Take a man who espouses the absolute orthodox doctrines of sound Biblical teaching. He crosses every fundamental “T†and dots every “i’ and his doctrinal resume is impeccable. He contends for the faith and he battles against the flood of Biblical alteration that is part of the evangelical landscape today. He quotes all the dead and living preachers necessary to show yourself approved before man and God, and he stands fast on his beliefs.
Then there is a man who is somewhat less than learned in the mainstream doctrinal issues, but he believes and follows Jesus Christ and his life was radically changed years ago by the Lord Jesus. Now he is somewhat emergent in his views, but he still holds to the central doctrines of the Person of Christ and salvation by grace through faith, but his methodology is suspect and his dialogue is very expansive, including a reconsideration of some subjects that many consider settled long ago.
OK, I present these two caricatures because I would like to ask a question out loud that I have thought inside my own heart. Why is it that sometimes the life of the stalwart orthodox believer who by many standards holds closer to the truths of the Scriptures, doesn’t shine noticeably brighter than the other man’s life who is more liberal? Why is it sometimes the more doctrinally malleable believer is more loving, more forgiving, more merciful, and many times reflects Jesus in a more tangible way than some of the more doctrinally ”sound” believers?
To put it more plainly, how can a man or woman who claims to have a greater hold on God’s truth be so unlike Jesus, and the man who has some questionable beliefs exhibit the life of Christ in a more obvious way both to other believers and the world at large? Is it possible that there are doctrinal truths that are just as important that are being neglected to the detriment of actually living Jesus to a lost and dying world? Can we espouse doctrines as just words, even though true, without allowing the Spirit of God to manifest Jesus in our visible lives?
And why will some claim that the things I am asking in this post sound emergent and not orthodox?
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
17 Comments(+Add)
The fundamental difference is how the two men approach Scripture and life. One sees Scripture as the goal and a tool to use to beat its enemies with. The other sees Scripture as a set of letters to be encountered, meditated on, chewed and eaten, to really internalize such that it changes the persons being. To do that values and world-views must be challenged and therefore hard questions asked. The former person sees that as not valuing the Scriptures when in fact, it is holding them in even higher value.
The first person has an obvious problem. The second person also needs to be careful because while their journey may be genuine, they must be careful what they teach others. Remembering that the world is fallen and under great influence by Satan, they are looking for any reason to see Scripture as not being the Word of God that does not change.
But in the end, it is the second person that God loves. At least that’s what I get out of my many copies/versions but one Bible.
Rick,
The only reason you see a dichotomy here is because of the way you’ve defined “doctrine”. If you take doctrine to mean Biblical teaching then both are weak and strong in different areas. The second man is strong in the doctrine of grace and gentleness, while the first lacks it.
What I find interesting is that while there is controversy about the will of God, the sovereignty of God, and how it plays out in our lives, there is no controversy about being graceful and gentle to those around us, but especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ. So my biggest question here is who is truly lacking? Someone who doesn’t put into action the basic teachings concerning our relationships with others about which there is no debate or controversy, or someone who isn’t yet untractable in their beliefs about a particular strain of Christianity?
Tim – I think you’ve identified the distinction between creed and practice. One can believe that Jesus is the Lord and not act like Him.
The orthodox man could eloquently break down Psalm 23 into doctrinal fine points rightly divided and properly interpreted.
The other man may not be versed in the doctrinal details of the psalm, but yet he enjoys and lives out God’s promises and blessings written in it.
The Orthodox man knows the Psalm. The other man knows the Shepherd. They read the same Psalm, but yet come away with a world of difference.
–Why is it that sometimes the life of the stalwart orthodox believer who by many standards holds closer to the truths of the Scriptures, doesn’t shine noticeably brighter than the other man’s life who is more liberal?–
For me, this is what I question about your statement. What do you mean that one “shine(s) noticeably brighter” then that other? What are your criterion for such a statement.
