Welcome to ASBO Jesus
Enjoy your stay and have your say! Cheers, Jon
Blogroll
- BigDaddyWhale
- birchmultimedia
- celtic difference
- changing worship
- dennis coburn
- frontier youth trust
- growing enthusiasm
- holy famoley
- iain cotton, sculptor
- jonny baker
- let them eat cake
- mark roques
- mindwriter
- naked pastor
- proost.co.uk
- Rainforest SOS
- reality bites
- sanctuary
- si smith
- sophia network
- stepping stones nigeria
Archives
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
Nice. Thanks.
you are welcome trevor.
Great cartoon. So true!
I think it’s a false division that’s been created by both the folks who stump for dogma and the folks who stump for relationship.
Dogma, at it’s best, sets us in relationship with the great cloud of witnesses who have come before us. It helps create reference for our place in the story.
Dogma really is all about relationships and how those relationships play out in worship (the Trinity and the Incarnation) – I wish someone would remind systematic theologians about that.
thanks wezlo, good comment
everyone has a doctrine don’t they?
even if ur doctrine is that God is relationship and not dictator…
I must take this cartoon to systematics
It’s interesting that the picture that is the most nice, neat, and tidy (dogma, doctrine, systematic theo.) cerebral, is in fact the one that will become the most messy per the storm’s interaction.
And the one that is the most neatly intact throughout the storm (as portrayed here) is in fact the ones that are less neat, clean, and firm in practice. Yet these are the “foundations” that will stand the test of time!
Doctrine (et. al) as a foundation is easy, one can believe something systematically and be done with it, they never have to check and recheck on it’s health. Relationships (et. al) as a foundation takes a lot of work, vigilance, and checking, although in the end it does seem a safer “foundation” than the former.
I guess the difference for me is how static the first one can be while the second HAS to be dynamic and in constant flux in order to remain true/real/effective/etc..
just a thought or 5:) thanks jon, great as always!
I’m with wezlo on this. I don’t think you can divide dogma et al and love et al. The two greatest commandments (rules) according to Jesus were about loving God and each other, so rules and love are deeply entwined in the Christian picture.
When you start saying “ignore the rules, do what you want, just love everyone” you’re on just as dodgy grounds as when you ignore love and just concentrate on the rules.
Isn’t sand just lots of little rocks?
Doctrine (et. al)
I’m fairly sure that, from a certain point of view, dogma, doctrine and rules can be coterminous with love, trust and relationship, in that:-
dogma is what you believe: that God is love,
doctrine is how you believe it: by exhibiting trust in God,
and rules, or limitations, are the mechanism of relationship: the freedom love brings is the most limiting thing of all…
ED…
—
http://caughtnottaught.blogspot.com/
Why is it raining in both pictures?
The rules and the doctrine come once the love and trust are there – you know that “Do not kill” is because it hurts others, and you really know that, because it’s from your heart.
I guess I only keep going to church because I’ve found I love the people there, so maybe there’s something in this, or maybe it’s something about me – I’m more interested in my friends, than in studying stuff
I also think church offers a unique place to create meaningful relationships, and to challenge on our need to control and subjugate – sadly the main activity in some churches
a thought for now, – if St Frances was around now, who would be the leper he gave half his cloak to (given that lepers are no longer the excluded class in Brissol)
Sonia – you remember the song… (think i may have sang it with you!!) “The wise person (pc version!) built…etc etc… and the rain came tumbling down…”
My reflection is that other than the word ‘dogma’ (which i usually see as innately negative!) the other words all have to be understood, experienced and lived with in the context of the motivations in which they are expressed and experienced – I have experienced and seen some pretty dark and damaging ‘relationships’ and on the other hand come across some wise, liberating and loving ‘rules’. So what is in our heart seems key… well it seems so to me! dave
Not sure about this – what are the 10 commandments if not rules?
some wise, liberating and loving ‘rules’. – good point
I also think leadership holds a responsability to the vulnerable, in that leaders can both model and uphold equality and freedom, leaders could have an awarness of the triggers/signs of child abuse and domestic violence, so they can challenge stuff, also a knowledge of how we can improve our relationships and understanding of each other
Oh look how more enticing and happier the sand looks.
Well, so much for Galatians.
and Paul told Peter – in front of the whole church …
They’re both still standing.
