Are “Shelf Doctrines” Hazardous to Faith? (RJS)

Oct 26, 2010 @ 5:02 By 53 Comments

In Weekly Meanderings last Saturday Scot linked to a couple of posts by Roger Olson on his blog. This led me to read those two posts, but also several others on his site. One of them is worth some serious thought and conversation. In a post entitled Those pesky “shelf doctrines” Dr. Olson contemplates the doctrines and beliefs we know we should hold, but don’t really understand, often don’t really believe, and find ways to nuance and interpret. He gives examples from Calvinism, Pentecostalism,  Wesleyanism, and more. These doctrines can be limited atonement, double predestination, instantaneous entire sanctification, unconditional eternal security, speaking in tongues as the “initial, physical evidence” of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, premillennialism. I am sure we could come up with examples in Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy as well. No denomination, no group, is immune. Yet we stick with our family and place those doctrines or concepts on the shelf.

In other words, many religious people grew up in a denomination or tradition and want to stay in it for whatever reason even though they don’t really believe all its doctrines enthusiastically.  They may even be embarrassed by some of them even as they continue to affirm them.

Anyone who thinks this isn’t a common reality just hasn’t been around in denominations long enough or hasn’t been very observant.

Now some in the denominations or traditions no doubt do hold to each of the doctrines others may consider shelf doctrines, but Olson suggests that most of us have mental reservations about something, somewhere. And a little later:

In fact, I doubt that anyone agrees absolutely, completely and without any mental reservations everything their denomination has written down somewhere (that they are “supposed” to believe).

What are the shelf doctrines you dust off, know you are supposed to hold, but can’t?

The title to this post caught my eye because it applies to a number of different aspects of Christian faith. It certainly applies to the relationship between science and Christian faith. The doctrines relating to the Fall, Original Sin, and the nature of inspiration are seriously impacted by science, including the age of the earth, evolution, and common descent. For many Christians these become shelf doctrines, to be brushed off, examined, and placed back on the shelf.

It applies as well to the subject of the other post this morning – Jesus the Only Way. Exclusivism and hell as eternal conscious torment are both doctrines very difficult to comprehend. These doctrines, in turn, connect back to the doctrines of the Fall and Original sin.

This is an important topic for a few reasons. Most importantly, shelf doctrines can become doctrines that nag at the back of the mind. Issues that are difficult to discuss and reason through, but challenge faith. Christian scholars and thinkers cannot broach the subjects and explore the consequences without administrators or self-appointed watchdogs breathing down their neck, with a heresy detector, a controversy detector, or a lie detector. Even positions not deemed “heresy” may be viewed to violate denominational confessions or institutional statements of faith. Questioning the doctrine or position can break relationships and destroy family.  There are very real intellectual and relational costs.

There is another factor at play here as well – one I think we would do well to consider. These issues on the shelf can impact ability and effectiveness in evangelism and life witness. If Christian scholars and thinkers are not discussing these issues publicly people in the church have nowhere to turn for guidance and insight. Now many may not care – or not care much – but some will and the impact can be devastating. How can we expect people to stand up for the gospel when they know that there are significant stands they are supposed to take, but can’t convince themselves much less the skeptic or critic that they are true?

This leads me to the final questions I would like to pose today and ask for pastoral insight and response.

Given the reality of shelf doctrines and nagging issues, what should the church do?

What can and should be addressed – and how?

Are there topics and doctrines that are better left on the shelf and unaddressed?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Pastoring and Leading, Science and Faith, Theology Tagged With: , , 53 Comments
  • smcknight

    Great post, RJS. This hits reality for many of us…

    Terry Tiessen’s post earlier today is dealing with one of my “shelf doctrines”: the fate of those who have never heard, or the fate of those who, for all sorts of reasons, “can’t” hear the goodness of the gospel.

  • http://thedesignspectrum.wordpress.com/ pds

    Unity in essentials; diversity in non-essentials; charity in all.

    Not sure what the difference is between a shelf doctrine and a non-essential. Where does one’s view of creation fit in?

    Telic Thoughts has commented on Steve Matheson’s small tent evangelicalism. What do you think?

    http://telicthoughts.com/unity-truth-dishonesty/

    The Design Spectrum is a bigger tent with fewer shelf doctrines than Biologos, methinks.

  • rjs

    pds,

    My issue here is not with the tent per se – more with the impact on individuals, and with the pastoral response to these questions and issues.

    One of the things I find critical is the ability to maintain an open dialogue. It should be possible to express differing views and ask questions without inciting a knee-jerk attack.

    I don’t want to limit discussion on this post to the evolution debate, but this is certainly one of the key issues. Proponents on all sides of the fiat creation/ ID/ evolutionary creation discussion have, at times, been guilty of pouring oil on the fire rather than listening and dialoguing. This is a real mistake.

    But I can’t control others, nor can I be responsible for them. All I can do is try to maintain an atmosphere and attitude myself.

