Not too long ago, I was sitting with a group of Christians and engaged in a discussion with a young man about theology. Immediately, some of his statements began to concern me as I found them inconsistent both with scripture and the historical foundation of Christianity. I looked around waiting for someone else to jump in. No one did. Either they felt what he was saying was not important or didn’t realize how off base he was. What was the problem? Apathy? Indifference? Who cares, he was a Christian anyway.
As a follow up to A Theology of Indifference from last year, I continue to be concerned, alarmed and dismayed at the growing lack of discernment in the body of Christ. This concern has recently been amplified by a comment, spoken to me in love, that I did not need to be so serious about my Biblical and theological pursuits. You need balance, my friend said. While I don’t quite have the social life I’d like since I am after all, a single mother taking a full load in the ThM program and working part-time, I balance (pun intended) that against the value of what it is all about – understanding more fully what God has revealed through his word, through his son and throughout history. No, it doesn’t leave too much room for a social life but maybe learning about God on his terms is a little more important. Maybe I care too much.
I have definitely become more aware of the importance of human relationships and the need to develop them. We cannot live this life alone, especially not a Christian life. Relationship is necessary. Engagement with people is necessary. I, for one, could use better relationship and have been making intentional steps in that direction. But does that cause us to put doctrinal significance of essentials on the back burner? Does the quest for relationship and balance cause us to lose sight of the importance of the triune God and his plan for his people? Have we exchanged fellowship for Christian education because in the end, it is people who matter. Who cares about doctrine and besides it divides.
Who is Christ? How are others expressing him? Listen and pay attention. You will find some interesting statements. I do wonder if the average church goer was asked what Christ accomplished on the crossed, what answers would we get? He died for our sins. Justification, reconciliation, propitiation, redemption and sanctification sound real fancy and probably to most, are relegated to academic learning but we needn’t be concerned with such technical terms. But I think these so vitally important to understand the great salvation that has been handed down encompassed in Romans 5:8, “while we were yet sinners Christ died for the ungodly”. The bottom line is can we understand and articulate the faith sufficient to create an atmosphere of discernment.
In Michael’s recent piece about people walking away from the church in droves due to dogmitized approaches to Christianity that leave no room for legitimate questioning or critical learning, is it any wonder that they have said “cancel my subscription”. No amount of fellowship, ministry programs, revivals, outreach programs or worship concerts can compensate for the growing in grace and the true knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 3:18). It is my opinion that only through solid Christian education can any real growth take place through the application of discernment and ministry. Yes, they do go hand in hand. Otherwise, answers to questions and questions about answers will get swallowed up in a sea of popularized thinking that leaves no foundation for understanding why we believe what we believe.
Friends, we need to start caring about our faith. We cannot settle for formulas, pop-theology and the latest formation craze. We need to start paying attention to how people are expressing the basics of Christianity – the nature of the triune God, the work and person of Christ, the purpose of the church and God’s plan for history. Otherwise, unchecked and unexamined ideas will infiltrate the church indicative of Jude’s concern that “certain persons have crept in unnoticed” (Jude 1:4). That does not mean go to the other extreme and nit-pick about every doctrinal issue. But it does mean at least understanding what they are. Fellowship is good, concerts are great, programs are helpful. But striving to understand God on his terms is priceless and worthy of the highest discernment.
Rant over 🙂
Edit Note: I’m afraid I have given the impression that this post is about correcting people. It is not. Rather, it is about having discernment, which requires having the ability to understand where ideas and concepts deviate from an historic understanding of Christianity. The application of how correction is handled is a completely different issue and will vary depending on the scenario.
52 replies to "A Theology of Indifference: Part II"
Good Rant, Lisa!
I’m glad you’re not indifferent about glorifying the One you love.
I would agree with you in being concerned with the lack of real knowledge of the basics and even the questionable teachings sometimes found in Evangelical circles. I have nothing against fellowship and relationships, but if we are not grounded in God and His truth, we are nothing more than a social club.
Great post!! Thanks so much.