Pingback: …read MORE and learn MORE…maybe…maybe not « Community of the Risen
i neither agree nor disagree with the cartoon. i think it is true, yet can see that love god and love your neighbour are both rules. however if you’re truly living out of love for these things you simply will not be murdering, coveting or anything else that rules tell you not to do. i no longer see these as rules i have to obey for the most part… although when i struggle to love the difficult to love it is helpful to know that i have no option.
oh thanks Dave – i’d forgotten that!- you singing that song will be the days when you were the ‘old’ youth leader:)
Is Dogma the Alpha-Christians arsenal?
having grown up watching daring gangster’s and powerful hero’s on the box, have we swapped a spirituality of a serving heart for spirituality of being in charge?
am I being supersensitive, when I hear other groups and ideas being ‘dissed’, or is being creatively in control what it’s about?
maybe I’m just taking Yancey’s book, ‘Soul Survivor’, toooo seriously,
keep dry folks, its raining again
I’m with everyone who says that splitting the two up isn’t perhaps the best idea. After all, when introducing the illustration Jesus said “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. ”
Put em into practice, so if you just had the doctrine and dogma, you’d fail, because you weren’t doing the love part, but then people who just are loving but have no words to anchor that on are going to get hit by a storm and the love’ll die. At it’s best doctrine is just “this is what Jesus said” and so without it, fail.
“At it’s best doctrine is just “this is what Jesus said””… yep i agree mark.
can’t help thinking that love god and neighbour gets lost under a whole heap of legalisms though.
You can have doctrine without legalism though. I think we ogten get caught up with doctrine – dogma. Doctrine can be life giving if it is Jesus centred.
I think the problem is that the ‘love/trust/relationship/etc’ stuff is that, for many people, these are very much based on feelings, and our feelings are changeable and unreliable. So the rule of ‘do not murder’ still stands even if I feel extremely angry with someone. The rules will guide my behaviour (hopefully) no matter how I might be feeling. I also think that love is a choice, and that the rules can guide us into loving behaviour with each other.
As a cognitive psychologist, I would also claim that all our behaviour is, in fact, rule driven, whether explicitly or implicitly…
Parenting also comes to mind here -parents have rules for their children that the children don’t always understand, like ‘don’t put your hand in the fire’ or ‘don’t take drugs’ or whatever, and sometimes they need the rule to be kept safe until they are old enough to understand it and to keep the rule from a place of understanding and choice – sometimes I think this is a bit like us with God when we are ‘immature’…
wise.
Very well put Doctor Ruth
great cartoon and great comments all.
Steve @ 9: isn’t rock just lots of little sands all stuck together? (not necessarily in a formal context, obviously)
Sonia @ 12: because God sends his rain on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. (Hands up who wants to self identify with one or the other camp)
Miriworm @ 16: Promises.
Mimou @ 18: haha! Yep. But give it five minutes…
Really awesome discussion. I only have this to add.
Where do these words of Jesus fit in with the cartoon? “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (found in John 14:15 and a number of other places)
Love of/for Jesus and obedience to his teaching are not different – they are the same. Deciding what his teaching meant or means for us is sometimes a hard thing but when it is clear our love for Jesus draws us to obey.
I wonder if Dogma, Doctrine and Rules only seem negative when we disagree with them or don’t like them. Only other people’s dogma is bad dogma. Mine is great.
“If you love me, you will obey what I command.” (found in John 14:15 and a number of other places)
yep… the commands to love, to be good news, the ‘thou shalts’ if you like are what draws me to christ. dogma or doctrine that enables us to do those things are cool by me. those which stand in the way of our loving (which so often happens sadly) i have no time for.
What would happen if we dropped the words ‘dogma’ and ‘doctrine’ and replaced them with something like ‘sensemaking’?
so, “this is how I make sense of Jesus dying on the cross” or this is how I make sense of “the holy spirit”?
would that help us or take us into a mess of relativism (and do I care?)
Is it just a question of moving the furniture? We don’t like Dogma we do Doctrine. We don’t like Doctrine we do Systematic Theology. We don’t like Systematic theology we Make Sense.
Potatoe potatoe tomatoe tomatoe…
If you take the Orthodox slant on dogma it’s beautiful.
Sas
Robb i’m pretty sure there’s no “e” in potato, but i’m not going to be dogmatic about it =]
Language evolves over time and sometimes we need to find new words to explain old concepts, cos the old words have changed their meaning or lost their potency or are just a bit obscure these days. I’m fine with that – its important to do it. But thats just linguistics, not theology.
CT yeah thats a good phrase i think. think i’d be happier personally if you phrased it “lets discuss together and seek consensus on how *we* make sense of [whatever]”
Jon… how do you love a murderer (and i agree that we absolutely should): does “thou shalt not kill” get in the way of loving them? How do you love a screwed up muppet like me?
