Comments on: Do Right Beliefs Get in the Way of Good Works? http://churchethos.com/book-review/do-right-beliefs-get-in-the-way-of-good-works/ Making Disciples :: Planting Churches Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:15:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Melodie http://churchethos.com/book-review/do-right-beliefs-get-in-the-way-of-good-works/comment-page-1/#comment-485 Melodie Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:20:07 +0000 http://churchethos.com/?p=772#comment-485 Since I consider myself a conservative, I sort of bristle at the lumping all conservative together under the banner: "conservatives: beliefs are barriers to love." But, I suppose that is simply the limit of language. Wittmer can't be expected to qualify every comment he makes with "well I don't mean all conservatives are this way, just some, etc." However, the point itself is well taken. I Corinthians 13 lets us know in no uncertain terms that even the willingness to die for something is meaningless without love. I've long felt that truth without love ceases to be truth. Conversely, love without truth is not longer love. God is love according to I John. He is also truth (Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." Since truth and love are connected with one another in the person of God, you cannot separate them from one another and have them maintain their integrity. For example, the Bible tells us to speak the truth in love. Let's take an extreme example. If I say to my husband, "I love you," I might think I am making a true statement. But if I say it with a scowl, an angry tone of voice, and add the words, "You jerk" to the sentence, I have proved otherwise. I have said, "I love you" with my words, but with my actions I have said, "I do not love you." My unloving actions have undermined the truth of my words. By definition, undermined truth cannot be true. Conversely, if I say that I love someone, but then in the name of love refuse to tell them truth that will rescue them from great harm, my lack of truth-speaking results in disaster for the person I say I love. Thus, by not speaking truth, I prove that I have not really loved at all. For example, I might say, "I love Jill. I do not want her to feel judged. So, I will not speak of issues like sin, repentance, hell, or Heaven. These things might offend her." Jill then, becomes my great friend. We shop together, raise kids together, and love the same expresso. Then Jill dies in a car accident and, never having received Christ as her savior, spends eternity in hell. What love have I actually shown Jill? By refusing to tell her to live giving truth, I've done nothing to rescue her from disaster. I've not really loved her after all. One challenge is that often people who are willing to speak of sin and hell seem to relish the thought. Anger and attitudes of superiority provide a shield of protection from the rejection that might come from speaking the truth. But their harshness or arrogance undermines the truth they attempt to convey. Conversely, people that are gifted in compassion are often people pleasers who are fearful of the displeasure that may come from the more uncomfortable truths of Christianity. Thus, they fall short of truly loving the people to whom they minister. The One who got this right, who embraced all the radical extremes of truth and all the radical extremes of love, ended up crucified. That's ultimately why we tend to choose either truth or love. Doing so seems safer. Truth and love intersect at the cross. We are all hesistant to take it up and follow. Since I consider myself a conservative, I sort of bristle at the lumping all conservative together under the banner: "conservatives: beliefs are barriers to love." But, I suppose that is simply the limit of language. Wittmer can't be expected to qualify every comment he makes with "well I don't mean all conservatives are this way, just some, etc."

However, the point itself is well taken. I Corinthians 13 lets us know in no uncertain terms that even the willingness to die for something is meaningless without love. I've long felt that truth without love ceases to be truth. Conversely, love without truth is not longer love. God is love according to I John. He is also truth (Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life…" Since truth and love are connected with one another in the person of God, you cannot separate them from one another and have them maintain their integrity.

For example, the Bible tells us to speak the truth in love. Let's take an extreme example. If I say to my husband, "I love you," I might think I am making a true statement. But if I say it with a scowl, an angry tone of voice, and add the words, "You jerk" to the sentence, I have proved otherwise. I have said, "I love you" with my words, but with my actions I have said, "I do not love you." My unloving actions have undermined the truth of my words. By definition, undermined truth cannot be true.

Conversely, if I say that I love someone, but then in the name of love refuse to tell them truth that will rescue them from great harm, my lack of truth-speaking results in disaster for the person I say I love. Thus, by not speaking truth, I prove that I have not really loved at all.

