True, Balanced Doctrine and Orthopraxy

I am currently reading The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. It has been a fascinating and compelling read so far, but he has said something twice that has stood out to me both times (I think he wanted to make sure I caught it) and I have taken exception with it. It seems to be a sentiment that is shared with many in the emerging and postmodern Christian circles.

He said "Political ideologies and religious doctrines just aren't very compelling, even if they're true" and again, "Doctrine is not very attractive, even if it's true".

I think I can understand his motivation for saying this and, if it had been only once, I may have been inclined to ignore it. But when it bears repeating, it bears addressing. Certainly his intention was to say that what is compelling and attractive is missional, communal, Jesus-like, (fill in your own Christian buzzword here _________) living that reaches out to the lost, marginalized, and hopeless.

The problem is you can't divorce that sort of living from the doctrine behind it. Some people, swinging like a pendulum away from fundamentalism, will abandon the language surrounding their faith. However, as they continue to live the way Jesus lived and wants them to live, they are still affirming and acting on true, balanced doctrine.

Jesus died for my sins. Doctrine. He saved me from hell, both here on earth and in eternity. Doctrine. He asks me to share His love and Gospel. Doctrine. When I serve the marginalized, I serve Jesus. Doctrine.

I am not defending all doctrine. There is doctrine that is false, and it is patently dangerous and destructive. There is also true doctrine that, if out of proportion and unbalanced by other true doctrine, can be equally dangerous and destructive. But true, balanced orthodoxy is behind all right living.

Though you can have orthodoxy (right belief) without orthopraxy (right living), you cannot have orthopraxy without orthodoxy. While we can run away from the words, true doctrine will be at the core of all faithful Christian living. This is because all true doctrine is rooted in the character of God and his revelation. Whether from the Bible or the motivation of the Holy Spirit in a believer's life, true and balanced doctrine lies in the bones and sinew of a Christian life rightly lived. Or, stated another way, when your life aligns with the character of God in any area, your life aligns with true, balanced doctrine.

And that is compelling and attractive.

Book Review: The Rabbit and the Elephant

I am certainly aware that my position as paid staff of a "traditional" church may lend some bias in how I read this book. That being said, Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna have written a book that may be revolutionary to some burnt-out ex-churchgoers. For others (myself included) it may sound like the church they already go to—minus the Sunday morning service.

The Rabbit and the Elephant proposes that the large, complex churches (elephants) multiply and grow slowly while the small, simple churches (rabbits) multiply quickly. Thus a hybrid small group/house church model is presented as a more effective way to grow the church, foster evangelism, and promote genuine Christian community.

While I found much of the information helpful, encouraging, and even insightful, I did not find it revolutionary. In addition, I have reservations about how a "simple church" (or small group only) model allows for certain biblical aspects of the church like eldership, gathering for teaching, and church discipline. Indeed, my personal experience is that, while not perfect, my church has all but implemented their model into our community groups during the week without jettisoning the larger service. This book would be a beneficial read on how to do small groups (or simple church) well, even if you don't plan on ditching the Sunday morning service.

Book Review: Notes from the Tilt-A-Whirl by N.D. Wilson

In the span of one paragraph, N.D. Wilson made me break out in goosebumps then made me laugh and cry at the same time. His writing in Notes from the Tilt-A-Whirl from Thomas Nelson Publishers evokes emotion like the best fiction, scratches the brain like the best philosophy, and stirs a love for Creator and creation like the best theology.

His bursts of thought are not always clear-cut and linear, rather they seem to be confusing and unrelated at times. As his ideas shape the chapters, however, and the chapters form the book, a step back reveals a beautiful piece of work.

And this, I think, was no accident. Wilson's premise is that the universe we live in is a work of art and the masterpiece of The Artist. It is a drama, a play, and God is the Author. And so, just as his writing style reflects, there are surprises, twists, and turns. It doesn't progress in an uneventful, gradual incline.

The best dramas have real tragedies, the best paintings have both shadow and light. Thus it makes sense that the best of all possible worlds made by an Artist/Author will have real tragedies, both shadow and light.

N.D. Wilson writes like Donald Miller on uppers and caffeine. He writes like someone with ADD who has sat through too many college-level courses on philosophy and art appreciation. He writes like I imagine Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) would if he found Jesus and switched to non-fiction.

My favorite book of the year, hands down.

You can read the entire thing online for free at Google Books. However, that's kind of like choosing to look at a Rembrandt on the internet rather than having one to hang on your wall. Yes, I thought that highly of this book, but that's just me. You have fun with your pixels.

Book Review: Trusting God by Jerry Bridges

To all of you who have been pulling your hair out wondering why I haven't posted anything in many weeks (all two of you): breathe a sigh of relief. You can thank NavPress for the breach in writer's block. And you can blame my friends over at the Christians in Context blog for making me OK with the writer's block in the first place (click here for a further explanation).

I've signed on to be a book review blogger for a couple of publishers, and I couldn't be happier about the book I got from NavPress for our maiden voyage.

Trusting God by Jerry Bridges turned into something I was not expecting, and I was all the happier for it. I have read enough defenses for the sovereignty of God, both philosophical and apologetical. Instead, Bridges presents a biblically-grounded celebration of the sovereignty of God in all things.

