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.
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.
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
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
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.
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,
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.
Comment by beatthedrum — November 4, 2008 @ 11:41 am
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’…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. ”
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.
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/
Nice. Thanks.
Comment by Trevor — November 3, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
you are welcome trevor.
Comment by jonbirch — November 3, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Great cartoon. So true!
Comment by Caz — November 3, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
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.
Comment by wezlo — November 3, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
thanks wezlo, good comment
everyone has a doctrine don’t they?
even if ur doctrine is that God is relationship and not dictator…
Comment by jody — November 3, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
I must take this cartoon to systematics
Comment by Robb — November 3, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
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!
Comment by Justin — November 3, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
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.
Comment by Ben — November 3, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Isn’t sand just lots of little rocks?
Comment by Steve Lancaster — November 3, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Doctrine (et. al)
Comment by Robb — November 3, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
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/
Comment by ED... — November 3, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Why is it raining in both pictures?
Comment by soniamain — November 3, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
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.
Comment by sarah — November 3, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
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)
Comment by subo — November 3, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
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
Comment by Dave — November 3, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Not sure about this – what are the 10 commandments if not rules?
Comment by Miriworm — November 3, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
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
Comment by subo — November 3, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Oh look how more enticing and happier the sand looks.
Comment by Mimou — November 3, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Well, so much for Galatians.
Comment by Dorian — November 3, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
and Paul told Peter – in front of the whole church …
Comment by subo — November 3, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
They’re both still standing.
Comment by Lewis — November 3, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
[...] 7. I always find this site interesting with his pictures. [...]
Pingback by …read MORE and learn MORE…maybe…maybe not « Community of the Risen — November 3, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
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.
Comment by jonbirch — November 3, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
oh thanks Dave – i’d forgotten that!- you singing that song will be the days when you were the ‘old’ youth leader:)
Comment by soniamain — November 4, 2008 @ 8:35 am
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
Comment by subo — November 4, 2008 @ 8:50 am
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.
Comment by Mark — November 4, 2008 @ 9:10 am
“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.
Comment by jonbirch — November 4, 2008 @ 11:20 am
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.
Comment by beatthedrum — November 4, 2008 @ 11:41 am
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…
Comment by doctor ruth — November 4, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
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’…
Comment by doctor ruth — November 4, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
wise.
Comment by jonbirch — November 4, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Very well put Doctor Ruth
Comment by beatthedrum — November 4, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
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.
Comment by Linus — November 4, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
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.
Comment by Rich — November 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
“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.
Comment by jonbirch — November 4, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
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?)
Comment by Caroline Too — November 4, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
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…
Comment by Robb — November 4, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
If you take the Orthodox slant on dogma it’s beautiful.
Sas
Comment by sarah — November 4, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
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.
Comment by Linus — November 4, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
You bet Linus. The spirit of the Law.
Comment by sarah — November 4, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Is there an e in listdexia?
Linus – I think you have hit the nail upon the head!
Comment by Robb — November 5, 2008 @ 12:01 am
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?
Comment by jonbirch — November 5, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
But, jonbirch, that’s the point Dogma in the classic Christian ISN’T Law at all.
Comment by wezlo — November 5, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
[...] (from: The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus) [...]
Pingback by Sand or Stone | Chris Baker :: Some Guy and His Mac — November 5, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
that’s a relief wezlo!
Comment by jonbirch — November 6, 2008 @ 3:29 am
This “rocks”!
Comment by Bryan Riley — November 7, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
thanks bryan.
Comment by jonbirch — November 7, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
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?
Comment by J. R. Miller — November 7, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
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.
Comment by Linus — November 7, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
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.
Comment by jonbirch — November 8, 2008 @ 2:48 am
What they said
Comment by Robb — November 8, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Linus, Jon, and Robb, thanks for the clarification on the intended meaning.
Comment by J. R. Miller — November 8, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
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
Comment by subo — November 9, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
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/
Comment by Bo — November 9, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Not complicated at all.
Well done, Bo.
Comment by sarah — November 9, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
re subo 53… cool.
that’s straightforward and brilliant bo.
Comment by jonbirch — November 10, 2008 @ 5:38 am
This one made my soul smile today. :::sigh::: Thanks, Jon!
Comment by Amy Gustafson — November 19, 2008 @ 6:58 pm