For example, I might say, "I love Jill. I do not want her to feel judged. So, I will not speak of issues like sin, repentance, hell, or Heaven. These things might offend her." Jill then, becomes my great friend. We shop together, raise kids together, and love the same expresso. Then Jill dies in a car accident and, never having received Christ as her savior, spends eternity in hell. What love have I actually shown Jill? By refusing to tell her to live giving truth, I've done nothing to rescue her from disaster. I've not really loved her after all.

One challenge is that often people who are willing to speak of sin and hell seem to relish the thought. Anger and attitudes of superiority provide a shield of protection from the rejection that might come from speaking the truth. But their harshness or arrogance undermines the truth they attempt to convey. Conversely, people that are gifted in compassion are often people pleasers who are fearful of the displeasure that may come from the more uncomfortable truths of Christianity. Thus, they fall short of truly loving the people to whom they minister.

The One who got this right, who embraced all the radical extremes of truth and all the radical extremes of love, ended up crucified. That's ultimately why we tend to choose either truth or love. Doing so seems safer. Truth and love intersect at the cross. We are all hesistant to take it up and follow.

]]> By: Nathan Creitz http://churchethos.com/book-review/do-right-beliefs-get-in-the-way-of-good-works/comment-page-1/#comment-484 Nathan Creitz Fri, 22 May 2009 12:41:21 +0000 http://churchethos.com/?p=772#comment-484 Chere - Well said. Not too many so-called Christians willingly engage in sacrificial love. Chere – Well said. Not too many so-called Christians willingly engage in sacrificial love.

]]> By: Jason http://churchethos.com/book-review/do-right-beliefs-get-in-the-way-of-good-works/comment-page-1/#comment-483 Jason Wed, 20 May 2009 11:33:32 +0000 http://churchethos.com/?p=772#comment-483 Do Emergents really believe that we can love God without knowing Him? For Rollins to suggest that God is unknowable (and therefore doctrinal statements cannot be formed) is to simply disregard the truth of Scripture (which makes many doctrinal statements) and common sense. His brand of "Christianity" is no "Christianity" at all because he cannot love (or live in accordance with) what/who he does not know. And he can't encourage others to love the unkown either. There is no "life of love" where there is no knowledge. That we must even be engaged in this so-called "conversation" borders on the ridiculous. However, the Emergent's emphasis on the LIFE of love is important. I agree that too often the "conservative" emphasis on what we are to believe minimizes our calling to LIVE OUT what we believe. We are constantly called to "live by faith", to live a life of love; but this is based on the paradigm of the indicative/imperative. The Scripture is telling us, in effect, "Because THIS is who you are (a child of God by His grace through faith in Christ), THIS is how you should live. The Spirit indwells the true believer (yes, a "believer" BELIEVES!) and will accomplish His goal of transformation; and we are to "walk (live) by the Spirit". That we are called to live a life of love does not negate the necessity of the right belief (the Gospel); in fact, it's contingent upon it. The "life of love" is simply the outworking of the "life of faith" ("My righteous one shall live by faith")--we must know/believe before we can live. I realize that Rollins is the extreme "emergent", but his illogical and unbiblical ideas have influenced many people. For him to say, "When it comes to God, we have nothing to say to others and we must not be ashamed of saying it" is asinine and unbiblical. I wonder if our Lord will say to him on that day, "You did not confess Me before men, so I will not confess you before My Father." For Rollins (or any other "emergent" for that matter) to suggest that doctrine is meaningless (useless) and that we must only "love" apart from a doctrinal foundation is at best simply hypocritical, and at worst a bald-face lie (if we can distinguish between the two). We live out what we truly believe (what we *think* we know)...there's no exception. The "post-modern" man's epistemology is found to be wanting and therefore he has no basis for anything he says. And he certainly cannot live out (consistently or logically) what he says he believes. Wittmer's section in this chapter, "Christians make the best lovers" is excellent, as is his "Grace and gratitude". I think everyone who is being influenced by the Rollins' of the world should meditate on these sections. I also mostly agree with the section, "Believe in love", but I would have distinguished a little more between the psuedo-love that can be displayed by the non-christian and the true love that can be displayed only by the one who possess the Spirit. We can speak of non-christians in terms of "love", but (and as Wittmer points out) all non-christian love is always self-serving in some respect. Only the Christian is able to love truly as God loves. I'm enjoying re-reading this book with this "discussion" format. I'm "getting" some things that I "missed" the first time around. GGM Do Emergents really believe that we can love God without knowing Him? For Rollins to suggest that God is unknowable (and therefore doctrinal statements cannot be formed) is to simply disregard the truth of Scripture (which makes many doctrinal statements) and common sense. His brand of "Christianity" is no "Christianity" at all because he cannot love (or live in accordance with) what/who he does not know. And he can't encourage others to love the unkown either. There is no "life of love" where there is no knowledge. That we must even be engaged in this so-called "conversation" borders on the ridiculous.