His central theme asserts that we can only trust God when bad things happen if He is totally sovereign, wise, and loving. This in response to the age old question of evil: either evil came about because God is all-powerful but not all-loving, or because God is all loving but not all-powerful. Rabbi Harold Kushner chose the latter in his best-selling book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, a position that Bridges references (and refutes) throughout the book.

Instead, Bridges presents a God that is both powerful and loving, both sovereign and wise. He does it with the awareness of the tensions between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, yet he does not rely on speculation or philosophy. Rather he draws heavily from both the Old and New Testament to defend a sovereignty that overcomes evil, a sovereignty that secures the glory of God and the good of His people, a sovereignty that can be trusted.

The stem cell debate is dead

Dr. Oz, featured on Oprah, declared "the stem cell debate is dead". He said the problem with embryonic stem cells is "they are very hard to control and they can become cancer". Ironically, he said all this with the poster boy for embryonic stem cell research, Michael J. Fox, sitting right beside him.

Instead, adult stem cell research has made ten-years worth advancement in the last year and adult stem cells are now more viable then embryonic stem cells ever were. My heart breaks at the unborn humans lost in the wake of this debate, and more so over the devaluing of all such life that lies behind this debate. I rejoice at the turn of events away from embryonic stem cell research, and regret only that it did not come from a change of heart and point of view about the humanity of the unborn.

Watch the short (1:41) video here.

Comparisons between abortion and slavery?

Below is a thought by Kevin DeYoung on the similarities between the pro-slavery and pro-abortion arguments:

"The connections with the pro-slavery argument and the pro-abortion argument should be obvious. Both argue for choice. Both, at least in their more civilized forms, pretend moral neutrality. And both rely for their inner logic on strikingly similar propositions: blacks are not human persons with unalienable rights; and neither are the unborn. To quote from Lincoln's 1864 speech in Baltimore with only a slight tweak, substituting 'choice' for 'liberty':

---

We all declare for choice; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word choice may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor. While with others the same word may mean for some men [and women] to do as they please with others, and with other men's labors. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name--choice. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names--choice and tyranny.

---

clipped from www.desiringgod.org

We should seek to stigmatize abortion by associating it with racism as closely as the truth warrants.

People today don’t oppose the enslavement of blacks merely because they think it's wrong.

It's easy to oppose it because to do so is fashionable.

That’s a good thing. It always helps when the right thing happens to be P.C.

So let’s be wise in showing the way abortion is closer to racism and slavery than people see.

The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case of 1857 held that black slaves were property without rights as persons, yet today we view that as unthinkable. So the Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade (1973) held that the unborn did not have rights as persons, yet we should hope and work that the day may come when that too is viewed as unthinkable.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 black people were lynched in America. Today more black babies are killed by white abortionists every three days than all who were lynched in those years (L.E.A.R.N.).

An evangelical's plea: "Love the sinner"

I was thrilled last week to find a conservative Christian addressing the issue of homosexuality on the Opinion page of the USA Today. Jonathan Merritt dealt with the topic in what I felt was an even-handed and biblical manner. You can read the entire piece here, but I wanted to share some of the high points.

---

Evangelical opposition to anything even remotely concerning "the homosexual agenda" has often been vitriolic and unbalanced by a message of love for our gay neighbors. Thus, it is understandable that people have incredibly negative perceptions of Christians . . . It is time for evangelical Christians to reform our rhetoric. This means doing away with cliches such as the infamous "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

---

I have been continually vocal about how I feel Christianity has mishandled the the issue of homosexuality. It is not that I am simply concerned with how Christians are perceived. Rather, I am specifically concerned when that perception is a far cry from what the Bible calls us to. I am under no delusions that Christians will ever be held in the highest of public opinion. But it grieves me to no end when that image is due to unbiblical attitudes, words, or behavior. Certain outspoken groups and individuals, with their heavy-handed and extrabiblical anti-gay rhetoric, have out-shouted the quiet love of the Christians being the hands and feet of Jesus (at least as far as public opinion reflects). As the author points out, "these groups seemingly fail to realize that our role as Christians is not to delegitimize the existence of those who do not share our beliefs".

While I was impressed with Jonathan Merritt's concessions at our shortfalls, I was even prouder that he was not willing to fudge on the clear lines that the Bible lays out.

---

Our biblical convictions prohibit a redefinition of marriage . . . Though I unashamedly believe that God desires a better path for their lives, I also understand that my obligation to love them is not dependent upon their capitulation to a particular belief system.

---

Love the homosexual and obey the Bible (which includes the mandate to love the homosexual). This is the balancing act that is increasingly placed before the Christian, not only in the eye of the public, but in the political and legal arenas as well. For many, Christians will certainly continue to be close-minded bigots until we are accepting the openly homosexual as leaders in our churches and performing their marriages. To put up any resistance is colored as hate. But the legislation proposed has significant implications on the freedom of our churches and our ability to practice biblical Christianity (see examples 1, 2, and 3).

While I don't claim to have all the answers, I am glad the discussion is taking place. I come to the same conclusion as Merritt:

---

God's model is a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual union, but we must balance this message with the scriptural understanding that we are all sinners. Individuals who have decided to follow Christ have not ceased to be sinners; we are simply sinners who have taken advantage of God's gracious gift of salvation.

---