Just in from church. Tonight Pastor Kerry told us about a recent trip he made to the west coast, but as he always does, he underpinned the story with scripture and spiritual insight. Two things I had to write down before they slipped into oblivion in the ever hardening folds of my brain.
The first I can't exactly remember how he said it, but here is what I got on paper: "We need not read the scriptures for information. We need to read the scriptures for transformation."
When we read for information we open our minds to discovering something we don't KNOW yet. When we read for transformation we open our lives to discovering something we are NOT yet.
The second nugget I had to note was this: "It is not about who we are but whose we are." I digested that a minute or two and slightly rewrote it as "Who we are is determined by whose we are."
Every day I see and hear about the results of lives lived outside of the presence of God. The world is full of people who's lives are in turmoil and strife because they have been in control of decision making rather than letting God have that station in their lives.
Just thought I'd share. I am deeply indebted to Pastor Kerry because of his willingness to be a transparent conduit of the spirit of God.
I have been thinking along the lines of doctrine lately, but haven't processed it enough to put it on paper. Well, sort of on paper. Thanks for your continued interest.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
More reading required
Well, just as I was getting set to examine books available and appropriate to this study of doctrine my wife points out that she had already given me a book on doctrine as a Christmas present which I have not gotten around to reading. Argh. Don't you love it when someone points out something you are looking for is right under your nose?
The book she gifted me with is titled Systematic Theology, subtitled An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, written by Wayne Grudem.
The book looks like it will be a tough read for me. But I have other concerns that I need to address first. Anything I read these days I try to find out all I can about the author’s background and theological position. It isn’t enough any more to for someone to simply state they are a Christian. Unfortunately that title is used by many people who don’t seem to run parallel paths with me.
Grudem is a Calvinist. He is also a Baptist. Now before I hear shrieks and yelps let me explain that the most prominent marker of Calvinism and the various Baptist traditions is their view of eternal security. I just can not buy into eternal security. There are just too many scriptures that make it clear in my understanding that as long as we have life on this side of eternity we live with the possibility of sinning. And I am a firm believer that sin separates us from a sinless God.
I am just as firm in my belief that we don’t have to sin. I believe that we CAN be eternally secure in the peace of not having to sin. But Calvinists believe we can’t break the relationship with God after once coming under grace.
So, I am undecided whether I will even venture into this book. It’s not that I am the least bit intimidated or afraid it will lead me astray. I just don’t see any reason to spend time reading something that I would disagree with and not be able to apply to my life.
If you have any suggestions for good Wesleyan Bible doctrine texts I would be grateful.
The book she gifted me with is titled Systematic Theology, subtitled An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, written by Wayne Grudem.
The book looks like it will be a tough read for me. But I have other concerns that I need to address first. Anything I read these days I try to find out all I can about the author’s background and theological position. It isn’t enough any more to for someone to simply state they are a Christian. Unfortunately that title is used by many people who don’t seem to run parallel paths with me.
Grudem is a Calvinist. He is also a Baptist. Now before I hear shrieks and yelps let me explain that the most prominent marker of Calvinism and the various Baptist traditions is their view of eternal security. I just can not buy into eternal security. There are just too many scriptures that make it clear in my understanding that as long as we have life on this side of eternity we live with the possibility of sinning. And I am a firm believer that sin separates us from a sinless God.
I am just as firm in my belief that we don’t have to sin. I believe that we CAN be eternally secure in the peace of not having to sin. But Calvinists believe we can’t break the relationship with God after once coming under grace.
So, I am undecided whether I will even venture into this book. It’s not that I am the least bit intimidated or afraid it will lead me astray. I just don’t see any reason to spend time reading something that I would disagree with and not be able to apply to my life.
If you have any suggestions for good Wesleyan Bible doctrine texts I would be grateful.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Explanation
For those of you who have been along for a while, the readership is growing as I and others invite more to check out the blog. For that reason I have shifted gears ever so slightly to be sure every thing I write is from a positive and encouraging slant. I have no need or use for discouraging or negative verbiage. For a little while I plan to look into this topic of doctrine, and then return to my book. I have found several other books that I feel I need to read. Sometimes I joke at work about committing a crime that would get me a life sentence just so I might catch up a little on my reading.
