As I was reading from the book of Titus this morning, something jumped out at me. In Tit 2.1, Paul commands Titus to "speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine". The following verses then describe what those doctrinal things are, all of which have to do with godly living in our daily lives, i.e. being temperate, dignified, sensible, reverent, pure, kind, loving your husbands, etc. What jumped out at me was Paul’s use of the words "sound doctrine" to represent things all of which have to do with practical daily living. Yet when we speak of "doctrine" today, we usually refer to those kinds of things we might call "religious matters", i.e. teachings about the resurrection, the nature of God, faith and works, justification, the corporate work and activities of the church, divorce and remarriage and things like these. We speak of these things as "doctrinal issues" and separate them out from "practical issues" of daily living. In doing so, it seems to me that we make at least three mistakes.

First, by separating "doctrinal issues" from "practical matters" of daily living, we give the faulty impression that the Bible makes such a distinction when in fact it does not. The word "doctrine" here is the Greek didaskalia, which simply means "teaching, instruction, learning". It refers to teaching and instruction on any and every matter of spiritual life.

Secondly, in making such a distinction between teachings that have to do with matters of "religion" (doctrine) as opposed to matters of ethical and moral behavior (practice), we fail to recognize how interconnected these two things are. How we live our daily lives has much to do with what we believe. If there is any distinction at all between these two things, then one is the basis of the other. My beliefs on such things as the nature of God, the means of justification, the future resurrection of the body and the nature of the church will affect how I live my life. Spiritual truths always have implications to be lived out on this earth, whether we can see the connection or not.

Thirdly, in separating "doctrine" from "practical life", we tend to make one more important than the other. Which one you make more important may depend on how "conservative" or "liberal" you are (I normally try to avoid such fuzzy and judgmental labels, but please bear with me while I make a point). A "conservative" tends to make "doctrine" more important. How many "conservative" Christians are there who would never compromise on such "doctrinal issues" as instrumental music in worship, male spiritual leadership, divorce and remarriage and the question of hell, yet who fail to love and respect their wives or husbands, neglect to train their children in the ways of the Lord, become tyrants behind the wheel and cheat on their taxes? On the other hand, how many "liberals" are there who see such "doctrinal matters" as trivial, non-salvation issues and who are equally loose on matters of personal purity, modesty and submission? I don’t say this to judge anyone, but simply to point out how separating doctrine and practical living has consequences. While certainly some doctrine is more important than other doctrine (Mt 23.23), "all scripture is…profitable for teaching (doctrine), for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…" (2 Tim 3.16). So let us be careful about making artificial distinctions.

© 2006 Randy Hohf