Dude, absolutely. I’ve been reading abut how the early church approached Scripture lately, and I’m totally on board that formation (though, of course, they wouldn’t have used that language) was on their minds. When Athanasius and Tertullian talked about scripture, their concern was never “is this canonical?” or “what is the doctrinal point here?” But the question was usually, “Is this fit for liturgical use? Will our ecclesia be better equipped to imitate Christ through this?”
This is one of my favorite questions. Basically been asking it for almost 20 years since Bible college. One important aspect for me is the “how”. What is the manner and means by which “doctrine shapes our imagine” with “the right vision of who God actually is” so that we are “formed us into his image”? Lots of ways to answer this additional question, but imagination is definitely at the heart of it (which is why story and other more right-brain genres are essential). I’m reminded of this awesome statement from Eugene Peterson, someone who really grasped the necessity of combining imagination with doctrine:
“No matter how fancy and metaphysical a doctrine sounds, it was a human experience first. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, for instance. The place it began was not in the word processor of some fourth-century Greek theologian, but in the experience of basically untheological people who had known Jesus of Nazareth and found something happening to their lives that had never happened before….Unless you can somehow participate yourself in the experience that lies behind a doctrine, simply to subscribe to it doesn't mean much. Sometimes, however, simply to subscribe to a doctrine is the first step toward experiencing the reality that lies behind it.”
Interacting with doctrine as story is good, but I wonder about staying there. Back in February I wrote a brief acknowledgement of story and its' place in our lives and how during the end of the 19th and into the 20th century authors of our favourite books took their readers down a rabbit hole, through a looking glass or a painting or wardrobe, or some kind of portal into their world and then took us safely home. I wonder if that isn't the place of doctrine; as story with key truth to take home, but story none the less. I mean this in the best way possible, not that Jesus isn't God or to cast doubt on any of our core beliefs but in the sense that the Scriptures are comprised of polemics such that God may not be exactly how the scriptures say, but to their readers it got the point across enough to for them to acknowledge that God is the Eternally Powerful Divine One. I'm thinking of Middleknowledge where what God is, is so far above us that we can only understand Godself through polemic and therefore the narrative of the details of the polemic is largely inconsequential aside from the subject they are attempting to convey to our young minds.
Dude, absolutely. I’ve been reading abut how the early church approached Scripture lately, and I’m totally on board that formation (though, of course, they wouldn’t have used that language) was on their minds. When Athanasius and Tertullian talked about scripture, their concern was never “is this canonical?” or “what is the doctrinal point here?” But the question was usually, “Is this fit for liturgical use? Will our ecclesia be better equipped to imitate Christ through this?”
Love your stuff, man!
Yes! That’s exactly right.
Great stuff here, Ian. I’ve been wrestling with a lot of the same things in my writing, and “doctrine as formation” was helpful.
Glad it’s helpful! This was huge for me when it clicked.
This is one of my favorite questions. Basically been asking it for almost 20 years since Bible college. One important aspect for me is the “how”. What is the manner and means by which “doctrine shapes our imagine” with “the right vision of who God actually is” so that we are “formed us into his image”? Lots of ways to answer this additional question, but imagination is definitely at the heart of it (which is why story and other more right-brain genres are essential). I’m reminded of this awesome statement from Eugene Peterson, someone who really grasped the necessity of combining imagination with doctrine:
“No matter how fancy and metaphysical a doctrine sounds, it was a human experience first. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, for instance. The place it began was not in the word processor of some fourth-century Greek theologian, but in the experience of basically untheological people who had known Jesus of Nazareth and found something happening to their lives that had never happened before….Unless you can somehow participate yourself in the experience that lies behind a doctrine, simply to subscribe to it doesn't mean much. Sometimes, however, simply to subscribe to a doctrine is the first step toward experiencing the reality that lies behind it.”
That's phenomenal. Thanks for sharing that.
Well done, Ian. Nuanced and charitable, clear and helpful. Truly excellent.
Thanks, Nathan. Means a lot. Your and the TP’s fingerprints are all over this!
https://camiloj.substack.com/p/thinkers-feelers-and-doers?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&r=48bkpd&utm_medium=ios
Thanks for sharing Ian!! My favorite part was when you talk about how doctrine re-story us.
Here is something I wrote that might add to this conversation
Interacting with doctrine as story is good, but I wonder about staying there. Back in February I wrote a brief acknowledgement of story and its' place in our lives and how during the end of the 19th and into the 20th century authors of our favourite books took their readers down a rabbit hole, through a looking glass or a painting or wardrobe, or some kind of portal into their world and then took us safely home. I wonder if that isn't the place of doctrine; as story with key truth to take home, but story none the less. I mean this in the best way possible, not that Jesus isn't God or to cast doubt on any of our core beliefs but in the sense that the Scriptures are comprised of polemics such that God may not be exactly how the scriptures say, but to their readers it got the point across enough to for them to acknowledge that God is the Eternally Powerful Divine One. I'm thinking of Middleknowledge where what God is, is so far above us that we can only understand Godself through polemic and therefore the narrative of the details of the polemic is largely inconsequential aside from the subject they are attempting to convey to our young minds.
For those interested: https://open.substack.com/pub/dlbacon/p/there-and-back-again?r=2v2ne0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web