https://web.archive.org/web/20160316145933/http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Church&id=1264
Correct views or warm Righteousness? (1)
I want to work with some questions concerning the importance of “correct views” and obedience to God's appointed rituals--OT & NT. Must we choose between correct views, obedience to, say, NT baptism and a life of warm righteousness? If a person has correct theological views but chooses to live unrighteously most of us would know where he is before God. If a person lives a life of warm generosity and uprightness should we say his theological views and/or obedience to God's ordinances don’t matter before God?
Recently (again) I’ve been reading quite a bit from an old writer called John Watson who laid great stress on character and righteous behavior and he does such a good job that at times I might be tempted to think that doctrine is close to irrelevant. I need no convincing that correct doctrine if it’s combined with a self-chosen lousy lifestyle is more of a judgment than a blessing (see that in Romans 2:1-3:19).
If I had had to be away and needed someone to watch over my Ethel while I was gone I’d have to know that the one in whose care I’d leave her was someone of character as well as competence. I’d look for patience, compassion, gentleness and strength. I wouldn’t ask if they were amillennial or premillennial; I wouldn’t ask if they practiced a faith-baptism for the remission of sins or infant baptism; I wouldn’t inquire if they believed Jesus rose bodily from the dead or what their view of the atonement was. I wouldn’t even care if they were atheist or theist. In such a situation I would regard correct theology as irrelevant if I knew they had depth of character and would commit to taking care of my Ethel. I didn’t quiz the surgeons, cardiologists, GPs or anyone else on their theological positions when I agreed to them working to bring Ethel through a score of life-threatening experiences.
In short, there are times and circumstances in which theological convictions are completely irrelevant. They’re certainly no substitute for genuineness of character and a virtuous heart whether that virtue and moral fineness is found in a Christian, Buddhist or atheist.
So what are we to do? Dismiss biblical and theological truth entirely and insist that warm moral uprightness is everything?
If we say, “That depends on which theological truth we choose to dismiss” it implies that we're saying that some theological truth must be maintained along with a virtuous life. Is that the case?
All biblical and theological truth is surely meant to fully equip us to live so as to glorify God (2 Timothy 3:16-17) so we’re not to isolate it from life—that’s obvious enough. Theological convictions can be worthless if they don’t transform the inner world in some foundational way but are we right if we dismiss them as irrelevant? All right, it’s better to have theological truth along with a virtuous life but, in the end, is it a virtuous life that is indispensable—is theological correctness and submission to God's ordinances dispensable fine-tuning?
To put it bluntly: In regard to the care of my loved ones theological differences would mean nothing. What difference does it make to your relationship with God if you’re a Buddhist, a Jew or a Christian so long as your life is warm and decent and generous? If the answer is that it makes no difference at all then it isn’t only NT ordinances (like Baptism and Holy Communion) that become dispensable—more critical by far, foundational truths such as “Jesus is Lord” become dispensable.
The temptation to sideline truth is real and powerful. How often have I been mocked by a critic with a text from Jesus? “What do you more than others?” he wanted to know of his followers. He didn’t but he could as well have asked, “Why don’t you do as much as others?” Of uncovenanted people Paul asked (Romans 2:26-29 along with 2:14-15); “If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?” Here we have uncovenanted people (that is, people outside the Jewish covenantal Torah) living better than those who were children of the covenant.
Yes! But Paul isn't despising or dismissing the OT covenant or circumcision, in fact he's making more of them. First, they were God's appointment and so important did he see circumcision for OT Israel that he claims it is a severe judgment on ungodly Jews and would be an appropriate "badge" of praise for godly Gentile outsiders. The fact that some Gentiles out-lived some Jews gives us no grounds for dismissing God-commanded ordinances that he required his covenant people to submit to on pain of being excluded from the Israelite commonwealth. (See Genesis 17:14--this matter needs developed, of course). And because some non-Christians live better than some Christians, does that mean the truth of God revealed in and as Jesus Christ is dispensable? [To be continued, God enabling.]
No comments:
Post a Comment