My well-intentioned Bible College Professors routinely chanted the party mantra, “Don’t let your experience dictate your doctrine.”  That did then, and probably always will, bother me.  Why?  Several reasons.  First, I think it’s unnatural.  Second, I think it’s incomplete.  Third, I think it’s unbiblical.

 The Nature of Maturing

     I don’t believe the same things I believed 20 years ago and I sincerely hope no one does.  There is a natural process of physical, emotional and even spiritual maturation to which no one is immune.  When I was young I believed all cats were girls and all dogs were boys.  Who didn’t?  It was a universal truth recognized by every kid in my neighborhood.  Ill-informed, older (and in our opinion, dumber) siblings fired their lies at us like missiles, “That’s stupid.  Don’t believe it. Are you a moron?”   But we were impregnable.  They expected us to believe them without offering us any legitimate reason why.  We were dumb but we weren’t stupid.  We clinged to our theory, but now…now we would be more secretive about it lest the uninformed siblings force their flawed opinions on us.

     Parents weren’t much help either.  I now understand why.  I wasn’t ready to understand the whole sperm/egg thing.  I think parents were afraid of the questions that naturally follow these inevitable inquisitions.  Questions like, “How did I get here?” or “Why do I have a belly button?”  Even though I maintained the cat/dog theory until my late twenties, I still wondered about my origin.  I asked that question over and over; however, my Dad’s attempt to let humor diffuse the inevitable bomb diminished as my queries grew in both frequency and intensity-I simply never quit asking.   When I’d ask about my arrival he would respond with something hilarious.  For example:

 

Young Louie:            “Dad, how did I get here?”

Older/Wiser Dad: “You’d be amazed at what shows up after an evening of drinking and bowling.:

Young Louie: “Dad, come on.  I’m serious.”

Dad: “Hi serious, I’m Tiny…How the hell are ya?  Nice to meet ya.”

 

     When my feeble attempts succumbed to his invincible humor, I knew nothing more of my origin than this: Dad was one of the funniest people I know; gut-wrenching hilarious.  Biology would later explain why that humor shows up in my family as well.  At the right time, naturally, my parents explained “stuff” to me.  I thought it was due to my incessant questioning.  I now know they were simply prolonging the process until I could, in some way, understand it.

     Parents were not so much “afraid” of our knowing the answers, they knew we were too immature to understand the implications of the complete truth.  All of us eventually learned the truth; some sooner than others, naturally.  But our parents let us languish in the realm of incomplete accuracy because we were not yet old enough to handle the full, complete truth.  They didn’t deceive us.  They didn’t allow us to believe an overt lie.  No!  They simply allowed us to exhaust the innocence of not knowing completely how dogs and cats reproduce.  So, as Spring’s air filled the animal world with the primal noises of pet libido, we simply lay in bed each April night listening to the cats “wrestle.”  And, as we rode our bikes to school and noticed two dogs, “entangled and fighting,” we knew the truth…dogs liked “wrestling” too.  Cats wrestle at night; dogs wrestle during the day.  That’s the main difference between the two animals and that was the truth…as  best as we could understand it.  Our parents’ love for us allowed us the protective place of incomplete understanding while their trust in us assured them that we’d eventually understand.   I look at God and doctrine in similar light.

 Doctrine Doesn’t Mature…We Do

     What universal truth is “truer” now than, say, a thousand years ago?  None.  Truth is truth and is definitively unchanging; thus, the term “truth.”  If it is just as true now as then, what has changed?  Doctrine?  The teaching of doctrine as our basis for understanding truth?  No!  What has changed?  We have changed, not doctrine.  I don’t believe any more or less in the Holy Spirit than I did 20 years ago when I was saved.  Do I KNOW more about Him now?  Yes, my understanding of Him has become more complete…more accurate, if you will.  Is it because I have radically changed my doctrine?  No.  It is because my life’s experience, which includes more and more time in the Word of, Worship of and Work of Jesus, has increased.  My life is catching up to my theology.  I’ve always believed in the Holy Spirit, I was simply incapable of understanding Him to the degree that I now do.  Did God allow me to bask in false doctrine?  Erroneous teaching?  No!  Incomplete understanding?  YES!  He, like my parents, allowed me to wallow in the innocence of my spiritual age without forcing me to learn the wonderful things about Him that accompanied my spiritual maturation.  He allowed me, because of His protective love for me, to exhaust the innocence and purity of simple belief.  His protection of my innocence and searching, even meandering, trusted that my unquenchable thirst for Him would eventually lead me to the place of understanding I now occupy.  His decision was right and I’m grateful for it.  Guess what?  My understanding will be even more complete and fulfilling in the next 20 years.

 The Bible…filled with people whose stories exhibit incomplete doctrine.