But, none of it will matter when I pass from time to timelessness. I will have all of the answers I believe.
Blessings.
But, none of it will matter when I pass from time to timelessness. I will have all of the answers I believe.
Blessings.
Doctrines vs Articles of Faith
As I began looking into what doctrine means to people of faith I am finding that there is some confusion between Articles of Faith and doctrine. Every denomination will have Articles of Faith, and every church should have an Articles of Faith statement. I would imagine that almost no person of faith has ever considered creating or adopting an Articles of Faith statement, but I can envision several reasons why it would be a good thing for them to do.
I invite your comments on this because I have not thought completely through this nor have I researched it. It is my conviction at this point in time to believe a statement of Articles of Faith are the first impression you want to present to anyone who is examining or questioning a church or denomination's position on basic religious principles.
I would also hold forth that a personal statement of Articles of Faith would be a great way to establish a basis for further inquiry into what one believes.
Articles of Faith seem to me to be a set of positional statements about the key points of a religion. In other words, how do you, or the church or the denomination, stand on whom and what is your deity? How do you or the members of your church or denomination relate and respond to this deity? What does being in relationship with this deity bring into your life, the lives of those in your church or denomination? And, conversely, what does being out of relationship with this deity take away from your life, etc, etc.
I would point you to the church web site of the church Georgiann and I attend now as an example of Articles of Faith. It can be found at
http://www.abeaconofhope.org/FIRSTCHURCH/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=214.
But that is only the beginning of the instructions, advice and admonition that I believe the church is responsible for in the lives of those who would make that church their own.
Personal Articles of Faith would be the same. A personal AoF would be a sketch or framework of a much deeper set of values and guidelines by which one conducts their life.
What comes underneath as a foundation and support of an AoF statement must be doctrine by which we fine tune our living. We make adjustments to our thought processes, our actions, our responses to situations and our influence as we are impressed to do so by the doctrine that we adopt and process.
Personal Articles of Faith would then be more readily set in stone while doctrine would be fluid and subject to adaptation as the Holy Spirit guided us.
Now, having ventured into all that with the extension into personal doctrine, I need to return to church and or denominational doctrine. That is what was first questioned of me.
How can I worship with a group that does not share my doctrinal values?
I believe that if you are intuitive you will have already guessed the direction this is going for me, if not the exact path.
As I see doctrine, I see it being different for every soul in a right relationship with the Yahweh God. I see Articles of Faith as being very similar among people who call themselves by the first century name Christian.
And doctrine is going to be a deep study as I am beginning to see. I really wonder where it will take me. I am not afraid of what it will reveal; in fact I am excited about what I may discover. But every time I begin to explore deeper into personal relationship with God and responsibility to God I find myself with a lot of growing and stepping forward to do.
My greatest reward in this exploration would be to find you discover how you can grow as well.
I invite your comments on this because I have not thought completely through this nor have I researched it. It is my conviction at this point in time to believe a statement of Articles of Faith are the first impression you want to present to anyone who is examining or questioning a church or denomination's position on basic religious principles.
I would also hold forth that a personal statement of Articles of Faith would be a great way to establish a basis for further inquiry into what one believes.
Articles of Faith seem to me to be a set of positional statements about the key points of a religion. In other words, how do you, or the church or the denomination, stand on whom and what is your deity? How do you or the members of your church or denomination relate and respond to this deity? What does being in relationship with this deity bring into your life, the lives of those in your church or denomination? And, conversely, what does being out of relationship with this deity take away from your life, etc, etc.
I would point you to the church web site of the church Georgiann and I attend now as an example of Articles of Faith. It can be found at
http://www.abeaconofhope.org/FIRSTCHURCH/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=214.
But that is only the beginning of the instructions, advice and admonition that I believe the church is responsible for in the lives of those who would make that church their own.