I just saw this quote that I thought was so pertinent here
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Lisa-
Great post.
You write, “Otherwise, unchecked and unexamined ideas will infiltrate the church indicative of Jude’s concern that “certain persons have crept in unnoticed”
This fits right into a post Scot McKnight put up at Jesus Creed today, he quotes a recent study:
“In spite of their openness to the charismatic and Pentecostal elements of the Christian faith, the youngest believers offered an unexpected, existentialist view of the Holy Spirit. In total, 68% of Mosaic Christians said they believe that the third person of the trinity is just “a symbol of God’s power or presence, but is not a living entity.” This compares to 59% of Busters, 55% of Boomers, and 56% of Elders who believe the Holy Spirit is merely symbolic.”
As Scot sums up that data, he states:
“This conclusion is alarming. Not only do the younger Christians not see the Holy Spirit as “person,” but the percent of Christians who don’t is astounding. Once again, we see that far too many Christians lack a robust doctrine of the Trinity.”
I think you, Lisa, have appropriately expressed the need to address this troubling trend.
rick,
If one does not believe in the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead (or some kind of formulation like that) then one is not a believer or a Christian. The Trinity and the incarnatrion are the foundation of all other Christian beliefs.
Carl-
“The Trinity and the incarnatrion are the foundation of all other Christian beliefs.”
Agreed. That is what makes Scot’s post so “alarming”, and Lisa’s so timely.
If Barna is right, the majority of “Christians” do not correctly believe in the Trinity. It appears discipleship went off the tracks somewhere along the line.
Rick and Carl,
And yet, the early church didn’t fully develop the doctrine of the Trinity until the second century. The term “Trinity” is not found in scripture. And no where does Paul, Peter, Christ or any other vessel of the Holy Spirit in writing Scripture require the doctrine of the Trinity in salvation. Romans 10:9-10, Acts 2:38, atqui cf. John 3:8
An imperfect knowledge/belief about the doctrine of the Trinity is alarming – disconcerting – an indication of bad teaching – but it hardly damns a soul to hell.
I might be wrong – so I challenge you to back up your assertion that “If one does not believe in the Holy Spirit … then one is not a … Christian.” I have found no scripture that requires good doctrine to become a Christian. Indeed, it is faith and faith alone – Sola Fide. Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2, Romans 4:16
I am the first to admit that faith (pisteou) requires an object – but that object is Christ, as revealed in Scripture alone (sola scriptura) – not Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, I think it possible to be a Christian and not fully understand the doctrine of Christ. Acts 18:25-26
Every Christian has the Holy Spirit living within them (or so I understand Scripture to teach). Accordingly, when some one (a teacher) presents the doctrine of the Trinity, the Sonship of Christ, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the authority of the Father – a Christian will respond in submission to Scripture by acknowledgement of those truths. This is because they have the Holy Spirit living within them. 1 John 2:20.
But to suggest that if one doesn’t have an accurate knowledge of the Trinity they’re not Christians? Are you so ready to damn Polycarp? Ignatius? The early church didn’t adopt the doctrine as dogma (not a bad term when properly understood) until 325 AD. Augustine was one of the first writers to fully develop the doctrine from Scripture. (continued)
KevinR-
Good thoughts, but I never claimed one could not be a Christian with an inadequate view of the Trinity. CMP has an old post on what is required for salvation, and what is required for orthodoxy.
However, Carl is correct in pointing out its foundational status. Likewise, althought the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully worded until later, the stressing of the importance of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is seen very early (and often) in the life of the church (early creedal formations, catechumens, baptismal interrogations, etc…).
There may be a legitimate question on whether one can be a Christian and deny the Trinity, or the Holy Spirit. But that probably is a post for another day.
Lisa,
I enjoy reading your posts – we have a kindred spirit. I heard a Pastor/Teacher explain gnosticism recently something like this:
Gnosticism is the rejection of empirical knowledge of truth. Truth is known by subjective spiritual experience, rather than divined from Scripture in a way that is objective and knowable. As such, gnostics turn to what they perceive as a higher form of knowledge – an inwardly known form of knowledge that supersedes and transcends objective Scriptural truths.
