4 Comments »
  1. What makes a doctrine important?Is a lack of experiential impact a sign that a doctrine is not important? What else makes a doctrine important? Below you can see how this question developed for me (a reminder to self that theology is not an abstract system of truth–although certainly truth–foremost, it is about who the living God is).
    • This question was raised by means of a post by Andrew at Theogeek, who was wondering if the doctrine of Penal Substitionary Atonement is significant if it does not make a difference in lived experience and if people hold to some functional equivalent.
    • I wrote a post expressing my un-ease with this, since it tends to negate the historical function of doctrines and since I also wonder whether functional equivalence “works.”
    • I don’t think I was listening very well, perhaps because I was bothered by the idea. Brad H responded in a comment that helped me understand what Andrew’s chief point may be: “what does a doctrine matter if there is no discernible experiential effect?”
    • My response, in a comment:
      1. But if doctrine, however abstract, is about something relational (God in relation to humans/humanity), even if we can’t discern the experiential effect on the human side, does it not convey important information about who God is? Hence, is a doctrine, which says something about who God is, not intrinsically important, regardless of its perceived effect on the human side?
      2. Is a notion of orthodoxy not enough to care for and guard some doctrines in any case? Shouldn’t we just care about the truth of the matter, regardless of personal impact?

    What do you think? What makes a doctrine important?

  2. Is a gospel awakening happening? Drew Goodmanson writes in a post that the recent Gospel Coalition conference (I was able to attend most of it) may be a sign of gospel awakening because it represents three shifts in thinking about the gospel by the Evangelical Center (referring to the center is my way of stating what Goodmanson is saying). First, a shift toward acknowledging scripture as normative narrative. Second, the shift to thinking of the gospel as bigger than a ticket to heaven. Third, the shift that the gospel requires a missional posture toward the world. I had appreciated those aspects of the gospel coalition conference without really thinking about them. Goodmanson’s post help me see their significance. I should add a caveat that a church seeking to be scripturally faithful 50 years ago was probably emphasizing these things in its own ways. But the way they are being said now is important and encouraging. Here are links to the Gospel Coalition foundational documents and audio and video.HT for Gospel Coalition documents: Steve McCoy
  3. The papacy as a guarantee striving to be stronger than the cross An Orthodox priest, Father Stephen, writes about Pope Benedict XVI’s re-assertion of submission to papal primacy as a mark of the true church:

    Universal Primacy has a way of offering a guarantee that transcends the cross. No matter how badly we fail, the de jure Primacy of the Pope in every local Church, guarantees that no one can really mess it up. I think that is neat, and the product of human imagination. I believe that God has established His Church such that, just like Christ, when pierced with nails it will bleed. Only love binds the Church together, nothing more.

    HT: JS Bangs, Boar’s Head Tavern