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 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
James, I ditto Janet’s comments.
I’d also note that this is a blog, not a cafe. You’re not sitting with Lance, you don’t really know him but merely a persona he portrays via posts, and as such I don’t think that (a) your comments are remotely likely to achieve any of the things you’d hope they would, or (b) you are at all entitled to make them.
Yep, I’m feeling grumpy today. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians feel that they can “hold others accountable” even if they don’t know that person - I am constantly amazed by the fact that people feel entitled to comment on the choices I make, despite the fact that they either barely know me, or have made no effort to support me when I’ve needed them. This is rule-bound self-righteousness at its worst.
That’s not all directed at you James - I just think that your post was indicative of the kind of sub-culture we’ve created.
April 30th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Bec, did you actually read James’s comments or just rush in ?
Janet actually this is an issue like many others that is black and white and James has expressed it as graciously as any with regard to Lance.
April 30th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
There are two issues really, aren’t there?
One is whether homosexuality is an issue on which Christians can differ, or whether it’s a black and white issue. I understand and accept you think the latter EP at LP. (I suppose I should say “Christians should differ”… clearly they already do differ.)
Another is whether it’s appropriate to give unsolicited personal advice to someone you have never met…. and is it likely to do any good if you try?
To be honest, I think it was really the second concern that prompted me to write in the first place. (I’m developing a bad habit of expressing pastoral concerns in theological terms.) Bec expressed my gut feeling more coherently than I did.
April 30th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Erm Homer, yes I did read James comments.
Again, Janet, you have managed to sum up how I feel.
Homer - as a really fragile uni student I was hammered by people who were supposed to be responsible for my pastoral care, for attending anti-Jabiluka rallies, anti-war rallies and the like. I was told in no uncertain terms that Christians had no right to be there.
Now, I do NOT want to get into a debate about the theology of my politics or actions here. The point I want to make is this: my best friend had died, my housemate was chronically ill, and nobody had ever even run to ask me how I was coping. Yet they believed that (a) I would care what they thought of my actions, and (b) they were entitled to give me advice.
That’s not only not Christian, it’s weird. Very weird. Jesus was entitled to tell the woman at the well to go and sin no more, because he’d connected with her, he’d demonstrated his genuine concern for her.
Giving unsolicited advice to someone you haven’t taken the time to build up a trusting relationship with is weird, wrong, and self-righteous. End of story. I don’t think James meant his posts to be any of those things, but when I read it, I couldn’t help but think of all the people who felt that they were entitled to give me advice, despite the fact that I’d never asked for it, and I didn’t trust them.
May 1st, 2006 at 8:57 am
no you didn’t.
James is essentially saying the same thing.
Jesus did give unsolicitous advice to the adulteress as he should have.
don’t be so politically correct
May 1st, 2006 at 10:02 am
Don’t be such a konw-it-all condescending moron Homer
May 1st, 2006 at 10:18 am
EP: “don’t be so politically correct”
My general reply to Janet and Bec:
If i am swindling people, promoting swindling and publicly stating that i am a swindler and embrace a swindling lifestyle; then surely other believers have an obligation in Christ to warn me of the danger and ultimate outcome of my lifestyle Warning me, snatching me if possible out of the fire. Affirmation of my lifestyle is only likely to bring me further under judgement - you too. Why not agape me; warn me, support me, don’t judge me (even as i do not judge those overtaken in other sin), but show me my error from Scripture (not out of your own mind), but walk with me, helping me find a way out of the bondage in which i find myself. But don’t tell me that God has changed His mind and a wilfull swindling lifestyle now meets with His approval! Because, my desire to swindle may be so great that i may allow your false words to comfort me to the point that i no longer seek the grace of God for repentance - and thus find myself eternally and irrevocably lost! … But of course, neither i nor God could blame you, you didn’t want to offend me!
