By Jim Bublitz @ http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.532
Brian McLaren believes that "Christians should present Christianity through loving attitudes rather than logical arguments". Furthermore, "the gospel is made credible not by how we argue and make truth claims. But it's made credible by the love and the good deeds that flow from our lives and our community". Rather than deeds flowing from creeds (doctrine), postmodern thinkers would have you separate the two, and cast your vote for one or the other. Helping to demonstrate how this misguided thinking is really nothing new, the 19th century Scottish preacher Horatius Bonar continues his thoughts from part 2 in this series of posts:
And then there is the advantage of having a popular and high-sounding catchphrase. "Christianity a life, not a dogma" sounds noble. It is quite a formula to tell; fitted to take with a superficial public; an axiom rather than a proposition; just the thing for empiricism, or mysticism, or free-thinking, to flaunt upon their banners. It takes largely; it convinces hundreds without further inquiry or argument; it is plausible; it is in harmony with the spirit of the age; it is so universal and comprehensive; it would enable us to believe any one to be pious,--Moslem, Hindu, Romanist, Pantheist, or Skeptic,--who could produce a worthy and earnest life.
It is, however, too comprehensive to satisfy. Suspicions come in as to the latitude thus allowed. The question rises, Must there not be a limit, and must not that limit come in the shape of dogma after all? Must not this thing called "Christian life" or "religious life" be defined by some kind of doctrine, and have its basis in some fixed truth? Circumscription to some extent is felt to be necessary; for it is surmised that "life" cannot be altogether abandoned to self-will and self-judgment, or intuition, without some safeguard; and that life may become so loose doctrinally as to be in danger of becoming loose morally. For, as yet, it is only dogmatical free-thinking that has been held legitimate; moral free-thinking is discouraged; nay, is supposed to be condemned by the formula, "Life, not dogma." It will, however, task the ingenuity of the ablest to show why there should not be the latter if there be the former, and wherein socialists are wrong in the liberty which they claim for humanity to do as well as to believe what it pleases or finds convenient.
Thus we are forced back upon dogma by that very formula which disallows it. It is acknowledged that the "life" so lauded must be defined, else it is a nonentity, and that in proceeding to define,--however vaguely the limits may be drawn,--we must have recourse to dogma. In the investigation of the dogma, we are brought into contact with the life; for truth quickens, error kills; truth feeds, error poisons; and without truth life is an impossibility. The amount of truth which may be requisite to sustain life, or the quantity of error which will prove fatal to it, is not for man to determine. But truth there must be, else "life" is a mere air-bubble.
Now, disguise it as we may, truth is dogma. Let men sneer at catechisms and creeds, as bondage and shackles, let them call them skeletons, or bones, or something more offensive still, these formularies are meant to be compilations of truth. In so far as they can be shown to contain error, let them be amended or flung aside; but in so far as they embody truth, let them be accepted and honored as most helpful to the Christian life; not simply sustaining it, but also giving it stability and force; preventing its being weakened or injured by change, caprice, love of novelty, or individual self-will.
The Bible is a book of dogmas and facts; these two parts making up the one book, as soul and body make up the one man. The facts are the visible embodiment of the dogmas, the dogmas the spiritual interpretation of the facts. Religious life or piety is the result or product of these;--the effect produced upon man by the right knowledge and use of these. Faith transfers them from the exterior region of our being to the interior; and, thus transferred, they issue in religious life--life comprehending both the inner spirituality and the outer walk.
To oppose life and dogma against each other, is not so much to depreciate creeds as to misunderstand the Bible, and to represent life and the Bible as antagonistic to each other. It is true that these dogmas are, in Scripture, frequently gathered up into, and represented by living men. Specially are they exhibited in the great life, which may be said to be the one biography of the Bible, the life of Him who is both "the truth and the life." Yet this personification or incarnation of dogma or truth does not confound life and doctrine, but rather gives to each its own position and worth.
"Knowledge is power," said Bacon, as Solomon had said before him, "a wise man is strong." And in this knowledge or wisdom, which is but another name for doctrine, are contained the dynamics of all true religious life.
Though divine truth is deposited in the person of "the Christ," the "Word made flesh," yet the truth is not thereby sunk or lost sight of; nor does it become a trivial matter to know or not to know the truth, provided we love the Lord Jesus. The error of some religionists on this point is specious, but it is full of peril. As truly as exclusive regard to abstract doctrine lands us in rationalism or an unliving orthodoxy, so does exclusive regard to the person of Christ land us in mysticism. The doctrine and the person mutually reveal each other. It is evil to say, I have the person, let the doctrine go; for how can that person be understood, appreciated, loved, honored, confided in, unless illuminated by the truth, which shows us who and what he is in himself; who and what he is to us?
Remain ignorant of the doctrine, and you remain ignorant of the person [of Christ]; nay, that person becomes a mysterious shadow,--vague, unintelligible, and unlovable. ...
Few falsehoods are more insidiously working their way into the minds of men in our day than this, of setting life and dogma, religion and theology, the heart and the mind, in opposition to each other. Religion without a creed, religion without truth, religion without the Bible, religion without Christianity, religion without Christ,--is set down now, not simply among things possible, but amongst things desirable. Religion as a sentimentalism, an abstraction; religion without reference to any book, or any church, or any particular God, is to have our homage paid to it as a necessity, or at least a propriety; but no more. "Unconditioned" religion is to be accepted as not inconsistent with philosophy or liberty, but conditioned or defined religion is to be regarded as bondage or imbecility. It seems to be reckoned a discovery of.
To be continued in part 4 - next Tuesday.
-- Horatius Bonar, Catechisms of the Scottish Reformation, 1866
Related Resources and Information:
