I think all it has to do with are a person's priorities, and I don't think it's either bad OR good.
For you, it sounds like good theology would take precendence over nice people. For them, they would rather have nice people than perfect theology. It's just a matter of preferences.
I certainly don't think God would get ticked off at some family for wanting to switch churches in order to worship with nicer people. At least they can spot the bad theology!
But I'm in the same boat. Our "perfect theology" church and denomination is chock-full of big jerkheads. And I think that a vast majority of the time, those who are incredibly fastidious with their theology tend to be big jerkheads. I'd rather have nicer people with less perfect theology, myself, and I don't see any problem with that desire.
Like I said, I think it all comes down to preferenecs.
~Jo
We struggle with this, ourselves. . .
"we [all] see through a glass darkly. . . . but the greatest of these is love."
Kim,
I sometimes seem queen of the non sequiteur. (sp?)
However, I find this question related to my response Phil Johnson's review of Ron Sider's book, back in June.
I see a lot of people who espouse correct theology sitting around maintaining personal peace and affluence. And people with slightly holely theology are out there "doin' the stuff." Washing the feet.
Phil claims that if people aren't "doin' the stuff," they actually don't have the right theology. Saying you believe it doesn't mean you believe it.
If people arn't "nice" (demonstrating love), maybe they're not truly right, either.
http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.c...cal-
fringe.html
Phil Johnson's response to my comment on his review of Ron Sider's latest book:
It's certainly true that "doing is more important than words." No one here has argued otherwise.
However (and this is the point I have labored to make), "orthodoxy" is not about words. It's about truth, real belief, and the word of God. If it doesn't result in "doing," it isn't true orthodoxy; it's dead faith. That's James's point in chapter 2.
On the other hand, genuine goodness is not the fruit of pietistic doing. It's the fruit of faith--and genuine faith is rooted in orthodox beliefs, not unorthodox ones.
This probably has no application in your situation because I am looking from the Catholic point of view which says ... theology is more important than "feeling the love." The love is important too but our faith is about so much more than feelings. After all, parents can "love" their children so much that they fear to hurt them by giving vaccinations which could lead in the end to a crippling disease or even death. That's the bottom line from that viewpoint though...just fyi.
Hmmmm.....well....ahem....I haven't thought about this question all that much, so I don't really feel qualified to give any sort of definitive answer.
I will say that I don't think there's anything laudable about doing good things if we're doing them for the wrong reasons, and good theology is what provides the right reasons for doing the right things.
There's a book I read by Francis Shaeffer that deals with maintaining the balance between truth and love in the church. I think it's called The Church before the Watching World.
This attitude toward good theology, blows me away.
If a person would rather be around "nice" people, than solid theology, why not just join a social club?
Where does the line get drawn? How much bad theology is okay, just for the sake of being among "nice" people?
This is the classic example of 'unity at the cost of truth'. When unity takes precedence over truth, it only opens a door (wide open) for more and more unbiblical (but very 'nice') theology. It's also sadly an example of wrong motives.
Why do we go to church? To make friends? To be fed the word of God? To be a part of a group? To worship?
While fellowship certainly is part of the local church, what fellowship does good theology have with bad theology? Why give place to such things, for the sake of "nice"?
Okay sure, I sound harsh, judgemental, and narrowminded. These are legit questions every believer ought to be asking of themselves. In my ever so humble opinion, that is.
SDG - Carla
I totally agree with Carla!
Very well said Carla!
I believe it exists, good theology and love.
Kim, as a Pastor I have heard this excuse so many times its not funny!
This is the 'ME' doctine, what about me and mine! Its not about us, its about Him.
Once we received Christ as Lord and Saviour, then its no longer about us, its about His love and His commands.
Supposing these people are correct, where was their love and sacrifce to their brothers and sisters in Christ? If people are not loving, legal and whatever, where was their input of love and correction?
I believe that what you see taking place is Paul's prophesy come true...
2Ti 4:3-4 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
GBYAY
From your explanation it seems like they have doctrinal issues with both churches, is that correct? If so, then their statement might be indicating that, given the choice they prefer a church that was (at least in their minds) more loving.
Not konwing anything specific I could be way off... so my 2 cents is probably only worth 1. 
Great and Powerful post Kim, Linked this post at Scotwise!
GBYAY
When we look at the example of what the church should look like from Acts 2, both teaching and loving acts (among other things) come into play. You don't say how these people defined 'love' as it is shown in this other church. Some churches may seem loving because the people are so friendly but there is no real tangible help to hurting and needy people. Faith but no works.
I would say in that case, that is not a love which is covering over any sins.
At any rate, I'm beginning to tire of all the 'me-ness' of people who leave churches too. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about when it was the right time to leave a church because the people, music, leaders, sermon, etc. didn't meet your idea of correct. If someone can point me to scripture, help me out there. Seriously. Because this keeps coming up and the debate doesn't seem to be dying down.
Can't we as individuals choose to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem?
There's bad theology and there's bad theology.
Bad theology about dogma means this isn't even a Christian church. Bad theology about doctrine is a much different call.
Let me be just a little incenidiary here to make the point: who has the "bad theology"--the Presbyterian or the Lutheran or the Baptist? They disagree on many items of theology. So who's got the bad theology?
And who says so? Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants will give very different answers here...and it is the Protestants who have the least authority to call someone on "bad theology" because the ultimate authority is personal decision.
Dogma is what one must believe to be a Christian. Think Touchstone magazine. Bad theology around dogma isn't worth the "nice" tradeoff.
That's not the "answer"--that's the initial thought. This is good to reflect upon, though.
I agree that it's not a matter of balance. Faith and practice are inseparable. Anything else is just people talking.
What I also see is people leaving a church because of some doctrinal issue and then going to a church that is much farther away from their supposed doctrinal position than the first one is. These people tend to have very strong views about what the church should be like and do, and tend to not work or play very well with others.
This is an interesting question for me now as we have just moved and will be searching for a church. I've spoken with a number of pastors by phone and my wife has visited one church already. I'm looking forward to getting home to visit some others.
It seems that from long distance you can determine you DON'T want to attend a certain church, but you can't determine that you DO want to attend. Anyway, solid teaching and worship are our main priorities, but we sure hope it involves a living faith community as well.
Kim, thanks for asking this question. I write a post about it here,
I always thought good theology, practised, yeilded love. Theology without love is Pharisaical...right, and yet, wrong.
So many today think that love is a "feeling" as was noted, I believe, above. For me, love is an act, offered often when the "feeling" is not easily recalled.
To require one, in place of the other, I believe, is incomplete and rather misses the point. But without theology at the outset, how do we know the desired destination?
Kim,
In the middle of a migraine yesterday, I recalled that I had mispelled (sp?) holey in my earlier comment. Having been able to spell Czechoslovakia in third grade, I am chagrined. (sp?)
Julana, I didn't even notice. And if you could spell Czechoslovakia in third grade, you're doing well. I spelled it correctly right now because I copied you.
Is it possible that your friend did not want to hurt your feelings and tell you how glad they are that they do not go to your church any more? Saying that your church lacks love sounds like a tactful way of saying "Get out! Jesus ain't there! Yeah our pastor can't write a textbook on reformed theology but at least the church bears the fruit of the Spirit."
Wrote an article on something similar here
http://carlandtracey.com/wordpress/?p=36
Commenting by HaloScan