  • Robin

    On shelf doctrines…the impression that I get is these beliefs are kind of adolescent religious baggage that parents and denomination tried to instill, but it always gets left behind. Since you mention Roger Olson and Calvinism I find this odd. The “Calvinist Resurgence” is, in my view, primarily a phenomenon of conversion. I attended Southern and have been a member of Calvinistic Baptist churches and more than 90% of the 5-pointers I have known came to Christ in late high school or college and more than 50% of them came from either a Catholic background or atheism/agnosticism. They came to Christ, essentially as adults, surveyed the landscape, and consciously chose Calvinism and all the “Shelf Doctrines” that come with it…which suggests to me that they are not shelf doctrines. I mean, only 10% of SBC pastors are Calvinists but 30% of seminary graduates are, suggesting they didn’t pick up calvinism as a result of their youth group or parental instruction.

    I don’t know if the same applies with the other denominational doctrines you mentioned. I do agree that things like creationism, homosexuality, etc. are shelf doctrines.

    I think in most cases embracing calvinism has cost people relationships and friendships since a lot of people really hate it (or think it is overtaking Christendom).

    As far as what the church should do…if they really don’t matter to the local church, they should abandon any pretense to them, and even switch denominations if necessary. If you don’t think a doctrine is true, like predestination, or baptism by the holy spirit, or instantaneous sanctification, you shouldn’t weigh your congregation down with it and either get the church to drop it, or leave. If the church agrees to drop it, and that leaves you out of favor with your denomination, go find another one.

    If you think they are true, but non-essential, then I am less clear on how they should be approached. Are they truly shelf doctrines (I don’t think limited atonement and double predestination are in calvinist churches) or do some people just wish they were shelf doctrines and try to ignore them.

  • Rick

    Good thoughts, but many churches barely cover the essentials, let alone the shelf issues. If churches equipped people to deal with the essentials or shelf issues, that would cut into the time spent on such regular series as, “having a better marriage”, “being a better parent”, etc…

  • smcknight

    Robin,

    I’m not sure calling them adolescent baggage helps the discussion; that makes them sound like things we have to learn to grow beyond.

    Rather, shelf doctrines, as RJS is discussing them, are doctrines that are confessed or articulated in a church context but which are (1) rarely mentioned and (2) ignored because they are difficult to believe with integrity.

  • smcknight

    Robin,

    Here’s an example: very many Christians today have serious troubles with events like YHWH’s telling the Israelites to wipe out a city, women and children. It’s there; it’s not discussed; no one wants to discuss it.

    Calvinistic notions in a Calvinistic church are not shelf doctrines. Pro-Arminian texts in a Calvinistic setting are; pro-Calvinistic ideas in an Arminian setting are. The issue here is “they are there” and “no one wants to talk about them.”

  • Robin

    I brought in the “adolescent baggage” because of this:

    “In other words, many religious people grew up in a denomination or tradition and want to stay in it for whatever reason even though they don’t really believe all its doctrines enthusiastically. They may even be embarrassed by some of them even as they continue to affirm them.”

    Whatever you want to call that (I chose adolescent baggage) it is not a good description of how particular doctrines exist within the calvinist resurgence. Out of all my facebook friends I can only think of 2 people that grew up as calvinists and have made peace with it as adults. The rest came to Christ, and then the doctrines of grace, in their late teens or college or post-college years.

    Some people might be uncomfortable with these doctrines, and thus want to label them shelf-doctrines, but that is disingenuous. I am not a pentecostal or methodist, so I don’t know about their particular doctrines.

    I get the sense that these (at least the calvinistic ones) aren’t shelf doctrines because people are expected to believe them, but don’t care, so they keep them on the shelf; they are shelf doctrines because outsiders are uncomfortable with them and wish that insiders would either abandon them, or at least not talk about them so we can get on with ecumenism (sp?).

    I don’t feel comfortable talking about spiritual gifts and certainly wish people like T wouldn’t bring them up and cause me to deal with them; I wish he’d just put them on the shelf so we can talk about salvation by grace or baptism by immersion, but even though I wish they were a shelf doctrine, I don’t get the sense that he believes they are.

  • Robin

    Scot,

    based on the paragraph I quoted, I think you have changed the meaning. The post implied that it was doctrines, held within a denomination, that noone really wanted to talk about.

    So for Calvinists it might be infant salvation and damnation, for my mom (Conservative Catholic) it might be automatic hell for unconfessed mortal sins, like missing mass (yes, she was taught this, yes, she believes it is still official doctrine, but I don’t know how she feels about it) for Lutherans it might transubstantiation or papal infallibility (especially in light of recent controversies).

    This is what the post implied shelf doctrines were…doctrines held within the denomination that noone really wants to talk about. I didn’t get the sense that it was “texts within the bible that don’t fit the denominational doctrine”

    So, I guess I am at a loss as to what we are really supposed to be discussing, some clarification from RJS might be in order.

  • smcknight

    Thanks for that Robin, but I was disagreeing with Olson as much as with you.

