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.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Nite all!
May 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 am
Janet we can but what do you do as we see in 1 Cor 5 where a man does just that and then indulges in incest? answer. god through Paul tells us what to do!
Lance you have a problem with the canon. You need to work that out.
Paul doesn’t contradict Jesus. Only you seem to think that.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:32 am
Essential #1
Jesus is Lord
#2
The bible is not God and it is not Jesus - it is however much more than just a book written by men (and perhaps one or two women’s works attributed to men - such as the Chronicles)
#3
Love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you
#4
Forgive
#5
Forgive
#6
Love
#7
forgive again
#8
Love again
and there you have some of my take on the essentials
#1A - Jesus rose on the 3rd day
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 am
James’ comments above seemed to suggest that I was opposed to Homer. I am not (well maybe I am, but that is not what I am trying to get at). I am wondering whether people do in fact think that you can have some diversity in beliefs and still consider each other christians. Homer didn’t say add the Bible as Word of God to his essentials, he actually said that if you take a different interpretation about homosexuality then you don’t believe in the cross.
For me the essentials are - Jesus is the Son of the Living God and my personal saviour. We are called to follow God through Jesus and bring the Kingdom of God into reality on earth. Oh, and I quite like Greg’s essentials as well.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 am
To not have diversity in belief would mean that we all thought we had it together - and it is far more likely that we don’t. Arrogance is what keeps people from accepting that their take on the way to eb a Christian may in fact be totally arse about!
I like Brian McLaren’s take in Generous Orthodoxy and I think this is what is called for in any discussion on doctrine. I left church becuase I couldn’t believe a lot of the things I was told I had to believe in order to be a Christian and then returned after reading John Spong (and I don;t agree with him on a lot of things so let’s not paint me as a heretic to quickly Homer) and realising that it was about being connected with God and being aware of that connection that allowed me have a Christian faith with integrity (to myself).
I like Spongs idea that the church is there shout out the call that God want’s us to love wastefully, live fully and be all that we can be. A set of concrete doctrines doesn;t necessariloy help us do this - they tend to start us on the road of “well you don’t believe such and such so your out…”
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:32 am
The issue of homosexuality like Incest is black and white.
no ‘interpretation’ is needed. That is why we are told to expel such people from Church.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
GTE - I like Spongs idea that the church is there shout out the call that God want’s us to love wastefully, live fully and be all that we can be. A set of concrete doctrines doesn;t necessariloy help us do this - they tend to start us on the road of “well you don’t believe such and such so your out…”
Sounds like a brian houston Quote!
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
As part of investigating the source of Homer’s latest conservative blinkered rantings about gays…I’ve been covering some ground in researching Jewish views on homosexuality.
(Homer’s latest argument being that Wright has produced ‘unqualified’ proof that the greek term ‘arsenekoites’ used by Paul and mistakenly combined with ‘malakoi’ to be wrongly translated as ‘homosexual offenders’ in the NIV, was Paul creating a new word that harked back to Levitical prohibitions on certain sexual acts, which denied people entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.)
Now remember…for the most part these Jewish people don’t acknowledge Jesus Christ as being the messiah… and still defer to the law in the Torah…
Why is it that these people who don’t follow Christ, can summon up more compassion, and are much more accepting and tolerant of (actively) homosexual people…than Christians who claim that they follow Christ?
Even the most conservative of Jews clearly state…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_of_homosexuality
“(E) In any case, in accordance with the Rabbinical Assembly and United Synagogue Resolutions we are hereby affirming gays and lesbians are welcome in our congregations, youth groups, camps and schools.”
You cannot get that kind of definitive welcoming statement out of the average suburban church in Australia…let alone the conservative ‘Christian’ zealots.
What is it about Judaism…that brings about the compassion and mercy of Christ…and what is it about Christianity that produces people like Homer, and the average suburban pastor and youth pastor…..who are the most heartless two-faced pricks imaginable?