“… Watchman … When i say to the wicked, ‘o wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to disuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I WILL HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS BLOOD.” Ezek. 33:8.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:28 am
So being gay is like swindling is it James? Why do you feel that an illegal criminal act that harms everyone that falls victim to it is anything like (at worse…if you believe that being gay is a choice and not a legitimate expression of sexuality just as doing boy girls things with peopoe of the other sex) an expression of sexuality that takes nothing from anyone or…ahhh forget ti youre a moron like homer
May 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
Homer, you are surely the strangest person.
I did read James post. That’s a fact. You might think I misread them, but I still read them. Don’t tell me I didn’t.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:35 am
Ignore him Bec…I’ve travelled down the road of arguing with Homer - it’s easier to just call him a moron and get on with the rest of your life.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:36 am
It;s easy to do…give it a go…it goes like this…
Homer your a moron…so are you James
May 1st, 2006 at 10:58 am
Bec, you might have read but you did not understand James’s post.
Greg your exegesis is simply overwhelming.
What would have said to Bill Clinton if you had met him ?
sorry I can’t be judgmental? I don’t know you so I can’t say anything?
or Bill adultery is a sin go and sin no more!
May 1st, 2006 at 11:39 am
So Homer (and here I go again…I never follow my own advise!),being gay is like adultery? Why do you feel that an act of faithlessness that used a young girl as a sexual object and betrayed a women who had been married to the adulterer for many years is like an expression of sexuality that takes nothing from anyone or…ahhh forget it youre a moron like James
Yes I did do a copy and paste from my previous post to James
And yes I know my exegesis is overwhelming - I went to theomological college an learnt to jump on a tramampoline
May 1st, 2006 at 11:40 am
That was a reference to your namesake and intellectual peer Homer J Simpson
May 1st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Ok….one more time for the late-comers and the slow-learners.
“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”.”
I assume you’re going off the NIV which is a completely crap translation.
The term (mis-)translated as ‘homosexual offenders’..is actually two words…’malakoi’ and ‘arsenenkoitai’.
Here is a study on the words..and how their definitive translation as ‘homosexual offenders’ or ‘homosexual perverts’ (only since 1946 I might add) is unsustainable….or..to put it in less Christian terms….a pile of steaming bullshit.
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:113937467&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=
I will only add to that comprehensive study of the passage… that verse 11 makes it clear that the washing and sanctification and justification of a believer takes place at the cross (a past and completed event)…not in an ongoing process that was achieved through human effort.
You’ve also got the problem of having a direct contradiction between Paul and Jesus, who forgave the sexually immoral…and even remarked that the prostitutes, whom Paul declares won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, will enter in the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees.
But James, don’t throw your poorly translated unstudied bible at me.
I’m in a charitable mood this morning..so I won’t tell you to ‘go and get fucked, cunt’…but I will if you persist in flinging this NIV crap at me.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Regardless of the translation, one may postulate that Jesus was inferring that the prostitutes would repent before the Pharisees would, whereas Paul was talking about unrepentent prostitutes.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Or that it is as the text actually says…..that the prostitutes would enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Pharisees.
Do Hillsongists feel the need to have to spin everything into their wacky belief system?
There is no mention in either passage about the prostitutes being repentent or unrepentent.
Of course a Hillsongist would argue that ‘Blessed are the cheesemakers’ (a mishearing of Jesus’ teaching) is not to be taken literally ..but in fact applies to any manufacturer of dairy products.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Arsenkoita is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets it roots from the Septuagint’s rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex.
This was clearly shown by David Wright in 1984 ( for the curious in Vigiliae Christianae Vol 38 PP 125-153).
Moreover the laws in Leviticus make no distinction concerning homosexual acts. thus we should conclude that there are no distinctions. Homosexual acts are sinful regardless of Why they are performed.
just to add another point here.
It does NOT matter that the bible fails to speak of ‘orientation’ because it says quite clearly one must not engage in the act.
It is a blanket proscription. The Hebrew is quite explicit.
It it were necessary that a distinction be drawn in order to focus on the proscription on the guilty alone god would have made that proscription.
He has made distinctions in other areas!
