Those pesky "shelf doctrines"

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm by Roger E. Olson

Those pesky "shelf doctrines" 2011-08-18T19:31:18-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In his very readable book Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport (2004) Fuller Seminary president Richard M0uw describes limited atonement as his “shelf doctrine.” In other words, it’s a doctrine he believes in but doesn’t quite know what to do with. Occasionally he takes it down, dusts it off and thinks about it. He believes in it, but not enthusiastically. Well, that’s how I interpret what he says.

I won’t put words in Mouw’s mouth, but I think in most cases (whether in his or not) believers have at least one doctrine they are supposed to believe in because of their denominational affiliation or tradition but about which they have serious mental reservations or are simply embarrassed by them.

I know many Baptists who have serious doubts about unconditional eternal security but would never deny it because to do so would endanger their comfortable position in Baptist life. I don’t mean they are being cynical about it. They really do just sort of cross their fingers behind their backs and whistle to themselves and convince themselves it’s not important enough to make an issue of denying it. They may even “sort of” believe it, but only to avoid being the center of a controversy.

I know many Pentecostals who “sort of” believe in speaking in tongues as the “initial, physical evidence” of the Baptist of the Holy Spirit, but only reluctantly. They are conflicted about it and maybe even have very serious mental reservations about it, but they keep on affirming it just to stay comfortably in their denomination or tradition.

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.

I know people who belong to Reformed denominations that have strong doctrinal statements about predestination who don’t really believe “all that stuff” but continue to work within their denomination because in some vague sense they still “feel Reformed” and don’t want to go elsewhere. Where else would they go? Leaving would be a major crisis–even within their families.

I know what that can be like. I left my Pentecostal denomination and Pentecostalism itself even though many of my relatives are there. It was like divorcing my family–at least for a while. (Eventually they forgave me, but things were never quite the same.) I certainly understand people who can’t bring themselves to quit just because they don’t agree with what their denomination has on paper. They have a ministry there; their families are there; their livelihoods are there; their hearts are there. Only their minds aren’t completely there and they can live with that by repressing cognitive dissonance and any feelings of dishonesty that may arise from time to time.

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).

So what’s my point? Well, I’m not surprised if some, perhaps many, Seventh-day Adventists have qualms and mental reservations about some of the doctrines people posting here (and elsewhere) have dug up to “prove” the SDA church is a “cult.” I wouldn’t be surprised if, in fact, many of the leaders have mental reservations about some of them–at least as they have been interpreted and practiced in the past.

I don’t judge a whole denomination and everyone in it by every tenet the group ever wrote down as official belief. My question is how much weight a doctrinal tenet really carries among the faithful and especially among the leaders? And how is that being interpreted today?

For example, I have gone out of my way to find a pastor or theologian of a Wesleyan denomination who will come to my class and strongly affirm and defend the doctrine of instantaneous entire sanctification–the “second blessing” in traditional Holiness doctrine. I haven’t found many. Most seem embarrassed by it and “interpret” it so that it is really little different, if at all, from what Baptists believe about “consecration” and “living a devout life.” Should they leave their denominations? Especially not in view of the fact that probably MOST of the leaders and pastors have come to interpet it their way. But what’s down on paper looks quite different from that.

So the Seventh-day Adventist church has believed (and still has on paper) some to me rather strange tenets about Ellen G. White and about the end times and about law-keeping. What I heard in Michigan was a very relaxed, flexible interpretation of those things and a very strong affirmation of belief in Protestant orthodoxy. What am I going to take seriously? I prefer to think that perhaps, like virtually every other denomination of any age, the SDA denomination is evolving which includes some gentle re-interpreting of some doctrines that may be on paper but cause them some discomfort. What’s on paper usually changes more slowly than what’s in people’s minds and hearts.

I prefer to practice a hermeneutic of charity rather than of suspicion especially with those who are considered outsiders. That doesn’t mean being gullible. I definitely do NOT agree with some traditional tenets of the SDA church. Nevertheless, I choose to be encouraged and optimistic about the future of evangelical faith within the SDA church. I will celebrate movement in the right direction rather than rely on tired, old arguments from anti-cult sources.

Besides, way back in the 1950s the venerable Donald Grey Barnhouse, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, radio preacher, Bible commentary author and publisher of Eternity magazine announced publicly, after much research, that the SDA church is not a cult (in the sense the word meant back then). In other words, he declared it a Christian denomination while continuing to disagree with some of its teachings. Walter Martin agreed. So let’s bury the hatchet and give all the encouragement we can to those evangelicals within the SDA church who are nudging it in the right direction even while holding onto certain “shelf doctrines” that evangelicals find strange or even aberrant.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 20, 2010

A word about that awful word "cult"

Next Post

October 23, 2010 Liberal theology

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Four beasts rose from the sea—one like a lion with eagle's wings, one like a bear, one like a leopard, and a fourth terrifying beast. What did these represent?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Four kingdoms Four kings Four judgments Four ages