    Let’s get to the point of this post: What are the shelf doctrines for each of us? Do they hurt or wound the integrity of our faith (by staying on the shelf)?

  • Robin

    I meant to say Catholics, not Lutherans.

  • smcknight

    Let me take a crack at it:

    I think many shelf doctrines wound our faith more than we know because we fail to deal with them honestly. Part of our problem is finding a safe place. When we do find a safe place it become a place to deal honestly and openly with issues that create ambivalence in our faith.

    For many, so it seems to me, the issue of exclusivism is one such issue. The behavior of Christians shows they aren’t exclusivists (else more would be missionaries) while saying they aren’t would get them in trouble. So, instead of talking about it, they remain silent.

  • Robin

    evolution / creationism / ID

    Can’t think of any others, currently, that I would hold to but prefer not to talk about because of embarrassment or confusion.

  • rjs

    Robin,

    I’d be interested to know what you think of Roger Olson’s post. He took this in a slightly different direction than I have. His first example introducing the idea came from Richard Mouw’s book.

    Some of these ideas are ones that seems “adolescent” to use your word – outgrown.

    Some of these ideas are ones that seemed entirely necessary and appropriate in one circumstance, but circumstances have changed.

    Many of these doctrines have a serious thread of truth and cannot be simply displaced, but are hard (even impossible) to affirm as commonly put. I have long found inerrancy of scripture to be such a doctrine. I do not want to abandoned the veracity and centrality of scripture, in fact I think we must not abandon this; but for decades struggled with the implications. A good deal of what I write on Scot’s blog is working out these implications on the understanding of scripture in the light of ANE studies, archaeology, and science.

    I know many Calvinists who consider themselves “soft” Calvinists because they don’t think the package is quite as neatly wrapped as some others think. There are shelf doctrines in the mix.

  • Robin

    RJS,

    Let me read his post later and get back with you. I’ll probably e-mail you to keep from threadjacking.

  • Tim

    My earliest shelf doctrines were the genocides and brutality in the OT, and an exclusivistic soteriology derived from my community’s interpretation of the NT.

    I avoided wrestling with the brutality in the OT, but didn’t avoid wrestling with exclusivism entirely. I started to adopt some form of soft inclusivism in “exceptional” circumstances.

    Then I deployed to Japan for 6 months while in the Navy, and left without a single shred of exclusivism intact.

    After rejecting exclusivism, it was at that point that the genocides and brutality of the OT started to really bug me. And the doctrine of inerrancy started looking more and more like a shelf doctrine.

    Then things started looking like a house of cards, as I grew up in a church community that held to a sort of “believe it all or believe none of it” type of view. The slippery slope type of view.

    Yeah, that crisis was fun.

    And the bit about:

    “Questioning the doctrine or position can break relationships and destroy family. There are very real intellectual and relational costs.”

    Experienced that first hand. Not that I lost relationships. Just that they have I think been redefined. They aren’t as close as they once were. And over differences of beliefs and worldview. How awful is that? One would think that religion would be viewed more as a journey among fellow travelers where we’re all searching for truth (even though there is, of course, one truth), rather than a peak of knowledge representing the views of the faithful holding the most “correct” doctrines with any departing from that peak falling into darkness and destruction.

  • T

    Robin,

    There are certainly folks in Reformed churches who don’t have strong buy-in on several reformed/Calvinist distinctives, but stay for relational or other reasons. Just as there are the same situation with every denom. And yes, the adult converts to any denom are more often ‘true believers.’ But there’s a lot of doubt in various parts of every denom for different articles of its official faith.

    For pentecostals, the ‘initial evidence doctrine’ is definitely a shelf doctrine for many. Though, I’m not part of a pentecostal denom, so I don’t know if that’s still part of the big denoms’ statements of faith anymore.

  • http://jeffkclarke.com Jeff

    In the Classical Pentecostal tradition, it would seem that Spirit Baptism (typically defined as an experience that is distinct from and subsequent to salvation), may be considered a significant doctrine, but is rarely spoken of, taught and preached about in many our of churches, let alone experienced. It seems that those who maintain it are those who have been in the tradition for some time. However, as churches attempt to be more sensitive to new people, who in many cases have little experience in any church, let alone a Pentecostal one, the idea is rarely mentioned. In my home church, I have it heard it spoken of only a handful of times in the past 4 years.

    Maybe this is an example of a ‘shelf doctrine’, still held by seasoned people within a denomination, but largely ignored by the masses, particularly the younger generations.

    Tongues as the initial physical evidence sometimes proves to be even more problematic, especially when the American/Canadian experience of Spirit Baptism is compared with global Pentecostalism, where tongues may be a sign, but not necessarily so. In this case, the global experience and theology can and should have implications on the North American scene. We certainly cannot ignore it, especially when the vast majority of growth in the Pentecostal/Charismatic Church is occurring in these regions of the world.

