If doctrine is not the tie that binds churches together in unity, what is?
Love
In his letters to the Corinthians, Paul corrects numerous practical and doctrinal issues within the church. But at one point, in the middle of dealing with the divisive doctrine of spiritual gifts, and after begging with the Corinthian believers to live in unity with one another, he shows them the key to unity.
The key to unity, says Paul, is not doctrinal precision or even ethical perfection, but love. Though 1 Corinthians 13 is often read at weddings, it has very little to do with the love between a man and a wife, and everything to do with how a church can function as the Body of Christ. The secret is not spiritual gifts, but love. The secret is not prophecy, or preaching and teaching, but love. The secret is not accurate knowledge of theology and faith that moves mountains, but love. The secret is not abundant generosity to the poor, or becoming a martyr for the faith, but love.
Without Love, Theology is Worthless
What does this mean for our churches? It means that how we treat one another and what we do for our neighbors matters more than what we write down on our doctrinal statement. Sure, right believing is important, but according to Paul, all the doctrine and theology in the world is worthless if we do not love.
It is true, as many like to point out, that love without truth in not truly love. But those who argue this way are usually just trying to defend their lack of love. It is much easier to sign a doctrinal statement than it is to show love to the sick, the dying, the dirty, and the lost. Love is too hard; that’s why we focus on doctrinal statements instead.
In What’s Wrong With the World
Love is Possible
And do not begin to say that it cannot happen; that love and unity are impossible, that the gulf if too wide, the divisions too severe, the doctrinal differences too great. Since the divisions first began nearly 1700 years ago, the church has never really tried to reunite.
But if we could unite, if we could love one another, if we could agree that love for others was more important than being right about the rapture, then maybe the church would stop dividing over doctrine, and start showing the world what the love of God really looks like. In his book Small Faith–Great God
Developing a “To Do Statement”
Uniting together with other believers does not mean you have to ignore doctrine, but only that you put doctrine in its rightful place. Doctrine must amplify rather than restrict our love for others. Love must be built in to the doctrinal statement. Each point in the statement must bleed with love. Love from God, love for God, and love for others must be evident everywhere when we talk about what we believe.
Or maybe along with the doctrinal statement, a church or organization could also develop a “To Do” Statement. They would not only have a statement of what they believe, but also a statement of how they behave. The Simple Way in Philadelphia has both statements. According to Shane Claiborne
Churches, communities, and organizations that follow similar practices reveal that they are centered on both truth and love.
Jeremy,
What do you do with 2 John 1:9-11?
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
At the very least this is a call to church discipline; at most a command to keep away from everyone who’s doctrine is false. Either way, it would appear that doctrine matters quite a bit more than your post suggests, no?
Hmm…this post is about unity in love with other believers. The context of the passage you quote is important…verse 7:
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Those John is talking about in the passage you then quote are the ones who, by virtue of not believing Jesus actually came, are not believers, but rather ones who are specifically trying to come into the group and deny the incarnation of Christ.
This in no way that I can see conflicts with anything Jeremy has written…
Great look at the context, Katherine! Right on.
Actually, Katherine, a major thrust of the post, and the point to which I believe is challenged by the verse I cited, is that doctrinal differences should be subordinated to the goal of getting along in “love”. Jeremy said:
“Uniting together with other believers does not mean you have to ignore doctrine, but only that you put doctrine in its rightful place. Doctrine must amplify rather than restrict our love for others.”
There are two problem with this idea: 1) By what authority does he claim that doctrine must amplify rather than restrict our love for others? And 2) The command to “love one another” is a doctrine, an instruction, open to interpretation like any other doctrine. I for one believe that we are commanded only to “love” God and those who “love” God, not every human being regardless of what they believe. That to me is part of what John calls “the doctrine of Christ”. So, in light of verses 9-11, anyone who comes along (whether calling themselves Christian or not) and claims otherwise is antichrist, is not professing the incarnation, and should therefore be shunned.
In short, things are exactly the opposite to the way Jeremy suggests in this post: Doctrinal agreement must come first, because only through doctrinal agreement can we know what “love” even means. Without doctrinal soundness people will follow their feelings; and we know where that leads…
Ah, but here lies the crux of what these series of posts is about, I think….
“Doctrinal agreement must come first, because only through doctrinal agreement can we know what “love” even means. Without doctrinal soundness people will follow their feelings; and we know where that leads…”
Where do we draw the line? Whose doctrine and interpretation? How much room for disagreement is there before you feel absolved of any ‘obligation’ to love? We can only know what love means through doctrinal agreement? That sounds to me like you are saying you only have to love those who agree with you.
“But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.” ~ Luke 6:32-36
(This theme is repeated in Matthew 5:43-48)
So, I guess I am wondering…as you obviously disagree with Jeremy on this doctrinal point, does that mean you get a pass on loving him? Who is you brother or sister – only those who agree with your doctrine? Again, how much agreement is necessary?
These questions are, I think, the whole point.
Do you think God only loves those who believe in Him? That would negate the whole foundation of Christ incarnate (see Romans 5:8).