Personal Articles of Faith would be the same. A personal AoF would be a sketch or framework of a much deeper set of values and guidelines by which one conducts their life.
What comes underneath as a foundation and support of an AoF statement must be doctrine by which we fine tune our living. We make adjustments to our thought processes, our actions, our responses to situations and our influence as we are impressed to do so by the doctrine that we adopt and process.
Personal Articles of Faith would then be more readily set in stone while doctrine would be fluid and subject to adaptation as the Holy Spirit guided us.
Now, having ventured into all that with the extension into personal doctrine, I need to return to church and or denominational doctrine. That is what was first questioned of me.
How can I worship with a group that does not share my doctrinal values?
I believe that if you are intuitive you will have already guessed the direction this is going for me, if not the exact path.
As I see doctrine, I see it being different for every soul in a right relationship with the Yahweh God. I see Articles of Faith as being very similar among people who call themselves by the first century name Christian.
And doctrine is going to be a deep study as I am beginning to see. I really wonder where it will take me. I am not afraid of what it will reveal; in fact I am excited about what I may discover. But every time I begin to explore deeper into personal relationship with God and responsibility to God I find myself with a lot of growing and stepping forward to do.
My greatest reward in this exploration would be to find you discover how you can grow as well.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Whose doctrine is it?
I see it has been 22 days since I last posted to this blog. No reason or excuse other than just taking a mental break. I haven’t been motivated with anything to share, actually.
But for the last couple of days I have been thinking about something that I want to explore, and so I will invite you along as I set upon the exploration. I am just now beginning to gather my thoughts and resources. I don’t know where it will lead me, so if you have input I’ll be happy to hear it.
I just now turned commenting back on. If I get negative or antagonistic comments I’ll either turn them back off or limit them to certain addresses. If you are far right in your theology please drift off somewhere else. I will not debate or even listen to you. Sorry, but I have that privilege.
I want to explore the idea, form and power of doctrine. This came about as a result of a conversation I had about 6 months ago. I will quote the comment here as best I remember it.
“Why would you go to a church that doesn’t teach a doctrine you agree with?” (Sorry for ending the sentence with a preposition, I quoted the person verbatim.)
I wrote a several page response to the first part of that statement but reduced it to the statement “Why do I go to church?”
I didn’t publish that because I never finished it to my satisfaction. I did come to the basic succinct conclusion, however, that I go to church to be challenged in my walk of faith and in my knowledge of scripture.
But to pick up the second part, and the intent of the original question, I decided to explore this idea and understanding of doctrine. I believe the word is very often misapplied in Christian lingo.
We could spend considerable time on Christian lingo that is often total nonsense to people who were not raised in a Christian environment. I think Christians use way too much lingo and need remember that the specialized words and phrases within the church are not always understood by the people outside the church.
But that aside, and left for another day, I wanted to look into the word DOCTRINE and see how it is used by theologians, biblical scholars and writers, and sacred text researchers.
I found this entry on dictionary.com for starters:
doc-trine noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Next I looked at dictionary.com’s list of synonyms:
article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule.
Looking at Wikipedia for doctrine I found this entry:
Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organisations [sic], doctrine is simply defined as 'that which is taught', in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel about its internal ways of doing business.
The word doctrine is used 51 times in the KJV. 21 of those times it was at the hand of Paul, unless further research determines that Paul may not have had full authorship of 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews.
If you study the Pauline writings at any length you will find that he often seemed to twist the words of Jesus and very egregiously add his own slant to the words of Jesus. Paul puts into rules things that Jesus never spoke of. Paul set forth boundaries and restrictions that would have made Jesus wonder if he, Paul, had left his senses.
I won’t go into the differences in opinions of Paul here, you can explore that yourself, but I will remind you that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never heard Jesus. By his own admission he was an apostle born out of season, i.e. after Jesus had ascended to the Father. He didn’t mean he was physically born after Jesus’ ascension, he meant he came to faith in Jesus after Jesus’ ascension. But scholars are in unison in believing Paul never met or heard Jesus.