  • BradK

    Rather than being harmful to faith, “shelf doctrines” seem rather essential to it to me. No denomination, or even local church, has all their doctrine 100% in line with God and scripture. Or if there is one, show it to me so I can join. :-) Every denomination that I have encountered affirms beliefs that I find to be contradictory to scripture. Yet I need to participate in the Body of Christ. So I put certain doctrines on a shelf and participate. One example of this for me as a member of an SBC church is the doctrine of unconditional eternal security that Olson mentions.

    But for me a shelf doctrine isn’t one that I “believe in but don’t quite know what to do with” as Olson describes it. It’s not something I just “weakly” believe. Rather a shelf doctrine is one that I don’t believe at all even though my church or denomination does. I just don’t express that disbelief publicly (i.e. put it on a shelf) in an effort to avoid creating strife or controversy.

    Fortunately, one of the main distinctives of Baptists (THE defining distinctive according to Herschel Hobbs) is the competency of the soul in religion. We can differ in beliefs knowing that each of us will answer to God for our own beliefs and how we acted upon them. Perhaps that is what keeps me a Baptist. I simply could not affirm something in which I do not believe. Baptist’s affirmation of soul competency keeps me from having to do so. So I can go on participating, believing that which is contrary to denominational teaching. And eventually I will either see the light and change my own erroneous beliefs, the church/denomination will correct its erroneous beliefs, or the Lord will return.

  • Randall

    A super big shelf doctrine for me that contributed to my having to leave organized forms of evangelicalism is the implicit idea that the Bible can bring objective certainty to all matters of doctrine, faith, and knowledge. I always tried to accept it and suppress my unbelief regarding that but I don’t buy the notion and finally had to come clean with myself and my family. I resigned as deacon chairman of a baptist church an hour later.

  • Randall

    I must say that for me and my house, our faith was immediately strengthened. Honesty is a good sidekick to faith, suppressing unbelief is dishonest and hurts people. Faith doesn’t require having all the answers or signing on to someone else’s ‘idea list’. I believe now that I don’t have to understand first.

  • John I.

    For me it would be the belief that aborted babies get into heaven (This includes the natural miscarriages as well as murders). It boggles me that the majority of people in heaven will have been aborted, given the emphasis on the Bible on the importance of choices for God, and a conscious relationship with him, in this life. On the other hand, the babies are human and don’t deserve to annihilated just because they haven’t been born. Moreover, if babies don’t get souls at conception when do they get them? Yet again, the Bible was written for those who are born, not for those who aren’t, so it doesn’t really address the latter. Anyway, the bottom line is I’m supposed to believe that they all go to heaven, and I do, but it’s a doctrine that doesn’t really make sense to me no matter what I think about it. So I put it on the shelf and focus on other things.

    John I.

  • rjs

    Randall,

    Thanks – I used the question in the title because I do think that some of these issues, and the strain of dealing with them, can be hazardous to faith in many ways.

    I would say that the standard formulation of inerrancy and the attempt to make sense of it was hazardous to my faith. There was a deep relief and ability to go forward when it was taken off the shelf and discussed openly.

  • Randall

    I hear ya, rjs, someday I think I may preach a sermon titled, “How many here today are called to be ‘liers for Jesus’”? I think confusing intellectual assent to things incomprehensible with what the scripture holds our as ‘faith’ causes more mischief than spiking punch bowls at proms. If you don’t understand or believe something, be honest and let the chips fall where they may. When churches force or compel people to speak or act contrary to their consciences I think they are playing the other side of the street.

  • Jonathanblake

    Inerrancy, dispensationalism (this isn’t one of the official doctrines but it is a very popular one), the obsession with the a Rapture which takes our soul from our body to go to Heaven forever over the Resurrection and Redemption of the whole Cosmos and the full coming of God’s Kingdom.

    After talking with people I’ve found that the last few doctrines in our statement concerning eschatology become quite muddied because they’re trying to make the texts bend to dispensationalism rather than having a much simpler hope in the Parousia of Christ, the resurrection, and restoration into God’s rule.

  • Mark B

    Coming from a tribe that likes to talk about pure doctrine way too much (LCMS), shelf doctrines are fun things. Within the Lutheran tradition, most doctrines are set up in a tension. You can talk about law and gospel or maybe more hip you can talk about now and not yet, in that we are now saved, but not yet fully delivered. Those tensions are paradoxes. God has predestined everything, yet we have a choice to reject Him that is on our shoulders. And there are a bunch more doctrines that the bible seems to affirm, but appear logically contradictory. Shelf doctrines are when we fail to uphold the paradox, when we’ve resolved the tension in one direction or the other.

    The mission paradox is that God wants all to be saved and that Jesus is the very specific way. If you collapse that tension one way you get universalism and its lessening of missions because its God’s problem. If you collapse that the other way, you get monergism in all its forms ultimately placing the lost on God will. Either way of resolving the tension, we absolve ourselves of responsibility and put it on God. Only in upholding both points illogically do we find ourselves at fault and needing mercy. The only biblical resolution of the tensions is absolution by grace.