Katherine,
We have to draw the line at doctrinal agreement between believers; there’s no other way. In fellowship we put forward our interpretations and the reasoning behind it. Those who agree, continue together; those who don’t, part company. This is exactly what happens now and why we have divisions. These are inevitable and, wherever fundamental doctrines are in dispute, I say, healthy. Roman Catholics shouldn’t be fellowshipping with Mormons, or Baptists with Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Arminians with Calvinists, etc. There is only one True Doctrine, so if you think you have it, you shouldn’t, as per 2 John 1:9-11, be partaking of the other’s evil deeds.
Now, as far as “love” goes, again we’re not communicating because of our different definitions of “love” (agape) as it’s used in the Bible. When I said above that I believe we’re only to love God and those who believe in God, I was speaking in terms of the command to love one another and the command to love our neighbors as ourselves (I believe the “one another” and “neighbor” is only referring to believers and non-Jewish believers—as per the Parable of the Good Samaritan).
The command to love our enemies is where the meaning of the word “love” becomes even more important. I believe (as I wrote in the other thread) that agapeo means to “walk according to His commandments” (as per 2 John 1:6). Loving our enemies means being a servant of Christ to them, representing the truth of Christ to them, to not repay their evil with our own evil. It doesn’t mean to hug and kiss them; it means to endure their attacks because they are God’s instrument to sanctify us through persecution (David calls the wicked God’s sword Psalm 17:13). In a nutshell, it means, as always, to “do the truth”.
Which brings us to your questions about my relationship to Jeremy. Firstly, Christians don’t get a pass on “loving” anyone, but you have to “love” correctly. We are not commanded to love the way you (and Jeremy) mean it. That kind of love is carnal and selfish—loving in that way makes us feel good; a bad sign. My brothers and sisters are those who love God the way Jesus meant it. I love Jeremy by telling him where I think he is wrong. I tell him the truth. Obviously, his doctrine precludes our fellowshipping—judging from his words, I think he believes in another Jesus, the wrong Jesus (right now; he can always repent!)
As for God, He loves us by giving us faith in Christ (Phil 1:29), rebirthing us and making us His children. He doesn’t do this to everyone, so He clearly doesn’t love everyone (He hated Esau before he was even born! Rom 9:11-13). He hates all workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5) and the wicked and those who love violence (Psalm 11:5). God doesn’t love His enemies; He only loves those who believe in Jesus.
And you’ve misunderstood Romans 5:8. Paul is confirming the doctrines of Election and Predestination applying to both Jewish and Gentile Christians (as he does throughout Romans). Christ only died for the sins of believers, Jews and Gentiles, who make up the Church, Spiritual Israel, the Elect, the Chosen, God’s family, the Bride of Christ, etc. So, even while still sinners, Christ died for them, Jew and Gentile, as evidenced by their present belief.
Dear Martus, the trouble with lifting a piece of scripture out of the Holy Bible to try and prove a point is unacceptable and at best deceptive, that is how the Christians in South Africa justified apartheid using Genesis ch 9 v 25 when Noah cursed his son Ham and his descendants.
The scripture you refer to hangs on verse 6 where love is the rule we follow. I Corinthians 13 is worth using when unbelief tries to attack Gods Church. The Beetles did not realise at the time of writing their song All you need is love, they they were making a prophetic statement to the world.
Faith, Hope and Love will remain when all else is found to be wanting, but the greatest of these will be love. In His Love Clive
Wonderful points, Clive. The greatest of these truly is love, yet how quickly we forget this!
Clive,
SNAP!
You just lifted “a piece of scripture (1 Corinthians 13:6) out of the Holy Bible to try and prove a point”. That “is unacceptable and at best deceptive”. You’re no better than a racist “Christian in South Africa” justifying “apartheid using Genesis 9:25”!
And the Beatles were godless, pagan degenerates. They weren’t making any prophetic statement, they were proclaiming the “doctrine of devils”. They were, in effect, singing, “All you need is love, you don’t need Christ”.
the scripture bracketed in my second para should be “2 John 1:6″…I believe that’s the one Clive was referring to when he said “v6”.
Great post, Jeremy. Great post!
Thanks, Sam. I’m learning from you!
Great Post…I always liked The Simple Way’s Todo list….I suggested to Shane that they should have a “What we are not” list..but then we realized it would be 3 times as long as their present list
Yeah, it probably would. You know Shane, right? I would love to visit The Simple Way in Philly sometime.
You should go..you can actually just show up. But they had a specific event that I went to. They have one coming up soon
http://www.newmonasticism.org/weekend.php
I stayed in the Camden House, but we all ate at the Philly House (Kensington District).
My wife was pregnant with Evan when we went there and she hooked up with Cassie Haw (Chris Haw’s wife) who was also pregnant..out sons are the same age. They left the community and bought a house in Camden.
Yeah, one of these days I’ll get down there.
Sorry Martus I did not realise you had responded to my comment on November 4th. I was not referring to just verse 6 in 1 Corinthians chapter 13 I was referring to all the chapter. I can understand why you became angry with me as I was suggesting that you to may possibly be using a verse in scripture to prove your point, I do sincerely apologise.