Is it the ‘Paul’ factor?
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Lance,
you just don’t read.
no-one is condemning homosexuals anymore than adulterers, fornicators or murderers.
The only thing being said is that homosexuality perse is sinful.
The Jewish community you should research is the Jewish community of around 30 AD not today!
By the way what does the law of the Torah say about Homosexuality?
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Which proves what I’ve said about you all along Homer….
You are a son of the law…and not a son of faith…and that’s why you don’t understand the whole Jesus thing…and how grace goes to those who DON’T deserve it.
You want ‘deserved grace’..which is not grace…because you are a child of the law.
You’re not that dumb Homer, you must know by now that you’re a son of the law..not a son of faith.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
If you think you can ‘achieve’ salvation by observing the law Homer, you’re fucked.
I don’t know how much more directly I can put it.
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Your problem Lance is that you simply have no idea of biblical doctrine and hence will ignore 1 Cor 5 until your death.
Everyone has a past Lance everyone. When people come to Christ they change their lives to follow him however like the man in Corinth who believes in Christ but lives in an incestual relationship you do not believe a person has any need to change.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:11 pm
GTE - I like Spongs idea that the church is there shout out the call that God want’s us to love wastefully, live fully and be all that we can be. A set of concrete doctrines doesn;t necessariloy help us do this - they tend to start us on the road of “well you don’t believe such and such so your out…”
Sounds like a brian houston Quote!
I thought that too as I wrote it!!!!!
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Everyone has a past Lance everyone. When people come to Christ they change their lives to follow him however like the man in Corinth who believes in Christ but lives in an incestual relationship you do not believe a person has any need to change.
I too ahve researched the jewish positon on all of this and guess what?
They think Homer is a moron too!
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Congratulations Greg.
now try and show how Spong’s position doesn’t contradict the bible?
Strange how god gives us this but doesn’t want us live like thus but I forgot spong doesn’t even think God can change anything.
which is why Greg reads him I guess.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:21 pm
“Everyone has a past Lance everyone. When people come to Christ they change their lives to follow him however like the man in Corinth who believes in Christ but lives in an incestual relationship you do not believe a person has any need to change.”
So how have you changed since the last time we asked you (and you refused to answer).
What sins have you repented of in the past 12 months?
Do you agree with the biblical position on the abominations of being proud and haughty?
Have you personally repented of the sins (abominations) of being proud and haughty?
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Homo…er…I mean Homer,
I disagree with you. You said:
“When people come to Christ they change their lives to follow him.”
That’s utter BS. We are basically powerless to change anything about ourselves. The Holy Spirit is the One who does the changing…. renewing our hearts and minds. And that work is a life-long process. It doesn’t happen over night.
God meets each individual right where they are. Period.
Everyone’s right. You have no concept of Grace whatsoever. Child of the Law to the extreme.
1. Live by the Law, Die by the Law, be judged according to the Law.
or
2. Live by grace, Die by Grace, and be not judged because of Grace.
I know which one I would choose.
Complete idiot, pharisee, false teacher, bad, bad, bad man…..run away!!!!!
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
This is the thing that gets me with Homer.
He’s the one who’s always saying…you must change after having accepting Christ into their life.
Now I think that’s a good thing when change does happen..and I have seen that change in people…but can anyone here…..tell me how Homer has changed and become more Christ-like in the past 12 months?
He is saying exactly the same things…using exactly the same pompous haiku as when he started posting at Signposts.
Homer though is fortunate…..
Though he believes he is saved by his ‘right behaviour’..and ‘righteousness’…he is blessed that God sees past his mindless conservativism and pharisee-blindedness to give him the grace that he doesn’t believe that he needs.
If only he could offer that grace and salvation to others.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
If we have to change the way we are to be acceptable to God Homer, then why did Jesus die? Our lives do change - but not because they have to but as a result of relationship with God. I think that you are a very scared little man and are probably hiding some pretty horendous little secrets in that cast iron vault of yours for you to be so against everyone and so black and white.