    Shelf doctrines are usually a sign of self justification. That said, living in all those tensions is the work of saints.

  • http://www.gettingfree.wordpress.com T

    This one goes beyond one denom (I’m not in one anyway) to the entire side of the church that leans to the conservative side. As RJS mentioned, it’s the concept of inerrancy that is given/heard on the ground level. Since I only want to speak from my own experience on this point, I will simply say that the differences, as one example, in the gospels’ respective treatments of Peter’s denials (and to whom) are simply not compatable with the sense of “inerrancy” that was given to me repeatedly as a child and that I still hear from all the sermons from the right that raise the issue. We’re too concerned about defending the scriptures, pushing them higher and higher, to honestly look at them and discuss them and our doctrines about them. And the more refined version in statements of faith that have the tagline “in the original manuscripts” is frankly akin to sausage: most people in the rank and file would have a hard time swallowing it if they knew what all went into making it. The conservative doctrine of inerrency is one that is on the shelf for many, and needs to come off and get some honest and faithful and gracious reform.

  • BradK

    Randall #20,

    Why did you feel the need to resign your deacon chairmanship over (presumably) a disbelief in the inerrancy of the Bible? Surely this wasn’t the first or only Baptist doctrine which you ever disbelieved?

  • rjs

    T,

    Interestingly enough, the ability to discuss openly with a number of people from different backgrounds has confirmed that some aspects of biblical inerrancy are formulated poorly, but that the overall veracity of the Bible is quite thoroughly defensible. Being able to carry on a conversation can help faith grow, keeping some things on the shelf stunts growth.

  • Randall

    Bradk,

    No one asked me to and I didn’t mean to suggest that. I simply got tired of the endless cycle and tendency to make believing all sorts of extra things and ideas about scriptures a substitute for faith in Christ and I felt like I was ministering death to friends and family because I was being dishonest and had divided loyalties, Christ and denomination.

    No, not the 1st Baptist doctrine I’ve questioned, I’m smiling now.

    As I always say though, I think integrity and honesty are compatible with faith and I was entangled in something that, for me, sometimes wasn’t.

    I got home and told my family that ‘doctrines aren’t Christ, Christ is Christ’, it’s ok to not have everything all figured out, I think it’s dangerous to need to believe you do. That is why I left, not really inerrancy either, the idea that a man could infallibly comprehend an inerrant book of the scriptures nature is a stretch that seems ridiculous.

  • MikeK

    RJS (& Scot),

    The first time I heard Mouw use the phrase “shelf doctrines” was a reciting of a conversation between him and a Mormon theologian. The scholar indicated his understanding of justification by faith- which reminded Mouw at the time of a very Reformed explanation (!)- and that the unique doctrines of the LDS he called his “shelf doctrines”: when he needed them, he “took them off the shelf.”

    Which is quite different from what you’re describing here: the kind you’re describing have a door covering the shelf, and if I’m tracking with you: you not only want the door opened (at least), you want us to remove the items from the shelf and bring them into the light of day: natch.

    Mine? Yikes…I need to get to work…I’d spend all day here on this post: but here is one: the mysteries of the Lord’s Supper. I’ve done lots of reading on this, and keep my opinions to myself, even among family and friends, but I only know a few people I’d risk the conversation with. :)

  • BradK

    I understand what you mean about divided loyalties, Randall. Fortunately for me, I’ve never really had to deal with that. I hold to what I believe and will share it when asked. I also won’t teach any Baptist doctrine with which I don’t agree either. So far, I’ve not felt the need to leave the SBC or my local church or resign any of my responsibilities. But my church is not very fundamentalist. I’ve raised a few issues with the staff and got satisfactory answers. I think of my church as pretty tolerant. But some might just consider it soft on doctrine.

    The whole inerrancy thing is problematic. Depending on how it is defined a lot of people would have to disagree with it. Ask someone if the Bible is inerrant and many will say yes. Then ask them if they believe pi equals 3 and they will say of course not. So do they really believe it’s inerrant? At least one would hope they say pi is not equal to 3. I consider an answer of yes that pi equals 3 or an explanation on how the builders of the temple measured the circumference and diameter of the “sea of cast metal” in 2 Chronicles 4:2 to justify “inerrancy” to be signs to run for cover. :-)

  • BradK

    Btw, here is a quote from Hershel Hobbs on soul competency that might be of interest here…

    “Baptists oftentimes forget that our basic Baptist belief is not the infallibility of the Scriptures as some call it. It is not even the deity of Jesus Christ, though I believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and believe in the deity of Jesus Christ without question. The basic belief of Baptists is the competency of the soul in religion. When we forget that, then we get into all kinds of trouble. When I mention that nowadays, young preachers look at me like a calf looking at a new gate.”

