I’ve been chewing on a comment I heard in a sermon on Sunday. The preacher claimed that Jesus by perfectly fulfilling the Law was able to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins. His sinless life is clearly affirmed in the epistles. What is interesting is that the Gospels present quite a different picture. He is called a friend of sinners. “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?’ Jesus seemed to go out of his way to break as many commandments as possible. He touched dead people. He touched the sick, leprous and demon-possessed. He went far from the Jewish homeland to hang out with unclean tribes. He broke the Sabbath at every opportunity. He used the sacred name in public. He claimed divinity and direct descent not from Abraham but from God. He’s also presented in the Gospels as more human than God. He gets angry, exasperated, loses his temper, shouts down religious leaders, calls a foreign woman a dog.
Even though the Gospels appear first in the New Testament they were actually composed after the epistles. There’s something counter-intuitive about this. Memories grow rosier over time. Saints become more saintly and flaws are suppressed. But here the opposite has happened. The epistles of Paul and Peter strongly affirm Jesus’ divinity and underplay his humanity. Then the Gospels come out and they do just the opposite.
I hear resonances of this in the Old Testament. Have you ever wondered why all the “saints of old” are painted in such a negative light? Abraham, a liar. Jacob, a deceiver. Moses, a reluctant and angry leader. David, a murderer and adulterer. Even in the New Testament the “hall of faith” might just as well be called the “hall of shame” or a rogue’s gallery. The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are quite the list of shady characters, loose women and blackguards. What’s going on here? Compare this to hagiographies during the Middle Ages where there is an atmosphere of tinsel and fairy tales that is far from the rough reality of the Bible.
Jesus was remarkable not for being a cardboard saint but for being a bad boy. He was a rebel and an outsider and his followers loved him for it. Jesus was the Che Guevara of his generation and he’s most potent as a counter-culture symbol of revolution not perfection.
Throughout Israelite history God too is reported as condemning gentile nations or actively warring against them, being angry with the sin and hypocrysy in the nation, and right through the priesthood including Aaron and Eli he was constantly chastizing the priests.
Jesus did not sin as you’ve stated, for where Jewish Law renders a man unclean it does not make him a sinner. Otherwise every woman and every man with children are automatically sinners. The Sabath incidents were quite thoroughly explained in Scripture. Of course if he was a blasphemer he sinned and our faith is useless, but if–as the last Gospel which you neglected to consider asserts–he was with God and was God everything is alright.
Abraham’s dishonesty caused him trouble, and David’s “case of Uriah the Hittite” cost him four sons and nearly his kingdom. Likewise Moses murder and refusal to talk to the rock, Peter’s denial of Christ, and so forth. Jesus however did not sin, but was perfect as his heavenly father was perfect, and God was “well pleased” with him.
Among Jewish scholars, there is a debate over whether the Jesus of the synoptic gospels actually ever broke Jewish law — certainly many of Jesus’ arguments, particularly in the synoptic gospels, echo late Second Temple Debates over Jewish law. There are, even today, halachic opinions that justify all of Jesus’ actions in those gospels. This view of Jesus makes him act in a manner not dissimilar to rabbis of his period. (Note that Jesus does not claim divinity in the synoptic gospels.) Certainly Jesus was as disputatious as the rabbis of that period.
The Jesus of the fourth gospel is a completely different story, of course.
John is a different kettle of fish. 153 to be exact.
While modern theologians might accept Jesus’ behavior, the Evangelists took great pains to show that he was in conflict with the religious powers of his day and considered by them a sinner.
Ah, but that’s the pleasure of the rabbinic writings — they were all arguing over what is permitted and what is not. In other words (and this is still the case) there was often not a clearly expressed line over what is a sin and what is not. This is, of course, the case in all religions — but especially in rabbinic Judaism.
I do agree that the form of the Gospels we have show Jesus as an angry young man, in conflict with all around him — but my point is that is not necessarily an atypical representation of the rabbis of his time.
So glad to see someone keeps this lunatic in check. You aren’t by any chance Mac user are you? No didn’t think so, darn…
There’s a great liturgy in one of the Iona books called “cursing the money boys”
and it has something along the lines of
Jesus said “blesed are those who protect their pension fund”
Oh no he didn’t
Oh yes he did
Jesus said God is a nice old guy in the sky
Oh no he didn’t
O yes he did
As the litany progresses it ends
Kill him …
kill him
Kill HIM!
that’s what can happen to difficult folk who stand up for their convictions
Jesus was, indeed, a rebel, but He did not sin any ANY of the Biblical accounts. He was a rebel against His culture, and he was a rebel against the religious leaders of His day. He broke many RULES that the JEWISH LEADERS had instituted. However, he never broke any of God’s rules.
