The essentials
Last night at Tangent a conversation about spiritual disciplines and complaints about business cards rapidly deteriorated into a discussion of all kinds of different things including the Gospel of Judas, the Da Vinci Code, a missional order, the Fundamentals and theology of the cross.
Our denomination (and thus my personal theological tradition) has a belief “in the essentials, unity; in the inessentials, diversity and in all things love”. So our congregations aren’t about teaching a particular doctrine on all issues which people must agree with. Often when Phil or I talk about our multi-congregational approach at other places one of the primary questions is “how do you control doctrine?”. The question might be expressed in different ways, but it is basically a question about how do you stop heresy or wrong thinking from arising and perpetuating itself. It is a hard question to answer because we don’t have the same meaning tied up with uniformity of theology.
My short answer would be that we embrace the idea of the priesthood of all believers and think that believers in a congregational community with each other who represent a diversity of theological belief are more likely to hold each other heading in the right direction than a group who all believe the same thing that are reliant on a theologically trained person to give them input. Secondly, I think that we all fall into error from time to time in our struggle to know God and follow Jesus. And that those missteps can be valuable and important steps in a journey to faith. I know that if I cast my mind back over my life I can think of many occasions when I held beliefs that I now consider to be wrong (for a while there I even liked Carmen and had a fish sticker on my car). But thirdly, nobody is really working without a net in our congregations. There are theologically trained people (if not ministers) in most of our congregations and there is a lot that goes on in terms of development and support for congregational leaders. And in my (admittedly limited) experience there haven’t been a lot of instances where theology has arisen which is so outlandish so as to fall outside of what you would expect from an ordinarily diverse congregation. Sure, people outside our church might disagree with what is being taught, but that wuold happen anyway. Controlling “doctrine” within the multi-congregational approach suggests that we need to guard against those heretics who are already within our model. Is there a rising tide of heresy within churches that I am not aware of?
Anyway, it does make it very interesting as a leader. If you preach a sermon, you might be less candid and more muted than you might be in a one to one talk so as not to tread on too many people’s toes, but you are still basically just giving your view and people are bound to listen to it whether they agree or not (whilst saving their criticism for after the service). But in discussion based congregations like Tangent, your views are much more open to challenge. Particularly when you know that within the group there are people who have a theological perspective which is very different to yours.
But it is also part of what makes these sorts of congregations so attractive to me. Myself I would personally be content to just continue to believe what I do without ever being challenged or having to explain or justify why I believe what I do. Particularly seeing as I am one of the theologically trained people at our congregation and therefore share a responsibility for part of our teaching ministry. Yet in a congregational environment like ours I know that just because I say something doesn’t mean that people will agree with it, and if they don’t agree with one thing I say, I would like to avoid pissing them off so much that they don’t listen to anything else that I say.
So it was interesting talking about gnosticism on the one hand and resurrection theology on the other. In particular we talked about how debate over resurrection theology so often loses sight of the life that was resurrected. Jesus’ life and actions almost become irrelevant as the essence of the gospel is distilled down to a neat picture of a cross bridging a chasm neatly labelled “sin” between the cliffs of God and humankind. The Passion without the prophet, a death in place of a life.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
The major points from any church is twin beliefs in Jesus taking our punishment for our sins on the cross and his physical resurrection which not only meant he was without sin and hence had defeated Satan but that the cross meant something.As Thomas said My Lord and My God.
most heresies deny both these central tents of Christianity.
since we are constantly warned about false prophets/teachers/ ant-christs in the N/T we should be constantly on guard against them
April 19th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Hi Dan, I agree with you! I think that you get a diversity in theological perspectives in any congregation,regardless of the whether the congregations are “less policed” like the Northern congregations, or more tightly controlled models. Perhaps one of the difference is whether or not people feel safe to speak out their different views or challenge others. I would rather be part of a congregation where these things are out in the open and up for discussion rather than privately thought and never aired for fear of repercussions. It is also a much healthier environment for new Christians to grow in their understanding. I personally like having my theological views challenged. I may not change my mind, but it forces me to think through more deeply, and be clearer about why I hold (or reject) a particular perspective.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Christina, it certainly makes it more difficult for me to fall into easy habits, like referencing a particular belief as an example of conservatism or simplicity that should be avoided when I know that someone in the congregation holds that position!!
