Sloganized Christianity: Part 1 - Doctrine Divides

There are a great many naïve Christian slogans floating in the air, and I’m quite certain it is a solely western phenomenon. I doubt the underground church in China uses slogans like the ones we have got. They do not have the luxury of being naïve; they have too much at stake. I mean popular phrases like, “Love unites; doctrine divides”, “Don’t judge, lest you be judged!”, and “Christianity isn’t a religion; it’s a relationship.” All of these phrases emerge out of some valid concern; they’re all used by well-meaning persons. The trouble is that, like most reactions, they go too far.

Of the three phrases I have listed, the first is downright dangerous, the second is merely an honest mistake, and the third phrase makes us look ignorant and is potentially misleading in several ways.

Love unites; doctrine divides! That sounds awfully nice, but is rather silly. If you were paying attention, you noticed that “love unites; doctrine divides” is itself a doctrine. To put it another way, this slogan is saying “Love unites, but rules about what to believe are divisive.” But this is absurd; this slogan is also giving you a rule about what to believe: that love unites and that doctrine divides.

What persons usually mean (I hope) when they say that “love unites, but doctrine divides,” is that there are some doctrines which are not salvific ones, but which are often enough to divide Christians. I mean doctrines like those of baptism—do we immerse or pour? Or questions of the gifts of the spirit—are cessationists right, or is it the continuationists who are right? To be wrong on questions like these is not to be a mortal heretic.

The trouble is that when we say that doctrine divides, it implies that doctrine is either bad or unimportant. But every theological question is important, because every question is a question about God, and God is infinitely important.

How is every theological question a question about God? All theological questions can be classed as questions about God’s nature, God’s wishes, and God’s acts. But God acts and wishes only according to His nature. So even questions like “What is man?” can be understood in terms of God’s nature. (God created man in His own image and created man good, according to His nature. Man did not obey the wishes of God, and found himself at enmity with God, etc.)

Doctrines ultimately unite. We may disagree over doctrines, and that is magnificent, because it means we must respect each other enough to disagree. G. K. Chesterton writes that “creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each others’ way.”* Our disagreements force us to become better listeners, to practice love, to always be reexamining our convictions. If we ignore our disagreements, we do so by ceasing to listen, by loving only those who refuse to anger us, and by hiding our convictions under a smug blanket of cold tolerance.

Yes, love also unites; it is like string, or bandages. But doctrine is cement. Doctrine is the reason the universal Church exists as a universal Church. It is because we share the fundamental doctrines of Christianity that we are brothers and sisters in Christ. It is because of the doctrines of love that we understand our need to love.

*What's Wrong with the World, I.3 -- G.K. Chesterton.


Read Part 2: Don't Judge!
Read Part 3: A Relationship, Not a Religion

"I Want Your Money" Trailer

Bwahaha, I'm excited about this coming out.

New Club of Good Cents Posts

The Club of Good Cents (where I am a contributor) has two new blog posts.

1) Slave to Sin or Righteousness?

2) The Great Weaknesses of Atheism: Part 2 - Irrationality
You can read part 1 HERE.

"Runaway Slave"

I'm buying this when it comes out in 2011. You should, too.
I heard about it on this follow-worthy blog.
Peace.

Agenda: Grinding America Down (a documentary)

I just finished watching this documentary. I was blown away. Everyone must see it. I have no further words. It speaks for itself. Watch the trailer below. Then buy it. The information it contains is worth far more than $18.

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Trailer) from Copybook Heading Productions LLC on Vimeo.

Here's a link to the Agenda Website.

A friend (who is awesome) let me borrow this film, so I don't actually own it. But after watching it, I'm ordering at least one copy.

Books: America Alone and The Spirit of Churchill

I finished America Alone yesterday, and today I started The Spirit of Churchill by Debbie Brezina. America Alone was about the moral cowardice of the West, and The Spirit of Churchill is about an era when the West was still brave. Brezina's book makes an excellent prequel to Steyn's. There wasn't much that was new to me in America Alone. Steyn discusses the dangers of the increasing Islamization of the West. I was familiar with most of his points-- the problems with global demographics (and how it relates to the spread of Islam), the moral poverty of the West and the moral strength of Islam, the incompatibility of Islam and Western freedom, Islam's inherent violent bent, etc. So over all, America Alone was depressing. After all, critics of the book called it 'alarmist propaganda' or something. Which would be a bad thing, except for the fact that Steyn is right. Whether a book is alarmist or not has nothing to do with whether or not it makes valid points. And not only are his points valid, they're also pointy and uncomfortable, like swords: the Sword of Islam. It's worth a read. The Spirit of Churchill, on the other hand, is nothing short of inspiring. It's amazing how easily I'd forgotten how incredible Hitler's rise and defeat actually was. The West needs another Churchill; we need another Charles Martel. We've got far too many Chamberlains in politics these days. I've been reminded how rare true courage is. Perhaps it's because courage is a Christian virtue; only the weak can be brave. It is the lamb and not the lion which can cultivate courage. Courage is the lamb becoming the lion, despite the knowledge that he is still a lamb. At any rate, I highly recommend The Spirit of Churchill to your reading lists. Cheers,

A mosque on ground zero? Sure! Why not? It's not like the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims or anything.

Granted, the mosque won't be on the ruins of the two towers; it'll be an a nearby building that was struck by airplane debris. I don't know that the Islamic center can be legally opposed without violating the first amendment, but it ought to be recognized for what it is. A slap in the face of the American people.

The mosque is supposed to be, as the linked article states, "part of an Islamic community center to be operated by a group called the Cordoba Initiative, which says the center will be a space for moderate Muslim voices." The trouble with this, of course, is the notion of 'moderate Muslims.'

What is a 'moderate Muslim?' The term is so vague as to be completely meaningless. It's often used vis a vis 'radical Muslim,' which implies that a 'moderate Muslim' is simply a Muslim who isn't trying to blow persons up. Well, that definition works just fine. The trouble is that that isn't what is meant by 'moderate Muslim.'

What is usually meant by 'moderate Muslim' is a Muslim who keeps his faith at home and in the mosque. In other words, a 'moderate Muslim' would be nearly indistinguishable from your typical American self-proclaimed 'Christian.' But this is ridiculous. Islam requires the practice of Sharia law. Sharia law does appear in four distinct schools, but all four agree that anyone who wishes to leave Islam ought to be given three days to return to Islam. If after three days he refuses, he must be killed. I won't even talk about other human rights violations in Sharia law, that one example ought to suffice.

Myth: Islam means peace. No, Islam means submission, and there are no Qur'anic verses which command peace with non-Muslims. I dare you to prove me wrong.

Thus, moderate Muslims are really Muslims who are against Islamism--almost like Christians who oppose the organized Church. They aren't being consistent.

Don't get me wrong, I wish all Muslims were truly moderate Muslims. (I wish even more that they were all Christians. Jesus said, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you." Try find that one in the Qur'an.) I simply think that we've been greatly mislead in believing that most Muslims are as moderate and modern as we've made them out to be.

One would think that this slap to the face that this new mosque represents would wake us up, but nah, we're too drunk on our own smug delusions--like the one that murderers only kill persons because society has failed them. Don't worry, Mr. Terrorist! We know that you're really a nice person. You're just upset because we've been so bigoted as to think bad thoughts about Islam, like the idea that it might be wrong.

Okay, so I'm upset. But shouldn't you be upset, too? I should probably temper my language; it's not going to win over any Muslims who read this. But I'm not writing to them. I'm writing to post-Christian Americans who ought to know better. Don't be a frog in a pot. Pay attention to that water. It's been heating up for several hundred years.

Peace,