I was a part of a mission’s base for a few years in Russia, and they had some discipleship schools for people who wanted to attend. In one of those schools, there were two men–one was a young man who had been a pastor for a few years in a very difficult place, where he had been subjected to such things as nasty rumors and attempts to restrict his activities. There was another young man who had been a Christian only a short time, and came from a life of drugs and rebellion.
There was one time when one of the school’s leaders made a comment that he wished that people like the first man mentioned above were more like the second, in that the second showed an enthusiasm and apparent joy that the other seemed to lack.
That school ended, and the one man went back to the place he ministered to in the past. The second man left, and a little while later we learned that he had fallen back into the things he had just gotten out of, and fallen back into them hard.
The story doesn’t end there, thankfully. He fell, but he turned again to God in his sufferings.
What that school leader said seems to me much like what you are saying concerning those who ’shine noticeably brighter’. He seemed to think that the second man shone brighter then the first. But the fact was, though the first may have had problems, he had also proven himself faithful for several years of difficult ministry. The second man may have had enthusiasm, and was right to have it, he was not yet solid and still had not learned the price of discipleship and following Christ.
For me, the first man shines bright, even if there may be others who may seem to momentarily outshine him. Because when they burn out, he’s still shining.
Your experience is valid, my post was in a much greater context that thankfully you have not experienced.
–there is no controversy about being graceful and gentle to those around us, but especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ. –
Is this really true?
For example, when Jesus calls Peter “Satan”, how does that fit in with being graceful and gentle? Or when Paul writes to the Corinthians and gets on them about almost everything, or calls the Galatian’s “foolish” for believing those teaching a false gospel, or Peter says some harsh thing to Simon the Mage for thinking he could purchase the spiritual gifts, then where do those examples fit?
It seems there must be a place for correction and rebuke, even on a scale that could be considered harsh.
jazzact13,
Here is the thing… with Jesus Love is the foundation for even harsh rebukes.
I have been rebuked by friends… and by enemies (those that have declared me their enemies as i do not really think I have any “enemies”)… I listen to both and learn from both…. yet it is the friend I will respond to before the enemy… both can be valid… yet if no love in in the rebuke I will (as the tendency of most) defend my position instead of listen (unless of course God is doing the rebuking by that said enemy~ confused yet? LOL!)
The point is as Paul stated that we can do anything but will taken as a banging gong or crashing cymbal… with out love… while with love and kindness the “harshness” will be lessen or even more effective!
To have a friend tell me i am stupid for debating MacArthurites makes me want to stop more than being told I am an apostate by Ken Silva or Jim Bublitz or Tony Rose… (the list is much longer as I am also labeled a “MacArthur hater” LOL!
Really now… I do not like his theology nor his view that war is a good thing that Jesus would explicitedly promote… but I do not hate him…
Blessings,
iggy
There are many examples of rebuke and reproof in the Scriptures, but they are within a greater context. My experience is different than yours obviously. I wish I had yours.
–Your experience is valid, my post was in a much greater context that thankfully you have not experienced.–
I can understand that. If I may be a bit stubborn, though, I do want to say that I think that experience has some validity to this discussion.
For one thing, there is still the question of what criteria are being used to one the one person shines bright then the other.
You used two caricatures to help make your point, and that is fine. If I may do the same…
Let us image a man who has spent time trying to understand the Bible, and tries to love God with all his heart and tries to love people as he should. He sees some things being taught that in his knowledge of scripture he knows to be wrong, and speaks out about it. He does it because he loves God and want the people to know the truth, but many of the people he speaks to say that he speaks harshly and not with love, that he is the problem and the other who teaches them what is not right.
Let us imagine a second man, who loves people and wants to help them. He knows scripture pretty well, but when he speaks to people, he isn’t sure how to say some of the harder things to them that scripture says–can one be loving and still say that lost people will go to hell? He doesn’t necessarily disbelieve that, but his concept of love makes it difficult,perhaps impossible, for him to say that to people. Because he doesn’t speak much on hell or sin, many people like him, and think him loving and nice, and so he is popular.
The question is, which shines brightest? I would guess that the second man would be more popular, and may even do some good works. But can we really say that the man who gives a watered-down message really shines brighter then the one who gives the full message?