Gnosticism in my experience is a continuum. There are the extremes where people reject scripture in favor of dreams and prophesies and words from God. These extremes are usually found on the fringes of Protestant theology in the forms of Apostolic Light House, Pentecostalism, and other Charismatic (a good term when properly understood) groups.
But there is another group of gnostics who are more subtle. These are people who throw up their hands when confronted with difficult doctrines and proclaim “It’s a mystery we’ll never understand – a paradox that is only resolved in the mind of God!”
There are certainly many mysteries that are only partially revealed. But there are also certainties that people reject because they don’t like them on an emotional level. These people reject the objective knowledge and usually reject study of doctrine because it leads to those difficult apparent paradoxes and instead embrace “fellowship” and “worship” This too is Gnosticism. It is the rejection of objective knowledge and truth in Scripture in favor of a higher form of knowledge (worship and fellowship). While these people usually aren’t associated with extreme groups of charismatics such that prefer modern prophets over Scripture – they do prefer worship songs and small group fellowship over serious study of God’s word.
But is it possible to worship God or to have fellowship with one another if we forsake the serious study of God’s word? (continued again…
So, can one have fellowship with another Christian while actively rejecting or avoiding the serious study of God’s word? I believe the answer to this question is found in 1 John 1:3
“that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”
cf. 2 Peter 3:14-18; 1 Thess 5:6; 2 Timothy 4:5; 1 Peter 1:13; 1 Peter 5:8
The above Scriptures admonish us to be sober minded – serious. No where in Scripture are we admonished to be otherwise, frivolous, light-hearted, light-minded, lackadaisical. Christianity is a serious business – a serious endeavor. Hebrews 3:12-13; Romans 12:2-3. We are called to be sober-minded. We are called to be serious students of God’s word. 2 Tim 2:15.
Indeed, we are called to treat those who corrupt the Gospel of Christ is such as way that we neither bid them “hello”, “good-bye” or even let them in our homes. 2 John 10
John wrote the book of 1 John so that we would have fellowship with the Father and one another. It seemed impossible in John’s mind that we should have fellowship without knowing what John saw, heard and even felt with his hands. He imparted knowledge – doctrine – to us, to the end that we may have fellowship.
I can be at a party and feel like I’m having a good time – like fellowship. But real fellowship is felt/realized between those whose hearts are bound up in the same family – the same blood, the same pursuits and passions. Yesterday I met a man at my son’s soccer practice whom I had never met or saw before. Within minutes we were discussing the truths of Proverbs, the challenges of being a Godly father, and the pursuit of holiness in our lives. We were confessing our sins to one another and proclaiming the grace of God. We were fellowshipping. And it was possible because we had the same faith, the same doctrines in Christ, the same passion for holiness, the same…
Rick,
I shouldn’t have lumped your statements together with Carl’s statement “If one does not believe in the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Godhead (or some kind of formulation like that) then one is not a believer or a Christian.”
Indeed, your point that “If Barna is right, the majority of “Christians” do not correctly believe in the Trinity” indicates otherwise.
[…] Indifference and church. […]
Lisa,
Let me premise this with I agree with you.
You said,
Not too long ago, I was sitting with a group of Christians and engaged in a discussion with a young man about theology. Immediately, some of his statements began to concern me as I found them inconsistent both with scripture and the historical foundation of Christianity. I looked around waiting for someone else to jump in. No one did. Either they felt what he was saying was not important or didn’t realize how off base he was.
I too have found myself in situations like this as I’m sure many here have. I believe it depends on the venue and the person(s) with the inconsistent theology and to a certain degree the essentialness of the inconsistent theology.
I probably would not openly correct a person “leading” a bible study. I would wait until the study is over and talk with them away from others.
I would not engage a person who is proclaiming good or bad theology on things such as OEC/YEC, Calvinism/Arminianism, etc. Not because these things aren’t important but because these subjects soon progress to an argument.