Lance is almost correct in one view. The NIV is a poor version.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pm
haha. That highbeam link does nothing for the Romans one passage that is exceptionally clear.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Some Christians are the mose hateful, judgmental, self-righteous, un-loving, rude, crude, unjust and insensitive people I know.
So much for “good fruit.”
It’s no wonder the un-saved world wants nothing to do with your sick, twisted, sorry ass excuse of a religion.
Talk about bad PR. Christianity is really giving Jesus and the Kingdom of God a bad name. If I were Him, I’d disassociate myself from you guys.
But Luckily for you, He is all about forgiveness and grace. Too bad the same cannot be said for you “Christ-ians”.
Yes….please save me Jesus, save me Jesus! Make me a cookie cutter christian clone so that I can hate, uh, I mean….save the world for you dear Jesus……do I get a free toaster after I get bapertizzzed in that hot tub at the front of the sanctuary and sign the secret cult…..uh, I mean church membership card???
May 1st, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Lance is dissembling when it comes to Jesus and Paul.
Jesus didn’t say go back to prostitution. If they did they would be rejecting the benefits of the cross as happens in 1 Cor 5 re incest.
Unfortunately Lance is endorsing antinomianism whether he realises it or not.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Once again our commenters ability to turn every thread into a comment about homosexuality amazes me. But to link it back to the original comment, Homer said that most heresies devolve from a denial of Christ’s physical resurrection or the other “key christian belief” that jesus died as punishment for our sins on the cross.
So the belief that homosexuality is sinful is linked to neither of these two essential beliefs. So is it possible to say to one that has a different view on this point that they are still christian and we can still be in community together even though we differ on this point, because it is not part of the central message of Christianity and is therefore not an essential belief?
May 1st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Dan,
the man in Corinth would have echoed your remarks however his behaviour showed he did not actually believe in the cross hence he had to be told to leave!
May 1st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
“haha. That highbeam link does nothing for the Romans one passage that is exceptionally clear. ”
Yes, Romans 1 appears to be ‘exceptionally clear’ in talking about heterosexual men and women abandoning their natural (heterosexual) orientation to pursue homosexual encounters.
Romans 2 is also exceptionally clear Emblazoned about smug little Hillsong arseholes like yourself..who think you’re less sinful than heterosexual men and women who abandon their natural (heterosexual) orientation to pursue homosexual encounters.
“Arsenkoita is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets it roots from the Septuagint’s rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex.
This was clearly shown by David Wright in 1984 ( for the curious in Vigiliae Christianae Vol 38 PP 125-153).”
Sounds impressive….but all it is in article in a Christian magazine…(just like a piece that’s published in On Being) with which other scholars disagree with Wright’s assumptions and agenda.
Even Wright’s supporters..who desperately want Wright to be right….only go as far as saying arsenekoites is ‘probably’ a reference back to Leviticus.
‘Probably’ is a long way short of ‘Arsenkoita is both etymologically and contextually unqualified. It refers to any form of male-male sex and gets it roots from the Septuagint’s rendering of the Levitical proscription of homosexual sex.’
Interesting that your staking your case on an English translation of a Greek translation of the original text.
But let’s take your ‘unqualified’ assertion that Paul was referring to Leviticus in coining the term ‘arsenekoites’.
Why is it ‘moral’ for Paul to uphold one aspect of the law, but to nullify another aspect of the law…eg. circumcision.
If circumcision was ‘moral’ in what we call the Old Testament, why is not a moral imperative now? Are you and Paul saying that aspects of the law were bad and needed to be overturned?
What right did Paul have to effectively declare that circumcision was no longer moral or immoral or neutral?
I’ll ask that again…..what authority did Paul have to declare that something considered moral…should no longer be considered necessary to obey?
In fact, if anything Paul leans towards circumcision being ‘immoral’ because he considers it is a sign of a lack of faith in the sufficiency of Christ.
That’s a big shift for one new Christian to unilaterally declare part of the law to be invalid.
Now, I happen to be circumcised.
What if I hold to the view that in 2006 it is immoral not to be circumcised? (I’m more than happy to conduct dick checks outside places of worship BTW - “Thus says the Lord Yahweh, No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any foreigners who are among the children of Israel.”)
