A New Year, A New Way of Thinking...

Well it has been some time since I lasted posted to this site, and I apologize for my tardiness.  We've had a full and wonderful holiday season, with friends and family all around.  As we begin a new study on Sundays, I have been forced to examine my spiritual journey, both its peaks and valleys, its triumphs and its struggles.  In the past year I've become more aware of what I bring to my journey, the lens through which I look, and the influences that have shaped my present understandings.

One question that we barely had time to touch on last week was the idea of "Right Doctrine."  It is a concept we have explored throughout 2010 and in light of our last class, I'm churning it over once again.  Is there such a thing as "Right Doctrine?"  In our faith communities, doctrine has been seen as a codification of beliefs, a summation of our position.  However, according to Merriam-Webster, doctrine is defined as, "teaching or instruction; something that is taught."  When looked at in this light, it appears to be more of a process than a result.  Although it may be semantics, I think the idea of "Right Doctrine" suggests that our goal is to find a singular understanding and practice.  While this tempting idea has found life in our tradition, I'm not sure that the Bible, as a whole, supports this idea.  It's not a matter of right v. wrong, which I believe truly exists, but a matter of "one-size-fits-all."  This is the inherent tendency in calling something "right," and scripture clearly demonstrates, from Genesis to Revelation, that our spiritual journeys are not "one-size-fits-all."  Further, when God chooses to interact with His creation, it is not a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

I'm reminded of my search for the "perfect bible."  I asked a lot of people about their opinion, explaining that I wanted something that provided insight and background, but was not promoting one opinion or understanding.  I wanted a lot of information, but not a lot of opinion.  I was told that what I should look for, based on my criteria, was a "version" not a "translation."  Why?  Because a version has been formed by many scholars, it's ideas have been vetted and considered by more than a single mind, and the result is the work of a group, not an individual.  The current version I'm using has been the work of dozens upon dozens of leading scholars, and that's just what I wanted.  I enjoy the Message for it's particular viewpoint, but it's a translation by a single person, which can be helpful and intriguing, but not necessary a good foundation for learning.  There are many translations and single-piont-of-view commentaries out there, each with their own understanding, agenda, and benefit, but in the end they are just that, one person's opinion.  I'm cautious of basing my understanding a single personal point of view.

So how does this all fit with "Right Doctrine?"  Like reading a single individual's commentary or a translation, it assumes that one size should fit all, removing our personal experiences, the benefits of multiple educated views, and the room to let God exercise a prerogative.  I think in the end I prefer "sound doctrine."  We all have a different, personal relationship with God; that is a foundation of our tradition. As a result, we may not all understand scripture the same, we may not all glean the same teaching and we may not all agree as to how that teaching speaks to us today.  Simply put, no amount of effort will EVER result in everyone agreeing on the exact same understanding of scripture.  It hasn't happened in the last 2000 years, there's no reason to believe it will be different today.  So with that in mind, an attempt at "Right Doctrine,"  seems to me to be, as the writer of Ecclesiastes might say, "chasing after the wind."  But "sound doctrine," using scholarly methods of exegesis (attempting to understand what the text meant to those it was written to) combined with ongoing personal experiences, community involvement and developing faith, might just result in a hermeneutic (application to today) born of a sound process.  Simply, sound doctrine would be the result of a sound process.  Our understanding will surely not be the same, but that is not a problem.  It will be a personal understanding born of a sound doctrine, influenced by many and personalized by our own experience with God.  Moreover, because it is a process, it lacks the finality of "rightness" and develops the idea that it will be ongoing, ever open to examining the process and its results, providing opportunity for more learning and more refining.  Whereas "Right Doctrine" anticipates an arrival at an understanding upon which the seeker never has to waiver, "sound doctrine" eludes to an ongoing activity, built on a firm foundation but with room for further improvement and understanding.  Sound doctrine allows God to continue to work in us and allows God to do so individually, without losing sight of the goal.