If it is essential to the Christian faith, (possibly what you meant in your statement above) I believe it’s encumbered upon us to speak the truth in an irenic tone.
Very nice post Lisa.
I looked around waiting for someone else to jump in. No one did. Either they felt what he was saying was not important or didn’t realize how off base he was. What was the problem? Apathy? Indifference? Who cares, he was a Christian anyway.
Lisa, I know you know this, but we don’t always have to ‘jump in’ with conversations to correct. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know body language and why they held back. But, as an example in my life, on Monday I was in my Dutch language class and there was a discussion about Easter. It is still big here in post-Christian Belgium because of the Roman Catholic culture here, though most don’t know much about Christ.
Some wrong conclusions were being discussed about Christ and other spiritual things. But I felt the lack in my Dutch to fully explain a more complete truth. I decided not to speak up at all. Did I waste an opportunity? Maybe. But I trusted Someone else was in control there, even in my lack of knowing how to explain in Dutch. I could have explained in English, but some of the students don’t even speak English. So I still decided to leave it in His hands rather than jump in. They know who I am and that I lead a church. They know who to ask if they really want to know. And they do ask me. But I don’t feel the need to always correct and jump.
We do have to guard from a possible insatiable desire to do so.
It is my opinion that only through solid Christian education can any real growth take place through the application of discernment and ministry.
Because we believe relationship is of such importance, maybe we should look to provide growth (education) through relationship, mentoring and discipleship (as I know you would agree). I might have learned more real life stuff via one on one with my spiritual father than during a whole masters degree from seminary. I don’t negate that and am glad I had the opportunity to study in seminary. But growth needs to happen relationally. That is of…
There is a point where theology falls short. I place a higher emphasis on orthopraxy than I do orthodoxy, and I view orthodoxy as (to some extent) a path to orthopraxy. This is not to say that heresy is excusable. It should be confronted in love and corrected, but it is not the final goal.
I’ll illustrate with fictional references. In the novels of George MacDonald, we find characters who may not have a tremendous understanding of theological topics. For example, they may not be able to articulate the various theories of the atonement, but they understand obedience, which results in a Christlike life.
Another is the central character in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which I read a few years back. “Uncle Tom” has become a racial slur but I admired the lead character greatly because he radiated Christlikeness in every situation. He has been reviled for the very qualities that we, as Christians, are called to exhibit – complete trust in God resulting in submission to his will in all circumstances. And of course, submission is not a popular concept in a fallen, rebellious world – we don’t want to be “led like a lamb to the slaughter.”
When I read the book, I thought Uncle Tom was one of the most Christlike characters I’ve ever encountered, but he understood little of theology. Instead, he had the faith of a child, knowing that God loved him and was always with him, even in terrible situations.
Let’s not forget childlike faith, built not on exhaustive knowledge, but on simple obedience and trust.
[continued]
The above should not be seen as denigrating theological study. A teacher should know what s/he is teaching, but I don’t think it is the primary goal of Christianity. If I had to choose, I’d take obedience and love any day. Still, I study theology and love discussing it.
That said, Lisa, perhaps your focus at this time is exactly what it should be. Dang, as you said, you’re a single mom, with a full education load and a job. Sounds to me like you have your hands full, but this is just a season. Soon enough, school will be done and you’ll have time to invest in other areas. I’d say don’t let your friend lay a guilt trip on you, though I’m sure her/his intentions are good
Dave Z,
From my perspective, speaking as one that has come out of the hypercharismatic movement, I see a huge need for theological orthodoxy. Lack of orthodoxy in that movement led to a huge amount of lack of orthopraxy. I don’t see that the two can be separated.
J.R. and Scott, I hear your concerns about slapping somebody on the knuckles with the orthodoxy ruler. I was reluctant to specify the location of this encounter but I will now. It was at school and the gentleman I was speaking with was a first year student. In that scenario, it was all together appropriate to engage him concerning some of this statements.
