Wheat and tares. Silver and dross. The spirit of truth and the spirit of error. These things should not be mixed. The Seventh-day Adventist movement is particularly keen on this principle. Consider them a denomination of fact-checkers and truthers, if you will. Adventists often note how Jesus warned of the leaven of the Pharisees: hypocritical teachings that spread like yeast and corrupt. If knowledge is power, then false knowledge is slavery. The One Project is a Christian organization geared toward Adventist audiences. It's a well-meaning, yet controversial project criticized for supplanting scriptural knowledge with the sole teaching of "Jesus. All." A particular One Project lecture entitled "Doctrine" reveals the paradoxical result of mixing truth and error.
The lecture was given in 2012 to a Seattle audience by Mark Witas (Don't blame the messenger; The One Project is bigger than any one person). Opening with a reflection on the word "doctrine," Witas evokes the word's postmodern connotation: "It's such a cold-sounding word, isn't it? It sounds like something that you would etch in the stone." Relating doctrine to the Ten Commandments may have simply been a misfired shock factor tactic. Surely there are several things more cold and heartless than urging people not to steal and kill each other. But the comedy of errors continues.
"Doctrine!" he says with all the guttural rasp he can muster, "It sounds like a place where really good ideas go to die." If really good ideas are dying in a doctrine graveyard, then maybe the word itself needs changing rather than the good ideas. But this is simply semantics.
Speaking of which, let's demystify this archaic term that Witas frames in such a dismal lens. Merriam-Webster states that doctrine is "a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true ("Doctrine." Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed October 7, 2016. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine). Hence, the term "doctrine" is morally neutral. Just as plainly as you know good music from bad music, there exists both good doctrine and bad doctrine.
Witas poses that many in the Seventh-day Adventist church believe that doctrine separates them from other churches. Though this may not be the whole purpose of doctrine, Witas singles out this function as "a gross misunderstanding of what doctrine is for."
Excuse me for thinking, but when major churches teach that God will keep certain people alive forever just to torture them, then I'd say it's a damn good reason to separate (pardon the pun).
Instead of separation, Witas suggests that doctrine's only purpose should be to biblically define the God that we love. This is indeed one of the functions of doctrine. In fact, all true doctrine reveals the loving character of God (more on that later).
The One Project lecture then refers to ancient Israel's doctrine as a "cult of worship," saying, "They fell into the horrible trap of having their doctrine define and separate them as a people." Huh... Weren't the biggest examples of Old Testament Godlessness when certain kings of Israel failed to keep their customs separate from other cultures (e.g. Solomon in I Kings 11:1-13, and Manasseh in 2 Kings 21:1-16)? Inter-religious marriage seemed to be the biggest temptation in this regard (Ezra 10:10-11). The most notorious example was King Ahab's marriage to Jezebel, which turned nearly the entire Jewish nation to unrestrained idol worship.
Perhaps this shady doctrine stuff can be wished away with a catchy tag line. Witas obliges: "The sabbath: Has it become our Messiah? Or have we allowed the Messiah to become our sabbath?" Wait... what? I mean, I've heard people claim the whole "Jesus is my sabbath" spiel, essentially arguing for the omission of the fourth commandment from God's Decalogue. But seriously... does it mean that Jesus is the opposite of work? Does that mean work is evil? Or is Jesus literally every seventh day? It would have helped his case with the Pharisees if, instead of claiming Lordship over the sabbath, he said, "I AM the sabbath!" and then *poof* evaporated into pure time.
And then, in classic One Project style, Witas oversimplifies to the detriment of sound logos. "Jesus is the doctrine of God," he says. This replaces those "really good ideas" with a vague metaphor at best. What does it even mean? Is Jesus literally a belief or idea? Fortunately, Witas cleans up his former statement with, "Jesus is the revelation of the true character of God." Now that's biblical (John 14:7-11)!
Witas sites the apostasy that developed into the Roman Catholic church. "The church began to create doctrine to define and separate itself." True, the Roman tradition created much doctrine, building upon the shoulders of philosophers such as Origen and Augustine. But was separation really the goal? Why then would Rome adopt pagan imagery from all corners of the earth? Isis and Horus icons, Dagon mitres, ouroboros serpents, and Mithraic mystery rites began to saturate their churches, welcoming foreigners through familiar media and paying homage to the true origin of the mixed doctrines.
"It started to teach things about God that created a gulf between the Father and his people," Witas said, addressing the mediatrix hierarchy of Roman Catholicism. This non-biblical doctrine pushed believers away from their God. Instead of praying and confessing to the Father, they were made to consult human sources: a church official given the blasphemous title of Father (Matthew 23:8-12), and dead people canonized as saints such as Mother Mary, or Saint Anne (say her name five times fast).
To sum up the Roman conspiracy, Witas rightfully declared that "They elevated the teachings and traditions of man above the will of God and above the teachings of scripture." Remember the Webster definition? In other words, the entire history of "Christian" Rome shows how false doctrine is more corrupting of sound doctrine than anyone could have expected.
"Be careful what you teach." Witas pleads, marking a righteous turning point in his message. Maybe teaching is not so cold after all, depending on what is taught.
What does this mean for the Adventist movement? To teach, or not to teach? Witas recommends that its primary purpose "is to tell the world the truth about God. To dispel the false picture of God that the church has saturated the world with for centuries." Aw--Preach!
He continues: "And I believe that the books of Daniel and Revelation prophesy about the rise of a people that would be given the task to clean up the lies about God that have been spread throughout this world." Amen brother!
Witas recounts a time when he witnessed to a dying woman in a hospital. The woman was afraid that she may not want to live forever with a God who would be causing her husband to suffer eternally in hellfire. "Can I share something with you?" Witas asked, and they proceeded to study the Bible. When they were finished, the now joyful woman was ready, and even eager, to see the merciful Day of God's Judgment.
Witas concludes, "I love our doctrine, and doctrine can be a good thing." He goes on to say, "I believe that each doctrine of this church holds dear as a wonderful revelation of God's character." This is no doubt one of doctrine's most important purposes. "If our doctrine doesn't clarify a loving God as displayed by Jesus while he was here on this earth, we have to redefine our doctrine." But really, if doctrine does not teach love, then it is not biblical doctrine at all. Sola Scriptura is the faith, hope, and love of Christ. Anything else is human philosophy.
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. - II Timothy 4:1-5 NASB