So Paul takes some very tough liberties with statements he is hearing third person.
Back to doctrine.
It is my opinion that the word doctrine, in its simplest and base form, is a person’s or an organization’s basic tenets for functioning and conduct.
Taking that one more step in the context of this entry, a church’s doctrine should be nothing more than that taught by Jesus if that church is going to claim to be Christian.
No if you want to claim to be of Paul then your doctrine should follow Paul’s ideas, concepts and boundaries for functioning and conduct.
I believe every person must establish, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their own functioning and conduct boundaries which will not have conflict with the teachings of Christ, because Christ and the Holy Spirit are two parts of the one Trinity.
It is further my belief that a church that completely echoes your personal doctrine only does so because instead of establishing personal doctrine you have simply adopted the church’s doctrine as your own.
Dangerous.
My opinion.
A meager beginning to a deep topic. I will, as I have the energy and time, explore this further. The comments of those invited to this blog are welcome.
Bruce
But for the last couple of days I have been thinking about something that I want to explore, and so I will invite you along as I set upon the exploration. I am just now beginning to gather my thoughts and resources. I don’t know where it will lead me, so if you have input I’ll be happy to hear it.
I just now turned commenting back on. If I get negative or antagonistic comments I’ll either turn them back off or limit them to certain addresses. If you are far right in your theology please drift off somewhere else. I will not debate or even listen to you. Sorry, but I have that privilege.
I want to explore the idea, form and power of doctrine. This came about as a result of a conversation I had about 6 months ago. I will quote the comment here as best I remember it.
“Why would you go to a church that doesn’t teach a doctrine you agree with?” (Sorry for ending the sentence with a preposition, I quoted the person verbatim.)
I wrote a several page response to the first part of that statement but reduced it to the statement “Why do I go to church?”
I didn’t publish that because I never finished it to my satisfaction. I did come to the basic succinct conclusion, however, that I go to church to be challenged in my walk of faith and in my knowledge of scripture.
But to pick up the second part, and the intent of the original question, I decided to explore this idea and understanding of doctrine. I believe the word is very often misapplied in Christian lingo.
We could spend considerable time on Christian lingo that is often total nonsense to people who were not raised in a Christian environment. I think Christians use way too much lingo and need remember that the specialized words and phrases within the church are not always understood by the people outside the church.
But that aside, and left for another day, I wanted to look into the word DOCTRINE and see how it is used by theologians, biblical scholars and writers, and sacred text researchers.
I found this entry on dictionary.com for starters:
doc-trine noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Next I looked at dictionary.com’s list of synonyms:
article, article of faith, attitude, axiom, basic, belief, canon, concept, convention, conviction, credenda, creed, declaration, dogma, fundamental, gospel, implantation, inculcation, indoctrination, instruction, position, precept, pronouncement, propaganda, proposition, regulation, rule, statement, teaching, tenet, tradition, universal law, unwritten rule.
Looking at Wikipedia for doctrine I found this entry:
Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or “a body of teachings” or “instructions”, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine. In some organisations [sic], doctrine is simply defined as 'that which is taught', in other words the basis for institutional teaching of its personnel about its internal ways of doing business.
The word doctrine is used 51 times in the KJV. 21 of those times it was at the hand of Paul, unless further research determines that Paul may not have had full authorship of 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews.
If you study the Pauline writings at any length you will find that he often seemed to twist the words of Jesus and very egregiously add his own slant to the words of Jesus. Paul puts into rules things that Jesus never spoke of. Paul set forth boundaries and restrictions that would have made Jesus wonder if he, Paul, had left his senses.
I won’t go into the differences in opinions of Paul here, you can explore that yourself, but I will remind you that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never heard Jesus. By his own admission he was an apostle born out of season, i.e. after Jesus had ascended to the Father. He didn’t mean he was physically born after Jesus’ ascension, he meant he came to faith in Jesus after Jesus’ ascension. But scholars are in unison in believing Paul never met or heard Jesus.
So Paul takes some very tough liberties with statements he is hearing third person.