On the other hand, I have been in other situations where it has not been appropriate at all. And so I would keep quiet. I have been asking the Lord to grant me wisdom and discernment in this area lest I crash to pieces something he needs to build.
There is a temptation to admire “simple faith” and “faith like a child”
However, faith is not synonymous with understanding, nor is it synonymous with knowledge or theology. A person can have vast amounts of knowledge and theology and still have simple faith.
A person can be mostly ignorant of theology and still have simple faith – complete ignorance of course would prohibit the existence of faith. Faith comes hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
I cannot find in scripture where people are admired for being theologically naive or simple. Instead I find Christian brothers and sisters taking aside the simple and instructing them. Apollos is a good example. I’ve not read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but Apollos was regarded as a good man. And yet, Priscilla and Aquila took him aside to instruct him “more accurately” in the things of God. Acts 18:26
Orthopraxy might be impossible without orthodoxy… For example, if one obeys the command “do not commit adultery” because they believe that they will instantly go to Mormon hell and be cut up by demons if they do – are they obeying God? Or is their obedience a fortunate coincidence? Didn’t Jesus teach on the Mount that the cause behind the obedience/disobedience was just as important as the obedience? That what is within a man’s heart is just as important as what he does or says?
I only say this because if we’re going to go back to works, then the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses pretty much have us all beat in the orthopraxy department…
So, I’m of a different opinion. I value orthodoxy over orthopraxy in the hope that good orthodoxy will produce orthopraxy – genuine orthopraxy, which are good works done from faith and not fear or self-righteousness.
KevinR,
I stand by my statement that one who rejects the Trinity and the incarnation is not a Christian. will they go to heaven? I do not know. That is for God to decide. This might seem like semantics but in this world we can only judge somewhat. we can know that Muslims are not Christians because they reject Christianity and do not call themselves Christians. But ones like JWs are harder. Ones that state that they are Christian but reject some of its foundational teachings. If one does that then I believe I can and should think of that person as not a Christian. WE are saved by grace through faith alone. But faith in what is very important.
Also the early Church had a form of TRinitarianism that was finalized into dogma at Constaniople. but it was how Christians worshipped before then. And I am not saying that one has to understand the doctrine of the Trinity but that one has to accept it. And this is not the time of the early church anyways. We are not living in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.
CARL
Regarding orthodoxy/orthopraxy, I have long appreciated what Dan Kimball wrote:
“I think the pendulum swings back and forth, as there has been times where the church taught Scripture and people were filled with “ORTHODOXY” (straight or right thinking/teaching/doctrine). But only having right doctrines doesn’t mean that it will always produce Spirit-filled Christians. There are those who have great ORTHODOXY but it never seems to move to their heart and some become legalists and can become very mean Christians. Right beliefs (ORTHODOXY) without the Spirit changing us with those beliefs (even the devil believed there is one God – James 2:19) doesn’t mean we will be a Spirit-filled Christian demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5)…..
….But then the other extreme is having good ORTHOPRAXY (straight or right living/action/practice) but losing ORTHODOXY. We can live good lives, be kind, gentle, help the poor – but we can have that if we join the Peace Corps or even be athiest and have good practice of living. So it has to be both. The Spirit should use ORTHODOXY to produce ORTHOPRAXY. One without the other is not good.”
I said nothing that disagreed with that.
My point exactly.
I don’t think the goal of Christianity is knowledge. Paul, certainly a knowledgable man, obviously concerned with doctrine, demands the priority of orthopraxy in 1 Cor 13, clearly stating the insufficency of knowledge, just as he points out it’s dangers in 1 Cor 8:1. Knowledge (an understanding of orthodoxy) may (or may not) help us reach the goal.
@cherylu – did I not say that “heresy should be confronted in love and corrected?”
I thought I was pretty clear in the first paragraph of comment 17 but I guess not.
I agree LIsa!!