April 20th, 2006 at 6:08 am
Well that sounds alright in practice. How does it actually pan out if there is room for movement according to the “in the essentials, unity; in the inessentials, diversity and in all things love” belief? I wonder if there really is a core set of essentials that everyone happens to believe or if, even in this area, there is actually some difference. If a poll was taken of signposts readers (who are believers), I wonder what would emerge as the essential beliefs. As an example, after reading through other debates on this blog, is the physical resurrection of Christ an essential belief? Is the trinity an essential belief? Would one of the ancient creeds encapsulate the essential beliefs?
April 20th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Others on signposts might necessarily differ in what the essentials are, and those that are a part of credal traditions might find all of this a bit wishy washy. In my tradition we would specifically say that we don’t use creeds such as the ancient creeds. That doesn’t mean that we would disagree with the statements set out in those creeds (necessarily) but we would not say that any creed defines the belief system.
In practice of course, we would have some difference on the essentials and what they mean. But the whole point of the idea is to move beyond a place where we are spending energy defining the point at which beliefs become acceptable. The Campbell Stone movement was never intended to create a denomination, but rather an ecumenical movement that brought people together with all faith expressions.
As for what are essential beliefs, at baptism many churches use a variation of the question of commitment along the lines of “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God and your personal saviour and are you commited to following him?”
April 20th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I think it’s worth pointing out an important driver for the Campbell Stone movement was that disunity, disputes over non-essential issues, and the splintering of churches into separate denominations over relatively trivial concerns were seem as hampering mission. I think the mission is still hampered by church disputes over non-core issues that are dealt with in a less than charitable fashion.
April 21st, 2006 at 2:06 am
DD “… is the physical resurrection of Christ an essential belief?”
On this one fact rests our entire hope. According to Scripture, Christ’s ressurrection from the dead makes our salvation, God forgiving our sin and our being released from the consequences of our sin, possible. Faith (choice to believe in, trust) in the Christ who has been resurrected, personalises that salvation.
“is the trinity an essential belief?”
I don’t think so. It has only been considered an essential since one of the “ancient creeds” (Nicene, if my memory serves :):) ) decided it was. Some will no doubt scream “heretic”, but IMHO the Lord has set the doctrinal bar of salvation much lower than the acceptance of a doctrine whose key term does not even appear in Scripture. Salvation is not just for the intellectual who can grasp obscure or difficult doctrines; nor is it just for the conformist who states boldly that they believe in the doctrines that others tell them are essential. IMO, salvation is for those who reach out to Jesus with their wasted lives and shame and sin and failure and debauchary and cry something like, “Jesus have mercy on me a sinner; Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, forgive me Lord.” This is my cry! Give me genuine repentance and faith and forgiveness; let others trust their doctrine, my hope is in the mercy of the Lord alone!
April 24th, 2006 at 12:05 am
“…For those who reach out to Jesus with their wasted lives and shame and sin and failure…” Nice one Jimbo!
With two thousand years of formulations and distilling of Doctrine, its easy to forget that essentially, the Christian journey is about the heart of people, not the “right thinking” of their minds…We forget that those who rsponded to Jesus were the young, the weary and those burdened by the religious logic of the day…
April 24th, 2006 at 4:36 am
You make a good point umonk - with which i concur. Don’t you find it a bit ironic tho that down thru that same 2000 yrs “leaders” have used carefully crafted doctrine to exploit those same “weary”? What could this say about Doctrine?
April 24th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Some Bertrand Russell quotes on this topic:
William James used to preach “the will to believe”. For my part, I should wish to preach “the will to doubt”. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.
The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology.
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.
April 24th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
DD, “… the wish to find out,” Agree, “which is the exact opposite.” Opposite of what - certainly not the search for truth which, imo, is the only approach for seeking out God - if in fact any of us do search Him out. imo, it is He who searches us out and makes Himself known to us.
