Belief Without Doctrine?

I was reading this morning of a church group that does not believe in adopting a doctrinal statement. The contention, they say, is that such statements of faith, or creeds of any kind, exclude people from fellowship. This church group, which is very large, with nearly 4000 churches, holds a decidedly liberal view of worship and faith, yet still claiming to be christian and Christ followers. Salvation, for them, can mean many things. It can mean deliverance of any kind. It seems that such deliverance is obtained through a kind of redirection of thinking, or a different outlook on things.

This is interesting. No creeds. No absolutes. But still church. That is convenient. Let's not exclude anyone by revealing the error of their ways to them. (Of course, if I am lost, it is the error of my way that I want defined, isn't it?)

This is not new thinking. The original creeds in 3rd and 4th centuries were intended as measuring rods of doctrine. The need for such a thing was becoming evident, as the New Testament church, with it's dogmatic belief in 'the Apostles doctrine', (Acts 2:42), was being contested by groups looking for something with a more liberal stance, or something that would not isolate those of differing beliefs.

There is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

I am glad for doctrine. I struggle with wrong thinking in my life, and I need to be reproved, admonished, by the standard of thought. For me, doctrine is God's way of informing me throughout life. Without it, my thinking becomes subjective, autonomous, and liberal (nonliteral, nonspecific, imprecise).

Oh, fyi, you can hear the leader of the church that I was reading about this morning speak, if you want. She is giving the inaugural sermon at the National Prayer Service on January 21st.

Hmmm...