With Love we should correct doctrine which is essential to salvation. The line blurs as to what that doctrine may be!! My son recently worked as a director of a church summer camp and he was amazed at the questions of the young kids(teens) once given the opportunity to ask such questions…..usually the questions were more indepth than what adults would venture forth. As adults we tend to look for truth that satisfies our already conceived intentions, which I guess is not really searching for truth. I tend to go with church history…if you find yourself out in left field, you probably are!!!!
Dave Z,
You said, “If I had to choose, I’d take obedience and love any day. Still, I study theology and love discussing it.”
My point was simply that there can be no obedience to truth if we don’t really know what it is.
hmmm.. I’m personally convinced that 1 Cor. 13 is one of the most abused passages of Scripture. Why? Because Paul is making one point and one point only. The supremacy of God’s love. He is not saying anything else.
The type of love in 1 Cor. 13 is Agape, God’s unconditional love for his Church. This is not the love of a husband and wife, yet this chapter is at more weddings than you can shake a stick at. It’s not the love of a friend or between brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the love of God as created in our hearts when we become new creations in Christ.
For example… if I tell the truth and don’t speak it in “love” then someone will throw 1 Cor. 13 at me. Does God love the world with Agape love? Yes. Affirmed by everyone. Did God destroy the world with a flood? Yes. Affirmed by all Christians. Does this mean that God didn’t love the world that day? hmmmm……
Rather than suggest that knowledge is insufficient or dangerous, let us look at knowledge for what it produces. Faith. Without knowledge you cannot be saved. Without knowledge of Christ – in the form and nature of Jesus, come in the flesh, Son of God, as revealed in Scripture – you cannot be a Christian. (yes, I know some will dispute this). Knowledge is insufficient in that the demons know as much but do not have faith, nor is grace extended to them.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting knowledge is the end all – or even the most important thing. But before someone throws out 1 Cor. 13 I’d like to know one thing in all seriousness:
How does one have Agape love (God’s love) without knowing God accurately?
Lisa, in response to post #19,………touché.
Cherylu,
Good point – impossible to obey without knowing the command. Impossible to glorify God without knowing who God is. Impossible to praise him in the work of salvation if we don’t understand it… well, if not impossible it seriously hampers our efforts.
an example: if I praise the architect of a building because he gave me the building, but I never go into it. I never explore the building. I never understand how hard it was to create the building. I never take the time to talk to the Architect about the building.. How much is my praise really worth?
Consider the one who enters the building, explores the building, talks to the architect about the building, learns everything she can about the building.. How much is her praise worth?
Doesn’t God reveal himself to this end; that we may praise him and glorify him? I’m reminded of Proverbs 28:9
“9 If one turns away his ear from hearing the law,
even his prayer is an abomination.”
I think it’s important to note that, in Eph 3:19, the love of Christ surpasses knowledge. It does not bypass it. That’s an important point. Knowledge are necessary steps on the stairwell, and without using those steps, no one gets to the top floor where the love of Christ resides. I agree that true Christian orthopraxis must be in the context of orthodoxy, otherwise, it’s not Christian orthodpraxis. I would liken it to the difference between the Sinai Law and the Code of Hammurapi. Both have essentially the same practice, but completely different theologies. God lifts up the former as a means to worship Him, but the latter He condemns as idolatry. The two must therefore exist together if God is to be worshiped in spirit and truth.
When I was in law school I had a professor that constantly referenced Hammurabi’s Code and the fact that it predated the Mosaic Law by a couple hundred years.
I’ve read them both and the comparison is weak. I encourage anyone that wants to compare the Splendor of the Word of God to some inartful and childish laws laid down by a wicked King to read Leviticus (mostly a direct quote of God) and Hammurabi’s Code (found online in several different places)
It’s refreshing and encouraging to the faith. I suspect you’ll find that the comparison is rather weak. Yes, they are both law books. Yes, they both address property rights, marital status and dissolution, and capital punishment. But the Glory of God is revealed in Scripture and the other ‘code’ … well, you’ll get a humorous kick out of it. Granted it’s like comparing Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing to “The Wild Wild West” by you know who.