DD, “new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.” If a “believer in God” has been convinced to become a believer by no more than reason; than i can envisage him/her being persuaded away. If one has become a believer in God thru the deception of others than i can envisage such a one becoming rightly angry and even embittered toward the thought of God. On the other hand, if one has become a believer in God and His Christ thru a genuine awaking of his/her spirit and encounter with the living God, then imo such a one cannot be convinced otherwise, for they KNOW. Similarly, such a one is more likely to be stumbled by the deceivers in the church than to abandon faith in the One who gave them a new life - although i understand some have abandoned faith as a result of the exploitation of those in power.
As for “opinions in science” being held loosely - that is the real myth.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
So you had a “religous moment”, James. You saw the light. Is it now just a memory or does God report in on a regular basis? What understanding of life do you have now that you didn’t have before?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:46 am
DD, why not tell us a bit about your experience first, then a bit about mine.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Do you really want to satisfy your prurient interest in the sleazy drug-fuelled, totally depraved sexually orgiastic lifestyle that people imagine atheists lead? I won’t bore you with the details, James.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
No interest in the sleaze whatsoever. I was expressing interest in you the person; have u believed in God, has your faith become shipwrecked, do you remember when you lost hope; or have you never believed. Do you really believe in evolution??? Or is it just a crock same as religion is to the masses? If i rightly understand some of your other posts, you are fully aware that evolution is accepted “by faith” in much the same way God is accepted “by faith”. I get the sense the issues run much deeper with you.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
I apologise DD for the way i interpreted your comment in #14; on reflection i realise you were speaking tongue in cheek. I am fully aware that atheistics are oft times no less moral than christians - it should not be this way, and i was remembering my own debauchary before Christ granted me repentance - wasnt perfect afterwards either. It has been my experience (and i find this unfortunate to say this) that atheistics oft times have been more honourable and more gracious in their business dealings than those who profess faith in Christ.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Oh, so you don’t want to be entertained by stories of amphetamine crazed axe murdering rampages.
So morality doesn’t differ in Christians and non-Christians?
When it all boils down, Christianity is just a way of guaranteeing a good seat in heaven, isn’t it? Christians don’t have any greater insights into good government, economic prosperity, international affairs or a better lifestyle.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Homer (#1 states “most heresies deny both these central tenents of Christianity”).
Granted and agreed.
In addition, many hertics will make a minor distinctive belief an major tenant (eg. Sabbath Keeping, a particular eschatological view, …. or Tithing).
So look-out for the small print on the ‘Partnerhsip forms’.
Just thought I’d drop that one in!
April 25th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
I find CSI Ducky nough for the first bit.
“So morality doesn’t differ in Christians and non-Christians?”
Should do, just acknowledging that it does not differ as much as it should. The sins that we commit are not nearly as much of a problem as the state of our unclean hearts that separate us from God both in this life and for all eternity. Its not about morality, its about to which kingdom we belong.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
LF “partnership forms”; have seen them bobbing up in Churches of Christ and now the Baptists … full of law! Are you aware of other assaults on the more traditional churches? Such as, “A New Kind of Christian” by McLaren which was sent to all Churches of Christ ministers in Queensland; traveling preachers teaching tithing a la Pat Mesiti? So, where do we go? Where is the church of the dispossessed to find a home?
April 25th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
“It’s not about morality, it’s about which kingdon we belong”
I assume you mean Satan’s or God’s kingdom. And why would that matter? If not for morality, then only for one’s destiny in the afterlife? Or for that warm cozy feeling of being brainwashed in this life?
It’s a bit of both isn’t it? You want that smug, superior feeling that you’re in the right group and the eternal reward is just a bonus.
Are you sure you’re right? Any doubts could be quelled by more conditioning exercises such as prayer and church attendance.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
“I assume you mean Satan’s or God’s kingdom.” Yes
“And why would that matter?” “… only for one’s destiny in the afterlife?” That could be a good starting point - a reason to seek out the truth concerning God. When a bunch of disciples stopped following Jesus, He asked the few that remained, “arent you going to leave too?” One of them answered, “Lord, where would we go, you alone have the words of eternal life.” The wondrous thing is, as we continue to follow the Lord we find that bit by bit He changes our morality; we become less selfish and more kind; less greedy and more generous; etc. But its a fruit of belonging to Him, not a means by which we get to know Him or by which we get to heaven.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
James - “LF “partnership forms”; have seen them bobbing up in Churches of Christ and now the Baptists”…
Funny you should say that. A good friend of mine and I were having a conversation just the other day and we agreed that the contemporary church false teaching seems to be cascading through to the mainstraem churches via these denominations in particular.
