Love and Doctrine

In Christianity, there is a tension between two viewpoints. Some say love is the most important thing in Christianity. Rick Warren has said we will not be judged by our doctrinal stands, but whether or not we love. Others say that Christians should believe in the fundamentals of the faith. What does the Bible say?

Paul told Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:3 that part of Timothy's mandate is to charge certain people not to teach any false doctrine. Timothy was to make sure that the leaders in the church didn't preach any doctrine contrary to what is taught. Paul wrote Galatians because false teachers were trying to mix Jewish law with Gentiles and force it onto the Gentiles. The epistle was to correct doctrine. 1 and 2 Corinthians dealt with several doctrinal issues. 2 Peter 2:1 warns of false prophets who bring in destructive heresies. Doctrine is clearly important.

Love is also very important. Jesus said that the love of God and the love of neighbors is the most important commands in the Old Testament law. 1 Corinthians 13 dealt with love. Prophecy, tongues and knowledge will all pass but love endures. Paul also said that faith, hope and love are all important, but love is the greatest. John says that if you do not love your brothers you are not saved. Love is vital to a true believer.

What is more important, love or doctrine? I don't think that you can measure which one is more important. I think they are both equally important. I don't think you can sacrifice one for another. Both are essential. No where is there more evidence than in the epistle of 1 John. The book stresses the importance of love and holding onto right doctrine.

We err when we focus on doctrine at the exclusion of love. We equally err when we focus on love to the exclusion of right doctrine. Those who say that doctrine divides and love unites are wrong. Yes doctrine divides, but that's a good thing. it divides true doctrine from false doctrine. It divides true Christians from false ones. It does divide and it should. Love does not mean tolerance of everyone. Christians have not always loved as they should. We should love everyone in the truth.

An Emerging Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism in Amercan began as a response to the rising liberalism in the turn of the 20th century. Many in the church responded to Darwin's theory and the rising secularism by modifying Christianity to more of a social club. Fundamentalists wanted to preserve the fundamentals of the faith. Unfortunately they also wanted to preserve the traditions of the 19th century. Many fundamentalists today still want to preserve the traditions of the past.

The problem with modern fundamentalism is that they attribute the use of organs, hymnals, the King James Version and wearing suits and ties as essential parts of being Christian. They separate from the rest of evangelical Christians because of it.

While we may find that evangelicalism more palatable than fundamentalism, evangelicalism is very centrists. Evangelicals believe in the fundamentals of the faith but are free in other areas. Many believe that the Nestle-Alonds text of the New Testament, which omits several passages, is the better text than the Textus Receptus. This puts the preservation of scripture into serious doubt.

What is the answer? Why not a new kind of fundamentalism? One that holds to the fundamentals of the faith. One that believes that the Bible is the word of God and does not rely on mankind to decide what is scripture. One that separates from Christians that don't hold to those tenants. Emergent Fundamentalism which holds to the tenants of fundamentalism but dresses more casually and listens to Christian rock.

It is sad that emerging fundamentalism does not exist yet. It should Many find evangelicalism not an option. Fundamentalism is also not always the best choice. An emerging fundamentalism is. I hope that it does happen.