Let me offer a few examples:

 

Acts 10: 

     When Peter was summoned to the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, he had a vision just previous to his arrival.  God showed him in this vision that no animal was unclean.  As a life-long, devout Jew, this would be against Peter’s “doctrine” yet the vision was real and clearly from the Lord.  Peter didn’t wonder if the vision was real nor did he question whether it was from God.  Peter was confused only to its precise meaning.  Meaning that would ONLY be clarified via experience NOT the recollection of doctrinal uniformity.  Peter still wondered about its meaning in Acts10:17 and still in Acts 10:19; however, God soon brought clarity to Peter’s incomplete doctrine by “showing” him that Gentiles would embrace the gospel too.  As Peter preached, the Holy Spirit confirmed the message through a manifestation of His presence…the gift of tongues, (Acts 10:44-46).  It had always been God’s heart to include Gentiles as His people; Peter’s doctrine couldn’t see that. However, Peter’s incomplete doctrine was given levity when he saw the manifestation of God’s Spirit.  What was his response?  Peter proclaimed full acceptance of Gentiles based on the manifestation of the Spirit despite having doctrinal issues with such activity just days before this experience.  Which, on that occasion, served Peter more fully?   His doctrine?  No.  His experience of the Holy Spirit.  His incomplete doctrine would’ve never led him to Caesarea, it took a manifestation of God for Peter to experience the full understanding of God’s purpose.  Without a vision, an angel speaking and the manifestation of the Spirit via tongues, we would still have Peter being bound by the incomplete understanding of his tradition’s doctrine rather than the outpouring of God’s  Spirit, (Which, incidentally, was included in Peter’s doctrine as a Jew.  He simply needed to read the prophets without his traditional lenses.)

 Acts 9:

     Paul, like Peter, a life-long, devout Jew, had been raised on the Law.  His doctrine was the foundation of his zeal for God.  On at least two occasions his doctrine didn’t measure up to his experience of God.  First, the road to Damascus completely turned Saul/Paul around.  Did he disregard the Law?  Did he consider the Law useless?  No, in Jesus, Saul/Paul found the fulfillment of the Law.  Had he not experienced the Lord, Saul would’ve continued the course his doctrine set before him.  What did his doctrine lead him to do?  It lead Saul to destroy the Way; Jesus, the perverter of perfect doctrine.  As a believer, I’m glad Paul viewed his experience with Jesus as real and life-changing.  We’d all be in trouble had Paul listened to his OT Law  professor from the University of Tarsus encouraging him to continue in his zeal for the Law.  Instead, Paul allowed God to initiate the maturity of his doctrine through an experience with Jesus.  Paul’s reaction?  He concluded that his zeal for the Law is made complete by Jesus.  Paul’s zeal was correctly channeled because of an experience with God; not by what his incomplete doctrine had taught him.

 

Galatians 2:

     Secondly, had Titus met Paul previous to the maturation of his understanding of the Law (by revelation from Jesus) Titus WOULD have been compelled to be circumcised.  Why not in Galatians 2?  Because Paul had seen the work of God among Gentiles leading him to conclude that Jewish Law for a proselytized believer was unnecessary even though the Law called for it.  Which spoke louder to Paul?  The years of doctrine or the work the Holy Spirit was doing in his ministry to Gentiles?  The answer is obvious.  Titus’ pencil remained unsharpened ONLY because of Paul’s experience with Jesus, not his doctrine about Him.

 

John 9:

     Here is another example of Jesus bringing a full, or mature, understanding of God’s teaching.  The Jews want Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath to be an issue.  Jesus puzzles them with this miracle.  Their doctrine said healing was a work and therefore could not be performed on the Sabbath.  Their doctrine also dictated that only a man of God could perform miracles.  Ahh, the complications, then, of a man performing a miracle on the Sabbath.  It wasn’t that Jesus got off on offending people.  It was simply this: He got off on showing people that their understanding of God could not be contained by mere doctrine…He is a God you could and should experience.  This man who had been healed experienced God in a way that the teachers of doctrine could not understand.  Why?  Because they REFUSED to let their doctrine be shaped in any way by experience.  In so doing, they not only missed the Messiah, they hated Him.  Expect similar attitude from folks who elevate doctrine about Jesus above relationship with Jesus.

     In conclusion, my purpose in writing these thoughts is not to suggest that experience is the best teacher of doctrine.  No.  I teach and believe unabashedly in the Word of God and place a supreme importance on knowing His Word.  What I am suggesting is this:  God is bigger than our understanding of correct doctrine.  We always assume our doctrine to be correct.  In assuming so, I think we miss out on some of the most incredible experiences of God.  Not because of false doctrine or erroneous doctrine; but rather, because of incomplete doctrine.  He will do things in us that will confuse and compound our tight, impregnable doctrine if we will do simply one thing…Let Him be God.  God does NOT violate His Word, EVER.  However, He is constantly challenging our “brilliant” interpretations of His purpose and His Word as we experience Him.  Sometimes we’re incomplete in our understanding of His Word.  So what shall teach us, then?  Our experience of Him!  The Pharisees did not believe in healing on the Sabbath.  Jesus didn’t heal in order to bring about a new doctrine; He healed to show them that their understanding of God’s heart was immature and incomplete.  It didn’t defy the Law; it fulfilled it.  It didn’t defy the Sabbath; it fulfilled God’s purpose for it.  The Pharisees incorrectly concluded that Jesus was healing people by the power of the Satan.  If we deny the miraculous work of God and our experience of Him, have we not concluded the same thing?