Introduction
“Keep your doctrine. Just give me Jesus.”
Perhaps we’ve heard it before: “Doctrine is not that important—what’s important is that we’re experiencing Jesus.”
In J. Gresham Machen’s (1881-1937) day, liberalism championed this teaching:
“Christianity is a life, not a doctrine.”
Leaving aside the doctrinal nature of this statement (!), is it true?
While it’s certainly true that one ought to avoid “cold orthodoxy, which is precise in doctrine but lacks heartfelt devotion,”1 liberalism takes it a step further and uproots the life of the disciple from objective facts about the person and work of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. This is a fatal mistake.
Let’s examine liberalism—then and now—its posture toward “doctrine,” and see the beautiful results when doctrine is taken seriously in the Christian life. As a garden without water or a car without fuel, the Christian life without doctrine will lack beauty and go nowhere fast.
Liberalism & Doctrine
Theological liberalism has essentially made three claims:
Christianity is a life, not a doctrine.
According to Machen, liberals in his day promoted the experience of Jesus, however that is achieved, as true Christianity, not the announcement of facts. If this sounds familiar, it’s because this still rears its head today in the form of Progressive Christianity, which has made its way into many modern evangelical churches.
Men like Phillip Gulley and Richard Rohr have restated this claim as follows: “Gracious behavior is more important than right belief.”2 People who are overly concerned with doctrine, argues Gulley, can be likened to the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. Their problem was their “fixation on orthodoxy” and their “misguided quest for theological purity.”3 Michael Kruger summarizes their accusation: “If you care about orthodoxy, you are probably just another Pharisee.”4
You can be a Christian without doctrine
In the mind of the liberal, doctrine ultimately doesn’t matter since it is only one expression of the divine in every age. In other words, orthodox Christianity is just a myth crafted by those who want to be exclusive and hold the corner on truth.
In the modern day, Progressive Christianity builds a slightly different structure with the same scaffolding or foundation. For instance, Tim Whitaker, with The New Evangelicals (along with many others)5, will emphasize doubt and uncertainty as key features of Christianity.6
What ensues is a flattening of various doctrines. No triage. No bucket reserved for essentials. Questioning the timing of the “rapture” can be granted equal standing with the truth of the resurrection, the deity of Jesus, or the inerrancy of Scripture.7 In Tim’s mind, there are no “essential doctrines,” and one cannot be certain what constitutes true-blue Christianity. It can be different in every age.8 Therefore, you can claim the name “Christian” and question or hold beliefs that depart from the apostolic witness since the beginning.
“Doctrine” emerges from the debates of the “subtleties” of the theologians.
Doctrine is not helpful, claims the liberal, but the fruit of worthless musing, hair-splitting, and the subtleties of theologians.
What are these “subtleties”? What causes scholars and pastors to get tied up in their theological underwear? The liberal would say the virgin birth of Jesus; the deity of Jesus; the resurrection of Jesus; the divine origins of the Bible. To get hung up on these things is to defend a defenseless cause and waste your time.
Thankfully, the Apostle Paul and Jesus firmly (yet graciously) push back.
Counterpunches from Paul… & Jesus
1 Corinthians 15:3-6
Paul the Apostle, a man directly appointed by Jesus to speak on His behalf, declares to the church that he is passing on something “of first importance.” And what is it?
It’s a message. A doctrine: a teaching this church “received,” in which they “stand” and “are being saved.” Shockingly, after giving them sound Christ-focused ethics in the first 14 chapters, he starts this section by announcing historical facts that are even more foundational:
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:3–6).
Look at how simple Paul makes the concept of “doctrine.” It’s merely the facts of history, followed by the meaning of those facts.
“Christ died”: This is history. “Christ died for our sins”: This is doctrine!9
As Machen confessed, without these two things together, according to Paul, there is no Christianity. If these facts aren’t, well, facts, we are the most to be pitied.
Galatians 1:6-9
In context, Paul is admonishing the believers to embrace the true gospel over against this other “gospel” that was being smuggled into the church—a gospel that says one can be justified by faith and works of the law.
But then Paul thunders the anathema:
“…But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Ga 1:8–9).
Clearly for Paul, the gospel—the good news upon which Christianity is built—is not just “a life” but a teaching, one that can be polluted, denied, or verified at the expense of their eternal destiny. In Paul’s mind, the statement “Christianity is a life, not a doctrine” is an extraterrestrial intruder that should be unrecognizable to any true disciple of Jesus.
For Paul, and the primitive church, there was a bucket reserved for “essential beliefs” without which there is no Christianity.
“Yeah, but that’s Paul! We follow the teachings of Jesus.”
So be it:
Matthew 5-7 “The Sermon on the Mount”
This entire sermon by Jesus has been described as one big “do” message. It may seem that way on the surface, but upon closer examination, that line of reasoning fails.
