Christianity without doctrine

Doctrine is divisive. This effect is intentional. To believe in doctrinal truth is also to believe in the possibility of doctrinal falsehoods. If doctrines delineate true and false, then the proponents of doctrines are similarly delineated into groups that each believe the others to be mistaken. Why can't Christians, for the sake of unity, toss all that stuff out the window?

Picture what that would mean. When a church, a body of disciples, has no doctrines, then everybody has nothing to disagree over (that's the ideal, anyway). The beliefs of individuals don't matter, because they can be neither right nor wrong. So no doctrine leads to each person holding to any doctrine. But if disciples can pick and choose their doctrines (passing over the question of what basis they use), then what is Christianity's distinction in the sea of ideas? Truth can't be chosen; truth is. Christianity without truth isn't a Christianity worthy of martyrs.

Nevertheless, the necessity of doctrine in order to uphold the very concept of solid spiritual truth doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent Christians from cooperating to accomplish good. In many causes agreeable to the Christian faith, they can also cooperate with other religions and secularists. Frankly, doctrinal differences aren't relevant to every action.

Yet doctrinal differences are inescapably relevant to Christian practice: sermons, governance, sacraments. Churches that profess no doctrine really do have doctrines, demonstrated by their words and actions. Faith isn't the same as "works", but works "prove" faith. Doctrines are analogous.