More on the Balancing Act

Near the end of this, my last post, I said:

And I have to believe that missional model churches can find sound doctrine. But that's all it is for me right now, one of those "I choose to believe it" things. A leap of faith, if you will.

I have some further thoughts...

There is a time-honoured debate over faith and practice. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Which comes first? Which is more important? For generations, the answer was almost always orthodoxy - right doctrine. More recently, the emerging church (EC) folk are saying that orthopraxis - right practice - is in fact the more important.

I think the NT take would have both these parties wrong. Which is more important, orthodoxy or orthopraxis?

Yes.

I know, you can't really answer 'yes' to a question like that. But you get the point - both are critically important. To be nit-picky, I suppose it could be argued that one is the motivator of the other - though which is which still wouldn't be clear!

Since I'm taking a middle-road position, why even bother with this post, right? Because I think the EC folk need to hear this:

Doctrine is important.

Not just the very, very basics of the faith. There's more to it than that.

Take a brief look at Hebrews 6:1-2:

Therefore we must progress beyond the elementary instructions about Christ and move on to maturity, not laying this foundation again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. [NET translation - from this free and great online tool.]

Here's my brief breakdown - there are certain doctrines that are "elementary" and a "foundation". In context, Paul (or whomever wrote Hebrews) is clearly frustrated that he can't teach these believers the "solid food" doctrines that he wants to because they still haven't nailed down the "elementary" stuff.

I think we'd all agree - whether EC, mainline, or otherwise - that some Christian doctrines are "elementary" and "foundation"al. But look at what kind of teaching is labelled this way and you may be shocked.

1. Repentance from dead works - this probably includes more than just basic salvific teachings, to likely include things like Romans 6 (no longer slaves to sin) and putting off the old self. It includes things like the nature of works and faith, otherwise what's a "dead" work? More could be said, but you get the point.

2. Faith in God - again, probably more is in mind here than just the 'basics' of salvation. The whole 'show my your good works to show me your faith' thing may be embodied here, for example.

3. Teachings about baptism - Is it immersion or sprinkling? Infants or adults? Redemptive or demonstrative? This and more is considered "elementary".

4. Laying on of hands - most in my circles don't even have a clue what the Bible means on this subject, yet it's "elementary"! Is it for empowerment? Is it to acknowledge authority? What's the source of divine healing? Lots of questions are tied up in this statement.

5. Resurrection of the dead - the nature of resurrection is included, as are the recipients of said. Eschatology must be involved here in at least a cursory way. And more; so much more.

6. Eternal judgement - The final state of all mankind, whether saved or not. The nature of Hell and Heaven. The final state of Satan and the angels. Good works born of faith (precious gold) versus 'good' works born of the flesh (wood, hay, stubble). And lots more.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with a fundamental EC complaint that Evangelicals have long held checklists of doctrine that are too long. We lost the ability to agree to disagree, and that's a sad thing. We separated over fine points or personal conviction. None of this was good; all of it must be challenged.

But that doesn't mean we toss doctrine in general! Why can't we agree to disagree on minor points without tossing major points out the window?

I know, I know... 'Who gets to decide which points are minor and which major, Nathan?'.

Can we at least start with Hebrews 6:1-2?

Hatushili