I will concede you won that bout as I had difficulty understanding all that you were trying to explain. What did upset me was your argument that the Christ only died to save certain people who were already predestined to be saved, I have a problem with that in that it appears you may be saying we are already dammed or blessed before conception and that no matter what we do it makes not a Haporth (halfpenny worth) of difference.
Drawing lines, or condemning others is not Gods way, neither is hating. Time and time again God gave his chosen people opportunities to change, God is holding His Son back from coming so that more will be saved. Many Jews are becoming complete by believing in Jesus the Messiah, thousands every day are becoming Christians all over the world in spite of severe persecution. The Lord is constantly working to claim His Sons inheritance, his Bride, His Church.
Judge no man as we are warned that whatever measure we use against someone it will surely be used against us. We will all be measured lets not be found wanting. God can speak and challenge us from various peoples and situations as well as from the Churches.
Jesus said build my Church, the Roman Catholics and others think they have got it right, no they haven’t they have all caused division through their arguments on doctrine and style. If the building is not built on the foundations of Christs love, it will fall. When the fire tests the deeds we have done, will we be purified or destroyed like grass in the oven. All those who say Lord Lord may not enter into His rest.
Accusations and point scoring are pure judgments and will not succeed. My ways are not your ways my thoughts are not your thoughts.
Come on lets talk and not argue, Communication always has open doors, lets fling them wide.
Clive
Howdy Clive,
First of all, no need to apologize for your tardy reply, I’d forgotten all about it. My main argument was with Jeremy’s post, anyway. Oh, and I wasn’t angry, actually; I was amused.
As to the rest of your reply, well, your theology appears to be all over the shop, my friend. Of course, that’s from my sola scriptura perspective; a perspective I gather you don’t share. Which means we probably can’t really communicate on matters doctrinal…but what the heck? Let’s take a stab at it!
You are going to have to remain upset, old sock, because I was indeed saying that Christ only died to save certain predestinated, elect people (His Church; Eph 5:25) and that all the others are damned long before conception. However, I never said that what anyone does will not make a ha’penny’s worth of difference. What I would say is that only those who are Elect will (eventually) bear fruit, because only the Elect are given by God to want to; all the others are simply vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom 9;22)—y’know, like Pharaoh and Caesar and Jezebel and Judas and Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa and Errol Flynn and Margaret Thatcher and Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson and Billy Graham (he’s dead right?), well, just about everybody who’s famous and rich and powerful…
You are flat wrong: drawing lines, condemning people and hating are exactly God’s way. Who do you think instituted the narrow way of tribulation that only a few find? Who do you think created the tree in the garden and the serpent and the sin nature of Adam and Eve and put them all together and said, “Don’t!” knowing full well they would? Whose plan was that all along? Who do you think is condemning all those evil souls to the lake of fire in the Apocalypse? Who do you think hates all workers of iniquity? Who hated Esau before he was even born? Who is it that opened the earth to swallow Korah and his pals? Why does Jesus say to fear Him who can destroy the body and soul in Gehenna? Who came not to bring peace, but a sword? Who cursed the Pharisees and the Sadducees for not recognizing Him even though He was the one who blinded their eyes, deafened their ears and hardened their hearts so they couldn’t recognize Him?
If that doesn’t sound like your Jesus, it’s because you’ve been taught that αγαπη is synonymous with the English word “love” and that when the Word mentions the “heart” it’s referring to our feelings, rather than our understanding. If that doesn’t sound like your Christianity, it’s because you weren’t listening when Jesus said we are supposed to be hated by everyone, including our unbelieving family members, and that we are supposed to be persecuted and despised and called bad names and crucified every single day for telling the truth about who He is—the reason He was crucified. In short, Clive, if that all sounds terribly wretched to you, it’s because you’ve been reading the same corrupted Bible that Jeremy has—the one with the non-judgmental God, the milquetoast, hippy Jesus and the beer & skittles Gospel.
You’ve been taught, and are now teaching, a pack of lies; time to stop listening to those ear-ticklers and find someone who will tell you the plain, blunt, unvarnished Truth. Time for the Red Pill, innit.
Clive,
It is nearly impossible to have a conversation with someone who believes that hate is a mark of spiritual maturity and doctrinal soundness.
I appreciate your effort though! Keep showing love, my friend!
I couldn’t agree more, Jeremy. While doctrine does have its place, it begins with love; love does not begin with doctrine. Blessings, my friend 🙂
Thanks, Will. Yes, this is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.
Hi Jeremy!
Only just read your article! Great stuff I’d say!
Doctrines are just a bunch of laws that nobody loves to follow but expect others to…no Love can spring from it!
I love the closing sentence of 1Cor 12, ultimately the opening phrase of Chapter 13…”but I’ll show you the MOST excellent way”
Doesn’t matter how meticulously things are organised or how many “big” brains set up the way things are to be…the most excellent way is Love!
As for Martus…You need Jesus! Much Love!
Thnx Clive and Kat for trying!
So true. Love is the MOST excellent way. Jesus modeled this for us as well.