“What comes through the written lines is a cold rational commitment to truth which touched the head but bounced off the heart.Why is this important for us today? Because we see the same spirit within the academic wing of evangelicalism. We see theology that has reduced the truth of God to timeless abstract propositions. A theology that puffs up the knower with pride that he or she is committed to the truth, and even reduces love as another proposition to be parroted rather than a relationship to be experienced.”

I sat in a Bible study last night, the first in a series, taught by a good man whose passion is to take on the Muslim, Hindus, “false” religions in this world. His lesson concerned an attempt to put into believers knowledge of what to say to others in a witness of the Gospel and presented our faith, Christianity, as indeed the only “truth” out there. At one point I raised my hand to ask “What is truth?”, to which one fellow in the class then replied “The Bible!” and I noted such as being what most within our faith would say. “But didn’t Jesus say,” I continued, “that He, alone, was truth?” From there, in few words, (I do not wish to steal another man’s pulpit nor make waves of discontentment in such arena) I spoke of our belief in the Biblical proposition of Christ “in” me and how either that is a reality or we are kidding ourselves, of how, when I witness, be it in a classroom or in any situation God brings before me, what I desire is for Jesus to come up “out of my belly” and speak for Himself. My head, of course, is still involved, but I do my best to give it unto the other….

“But I was actually thinking about the flipside, earlier. Some people get obsessed with finding the “middle-of-the-road” position–like we should always aim for that.

Both extremes are possible. We should just aim for the middle, I guess. ”

Only if it’s the biblical balance that Christ had, I’d say. I don’t think sitting on the fence, merely to make ourselves look good, is the answer either. That’s pretty cowardly for a Christian.

And, do you sometimes think we equate being moderate with being lukewarm, although the two are definitely not the same?

Well… Sometimes. Some people do. But I was actually thinking about the flipside, earlier. Some people get obsessed with finding the “middle-of-the-road” position–like we should always aim for that.

Both extremes are possible. We should just aim for the middle, I guess.

Dr. Sawyer,

I enjoyed your post. I am towards the end of a Sunday school class that I am teaching on James’ Letter. I find it hard to believe that someone could read James’ letter and not realize that your faith is reflected in the life that you live. How these theologians could so easily compartmentalize their religion is very sad. I used Dr. Moo’s commentary to help me out during the class and I am glad that I chose him. He is very pastoral.

Thank goodness that I am not a ‘Princetonian’. I get the point of your blog. Thanks for the reminder.

MTO

“And if you know what people are concerned about, it’s easier to help them see the point of balance–otherwise, you might just talk past them.)”

I think you have probably nailed it right here. Over correction is just as bad as under correction, if it drives folks away from Christ rather than attracting them, and makes them think they are beyond redemption if they don’t hold a certain popularly held view. I see this often in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, and it bothers me that we, as Christians, are expected to take sides.

And, do you sometimes think we equate being moderate with being lukewarm, although the two are definitely not the same?

mbaker,

Agreed.

Also: It helps to point out that people often go to one extreme as an overreaction to the other extreme. When you’re correcting a bad trend, it helps to warn against the overcorrection. (It also helps you to understand why people are making their mistake in the first place. And if you know what people are concerned about, it’s easier to help them see the point of balance–otherwise, you might just talk past them.)

Sidenote: I think “balanced” is a better way to put it than “middle ground”. But even better, “Biblically-balanced”. Because there’s no inherent virtue in being in the middle of two positions. There’s nothing virtuous about middle-of-the-road. It’s balance that we’re looking for–but an automatic 50/50 balance for everything. More specifically, we want to hold everything in the balance that the Bible advocates. We want to emphasize each thing with as much strength as the Bible does. And sometimes, the proper balance will look imbalanced to people with messed-up priorities.

Sorry I misspelled your name. It should, of course, be Jugulum.

“Over-intellectualized faith is a reaction to squishy, over-subjectivized faith.

And, of course, squishy, over-subjectivized faith is a reaction to over-intellectualized faith.”

Jujulum,

I can identify. There seems to be no room for a middle ground here, where I believe most Christians are. I certainly accept theological doctrines as necessary to establish truth, but I can also accept the personal work of the Lord in each believer, via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If Christ meant us only to have corporate theology and nothing to transform and renew our minds personally, He would never have left the Holy Spirit as our inner man’s legacy.

However, there is a very delicate balance there, between too much over intellectualizing of the gospel, and, on the other extreme, too much emotionalism. That’s why we have to be careful that we are not going too far one way or another. Achieving the proper balance is an overlooked, and under preached part of the Christian life nowadays, in my opinion.

Wow, that was a good read. I’ve heard most leaders in my life never speak a critical word about the Princetonians, and claim that liberalism defeated them. But I always thought, if they were so godly and had such good theology, then where was the fruit that carried on their tradition?

Things, particularly things historical, are never quite as valid as the stories people tell. That Hodge could even make such a claim that Christianity was only about doctrines absolutely astounds me. Unfortunately, the effect that the views of the Princetonians had on Christianity have proven to be essentially as destructive as the views of their liberal opponents.

Give me passionate semi-orthodoxy over cold orthodoxy all day. Mission is about more than mere propositions.

No doubt, a theology without a heart, is as bad as a blind believer without a mind.

But since you’ve favored one over the other? How about recalling all the times God warned that even our “hearts” can be “deceived,” “false,” etc..? Our emotions after all, can mislead us. And so we need, if not rigorous or utterly inflexible orthodoxy, at least … critical inquiry, questioning. SInce our people perish, without “knowledge.”

Probably the major reason theology no longer appeals much to heart, is the above; and in fact, because it simply no longer believes so many things we were told were true. So that the very coldness of theology, stems not just from objectivity, but from a very real antipathy. For the many false doctrines, that mislead both our minds, and now our hearts.