I remembers a few years ago, when the ‘thithe’ was mentioned in a Lutheran Church - a woman I know who really understand the concept of Grace (due to ex-occult) stood up and gracefully nailed the ‘tithe’ on its head.
Some denominations will not accept this crap! But we need to have the courage of our convictions to speak out!
April 25th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
HI guys… Been awol for a couple of days, heres my two cents…
The difference between Christians and non Christians, in my opinion, is not a level of morality. We are like recovering alcoholics… Were probably worse than any body else. ( History does suggest some evidence to support this view) But the difference is not that we no longer get drunk and abuse our loved ones… Its that weve given up believing we have the power to stop drinking and being abusive ourselves. The difference for a Christian should be that they are more aware of the depravity we are capable of. This kind of Christian never looks down his/her nose at anyone, no matter how depraved..Coz they know they are looking in a mirror every time. This gives them the humility to be compassionate..
April 25th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
We speak out; we cannot help but speak. Thanks for the encouragement!
Another funny event. Spoke to the pastor (they like titles too you know - nother issue) of a fairly large Baptist church last week. He invited me for coffee, wanted to know more about the “new paradigm”. We had a very nice coffee and some good conversation. He totally agrees that tithing is law and the we are under grace. So how would teach giving i asked; Pastor responded: “well, the tithe is a good starting point … dont teach you have to tithe, just a good guideline, then i remind folk that they should bring their firstfruits to the Lord - thats it, i like to talk about firstfruits rather than tithing …” Its the little leaven thing again; depressing really!
April 25th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Well said Umonk
April 25th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
James…
Let’s noy confuse first fruits with tithing. FF was often a nominal amount one-sixtyith / one fortieth … no amount was commanded but it was inline with how one felt led.
See: http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&id=1533
April 25th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
LF, i’m not all that familiar with what FF was in percentage terms. The amount does not seem important, but the principle is. Either we are freemen and give freely according to the grace God has given us, the means at our disposal, our God-given faith, our gifting (one of hte Gifts of the Spirit is giving - let him give liberally - not all have the this gift, others prophesy or show hospitality etc), or we are under law. I love the idea of firstfruits - lets spend the best part of our day communing with the Lord; let us give the firstfruits of our time or our income or whatever - but as soon as we put an external expectation upon others to do so, we are promoting freedom in Christ but law!
How can we say to anyone; You’re not under law but people need to give so tell them a tithe is a good starting point … (and then out comes the example) things were not going well for me until i began to tithe (the pastor regaled me with this). I am not willing to judge this man’s heart, good or bad or debate his motives, in this matter or any other. I have a high regard for him. That’s not the point! We cannot say, “your not under law” and then with the next breath say, in effect, “give a tithe and God will bless you, look what happened to me.” That is law. It is OT covenant, not NT promise!
April 30th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Lance said, “About last October, when I finally came to terms with being gay, and that wasn’t going to change”
1 Cor. 6:9-11 “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”.
Lance i’ve never had a gay leaning nor been an homosexual offender, but i see in myself many of the other characteristics by which the Scripture denotes a person as “wicked”. I know that i am guilty of greed and slander and if i were to examine my heart, i am guilty of a lot of evil that rightly renders me a perfect candidate for the Lake of Fire.
But should we surrender to our sinful nature? Regardless of the overwhelming drag (pun). Should we no come before the Lord, confess our sin at every fall, plead the Blood of Jesus only, accept God’s forgiveness in Christ … and press on, trusting only in His grace, while yet there is opportunity for us.
Let us not yield, but turn again!
April 30th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
You know James, I’d be guessing it’s not the first time Lance has received such advice, and it hasn’t changed his orientation. As we’ve discussed on the creation science thread… there are some areas of our faith where black and white aren’t the only colours… Christians have differences of opinion and there’s plenty of areas of grey. There’s complexity involved. There’s work to be done in interpreting bible, in understanding (in this case) sexuality and psychology and pastoral issues. Perhaps we’d all learn more if willing to ask questions and hear another’s story first… and give advice later.
I’ll now just duck for cover and await the next barrage of stones.