Charitable Orthodoxy

Last night I had the chance to talk late into the night with a very good friend who has been a part of my spiritual community for the past 10 years. As I spouted off about some of the things that I have been frustrated about recently (as anyone who reads what I write here can probably gather), this friend mentioned the notion of "charitable orthodoxy," which is what I think is missing in a lot of discussions that have been taking place recently. Below is an excerpt from the summer newsletter of Denver Seminary, from the president's opening comments. The entire issue is dedicated to this topic, but I think this is a nice summary. Emphasis has been added by me. 

SUMMER 2011

The pattern is all too familiar these days, isn’t it? The pitch and volume of the voice increases as the radio talk show host interrupts the invited guest or caller who dares to offer a different perspective on the issue at hand. Their incredulity cannot be mistaken and the message is clear, “How could anyone see the matter differently? There’s only one way to view this issue. You must be an idiot to think there’s another way to see it.” Television pundits, sometimes three of them talking over one another simultaneously, repeat the same sad performance nightly. Understanding takes a back seat to entertainment and civility gets drowned in bombast. The New Living Translation of Proverbs 18:2 seems to capture the tone and content of contemporary public discourse, “Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.”

At Denver Seminary we believe that there’s a better way for those with strong convictions to interact with others. We call it charitable orthodoxy. Unfortunately, a phrase like, “charitable orthodoxy” seems oxymoronic in contemporary culture. But it must not be so among the people of God.

Charitable orthodoxy is the third of five core commitments that define Denver Seminary. It means that we are committed to the core doctrines that have defined Christianity for centuries. We cling to these great truths of our faith for they frame our understanding of God, of the world in which we live, and His work in it. Furthermore, we confess these great truths as the way forward for those trapped in the mire of indifference and relativism. Around our common confession we engage in gracious and serious conversations about faith and life. Sometimes we disagree with one another about the interpretation of particular passages, about theological issues of secondary importance, about the expression of Christian ethics in public life, and about the application of Scripture to ministry. At all times, however, we are committed to be a community that relates to one another charitably, with a penchant to listen before speaking and a desire to learn that trumps the instinct to defend and to tell. The freedom and courage to think is only half the equation for a vibrant learning community; freedom and courage to listen completes it.

Our commitment to orthodoxy means that we believe passionately in the truths that Christians have confessed in every generation and on every continent. But passionate belief must never eclipse compassionate engagement with those who do not see the truth as we see it. In the life of a Christian, there is no room for demeaning and disrespectful behavior toward others. The integrity of our faith and witness demands charity toward all people. Being charitable toward another is more than being polite; it means seeking the good of others, even those who misunderstand you, malign you, and even seek to harm you. Although often mistaken for weakness, acting charitably toward others requires the strength of conviction and depth of character that many lack.

Charitable orthodoxy means that it’s not enough for us to be right; we must also be redemptive. That means we must be committed to seeking their good through the truth that we hold dear. That’s why our mission is to prepare men and women to engage the needs of the world with the redemptive power of the gospel and the life-changing truth of Scripture. Passionately committed to the truth and compassionately engaged in the lives of others.

With gratitude,

Mark

OK Go Covers The Muppet Show Theme Song (Stream New Album Online)

OK Go Covers The Muppet Show Theme Song (Stream New Album Online)

Exodus: God Takes Sides, Part 2 (a book report)

Continuing last week's discussion on chapter 2 of Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes...

The author presents the main outline of the story of Exodus, which he contends is "a story that extends over fifteen chapters of Exodus (if one wants to be concise) and over the whole of the Bible (if one wants to be precise)" as follows:

1. A class struggle is going on
2. God is aware of the struggle
3. God takes sides in the struggle
4. God calls people to join in the struggle

Last week's post discussed points 1 and 2 of the outline. We'll pick up at point 3, after the jump.

Exodus: God Takes Sides, Part 1 (a book report)

Chapter 2 of Unexpected News: Reading the Bible With Third World Eyes by Robert McAffee Brown is entitled "Exodus: God Takes Sides (Changing Sides)," and is based on Exodus 1:8-14; 2:23-25; 3:7-10. Take a moment to read those passages, if you'd like, as they lay the foundation for the rest of the chapter.
I will be dividing discussion of this chapter into 2 posts.

In this chapter, the author argues that while

The notion of God exercising indiscriminate love toward all is a healthy protection against racists...or against North Americans who instinctively feel (even when they deny it) that God is more concerned about them than about the unemployed workers who flock to Mexico City every day...there is something false and unbiblical about this view of God's relationships to the world's peoples, as we can see if we pit other groups against each other and ask whether God is equally their God. Is God as much the God of the torturers as the God of the tortured? Is God equally the God of the military dictator and the God of those who are murdered by the dictator? Does God have the same disposition toward the victim of a plant closedown in Akron, Ohio, as toward the members of the Board of Directors who shut down the plant with no concern for what will happen to the workers?

Our conventional God is aloof from such things; any other God would be a partisan God-- worse yet, a "political" God -- taking sides with some of God's children and against others. And that is hard for us to swallow.