Anyway I’ve done some research again and even Peter Jensen thinks Homer is a moron!
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
TAF aka TradingAshesForBeauty. Congratulations! You caught Homer out; by not qualifying your words Homer, you did leave youself open
“When people come to Christ they change their lives to follow him.”
But TAF, isnt this a lot like straining out a mite and swallowing a whole hog of heresy. I think Homer is fully aware that the power to change is entirely by grace thru Christ. But, this does not nullify: Without repentance there is forgiveness of sin.
Dan, is our final authority the Bible (in its original form), or per chance some utterer who cries out, “Jesus says to the church, ‘i love you, do what u like, u no longer need to repent, when i said, Repent for the kingdom of God is hand, it was just a suggestion …” Just asking, in love and all that!
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Correction
Without repentance there is NO forgiveness of sin. Sorry all you hopefuls!
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I’ve done some more research….ah, forget it we all konw who the morons are (and don;t anyone say I’m one cuase it;s just not true…I konw cause my mummy says i’m cool).
What’s all the big thing about homosexuals James and HOmer? What about the bit’s where Jesus says the rich can;t get to heaven? What about Murderers? Will a repentant murderer find forgiveness? The bible/Paul says that there is no place in heaven for murderers? If they can’t get in why not kill em all and be done with it?
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Duh! Never singled out homosexuals. While the Scripture does warn that an immoral person sins against his/her own body (i interpret this to mean, inter alia, causes him/herself additional suffering); apart from that …, well i thought id made myself clear in #29
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Dan, is our final authority the Bible (in its original form), or per chance some utterer who cries out, “Jesus says to the church, ‘i love you, do what u like, u no longer need to repent, when i said, Repent for the kingdom of God is hand, it was just a suggestion …” Just asking, in love and all that!
I think that our final authorities are Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. I don’t know if anyone here is or would speak in defence of “some utterer”. I think that this is a bit of a straw man.
What I am trying to unpack is the argument that goes like this “You have a particular interpretation of Paul/the relevance of Leviticus/speaking in tongues/spiritual gifts and therefore you do not believe in the cross.” I just think it is a leap and a relevant one where we are talking about the notion of essentials and inessentials and maintaining christian community in the face of diverse doctrine.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Jesus said - Go and sin no more
I dont see grace in that - purely an individual act
The grace was to forgive - the act Jesus left to her
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:05 pm
My essentials:
1) The trinity
2) Jesus’ virgin birth, sinless life and crucifixion, dying and shedding blood for atonement
3) Jesus rose again and a few weeks later ascended to heaven
4) One day he’s coming back
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Dan, twas a bit straw man like, but transparently so. I was really just hoping to elicit your, or others, thoughts on “the bible our final authority”, is this an essential?
May 2nd, 2006 at 6:25 pm
The trinity as an essential belief? The trinity doesn’t stand up as a very meaningful concept when subjected to analysis - some would say it is beyond understanding. In which case, what does it mean to believe in the trinity? It must mean the ability to articulate an acceptable sequence of words, including “trinity”, that parses grammatically correctly. That could hardly be an essential belief. I would have thought that a belief has to be meaningful to be essential.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Hey Ducky, note this time, note this day! I don’t think you are altogether incorrect
How can the trinity be the number 1 essential when a) the term does not appear in Scripture, b) the doctrince is complex and probably not understood by most who profess to believe in it, and c) a doctrine that was not even formulated until the 4th Century AD?
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Lance #58 How do we know that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh; is it not by the written Word of God? If the bible is not the Word of God, then how can we know that what it says about Jesus is true?
Brings me back to the thought that ” the bible as our ultimate authority” (or similar) is the First Essential. From the bible flows our knowledge of Christ, His death, the efficacy of His Blood, the grace of God in Christ, our need to repent, and as Homer points out: Some things are Black and White …