In fact, our doctrine tells us so. I remember leading a Bible study on First John years ago and being unsettled by its emphasis on orthopraxy and it’s relative lack of emphasis on orthodoxy. Can it be more clear than this: “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. . . . Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” (1 John 2:3, 6).
And again: “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:10.)
And again: “Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:18.)
And again: “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.” (1 John 3:23-24)
Notice here that the “belief” command isn’t a command to believe in a propositional doctrinal statement — we’re commanded to “believe in the name of … Jesus Christ” — to have a living relationship with a living Lord.
And again: “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love…. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.” (1 John 4:7-12)
And again: “We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God.” (1 John 4:13-15)
Notice again that the proposition to be acknowledged is one of relationship.
And again: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” (1 John 5:1-5)
Notice again that the only proposition to be believed is one of relationship, and that by faith in the person of Christ we gain the victory to live as God commands.
And finally: “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true–even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”
Again, the understanding is not primarily propositional, it’s primarily relational.
Ok, I know the response — “right doctrine leads to right practice.” The problem is, I’ve know too many people, both online and in the “real” world, who had every jot and tittle doctrinally but were nasty S.O.B.’s. Sometimes — often? — too much “right” doctrine leads to arrogance.
So let’s discuss doctrine, let’s strive mightily to learn and understand the richness of the propositional truths of our faith, let’s humbly but skillfully point out tends towards serious doctrinal error, but at the same time let’s remember that our greatest task and the first test of our faith is relational: an acknowledgment of the Lordship of Christ and a living faith in him which manifests itself in actions characterized by love.
5 replies on “Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and First John”
Amen and amen. Our Christian walk is before all and above all about relationship.
Doctrine is a poor substitute.
Not sure where you’re going by including politics in the mix. If, by politics, you mean pure policy questions, such as drilling in ANWR, the justness of the Iraq War, Social Security reform, tax cuts, etc, then I wholeheartedly agree.
If, however, you mean to include within that descriptor matters of conviction — racial equality, sanctity of the life of the unborn, the definition of marriage — then I must vehemently dissent. Our relationships mean little if we will not speak courageously of God’s justice as well as His grace and mercy.
Ajmac — thanks again for the thoughtful comment — actually now that you mention it I’m not entirely sure what putting politics in the mix means, and you raise another interesting question: Are there any “pure policy” questions? Environmental stewardship (drilling in ANWR), economic justice (tax cuts), compassion for the elderly and disabled (Social Security reform), and the ethics of war (Iraq) are matters of conviction just as much as civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion. I’d argue that all of these political issues run back to our view of creation — they all relate to our stewardship of creation and our care for each other as divine image-bearers.
Why should we decide who’s “out” and who’s “in” based on a person’s view of U.S. abortion and marriage politics but not their views on taxes and war? The Bible doesn’t say we’re defined by our views on whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended to prohibit gay marriage; nor does it say we’re defined by our views on whether tax breaks for the wealthy are just; it says we’re defined by love and obedience.
Having said that, I would also say that love and obedience lead inexorably to certain broad social views. You can’t claim to be acting in love and yet perpetrate racial discrimination. You can’t claim to be acting in love and yet fail to advocate the rights of those who can’t defend themselves, such as unborn children, the elderly, and the severely disabled.
This seems really relevant to how churches treat people with mental health problems. maybe we can just accept them and work with them rather than having debates about whether it is sin or lack of faith or brain chemicals. I have written on my blog and trackedback. Rob
Orthopraxy
David, at Through a Glass Darkly, writes today about Orthopraxy (as opposed to Orthodoxy, both defined below) and it occured to me how relevant this was to how churches deal with mental illness. David says: It’s too bad that some
Dave – Excellent post!! It is a shameful embarressment (and yes…I synonym for emphasis 🙂 that Christianity in America has such little concern for the downtrodden (whether in the womb or the inner city), such little care for marriage (as seen in our divorce rates), and almost no ability to bridge gaps between those who know Christ and those who do not (as seen in our ‘dialogues’ with homosexuals)….how much more the list could go on. And the worst is that I am in this group – I am as inept at this as my other brothers and sisters. Unless I’m reading the NT wrong, there seems to be something missing in modern Christianity. If you looked at the people walking down the average Roman city, you probably would not be able to pick out the Christians from non-Christians….but there is a sense to me in the NT that if you spent a day with them, it would be unavoidably apparent (and not just because they pray before their meals). How often do believers in America today look no different than those who have not been resurrected in spirit?
Sorry to word-vomit….you just hit a nerve….