  • http://krusekronicle.com Michael W. Kruse

    I’m having a hard time thinking of issues that are shelf doctrines for me personally. Part of it is because as I’ve gotten older and tend to dive into those things that don’t seem to fit well. I think one issue that might qualify for me is the whole issue of ordination in the PCUSA tradition. I have had questions for years but haven’t yet really tackled that one fully.

    I can tell you that I was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, which has the Wesleyan idea of “entire sanctification.” I never really bought into it as a teenager. As I studied the issue in college and graduate school a came to outright disagree with it. I still have Nazarene connections and Nazarene family members. I’m not hostile but I don’t think I could ever be Nazarene until the denomination changes or I develop a different view.

    It is my sense that many Nazarenes have no clue what entire sanctification is and that many of those who do are quietly doubtful, but because of the strong social networks they are unwilling to break official ties.

  • rjs

    MikeK (#31),

    Thanks – that puts a different perspective on the term; or at least on Mouw’s use of the term.

  • http://soapbox.clanotto.com keo

    BradK #33,

    Great quote! I was stunned when I learned about soul competency — given its incongruity with Baptist “culture.”

  • http://www.twocities.org Dave Moore

    Scot (per #12):

    Your observation is one reason why exclusivism strikes many as implausible (HT to Peter Berger).

    Best,
    Dave

  • BradK

    Same here, keo. I’ve been a Baptist for most of my life but never heard of soul competency until maybe ten years ago.

    Something else that surprised me when I encountered it was the part (quoted below) of the Baptist Faith and Message pertaining to religious liberty. I was pretty flabbergasted to see that it explicitly advocates the separation of church and state. Oh, how I wish that this was followed more closely in the SBC where so often it seems that many or most of the folks in the pews seem to think that Jesus is a card-carrying Republican…

    XVII. Religious Liberty

    God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

  • Ben Wheaton

    People, be careful not to mention “shelf doctrines” that you don’t actually hold, but rather characterize others’ beliefs. Mouw was referring to doctrines that you do assent to (his example was Limited Atonement), but don’t know quite what to do with. And T, I do think that liberals possess “shelf doctrines” that they aren’t entirely sure about. Like, will Hitler go to heaven?

    My shelf doctrine is probably tongues. I reached a conclusion a while ago that tongues in a church setting are permissible, provided that there is an interpreter present. Yet I haven’t actually been in a setting where that has taken place, and if it should take place I would be incredibly nervous and uncomfortable. Perhaps “shelf doctrines” are challenges to our courage?

  • Josh Mueller

    Shelf doctrines for me are not things I hold on for denominational reasons but simply because they seem to be taught or at least implied clearly by Scripture and yet fall in the category of the mysterious and are difficult to grasp and explain. Here are some of them:

    1. The mystery of the Trinity

    2. The mystery of sacramental presence

    3. The mystery of the coexistence of divine sovereignty and man’s freedom of choice

    4. The mystery of God’s eternal existence and His being both within and outside of time

    5. The mystery of the first impetus to evil

    6. The mystery of the necessity of suffering

    7. The mystery of the the supernatural and its significance for Christian ministry and living

  • Dn4sty

    These are specific for me. While not all of them are pertain to shelf doctrines, each of the following are positions that I would have problems with, that have become essentials in the denomination I work in.

    1. Inerrancy- I work in a church setting where even questioning this would lead to me losing my job.

    2. Once saved, always saved. Working in a SBC church, this is something that gets thrown around all the time.

    3. creation/evolution- I have to affirm a literal 6 day young earth creation, or I would lose my job

    4. Egalitarian/Complementarian- I am firmly committed to egalitarianism and that the best qualified person should be the pastor/elder of a church. This would also get me fired.

    5. Dispensationalism- sadly this has become an essential in my church. As one who disagrees with it, I have basically had to avoid the issue altogether in my teaching and have just emphasized that Jesus will come again

    As far as ways that I think a church can help. Having conversations without the threat of being fired/being labeled as a heretic/someone questioning your salvation would be a great start. In my current position, it like we all walk around affirming things that we know are problematic, but fear what would happen if we ever decided to discuss these things.

    Second, many people like to assume that our interpretation/understanding/theology is THE correct one. It takes a lot of humility to realize that you may not know as much as you think you do.

    The willingness to admit that you are wrong is also something that I(and everyone) needs to be willing to do. Sadly, I am fearful of what would happen if I were to go back and tell those in my church, that I was wrong about what I taught you.

    I long for a time when I would be able to stay (and be welcomed to minister)in my current denomination (SBC). Sadly, I don’t see this being possible. Honesty can be a scary thing.

  • Randall

    Dn4aty, I feel for you friend. It was the increasing certainty about everything and the continual lines being drawn or laid out that caused me to say ‘enough’. I respect a person’s beliefs about everything you listed and have shared many of those beliefs myself; but, I think making any of them ‘tests’ for fellowship is going too far. Paul was determined not to know anything but “Christ and Him crucified” among those believers at Corinth. That is the place I am returning to. Believing hundreds of technical details the same doesn’t appear to be what scriptural communion was based on. If that’s a requirement then I have to come out as a sceptic on some things for honesty’s sake.