But it is not hard for the biblical writers to swallow. Indeed, they affirm such a God strongly. We will look at one passage, the story of the exodus, that describes a very partisan God who takes sides with a vengeance. If it were only an isolated passage, we could dispose of it, but it has set its stamp on the whole Bible and has become a paradigm passage for third world Christians living in situations of oppression and injustice similar to the Egyptian situation. (pp 33-34)

The author presents the main outline of the story of Exodus, which he contends is "a story that extends over fifteen chapters of Exodus (if one wants to be concise) and over the whole of the Bible (if one wants to be precise)" as follows:

1. A class struggle is going on
2. God is aware of the struggle
3. God takes sides in the struggle
4. God calls people to join in the struggle

Recall that this book was written almost 30 years ago, and the author's focus as he discusses the perspective of third world Christians is on Christians in Latin American third world countries, suffering under dictatorial regimes (which he contends were either directly or indirectly supported by American economic and military policies); he often refers to specific examples of Christians in those countries at the time. Though the context is different, I think there are points in this chapter that are worth discussing. America is not a third world country, and the type and level of oppression is certainly different from that of ancient Egypt or in many parts of the third world today, but there is still oppression, in America as well as throughout many parts of the world. And to those who would argue that the perceived oppression in America isn't all that bad, the author points out that "nobody who is eating well has the privilege of telling starving people that things aren't as bad as they think; the rest of us have a moral obligation to take them at their word." 

Now, on to the points of the outline. We'll discuss the first two points after the jump, and save the last 2 for a separate post.

Debt and the Cost of Discipleship

This is probably one of the most balanced approaches to this topic that I have read in quite awhile. It's given me some things to think about. Anyone else?

Debt and the Cost of Discipleship

Emmaus...And Back Again: A New Form of Knowing (a book report)

I suppose maybe it's time this blog starts living up to its name. I mentioned when I started this blog that one of the reasons I may occasionally share some thoughts in this space is that I like to read, and sometimes I have thoughts about what I read. Some people have indicated that they may be interested in those thoughts, and perhaps in discussion that may follow.

I've been thinking a lot about recent discussions taking place in several arenas that I frequent. Discussions about money. Discussions about rich and poor. Discussions about truth and love. Discussions about knowing and doing.  Discussions about politics and theology. Something that keeps coming up is the idea that Christianity is most importantly about knowing and believing the right things, and therefore by implication less about doing the right things. "As long as we are on the side of truth," it seems some would say, "nothing else really matters. All those other things like feeding the poor and helping the sick and being kind to the downtrodden are just window dressings. They may be popular, but they're not going to get them, or us, into Heaven." Even though Jesus ministered to the physical needs of the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden, and commanded his followers to do likewise, this part of his ministry is minimized in the discussion of what's "really" important.


Frankly, I'm frustrated. I'm discouraged. At times, I'm just downright mad. Some of my frustration boils down to what I think can be summed up in the words of a character from a television show I watched in my early teens (a quote which will be recognized and appreciated by those who grew up with me watching this show, but which I am too embarrassed to actually cite here for all the world to see) - "That's the problem...too much thinkin', not enough doin'!"

A few weeks ago I started reading Unexpected News: Reading the Bible With Third World Eyes, by Robert McAffee Brown. It's a small book, published over 35 years ago, and it's a fairly quick read (though I'm only about 2/3 of the way through it).

The first chapter keeps coming to my mind as I stew about these things. Perhaps I'll share some of it with you here, after the jump.

Don't Skip That Part - updated 8/9/11

Heeheehee. But also, the truth hurts.


From: Don't Skip That Part - Joshua Harris (via Timothy Durey - thanks for the laugh, Tim!)

We're all jerks sometimes. I just hate it when we seem to think it's OK to be "Jerks for Jesus." I think a lot of us don't even realize when we're doing it. As I said above, "the truth hurts." But that doesn't mean that the ones telling it have to be hurtful.

I think a portion of this blog post, written in the aftermath of the tragedy in Norway, sums it up pretty well:

The Gospels display a sharp contrast between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders known as the Pharisees. Jesus hung out with the wrong crowd. Jesus loved people – all kinds of people. Because of this, he was called, “a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Luke 7:34). If Luke wrote his gospel today, Jesus might be accused of being a person “who had eating disorders, engaged in substance abuse, and was a friend of corrupt officials, prostitutes and gays.”

By contrast, the Pharisees showed their devotion to God by hating sinners. They demonstrated their holiness through their hostility towards “God’s enemies.” They hated sinners because they loved God. I am sure they argued their case from Scripture by using a verse like this: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies” (Psalm 139:21-22). [emphasis mine]

But Jesus repeatedly challenged the Pharisees’ skewed views of devotion and narrow views of love. Jesus confronted the tradition of hating your enemy head-on in the Sermon on the Mount: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies” (Matthew 5:43-44).

By all means, stand up for what's right. Call a spade a spade. But we don't have to be jerks about it. We can call a spade a spade without being hurtful, rude, crass, sarcastic, or in other ways generally unloving. We are called to show the LOVE of Christ to others. We should do it lovingly. Otherwise, why should anybody want what we have?