Horse and Cart
page 2
So, let's see if our first slogan is able to withstand the judgement of Scripture
Slogan 1
"Love and compassion are more important than doctrine."
Some Christians feel more comfortable adopting a system of belief, e.g. Calvinistic or Armenian; pre-millennial, post-millennial, or a-millennial views of Christ's Second Coming; etc. Others like to reduce their understanding of life to simplistic clichés, or pithy sayings. It is easier to confine one's beliefs to something more manageable—something simple. But, it also leads to the danger of misrepresentation of what the Bible really teaches.
Doctrine
What does 'doctrine' really mean? According to the New Testament, doctrine is merely 'sound teaching', or, the teaching of the Bible. Old translations of the Bible used the word 'doctrine', where new translations mostly use the word 'teaching'.
The apostle Paul thanks God that the Christians in Rome had wholeheartedly obeyed the teaching or 'doctrine' that was delivered to them (Rom.6:17). He warned them to be careful of any teaching or 'doctrine' that was contrary to what they had been given. He pointed out that people who are naïve, or simply poorly informed about what the Bible really teaches, can be easily persuaded by the smooth talk and flattery of some preachers and teachers (Rom.16:17,18). Paul told Timothy that the responsibility of church leaders included the public reading of the Scriptures, preaching, and teaching or 'doctrine' (1Tim.4:13; 5:17).
Everyone was reminded that "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching or 'doctrine', rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man (or woman) of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Tim.3:16). Doctrine, or the teaching of the Bible, distinguishes a believer from a non-believer; a Christian in a biblical sense, from one who merely distinguishes him/herself from a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, etc. Doctrine, or the teaching of the Bible, helps us to understand how to live the Christian life.
False views of God's love
Love and reconciliation are often associated thoughts when people talk about God's attitude towards His creatures. God's love yearns for sinful people to be reconciled with Him. But, what do we mean by 'reconciliation'?
The modern view of reconciliation has its origin with the Socinians, an understanding that made its way through the philosophies of Abelard, Schleiermacher, and was more fully developed by Ritschl. It sees the death of Jesus as a sublime and noble martyrdom, a demonstration of human love at its highest level. Wherever there is such an expression of love, God is present. This is what led Leo Tolstoy to write, "Where love is, there God is also". This view claims that through the act of the Cross, Jesus demonstrated the quality of love that spans the divide between us and God. As people consider Him who gave Himself up so completely, we see God's love overcoming His anger, and we come to understand the true nature of God's divine love and faithfulness.
This is a subjective view in which an illusory barrier is removed in our understanding, bringing about reconciliation with God. It does not take into consideration the real separation and alienation that sin caused, and continues to cause between the sinner and God. Nor does it take into consideration the reality of God's judgement on sin in His Son on the Cross. The death of Christ on the Cross communicates two vital truths: the rebellion of human beings came to an end, and perfect submission and obedience to God took place in Jesus Christ. This same Jesus is now offered to us to help us bring our rebellion against God to an end, and to help us in our obedience to Him in daily living. As John put it, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1Jn.4:10). As Irenaeus, one of the Church Fathers expressed it, "Jesus Christ, in His infinite love, has become what we are, in order that He may make us entirely what He is."
In His love and grace God starts to come to us where we are, totally incapable of contributing to our own salvation, in order to lead us on through the acceptance of His Son, towards that ultimate relationship with Himself that only Jesus Christ can make possible in daily life.
It is in the Cross that we see what is commonly regarded as "offensive" and "stupid". As Emil Brunner expressed it, "Here alone, at last, the intellectual and moral pride of reason is finally broken.1".
Paul found that the preaching of the Cross was particularly offensive to the Jew who had been trained all his life to consider himself as being in a special relationship with God. To be told that Christ died for the pious, righteous Jew, because that is the only way he could be saved, was completely objectionable. He had no conception of the sin and guilt that made it necessary for God to do what He did in the Cross of His one and only Son. "Sin is the perversion of human nature through the perversion of the human attitude towards God."2. It is the obstacle that lies between human beings and God. For a person to think that he can approach a holy God with an attitude that is not prepared to recognise its own utter sinfulness, and surrender its rebellion and self-will, is an attack upon God's honour.
God's very nature expresses itself in anger against all sin, because sin destroys. To minimize the wrath of God against sin is to have a superficial understanding of what God is like. Herein lies the uncrossable divide between us and God. There is nothing that we can begin to do that can lead us to the crossing of that divide. There is nothing in us that makes us acceptable to God.
For the Greeks of Jesus' day, the idea of the Cross was utterly "stupid". 'Gods do not submit themselves to death! They are more about displaying their power'. How little they understood the wisdom of God! For in the Cross of Christ God broke the ultimate power of death and evil. What kind of love would it have been not to have dealt with the real issues that separated people from God! No wonder Paul exclaims, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1Cor.1:25).
Any view of reconciliation with God that leaves the self-will and rebellious spirit in us untouched, has nothing to do with a Christian view, for a Christian view is essentially a biblical view. Reconciliation with God from our side begins with the admission that we have nothing to bring to that process; not even our ideas about how that reconciliation should take place. We have to come to God with no defence, other than Christ died for us, and we submit to God's judgement and His acceptance of us in His "beloved", i.e. Jesus Christ.
Once we accept our initial position before Him, we have to accept His Word. There can be no sincere repentance on our part if we are not prepared to accept His Word on everything else in life. This Word has been given to shape our understanding, even regarding the nature of true love and compassion. When Jesus was asked to summarise the commandments, He made it very clear that the first and greatest commandment was to love God with the whole heart, soul and mind. The quality of this love influences all other relationships and behaviour, including our love and compassion for others. While it is a love that wants to reach out and help those who are poor, distressed, harassed, destitute, and persecuted, it is also a love that looks beyond their immediate predicament, and seeks to rescue them from their ultimate predicament: separation from God. Leo Tolstoy's view of love had the cart before the horse, or perhaps, a cart with no horse.
To speak of love and compassion as being more important than doctrine, or the teaching of the Bible, is as meaningless as it is to ask which is more important, the horse or the cart. Or, putting it in another way, it's like building our lives on nothing but sand. Unhitching the 'horse from the cart' leads to an understanding of love and compassion that is devoid of any real meaning.
Jesus Christ, in His infinite love,has become what we are, in order that He may make us entirely what He is.
Bishop Irenaeus
(Church Father 2nd C)
2 op cit, p443.