However, the Emergent's emphasis on the LIFE of love is important. I agree that too often the "conservative" emphasis on what we are to believe minimizes our calling to LIVE OUT what we believe. We are constantly called to "live by faith", to live a life of love; but this is based on the paradigm of the indicative/imperative. The Scripture is telling us, in effect, "Because THIS is who you are (a child of God by His grace through faith in Christ), THIS is how you should live. The Spirit indwells the true believer (yes, a "believer" BELIEVES!) and will accomplish His goal of transformation; and we are to "walk (live) by the Spirit". That we are called to live a life of love does not negate the necessity of the right belief (the Gospel); in fact, it's contingent upon it. The "life of love" is simply the outworking of the "life of faith" ("My righteous one shall live by faith")–we must know/believe before we can live.

I realize that Rollins is the extreme "emergent", but his illogical and unbiblical ideas have influenced many people. For him to say, "When it comes to God, we have nothing to say to others and we must not be ashamed of saying it" is asinine and unbiblical. I wonder if our Lord will say to him on that day, "You did not confess Me before men, so I will not confess you before My Father." For Rollins (or any other "emergent" for that matter) to suggest that doctrine is meaningless (useless) and that we must only "love" apart from a doctrinal foundation is at best simply hypocritical, and at worst a bald-face lie (if we can distinguish between the two). We live out what we truly believe (what we *think* we know)…there's no exception. The "post-modern" man's epistemology is found to be wanting and therefore he has no basis for anything he says. And he certainly cannot live out (consistently or logically) what he says he believes.

Wittmer's section in this chapter, "Christians make the best lovers" is excellent, as is his "Grace and gratitude". I think everyone who is being influenced by the Rollins' of the world should meditate on these sections. I also mostly agree with the section, "Believe in love", but I would have distinguished a little more between the psuedo-love that can be displayed by the non-christian and the true love that can be displayed only by the one who possess the Spirit. We can speak of non-christians in terms of "love", but (and as Wittmer points out) all non-christian love is always self-serving in some respect. Only the Christian is able to love truly as God loves.

I'm enjoying re-reading this book with this "discussion" format. I'm "getting" some things that I "missed" the first time around.

GGM

]]> By: Chere Brown http://churchethos.com/book-review/do-right-beliefs-get-in-the-way-of-good-works/comment-page-1/#comment-482 Chere Brown Wed, 20 May 2009 01:45:28 +0000 http://churchethos.com/?p=772#comment-482 To me belief without love is just religion. And love without belief is just emotionalism and secularism. Our world is in love with love. They want the love that will make them feel good. It is a very conditional love. Yet Christ calls us to the same kind of love that he has for us-a sacrificial love. Without the right beliefs and His grace, we can never love this way. We must have both right beliefs about Him and love for Him. It is the two combined that that makes us doers of the Word and not hearers only. To me belief without love is just religion. And love without belief is just emotionalism and secularism. Our world is in love with love. They want the love that will make them feel good. It is a very conditional love. Yet Christ calls us to the same kind of love that he has for us-a sacrificial love. Without the right beliefs and His grace, we can never love this way. We must have both right beliefs about Him and love for Him. It is the two combined that that makes us doers of the Word and not hearers only.

]]>