  • http://www.gettingfree.wordpress.com T

    Ben (Wheaton),

    I agree with you re: more liberal Christians (though I was thinking of theism generally), but I wanted to stick with the camp I’m in! And you’ve got lots of company in the larger Church re: tongues. I think you summed up the basic posture of most, or at least many, evangelicals on that point.

  • http://LostCodex.com DRT

    Great topic. It seems to me that the greater the aversion to touching the doctrines on the shelf the greater the feel of moralistic therapeutic deism. They try to avoid all controversy and thereby castrating the faith.

    Mine include:

    Misogyny, well at least complementarianism
    Transubstantiation
    Exclusivitism
    Non-evolutionary rationalization
    Literal devils
    Believing in Jesus to get to heaven
    Belief in actual objects like a book with your name in it, gates of gold etc.
    Noah’s ark being literal
    Doing good thing not mattering to the Baptist church I went to
    Priests intermediating on behalf of people
    Infallibility of scripture
    Why the pope lives in such an ornate mansion
    Is baptism required for being saved, if there is such a thing as being saved

    And to be fair, there are a great number of doctrines or subjects of teaching that I feel we would be much better to take out and use. Like:

    Suffering and the relationship to sanctification
    Eternal sin against the Holy Spirit
    Being good
    Having the kingdom of God being within a person
    The idea that rules are not what God is about (anti-Calvinism in my book)
    Etc.

  • AHH

    If I’m understanding the term correctly, I don’t entirely agree with Scot’s observation in #7:
    Calvinistic notions in a Calvinistic church are not shelf doctrines

    I’ve been a member of a Prebyterian (PCUSA) church for 15 years. Officially Calvinist, of course. And some Calvinist things like Covenant and Grace and God’s initiative in salvation are talked about a lot. But I don’t think we have had a single sermon expounding TULIP in all that time. Maybe a very occasional mention of predestination, but never in its “double” form and more often as a joke about a topic the preacher is avoiding.

    Early in my time at this church, I was shaken when I heard the Senior Pastor at the time (in a smaller setting) say something like “I don’t know why God made some people who are only going to burn in Hell, but I accept it.” I think I had never really thought about that logical end of full-blown Calvinism. But recently, in another small setting, an Associate Pastor disagreed with “double predestination” (even though as I recall the Westminster Confession teaches it).

    I guess my point is that in my church, and I think many others, the official doctrine is Calvinist but things like TULIP (and especially double predestination) are shelf doctrines. Generally not spoken about (either to question or to affirm). In some sense treated as a non-essential, but unlike other nonessentials we tend to shy away from even talking about them. And I tend to feel that’s OK, as long as those who do want to discuss and even question them are not stifled.

  • http://likeachildscience.blogspot.com like a child

    I do think shelf doctrines are hazardous to faith. I am living proof of that. Never being able to question…a failure to major on the majors and minor on the minors led me to question the majors as well, if the “minors” were so dogmatically held.

    I do not think shelf doctrines should just remain on the shelf, because it leads to exactly what happened with me…having to resort to books to find answers to questions and feeling alienated from the bricks and mortar churches for having questions in the first place. I’ve also noticed questioning shelf doctrines is more acceptable for men than for women in the church (I am a female).

  • http://LostCodex.com DRT

    Not quite sure if this is appropriate, but another that I really don’t understand from a protestant perspective is intercessionary prayer. I found great comfort in talking with dead people when I was a RC. I don’t understand why Protestants have a problem with that.

  • Randall

    AHH and like a child,

    One thing I sensed while reading both of your post is that many of us accept things as matters of faith when they are presented to us as articles of faith and that is to be understood. What isn’t always stated is that some of the conclusions of other men are set out as being rational and part of the revelation of scripture when I am not at all convinced that they are. I believe things that I don’t understand; but, I would be foolish to try to convince another of them using a rational argument. Faith can transcend reason but isn’t entirely dependant upon reason and logic. This is a failure of much ‘western minded’ religion, I think. Much of scripture doesn’t appeal to my logical mind, I no longer believe it is designed to. It appeals to the human spirit in me that doesn’t like cookie cutter arguments.

    Sometimes, I have to confess, I can’t understand everything I believe in a way that satisfies all my questions and trust the God revealed in Christ, I call that faith.

  • gingoro

    I belong to a confessional reformed church. Our doctrinal statements are three ancient creeds, two catechisms and a set of Canons plus possibly some items I am forgetting.

    Given the reality of shelf doctrines and nagging issues, what should the church do?

    The statements of faith should be updated with material that was relevant many years ago removed and language updated. I happen to be very fond of our catechisms but a few years ago I was asked to be an office holder and when I looked to see if I agreed or not with the catechism I found an item about the anabaptists or their practices being detestable. When I mentioned that particular concern the response was “Oh we don’t believe that any more, I thought it was removed from the official statement”.

