Which comes first, the Chicken or the Egg...ie, Doctrine or morality? In another thread, Michael Wrenn said this: (not trying to attack, he may come and clarify his position...these are what I believe to be the relevant quotes for what I see as a potential danger): So it sounds like Doctrinal matters are mostly up for debate, but "traditional moral values" are not. I suppose the problem I see with this approach is that it seems to elevate "traditional ethics/morals" ABOVE doctrine. So the question is, it this really a good thing? I see it as dangerous, because I think our morality/ethics has to flow OUT OF a commitment to a set of truths (doctrine) that shape our morals...so traditionally, for example, slavery was commonly accepted...but a more correct understanding of God's truth led us to re-think that position. If Morals are what we defend above all else, to the neglect of doctrine, we will simply become moralists/legalists who have a set of things we believe to be right & wrong, and we try to be good people, but we are no longer concerned with the great truths of who God is and what Jesus has done on the cross. (not saying Michael Wrenn is here, but I think it's a danger). I think we have seen the end result of this in many mainline churches: 1. Biblical doctrines are minimized, being a good, nice person is emphasized 2. Biblical doctrines are gradually denied, replaced with a social gospel. 3. Finally, even the traditional morals go away, because their foundation on God's truth is no there anymore...so the need for them diminishes.