Back to doctrine.
It is my opinion that the word doctrine, in its simplest and base form, is a person’s or an organization’s basic tenets for functioning and conduct.
Taking that one more step in the context of this entry, a church’s doctrine should be nothing more than that taught by Jesus if that church is going to claim to be Christian.
No if you want to claim to be of Paul then your doctrine should follow Paul’s ideas, concepts and boundaries for functioning and conduct.
I believe every person must establish, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, their own functioning and conduct boundaries which will not have conflict with the teachings of Christ, because Christ and the Holy Spirit are two parts of the one Trinity.
It is further my belief that a church that completely echoes your personal doctrine only does so because instead of establishing personal doctrine you have simply adopted the church’s doctrine as your own.
Dangerous.
My opinion.
A meager beginning to a deep topic. I will, as I have the energy and time, explore this further. The comments of those invited to this blog are welcome.
Bruce
Friday, October 3, 2008
Open the blog?
Only one of you has commented much about the blog, so I am thinking that maybe since it is mainly me that will run the risk of creating concern in those who might read the blog, I am ready to run that risk and invite anyone to the blog. I have a few other people that I think might be interested only because they know I am a fringe thinker.
So if none of you that were originally invited have any objections, I am going to open it up. And you can as well. Although who you know that I don't that would be interested is not even fathomable to me.
I have had little time to read lately, but what I have read continues to hold my interest. So far none of it has moved me from my point of faith or changed my beliefs in any way. What is has done, however, is pulled the veil back on some of the issues, circumstances and scenarios in the Old Testament that had me puzzled. What I have read has not so much solved the mysteries as much as it has helped me see that I am not alone in the mystery. And having seen many of the possible solutions to the mysteries proffered by some of the top ancient writing researchers I can rest more comfortably in my opinions and not worry that I have begun to overlook an obvious translation or resolution.
At the same time I find myself becoming a lot more tolerant of other's opinions of the same situations. And I believe that is because I can smugly remind myself those in whom is found the most staunch opinion of how something must be in the scriptures really don't know any more than any of the rest of us. It also humbles me to the point of never thinking that I have things resolved or organized into "the way it was or happened" any more than others.
Here is the scenario. I am in a class and one of the ancient stories, laws, situations, or circumstances comes up and someone takes the floor to inform the rest of us exactly what happened and why the writer wrote what he did. (Bowing to the bias that all of the ancient writings were written by men.) And to myself I say "Yeah? You don't know jack."
So far, that has been the biggest thing I have learned. Concisely, I have learned that we really haven't learned much. And to believe we are right and others are wrong is pretty egotistical.
Later.
So if none of you that were originally invited have any objections, I am going to open it up. And you can as well. Although who you know that I don't that would be interested is not even fathomable to me.
I have had little time to read lately, but what I have read continues to hold my interest. So far none of it has moved me from my point of faith or changed my beliefs in any way. What is has done, however, is pulled the veil back on some of the issues, circumstances and scenarios in the Old Testament that had me puzzled. What I have read has not so much solved the mysteries as much as it has helped me see that I am not alone in the mystery. And having seen many of the possible solutions to the mysteries proffered by some of the top ancient writing researchers I can rest more comfortably in my opinions and not worry that I have begun to overlook an obvious translation or resolution.
At the same time I find myself becoming a lot more tolerant of other's opinions of the same situations. And I believe that is because I can smugly remind myself those in whom is found the most staunch opinion of how something must be in the scriptures really don't know any more than any of the rest of us. It also humbles me to the point of never thinking that I have things resolved or organized into "the way it was or happened" any more than others.
Here is the scenario. I am in a class and one of the ancient stories, laws, situations, or circumstances comes up and someone takes the floor to inform the rest of us exactly what happened and why the writer wrote what he did. (Bowing to the bias that all of the ancient writings were written by men.) And to myself I say "Yeah? You don't know jack."
So far, that has been the biggest thing I have learned. Concisely, I have learned that we really haven't learned much. And to believe we are right and others are wrong is pretty egotistical.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)