Such things as legalism and a deadness due to an intellectual-only view of the Bible are dangers. We are “saved unto good works”, and we are told to let our lives be consistent with the Gospel. But to say that the ignorant enthusiast is in some way superior to the comatose intellectual seems naive. The ignorant enthusiast may make the biggest noise and be noticed, but that also means their ignorant views can cause damage, too.
We are to love God with all of our heart and our mind. To say one is more important then the other is to cause an imbalance–we are to learn Scripture, and we are to live what we have been taught.
I would agree with a solid mixture which seems to be rare in these days of spiritual toxicity. As your illustration exhibits there seems to be a disconnect.
–Here is the thing… with Jesus Love is the foundation for even harsh rebukes.–
I agree with that, iggy, very much so. My point is, did those on the receiving end of those rebukes necessarily perceive Him or the apostles as being loving when they rebuked them so?
Another point I was trying to make was in relation to the thought that “there is no controversy about being graceful and gentle to those around us, but especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ”. To my own preceptions, this seems like saying that there are no times when we should try to rebuke or correct, that we should always be milquetoast walk-overs who don’t stand for much of anything.
Again, that is my perception of such a remark. My own point was that there are times when we must stand, even if we are thought of as being unloving and being the problem. There are times we must correct and even strongly rebuke, and I guess even if necessary warn against some people’s teachings.
I would take the phrase “shine noticeably brighter” by going back to the context Jesus used for “salt and light”, as described by Ray VanderLaan:
As for the other topic (rebukes), I see rebuke as something needed at times within the church, but within the context of Galatians 6, or Matthew 18 – which have personal dimensions – a relationship upon which the rebuke will actually carry weight.
–I would take the phrase “shine noticeably brighter†by going back to the context Jesus used for “salt and lightâ€, as described by Ray VanderLaan:–
It makes sense that a statement about shining in the Christian sense would come from something like Jesus’ statement. But, again, I’m asking about the criteria for thinking that the one man shines noticeably more brightly then the other. More to the point, why should we think that the less learned, somewhat emergent (taken from the op) man somehow shines more brightly then the one whose doctrine is sound.
To maybe clarify my point a bit, I could see this as the difference between the scholar and the politician. The scholar, at least in the ideal, looks for the facts, the truths, and very often will not come as being a ‘dynamic, charismatic’ person–I suppose I’m thinking of the absent-minded, nose-in-a-book professor who often seems to be awkward in the ‘real world’. The politician, on the other hand, relies on being dynamic and charismatic in order to convince people to his side. He relies on being noticed, is comfortable in front of a crowd, and tried to please as many people as he can.
So, by ’shines more brightly’, do we mean that the one is more popular? Or that he says what we agree with? Or that he gets noticed because he is dynamic and charismatic (not in the Pentacostal sense)? Or that his virtues are more on display?
More like Jesus in word and life. Containing more truth and grace and mercy and redemption and love than the average believer who is limited in his knowledge of truth.
Yes, more like Jesus.
Jazz,
Jesus was God incarnate and John teaches us that God is love… all the actions of Jesus were motivated by love… as Jesus did only what the Father was doing…
“God so loved the world He gave His only Son”
I think that people Paul met knew of his love for them… and Paul states that is WHY he spoke harshly to them… and was greatly hurt when they were turning away from the true gospel.
You might notice that 1 Cor 13 is all in the first person… being Paul who wrote it.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Jazz,
There is a natural cycle, visible throughout scripture and on into the modern world, which moves from thought to feeling to action and back to thought again, and I think what I see between the the two caricatures presented above is a bias for action – to live out the thoughts and beliefs.
Thinking and feeling, in and of themselves, are useless unless they are put to action. It matters not a whit if you’ve got your soteriology nailed down pat, but you cannot die daily to yourself in serving others. This is part of what Paul is getting at in I Cor 13 – where love is not a feeling or a thought, but a decision to act in a manner congruent with ‘doing to others as you would have them do to you’.