Seems pretty straight forward to me what God was getting at. God’s clear intention was that no-one with a foreskin should be in a place like Hillsong or Gladesville Anglican or any other place of worship.
It’s in the bible.
It’s moral.
So why is that circumcision law not moral and valid in 2006..just because a new convert to Christianity decided he thought it was unnecessary?
Where are the church working groups, the policy sub-committees, the doctrinal commissions…?
Ultimately any serious bible study forces one to ultimately decide whether they are to interpret various moralities and teachings through the final say-so of Jesus or the final say-so of Paul.
Your final arbiter Homer is Paul, a fallible sinner who had a knack of getting on the wrong side of people and acting and thinking unilaterally, and that’s why the Christians here who see Jesus, the son of God, as the final Word on matters of faith and morality and compassion and redemption don’t take you seriously.
And because you’re a conservative dickhead….
(note for newcomers - Homer believes all people who have sex outside of marriage should be brought before a court, and once the case is proven, be sent home without penalty…otherwise known here as ‘Homer’s Bonking Court’. It’s these extra-biblical beliefs that particularly endear us to Homer….not)
May 1st, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Homer (AKA Bring Back EP at LP) I actually didn’t express an opinion there, I was merely asking whether it was possible to consider something like this not an essential.
I take it from your response that although you think that the central christian tenets of chritisanity are the physical resurrection and the salvation of the cross, you still think that other beliefs (such as whether or not homosexual acts are sinful) are inextricably linked to that.
So if not these ones, are there any beliefs in which we could hold diverse beliefs?
May 1st, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Dan, that EP states #1 ” The major points from any church is twin beliefs in Jesus taking our punishment for our sins on the cross and his physical resurrection …
most heresies deny both these central tents of Christianity.”
Ep’s statement does not to my mind suggest that Homer
is of the opinion that the twin beliefs are the only essential tenets of Christianity. Could acceptance of the bible as the Word of God also be considered a candidate as an essential tenet?
Lance says of EP: “Your final arbiter Homer is Paul, …” Is not the final arbiter to which EP, Emblazoned and myself are appealing, The Word of God. … now now, not our interpretation or the NIV or the KJV or BH’s interpretations.
If the bible is the Word of God then where it speaks clearly and unequivocably, should not this be considered essential?
May 1st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
No James Lance can’t believe in the bible as it was written by humans.
Lance dislikes the canon. He is your anti-marcionite. He wants to take out Paul’s letters as they conflict with Jesus!
It doesn’t matter Jesus says it was written by god and id unbroken because those words were written by a human!
Lance the major problems with your articles and others put on this site is twofold.
1) it ignores Wright seminal article and therefore provides NO contrary claaims to Wright
2) it ignores Roman law and its impact on the verse
They both blow the article out of the water and then they get in the silly position of trying to say that the laws no longer apply.
Except what are we judged on?
your exposition on romans is just as silly
James you are correct in your assumptions
May 1st, 2006 at 9:08 pm
“Lance says of EP: “Your final arbiter Homer is Paul, …” Is not the final arbiter to which EP, Emblazoned and myself are appealing, The Word of God. … now now, not our interpretation or the NIV or the KJV or BH’s interpretations.
If the bible is the Word of God then where it speaks clearly and unequivocably, should not this be considered essential?”
Ummm…..try John 1 (AKA Christianity 101)
“The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning………
……14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ” 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ”
I’m a Horse’s Hoof who doesn’t go to church…and even I know the ‘Word’ was not a book, but a person, the person of Jesus Christ.
“He wants to take out Paul’s letters as they conflict with Jesus!”
No Homer, I want to see Christians try and reconcile the contradictions between some of Paul’s teachings and the teachings of Jesus….and try something new…defer to Jesus instead of Paul when the two conflict.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:43 pm
After 58 or posts, no one has plainly stated what “the essentials” are.
What are the essentials? Well, we don’t want to list them out because that would then look like a creed and that’s just not what it’s all about.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Can we agree to “Jesus is Lord”?