In fact, this is one of the lessons of the gospels, and it is unfortunately lost on many Christians. The religious leaders’ rules do not define sin. God’s Law defines sin. I can do many things my church tells me is wrong without ever engaging in sin, because my church institutes rules based on man’s wisdom. Jesus didn’t care what the religious taboos of the day were. He willingly broke them if they were not based in God’s Law. In the same way, we shouldn’t care about any religious taboos of our day if they are not firmly rooted in God’s law.
That can be a dangerous possition though. As God, Jesus could fairly say that God meant the Sabath for help rather than harm, etc. But when we encounter a controversial question–it could be abortion or contraception or married ministers or violent games and films, or anything else–the leaders of our church still represent a perfectly valid authority even though not an absolute one.
Denying this results in a similar scenario as is seen in Judges–”There was no king in Israel at this time and everyone did as he pleased.”
Actually, it is a very safe position. I think it is more dangerous to follow the church’s dictates, as the church makes decisions on what is best for the ORGANIZATION, not what is best for the cause of Christ. An organization’s main goal is to survive. Thus, it will generally choose those things that will perpetuate its own existence rather than those things that are best for the world (or even its members). I personally believe that a thinking Christian who is honestly seeking to serve the Lord is a more reliable source of moral guidelines than is a church.
The vast majority of Christians are not at that level. They lack the intellect, or as spiritual children they lack the knowledge, or as spiritual teenagers they lack the wisdom, or the time, or the certainty of their own motives (Remember that Proverb, “A man’s ways seem right to him but the Lord weighs the heart.”
Of those that remain (if even they have pure motives) surely they should not be so sceptical of centuries of Church wisdom and Christ-like love. The Church is not so much an organization as a family whose primary concern is love.
It may be true that there are a few Leo X’s floating around who care nothing for the Lord or others, but surely then the Martin Luthers who can refute them should not disappear into holy solitude but must speak out for the good of others.
Therefore it is vital to listen to the teachings of the church. We must be wary of, and bold in confronting such as is harmful. However at the same time issues such as drug use should be considered by a christain from the possition of the church, much as a child should consider such issues from the wisdom of their parents.
In addition the kind of lonly faith you prescribe would severely limit a believers effectiveness in evangelism to the outside world, their resistance to temptation (since there is little accountability), and their general life among the family of God.
I am not sure why you think I a prescribing a “lonely faith.” I am certainly not. I did not suggest anything about avoiding church, avoiding fellowship, avoiding accountability, etc. I only said that the church is a very poor source of moral guidelines, as it is concerned not for the cause of Christ, but for its own perpetuation.
It is not that I think a few Leo X’s can corrupt a church. Certainly there are poor church leaders and great church leaders. The problem is not the leaders. It is the church as an organization. An organization will never be the best source of information about what Scripture says.
Thanks for the clarification. So the only thing you’re challenging is blind belief in Church authority?
I can of course appreciate that a church doctrine or social philosophy need not be correct. I have particular issues for example with certain human rights which I don’t believe are Mankind’s to take or his to bestow, particularly those that actually contradict scripture.
Likewise a church can give advice say on smoking, yet can only back it up with fragments of scripture. However I would still maintain that such advice is a valid source of Moral authority. After all, it seems quite absurd that (and I’ll justify this later) holy men and possibly women working in a group after prolonged prayer and study of both the Bible and the situation should fail to provide as valid a possition as an individual, even if such an individual believes himself to have followed a similarly thorough inspection. The one exception to this might lie in a scenario where the church cannot relate (such as celibate priests in the Catholic heirarchy trying to dictate on contraception.) I do not agree with the catholic idea that the pope’s words are as infalible as the Bible, and I would indeed critically examine them, but would at least give some significant weight to a church’s views.
Now to justify my assertion: I am absolutely not a Catholic but it is primarily the Catholic church which can suffer the accusation of being an organization. Most other Churches would indeed be closer to a family structure (Though few if any actually approach the ideal of a single body.) Like any family these churches love and support their members, they strive to protect them from harm, and I would even go so far as to say that the fifth commandment can be extended (not in the same way of course) to elders of the church.
As a fifteen-year-old boy with three younger brothers I am well aquainted with the task of keeping them away from dangers. I appreciate that my counsel may not ALWAYS reflect that of my parents, but their (My mother and father) taking my side and chastising the children for foolishness is more common than telling me off for poor advice. In the same way though a church minister may still be pitiful in the eyes of the Lord, his words are nonetheless guidance not to be ignored without good reason. It is generally fair to assume that a strong christian is more likely to be found within the church heirarchy, and in greater numbers, than among the laity.
By all means one must be willing to flatly reject doctrine that does not withstand trials, but assuming the worst of all priests, pastors, ministers, etc can only lead to missed out blessings. No man is perfect–not even you–and to assume therefore that you know better than your superintendent, bishop, or cardinal is the sort of pride that will lead to a serious fall.