    One of the ancient creeds in part and the Canons of Dort in its entirety is simply incomprehensible to me as to exactly what it is saying. Maybe I agree and maybe I don’t, I simply am unsure and I read thick theological books. Either the catechisms need to be expanded to clarify or some doctrinal statements dropped.

    Are there topics and doctrines that are better left on the shelf and unaddressed?

    Yes to quote PDS
    Unity in essentials; diversity in non-essentials; charity in all.

    IMO some doctrines should simply be left out of a church’s statements. For example the understanding of end times. I would guess that our pastor is amillennial which is the traditional reformed position, but I don’t really know and it does not make much difference to me one way or the other.

    Some doctrines that a church has traditionally held but which they no longer consider to be “of the essence of the gospel” should be documented if at all, under a classification of historical positions held by many in this denomination.

    Fortunately our denomination has a different level of enforcement of its confessions for members than for office holders.
    Dave W

  • http://tankrumblings.blogspot.com/ Sherman Nobles

    Hi RJS,

    Thanks for the OP; it’s related to something I’ve been thinking of now for several months. It seems to me that most churches’ foundation is their “Statement of Faith”. One should profess belief in these doctrines in order to be a member of that church. On top of that is practical living expectations, practical righteousness. If one believes correctly and lives correctly then we can fully love one another and God in harmony.

    I believe it should be the other way around. I recognize as brothers and sisters in Christ all who have a simple faith in Christ regardless of their beliefs about eschatology, soteriology, pnuematology, etc. Man, if you claim Christ, I claim you as my brother (even if you disclaim me).

    Our common love and respect for God and for one another should be the foundation of our fellowship. Practical righteousness should flow out of that love for God and one another. This then opens the door for us to discuss openly our differing understandings (or misunderstandings) of scripture, life, and God. So to answer your questions in the OP:

    “Given the reality of shelf doctrines and nagging issues, what should the church do?”

    Openly discuss such nagging issues and allow for differing beliefs to be openly shared, and for people to present why they believe as they do. Call though for a common recognition that we could all be wrong!

    “What can and should be addressed – and how?”

    Everything!

    “Are there topics and doctrines that are better left on the shelf and unaddressed?”

    Absolutely not. If a brother or sister is interested in a doctrine, then let’s openly study it. I might learn something. Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth; this assumes that we do not currently have “all truth”.

    I was raised in a very exclusive church. Our basic unstated belief was, “I don’t know for sure I’m saved, but I’m pretty sure you’re not!” is something I’ve long repented of. And long ago I had to come to a place where I put my faith in Christ, and not in my own understanding. This freed me to be wrong, to grow and learn.

  • http://communityofjesus.wordpress.com/ Ted M. Gossard

    To me simply holding to the Christian faith is challenge enough, though for me it all holds together in Jesus. As for “shelf doctrines,” I don’t know. I guess the homosexual issue along with creation/evolution might fit into this category. Though I think I’m firm in regard to both issues, they are matters I find uncomfortable. On the former I simply have to appeal to the consistent, clear witness of scripture. That’s painful enough for me, because I wouldn’t care one way or another myself. As to evolution, while I accept it I find it like hurling gasoline on a fire already burning. So I really try to avoid it. Not for myself, but in regard to sharing my thoughts with others (albeit second hand, yet thought out for myself).

    Good post, RJS.

  • http://tankrumblings.blogspot.com/ Sherman Nobles

    In the last year I took one of my shelf doctrines off the shelf for a serious study, and came away believing differently than what I had been taught all of my life. This has resulted in exclusion of me and my wife from the fellowship we were part of, personal accusations from family members and friends, someone trying to get me fired from the para-church ministry I work in, and continuing grief from friendships that are now stressed.

    I’ve been through this before, though it was not as severe because I was single, when I studied on the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and came to believe differently than what was taught in the church I attended at that time. At that time though I was the one that changed churches, chose to make the move, though family and friends did try to attribute my change to some personal problem instead of considering the possibility that my beliefs changed because of personally studying scripture and honestly seeing something different than our traditions.

  • http://tankrumblings.blogspot.com/ Sherman Nobles

    The primary foundation for most churches is their systematic theology. Upon this is built thier practical theology. If one then agrees with the systematic theology and practical theology, one can then be part of the church and love and respect God and one another together.

    I’ve come to believe that a church’s foundation should be just the opposite. Our love and respect for God and one another should be the foundation of our fellowship. In essence – “If you love and respect God and me, we can worship, study, fellowship together for I love and respect God and you.”

    This love and respect for God and one another then leads to practical righteousness and practical theology. How can we best love and serve God and one another together.

    The last and least important element of fellowship is our differing systematic theologies! Yes, we should study these things together in a spirit of grace and humility. Because you believe differently than I do about Trinity/Duality/Oneness, water baptism, Spirit Baptism, etc. does not and should not effect our love and respect for one another.