"Right in all points of doctrine" -- Do we teach love?

The scope of knowledge and the scope of error

There are many Christians who hold that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and doctrine. The qualifier "matters of faith and doctrine" is generally understood as a disclaimer when it comes to matters of science (and possibly matters of history of the ancient Near East). 

Others hold that the Bible is inerrant in its original monographs. The qualifier "in its original monographs" serves a similar purpose: it hedges against the fact that there are problems that we cannot resolve with the known texts. It's a hypothetical inerrancy that applies to documents we never expect to see. "Inerrancy" is described in a way that acknowledges that we don't have it.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of infallibility is, in a similar way, carefully scoped and qualified til it leaves a lot of room for fallibility.

While looking into which church I'd like to make my new home, I have to say: I don't know that my current church is wrong on any particular point of doctrine as they'd define doctrine. And in my current pastor's mind I'm fairly sure he'd say: therefore there's no legitimate reason for me to be making preparations to leave. But I find myself thinking that by "doctrine" he means "things in the catechism books"; if the church were nothing but a catechism book (give or take some fallible humans making typical mistakes) he'd have a point. But what if we widen our scope of "doctrine" to everything the church teaches, inside or outside of catechism books?

Do we teach love?

Have we taught the importance of God's love? In the church I attend, at least on paper, our basic faith consists in trusting God's love and goodness. Has that been said and kept front and center, or has it been lost in the forest of smaller doctrines? Are we more interested in our doctrinal purity than God's honor? (Have we lost sight of the fact that one can be pursued at the expense of the other?)

There's a tricky line between doctrine (what we teach) and practice (how we live). There's usually a convenient dividing line between the two. In my experience any problems in practice are blamed on human weakness and sin so insistently as to deny that it's possible for a problem in practice to come from a problem in teaching, or a problem in emphasis, or (honestly at times) from dismissing any real importance of what we do. What we do -- and any problems -- are bracketed as solely matters for forgiveness. While mistakes, errors, and sins are definitely matters for forgiveness, this misses the point: hospitality, relationships, and fellowship are vital matters at the intersection of faith and living. Love is the joyful center of the Christian faith, which fulfills the law and in righteousness surpasses the law. Run to the good news of forgiveness to cover our shortcomings, but not to excuse the fact that we haven't taught it.

Jesus taught that, on the Last Day, the greatest sins to be laid at our feet will be sins of omission: things we've never done, and his examples were acts of compassion, mercy, and love. I suspect in the same way the greatest doctrinal errors will be things we never taught.