I don’t want you to tell me i’m ok as i am and the rules don’t matter, because i’m not ok (at least, i’m not all that i’m meant to be), and the rules are there to stop me hurting others and myself and ultimately God.
But i don’t want to be condemned or have people lay heavy burdens on me without lifting a finger to help either… hmmm.
You bet Linus. The spirit of the Law.
Is there an e in listdexia?
Linus – I think you have hit the nail upon the head!
yep linus… indeed you have hit the nail on the head. i also think what sarah says matters. i would much much rather have a loving spirit than a legalistic one and i would much rather people were loving towards me than legalistic. i need to be set free with a benediction to be a better person (“go and sin no more”)… not in bondage to legalisms.
here’s a thought… i do not need a law that tells me murder is wrong… i already know it in my spirit… however, i am glad the law exists, because it protects me and my family. i don’t live out of that law, love prohibits me from breaking it… murder could never be born out of love. know what i mean?
But, jonbirch, that’s the point Dogma in the classic Christian ISN’T Law at all.
Pingback: Sand or Stone | Chris Baker :: Some Guy and His Mac
that’s a relief wezlo!
This “rocks”!
thanks bryan.
Hi, I am new here, but I do have a question.
So according to the cartoon, we should not build our “house” on any doctrine?
huh?
So I guess you would disagree with this passage from 1 Tim 6:3-4
“If anyone aadvocates a different doctrine and does not 1agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4 he is aconceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions”
And this passage from Titus 1:9 that encourages the teaching of sound doctrine would be in error?
“holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. ”
And this encouragement to follow sound doctrine from 2 Timothy 4:6 is really an encouragement to build on sand?
“In pointing out these things to athe brethren, you will be a good bservant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the 1csound doctrine which you dhave been following. ”
Is this really what you are wanting to say?
hey JR, and welcome. The cartoon is a starting point for a discussion. Sometimes the cartoons here are deliberately provocative to get people thinking.
If you’ve read through the comments above, you’ll know we’ve discussed how the Biblical concepts of Love and doctrine are intertwined. It’s been a really good, gracious and beneficial discussion i think.
I don’t think your interpretation of the cartoon is correct – i think the idea is to compares a legalistic attitude to a relational one.
What is the teaching Titus 1 refers to? is the teaching “doctrine is good”? or is it “God is love” “there is now no condemnation” “consider others better than yourself”
what are the words of our Lord Jesus that 1 Tim warns us not to disagree with? follow the rules? or “I have come to set the prisoner’s free” “I am the living water” “I desire they are one as you [Father God] and I are one”
Sound doctrine is not an end in itself – its not good because its doctrine, its good because it teaches and encourages love, relationship and trust… and as these take root, there ceases to be any need for written rules because good choices become the instinctive actions of the heart, as they should be.
hi j r miller. great to have you here. welcome. linus has kind of said what i would say… bit like he read my mind in a spooky way. “…compares a legalistic attitude to a relational one” is nail on the head in terms of my own thinking re this subject.
linus, your last sentence is beautiful. thanks.
What they said
Linus, Jon, and Robb, thanks for the clarification on the intended meaning.
a bit of dogma I try to get into, is that God reveals something of himself in all of us – so we find something of him in relating to each other
How can we relate to what we read in the bible, and to Christian dogma/doctrine?
Usually, people only find to options:
a) take it at face value, as an unchangeable truth or
b) throw it out, claim that it is mistaken and does not hold authority
But according to the philosopher Peter Rollins what we have to do is neither a nor b, but instead “wrestle with the text”.
That is a stance where we hold the utmost respect for the text (which is the bible or the dogma).
But we realise also that the word of God contained in the text must be born of love, so if the text lead to an unloving act, it must be re-read.
And that is why and how we must sometimes “betray” the bible or the dogma, in order to stay true to the spirit of Gods word.
An example of this way of reading would be what the fighters against the slave system and slave trade did.
There is nowhere in the bible that directly prompt believers to fight slavery, it actually contain passages that could be read as defending slavery.
But knowing the heart of God, these people sat down and re-read the scriptures and found out that the godly thing to do was abolishing slavery – which is why slavery is illegal today.
OK, I know it’s a bit complicated, but if someone found it interesting, please read Peter Rollins blog at http://www.peterrollins.net/
Not complicated at all.
Well done, Bo.
re subo 53… cool.
that’s straightforward and brilliant bo.
This one made my soul smile today. :::sigh::: Thanks, Jon!