(I realize this wasn’t Hodge’s point, his point about Hammurabi just made me remember that professor)
First of all, he is not talking about God’s love, he is talking ablout the love he, Paul, is supposed to have.
Second, he specifically places love (which I believe is the heart of orthopraxy) above knowledge, saying without that love, knowledge is nothing. That seems pretty clear. Knowledge by itself (or even with faith) is nothing.
Once again (for the third time), I am not arguing against knowledge, just arguing to keep it in it’s proper perspective.
DaveZ,
You understand 1 Corinthians that way. Yet the Greek word is agape. In Scripture ‘agape’ is most often identified with God’s love.
When a Christian loves with agape love, such as identified in 1 Corinthians, it is through the power and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, for there is nothing good in us but through the power of God.
Yes, Paul is supposed to have that love, but it is God’s love within and through Paul. It is not earthly whimpy wamby namby type love (at least in my understanding) but rather Godly love.
You cannot separate God’s love from God’s wrath. You cannot separate God’s love from God’s holiness and truth. You cannot divide 1 Corinthians in such as way as to put love and therefore action above faith and knowledge.
The point is that if you say you have faith and knowledge without love, then you don’t really have faith and knowledge. True knowledge and true faith are always accompanied by true love – agape love – not phileo love, not eros love.
This is the Pauline equivalent of James teaching on faith – “show me your faith without works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works” And herein Paul is teaching “show me your faith and knowledge without love and I’ll show you my faith and knowledge by my love”
Dave Z,
I understand what you are saying and I totally agree with you about what Paul was saying in I Cor 13. I will agree we can have all of the knowledge in the world–all the orthodoxy we could possibly have–and if we don’t have love, according to this chapter, we are nothing. Orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy or it becomes just a head full of knowledge.
However, all we have to do is take a look around in the world and see all of the things that are done in the name of “love” that can be totally against God’s commandments, (think adultery for example) to know that you have to have an informed, knowledgeable love–love according to God’s standards–to love in the way that pleases God. And Jesus also tells us in the Gospel of John that if we love Him, we will obey His commandments. Again, if we don’t know them, we can’t obey them.
I guess to me, this is the way of keeping them both in their proper perspective.
And speaking again as one that has come out of the hyper charismatic movement, I also want to reiterate that much of the doctrine that was taught there lead to an unorthodox way of ministering to other people and often to a very unorthodox way of relating to and worshipping God. That whole experience has left me acutely aware of the need for a very practical orthodoxy in all areas of the Christian life.
Also, again I ask:
How can we love with Agape Love (God’s Love) if we do not understand accurately who God is?
Rick (#7),
You said
“It appears discipleship went off the tracks somewhere along the line.”
That’s just it, I think we are tossing out discipleship in favor of self-help, emulation programs that makes us feel real good about our faith but gives us no basis in how to articulate it or understand it appropriate to God’s special revelation.
Dave Z, et al,
Here’s an article by Sam Crabtree titled “Do Mature Christians Pursue Unity or Do They Pursue Doctrine?” that you might find helpful.
Kevin (#11),
I thought you would appreciate this quote from my good friend who had the decency to challenge me regarding how I understood scripture some years ago.
“There is no fellowship outside of the Bible rightly understood and believed. It is the root from which fellowship flowers”.
TUAD,
Thanks for the link to that article. I thought it was a good one.
Orthodoxy and orthopraxy must always go together. Would any of us take our to a mechanic who knew all about cars from books but never fixed one or who had learned all he knew about cars by trial and error but understood none of the principles involved. But sometimes we can think we can have one without the other and that is where we get into trouble.