Jesus has baked doctrine into the cake of the whole sermon. For example, notice the repeated refrain: “But I say unto you…” He says this after stating God’s law, not to nullify the law, but as if to clarify and say, “What I meant when I wrote that to Moses was this…”
Machen observed how liberals would not uphold Jesus as merely a “master teacher” if He was exalting Himself as supreme and authoritative as in the above refrain. To instruct someone in the Old Testament law is one thing. To declare “But I say unto you…” and announce the supremacy of His person is quite another. He’s not just a teacher; but God in the flesh Whose teaching is as authoritative as God’s law spoken from heaven and inscripturated for future readers.
Moreover, in Matthew 7:21-29, we don’t just see Jesus the good teacher or the wise sage; we see Him take the place of judge.
Machen directly commented on this text:
…have those who quote the passage so triumphantly in this way ever stopped to reflect upon the other side of the picture—upon the stupendous fact that in this same passage the eternal destinies of men are made dependent upon the word of Jesus? Jesus here represents Himself as seated on the judgment-seat of all the earth, separating whom He will forever from the bliss that is involved in being present with Him. Could anything be further removed than such a Jesus from the humble teacher of righteousness appealed to by modern liberalism? Clearly it is impossible to escape from theology, even in the chosen precincts of the Sermon on the Mount. A stupendous theology, with Jesus’ own Person at the centre of it, is the presupposition of the whole teaching.10
Mark 1:14-15
The evangelist here lets us in on Jesus’ first recorded words when He began his public ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).
Some may want to twist these words to speak of a subjective experience that involves expanding your mind and being transformed into a societal and cultural contrarian. Rather, Jesus is preaching about the inauguration of the long-awaited kingdom of God, which Israel would have been anticipating.
After being delivered from slavery and passing through the Red Sea, witnessing Yahweh’s rule over the floating Egyptians, the Israelites declared, “The LORD will reign forever and ever” (Exodus 15:18). Their declaration of Kingship was not a subjective experience of God reigning in their hearts; it was dependent upon a theologically pregnant, redemptive-historical act they had just witnessed.
Thus, when Jesus declares kingship, it’s dependent upon a fact that He has now arrived on the scene to offer a “gospel,” a royal announcement of “news.” “News,” by definition, is the announcement of facts or events, without which “experience” is baseless.
Mark 10:45
“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
Notice the word “for,” which serves as a ground for what came before. Christ reveals to His disciples what true greatness is: humbly serving others. What a good life to lead!
But what grounds the life?
A historical event—the Son of Man coming to serve and give His life as a ransom for man. No doctrine, no life of humble service.
Therefore, doctrine logically comes first, and experience flows from it, for better or for worse. The question is not whether doctrine is taking center stage, but what kind of doctrine has captivated your attention?
The Proper Place of Doctrine
As stated above, Christian Doctrine is simply the declaration of historical facts along with their meaning. It grounds the Apostle’s earliest message and the entirety of the Christian life. Machen wrote,
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. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church.11
The problem with today’s evangelical (and EXvangelical) culture may actually be the lack of theological precision or certainty, not the promotion of it. The objective facts of the person and work of Christ must not be accommodated to a post-Christian culture; they must be proclaimed and upheld as we allow them to fuel our Christian experience.
Modern progressives such as Tim Whitaker enjoy proclaiming their “EUREKA!” over others, telling them that certainty in doctrine is the crux of our problem. We should look back at Tim with tearful eyes and say, “Where else are we going to go? This Jesus, and Him alone, has the words of eternal life” (See John 6:68).
The statement, “Keep your doctrine, just give me Jesus,” is crippling the church because you cannot have one without the other. So dive in! Go deep! And, as you study the doctrines of Christ and His grace, Scripture and salvation, remember the proper place of doctrine.
Dr. Michael Horton describes doctrine and theology as the lights which brighten the runway for a plane. When a plane is landing, it doesn’t land on the lights. It lands on the runway.
Same with us. Doctrine guides our way so we land on Jesus; our great end is to worship, know, adore, experience, and savor Him. Thus, any hike up the path of doctrine that doesn’t lead to the scenic view of the Savior as revealed in Scripture is a superficial side quest.
Conclusion
Life and doctrine are inseparable, but order matters. So let’s adjust the liberal statement a bit: Christianity is a doctrine, then a life—Ah, that’s better.
Ironically, if someone says, “Keep your doctrine. I just want Jesus.” You immediately have to ask, “Who is Jesus?” The next words out of their mouths will be either false doctrine or sound doctrine, but doctrine nonetheless.12
It is unavoidable.
Richard Rhor & Phillip Gulley, https://cac.org/daily-meditations/returning-to-essentials-2017-11-30/
Phillip Gulley, If the Church Were Christian, p. 67, HarperOne, 2011.
Michael Kruger, The Ten Commandments of Progressive Christianity, p. 22, CruciformPress, 2019
Above is a good example of a liberal-ish mindset. Very clearly, the man in this video who claims Christianity (Jason Becker) stresses uncertainty right out of the gate, yet finds “certainty” in the kind of life one needs to live after Jesus.
They claim uncertainty is inherent to Christianity, but when it comes to practices such as homosexuality or abortion, what do we get? We get certainty rather than doubt.
See this displayed in his interview with Peter Enns.
See his debate with Austin Molt.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 23
Ibid, 31.
Ibid, 25.
Shai Linne, T4G, 2022.