When Ralph Waldo Emerson spoke at the Harvard School of Divinity in 1838,
he delivered an address that should be required reading for evangelicals. Basically, Emerson exhorted these young clergymen to turn their backs on doctrine to explore unfettered the limits of the human soul. The phrase that is commonly attributed to Emerson is that doctrine is a set of bandages that blinds our vision. Anyone who knows what happened to the Harvard School of Divinity (and Unitarianism) in the subsequent decades knows that they did just that: placed doctrine on the sidelines, calling it quaint and narrow.
Unfortunately, I hear the same thing from too many young evangelicals, who say that they are tired of doctrine and would rather “be” the church. History, in their view, wastes our time and doctrine distracts our attention from the more substantial issue of changing our culture. I don’t wish to veer into politics, but some people, including Russ Moore, see this point as one of the concerns about current ascendancy of conservative cultural concerns that eschew doctrinal specificity.
For too many Christians, the faith is viewed as a living example of Buridan’s Donkey.
In the parable associated with Buridan (or more accurately to criticism of Buridan), a hungry donkey is chained between two tasty bales of hay that are equidistant from its nose and mouth. The donkey ends up starving to death because of its indecision over which bale to eat.
80’s music fans will recognize this from Devo’s classic “Freedom of Choice,” which substitutes a dog / bone for the donkey / hay).
Christians should not view their choice as one between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Pursuing either to the exclusion of the other is not the true faith; this is the message of Christ in Matthew 22:34-40: we are to love God (orthodoxy) AND love others (orthopraxy). Rightly understood, orthodoxy and orthopraxy are one and the same bale of hay, which must be taken in by the faithful believer. To invert Devo, freedom from choice is what you’ve got; freedom of choice is what you want. There is no decision to be made where orthodoxy / orthopraxy are concerned.
Instead of removing the bandages of doctrine from our eyes, I wish more people would place on their noses the spectacles of doctrine that help us to see the world aright. Perhaps it would help us to effect God’s will in our lives and in our culture.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