Lisa, you are preaching to the choir. For the past two Sundays at church I’ve engaged people in conversation about the current direction in our church (which I would call strongly social-gospel). I was amazed and distraught by the attitudes and and false-understanding I heard. It made my heart ache! One person I talked with was seminary trained and yet his heart is cold and indifferent toward evangelism. I’m finding that to even mention this subject with many at our church now is to immediately come under fire. It’s kind of scary. I’m also noticing that the gospel itself is so watered down from the pulpit that people have very limited understanding of the core doctrines of Christianity. Our church has undergone such a transformation in the past six years or so. It amazes me that the vast majority are completely onboard with all of it. There are few who question it. I have come to know of only a handful of people who are alarmed as I am. One elder recently resigned after trying to talk with people about it but eventually feeling like ‘a whining child’. His wife said to me, “after awhile you feel like you’re the only one.” Our life-group leader is also an elder (and is seminary trained). He is as concerned as I am. He said, “If you ask people at church to explain the gospel anymore, they are all over the map. They can’t do it.” Last week in our life-group we finally discussed matters openly and then prayed for our church. I was very encouraged by that. I am willing to speak the truth no matter what the cost, but I can’t imagine the future of our church if things keep going the way they are going. I’ll be interested to hear what our pastor has to say this Easter Sunday….but I’m almost nervous about it.
I agree Lisa. If we love someone we want to honour them and ensure they are honoured and understood by others. Unfortuneately secularism has had the effect of dampening down many believers desire to ’cause conflict’ over ‘dogmatic issues’.
You equate the occasions you don’t correct someone as being inappropriate timing while equating others’ failures to correct someone as indifference.
I don’t know what opinions he was saying but this post has the flavor of solipsism disguised as piety and spiritualism.
Dale (and all)
The thrust of the post is not about correcting people. There are times when I believe it is not appropriate to correct, especially related to non-essential issues. For essentials, there are ways to lovingly drop comments in response to something inaccurately stated without going full throttle into an apologetic. Sometimes there is that need. But again, it is not about correcting nor should not correcting in and of itself be seen as indifference. In the case of the opening paragraph, given the setting I was in, there was an expectation that someone else would chime in.
What I was attempting to address is if there is even the ability or concern to articulate the Christian faith. Again, the application of that may look different depending on the scenario.
And Dale, I hardly see the connection between caring about the revelation of God with solipsism.
Please note the Edit Note and the addition to paragraph 4. Hope that helps.
Dale,
Solipsism? harsh.
Gratia et Pax
Interesting post. I think that you are right that there is a lot of spiritual indifference in the church. Not sure what the cause is but I do think that it reflects a general nihlism in the culture.
OK, aging thread, who knows if anyone will even see this, but I have to respond to some of the comments of those who took me to task for advocating a “simple, childlike faith.”
First, I feel those comments were not taking into account what may be the most important element of theological education – the Holy Spirit that actually indwells each and every believer. We all have our own teacher right inside. Matter of fact, our indwelling teacher is the same one who created Scripture and promises to lead us into all truth.
Cheryl, I’ll point out that the excesses of the hyper-charismatic movement are not the result of a LACK of theological training, they are the result of BAD theological training, most likely with an improper emphasis on certain passages of scripture, but they would still say it was scripturally based. You may have moved from bad theology to good, but still you had a theology while in that movement.
Finally, my point is this: it does not take an academic degree to understand repentance or forgiveness or love or, for that matter, faith – trust in God.
“And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. ”
Funny – nothing in there about an advanced degree.
Hi Dave Z,
At least one person saw your comment here–me!
You are right–there was doctrine taught in the movement I came out of. But it was not correct doctrine. Much of it was, as you said, Scripture taken out of context. My point was that if doctrine is not correct–orthodox–it will create problems in the way people live and relate to others and to God.
And I agree with you that I don’t believe you need an academic degree to understand repentance, love, faith or forgiveness. I wasn’t talking at all about academic degrees. I think that issue can be overemphasized at times too. But I do believe these issues and others need to be understood in a way that is orthodox or there will inevitably be problems arising.
Thanks, Cheryl.
Yeah, we’re probably on the same page. Though you’re the only one I mentioned, it was not your comments that bugged me most. Obviously, there is a place for theological studies, but I don’t think it should be the ultimate goal of our spiritual life.