↓
 

‘If the church were Christian’ – 4

Walking With Giants Posted on by

This entry is part 5 of 11 in the series: If the church were Christian (Gulley)

In chapter 4 of If the church were Christian, Philip Gulley contends that in such a church ‘gracious behavior would be more important than right belief’.

This is, of course, the old ‘Jesus versus the Pharisees’ thing.  The Pharisees were sticklers for theological orthodoxy, yet their behaviour lacked grace.  Jesus, on the other hand, was relaxed about doctrinal correctness, but exuded love and compassion.

The valuing of belief over behaviour doesn’t just affect the doctrinally conservative:- ‘It happens wherever and whenever people insist that their way to the Divine is the superior path.’

The problem occurs not only in individuals, but also in institutions.  For ‘orthodoxy’ itself is a sign of spiritual immaturity.  For,

What is orthodoxy, if not the church’s effort to describe and define the reality of God, the church’s insistence that all must experience God as it has? Though the formulation of creeds might have been a necessary step in the church’s journey, it happened relatively early in the church’s life, hindering the church’s ability to evolve spiritually. It was akin to telling someone he had to arrive at the truth by the age of ten. In its rush to codify the faith, the church provided answers long before we knew what questions to ask. When we dared to ask questions, we were directed to the creeds and commanded not to stray from their boundaries.

Not only so, but the Bible itself is an incomplete and unreliable guide, because it is ‘theologically inconsistent’ itself, being composed so many different authors, with so many different worldviews.

Thus it is that we are imprisoned by our orthodoxy:-

We desire a fresh, relevant experience of God but fear any insight beyond our creeds and Scriptures, believing it will be unfaithful or even sinful. But how can our desire to grow and evolve be wrong? How can our wish to improve upon past teachings be displeasing or threatening to God? In every other endeavor, we welcome the advancements of science, careful thought, and progress. But in theology we not only fear such advancements, we condemn them.

Gulley complains, rather bitterly:-

If our doctor rejected out of hand the medical advances of the past three hundred years, we would quickly find a new doctor. If a United States president wished to place America under the rule of the British monarchy, he or she would be impeached. If a corporation employed children in barbaric conditions, ignored the rules of safety, and poisoned our land and waterways, it would be penalized. But take an ancient doctrine, insist it originated with God, devise a ritual that reinforces it, wrap it in a prayer, reward those who perpetuate it, and condemn to hell those who don’t, and what you have is a significant portion of today’s church.

The Gospels show that Jesus had respect for the religious life of the day.  Yet, in his controversies over the Sabbath with the religious leaders of the day, he struck a wise balance between law and grace.  This balance ‘might well be the start of religious wisdom, discerning when rules must be followed, and when they must be laid aside so a greater good can be accomplished.’

After all, the law itself can be boiled down to love: love for God, and love for neighbour.

As Michael Kruger remarks, there is, at first sight, room for considerable agreement here:-

We certainly would agree that gracious behavior is something that should characterize the church (though there may be disagreement about what exactly that entails).  But, at a minimum, we could say that the church (and Christians) should be patient, gentle, kind, and loving to everyone–even those who have different theological convictions.

However, there are a number of problems with this.

Is good theology really the enemy of good behaviour?  The idea that behaviour is more important than belief sells well in today’s world, because people ‘already have the idea that people who care about theology are divisive, narrow, dogmatic, and even mean.’  But it’s a stereotype, and one that Gulley attempts to reinforce by comparing those who care about doctrine with the Pharisees, with their ‘misguided quest for theological purity’.  The problem with this stereotype is that it doesn’t fit the facts.  Jesus never rebuked the Pharisees for desiring theological purity.  Rather, he criticised them for (among other things) not not having a theology that was pure enough!  They twisted God’s priorities, and cherry-picked from God’s law.  “You err,” he said to them, “because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”  The problem, then, was not theology.  It was bad theology.  Bad theology harms and oppresses people.  Good theology comforts and liberates them.

Is this not a false dichotomy anyway?  Actually, it is fallacious to claim that belief and behaviour can be separated in this way.  Note the irony: ‘Right behaviour is more important than right belief’ is itself a statement of belief!  The truth is, behaviour stems from belief, and belief leads to behaviour.  Good beliefs will lead to good behaviour.  Behaviour is only ‘good’ if it fits with God’s character and will.

Does ‘less concern about belief’ lead to ‘greater concern about behaviour’?  We are back here to the moralistic basis of Gulley’s religion.  And was is not the Pharisees, rather than Jesus, who were interested in moralism?  Kruger concludes:-

If we really want to become people who are more gracious, the answer is not to focus on our behavior and “try harder.”  Instead, the answer is to focus on Jesus Christ, the son of God, who gave his life to pay the debt of our sins, and empowers us by the Spirit to live a new life.  It is then that we can really love others selflessly….In the end, is not the case that behavior is more important than right theology.  Both are important.  And the latter is the foundation for the former.

 

Comments are closed.

↑