist pastors in Virginia are Southern graduates, the views of Southern's incoming president should be of deep interest to all Virginia Baptists. This editorial is slightly condensed from its original version in the Christian Index.]

The 20th century has witnessed an increasingly energetic revolt against doctrine. A denial of specific formulations of classical Christian doctrine has been evident in some quarters, while others have rejected the very notion of doctrine itself.

Doctrine has fallen on hard times in the Southern Baptist Convention. Some Baptist historians have suggested that Southern Baptists never gave a great deal of attention to doctrinal matters. If true, that judgment would be a disgrace to any people of God. As it is, however, Baptists have a proud doctrinal heritage and have historically given careful attention to confessions of faith and doctrinal issues.

Doctrine is, literally, the teaching of the church – what the church understands to be the substance of its faith. It is no substitute for personal experience. Baptists have given clear witness to the necessity of personal faith in Jesus Christ, but that personal faith is based in some understanding of who Jesus Christ is and what He accomplished on the cross. Baptists have not called persons to faith in faith, but to faith in Christ.

There is no Christianity "in general." Faith in some contentless experience – no matter how powerful – is not New Testament Christianity. Those called to Christianity in general may believe in nothing in particular. But faith resides in the particulars.

Some churches seem to think that doctrine is a concern for those of a certain intellectual bent, but unnecessary for most Christians. Others steer clear of doctrine for fear of argument or division in the church. Both factors indicate a lack of respect for the Christian believer and an abdication of the teaching function of the church.

Those who sow disdain and disinterest in biblical doctrine will reap a harvest of rootless and fruitless Christians. Doctrine is not a challenge to experiential religion; it testifies to the content of that experience. The church is charged to call persons to Christ and to root them in a mature knowledge of Christian faith.

Southern Baptists have grown quite adept at reaching people for Christ, but now risk failure at the task of developing believers who stand firmly rooted in the doctrinal foundation of Christian faith. This was not always the case. The years since World War Il have seen an erosion of Southern Baptist concern for doctrinal teaching in the church.

Sociologists and historians observing the American church scene indicate that one of the first signs of denominational decline is a lessening of doctrinal attention. Many mainline Protestant denominations have followed this course, with a weakening of concern for biblical doctrine followed by decline in membership and evangelistic outreach.

Yet, Southern Baptists should not recapture a concern for biblical doctrine merely as a means of avoiding denominational decline. We must do so because nothing less is worthy of a New Testament church. The essential issue for the church is faithfulness.

Churches lacking an intentional and effective program of doctrinal instruction risk becoming the "company of the confused." Charles Spurgeon told the painful story of the Irishman who attended a sectarian religious society meeting. Telling of the meeting, the man recounted, "Oh, it was lovely: none of us knew anything and we all taught each other."

Southern Baptists must curb the decline of doctrinal concern in our midst and recapture the teaching responsibility of the church. Doctrine without piety is dead, but piety without doctrine is immature at best, and inauthentic at worst. Early Southern Baptists were ever concerned with the development of true Christian piety and discipleship in believers. Yet, as John A. Broadus commented over a century ago, doctrinal truth is "the lifeblood of piety."

Baptists instinctively know this truth, and doctrinal disinterest in our midst is more a symptom of program overload than of a conscious rejection of doctrine as a responsibility of the church. Nevertheless, the end result is the same.

The biblical doctrine of creation is foundational for the development of a Christian worldview and an understanding of the relationship between God and the world.

The church which makes doctrinal teaching a priority will never be known as a company of the confused. Indeed, it will become a congregation of conviction.

[Editorial Comment: An excellent treatment of a timely topic. Only in one particular would I differ from Mohler, in the third paragraph from the end he writes, "...doctrinal disinterest in our midst is more a symptom of program overload than of a conscious rejection of doctrine as a responsibility of the church." While that statement is probably correct, it is helpful to acknowledge that there are those among Southern Baptists who do not believe many of the foundational doctrines of orthodox Christianity, who realize that they differ this way, and who intentionally attempt to lead others astray. Those who presume to spot contradictions in the Bible, who denigrate the miracles, who deny the stated authorship of certain biblical books, who believe in evolution rather than creation and regard Genesis as a spiritual legend are often evangelistic in their apostasy.

Those responsible for hiring or approving pastors, church staff, teachers, or any other church leaders should realize that they must not assume that every pastor, every church member believes the Bible. Innocent as doves, yes, but also wise as serpents.]