I definitely am challenging blind belief in church authority. In fact, you seem to agree with me. You say that the church can give good moral leadership, but then you keep giving exceptions. You agree, for example, that “a church doctrine or social philosophy need not be correct.” In addition, you say, “Likewise a church can give advice say on smoking, yet can only back it up with fragments of scripture.” So it seems to me that you agree that a church may not be right on certain issues. Well…who decides when the church is wrong? I assume that for your life, YOU do. Thus, like me, you look at church rules with skepticism and evaluate them for yourself. That is VERY healthy, and it is all I am suggesting you should do. Well…I also suggest that you actively disobey the church rules that aren’t Scripturally based, but that’s the militant in me.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that, “it is primarily the Catholic church which can suffer the accusation of being an organization. Most other Churches would indeed be closer to a family structure.” I have never attended a Catholic church regularly. However, I have attended many Protestant churches regularly over the years – Southern Baptist, United Methodist, charismatic, and currently Free Methodist. I have served on leadership boards of some of these churches, and without exception, ALL of them operate more as an organization than as a family. The decisions they make have little to do with their members and everything to do with surviving as an organization. Buildings are built, for example, not to serve the church membership, but to attract more people to the church so that it can grow and have a greater chance of survival. Members that have no political or financial clout are ignored if their needs interfere with the “movers and shakers” of the church. The list goes on and on.
Thus, as I said before, my problem is not with church LEADERS. I do not assume the worst of priests, pastors, ministers, etc. In fact, I can think of one minister in particular who I strive to emulate as a Christian. However, his CHURCH teaches some things that are not Scriptural. Nevertheless, it teaches them so that it can survive. It knows that if it stopped teaching certain things, the major financial backers would move to another church, and it can’t afford for that to happen.
So one certainly should look to INDIVIDUALS in church leadership as good resources for understanding Scripture, as well as individuals outside of church leadership. Indeed, I read a LOT of church theologians. However, the last place you should look when trying to understand Scripture is to the teachings of a church itself. PEOPLE have the Holy Spirit living inside them, guiding them. A CHURCH does not.
I must say, it is nice to finally see a scientist who examines more than sheer numerical efficiancy. But disregarding that, it seems we drift now further apart.
I will acknowledge of course that a philosophy or even a docrine can be faulty, but that is only because the man who concieves of it fails personally. Individuals in leadership are of course a brilliant font of understanding of Scripture, but I fail to see a clear distinction between these leaders of the church and the Church leadership. If a pope makes a declaration the word that sallies forth from St. Peters is that of the pope. The Catholics believe it infallible, you and I do not, and here I believe we agree. Of course we must be willing to apply church doctrine to a testing process and discard anything that is erroneous.
To return to an earlier example, the Catholics hold all contraceptive methods to be sinful except the natural ones–notably the rhythm method. The rhythm method however is contrary to scripture because in parts of the New Testament we read “Do not deprive each other…except for a time for prayer/service to God.” Their other permitted method, the unpopular withdrawal method, can be sufficiently (for its popularity) countered with the strange but fatal story in Genesis 38:9.
However the same church still maintains other contraceptives to be wrong, for a variety of valid reasons including that an availability of contraceptives WILL PROMOTE adultary, fornication, and other immorality. Though the Bible does not explicitely mention such contraceptives it makes it quite clear that causing a fellow human to sin (Especially a child) is wrong. By your militancy their teaching should be flatly discarded without remorse. I would maintain however that it should be given a fair trial alongside its alternatives.
THe moral and practical wisdom of the church, which is of Church leaders as a united group, is subserviant to the scriptures (which is in my opinion where the Roman Catholic Church first erred.) However applied morality is different. Particularly issues not touched upon in Scripture must be considered with all the tools we can control. The holy Spirit, prayer, and scriptural principals are our primary tools… but dedicated, pious church leaders are an invaluable guide. They, it seems to me, are far less likely to chronically err than you or I.
Indeed if one believes they have made a mistake One should strive to correct it from within the church and beneath them, not abandoning both. I know you have said that you promote staying in the church, but that is often the destination of such rebellion. That rebellion indeed seems not so much Holy millitance as arrogant adolescance. I can of course relate to the desire for free exploration and expression, throwing off the ideals of an older generation, but in this world it is clear I must grow up, and in the spiritual realm it seems you too must do so.
As to the church being an organization I do not really see how that affects matters of doctrine. If the church is indeed being bribed by the world that is a serious matter, but surely one requiring measures other than a sit-down strike? Even Jesus said of the gnat straining, camel drinking Pharisees he so regularly attacked “Do what they say” even if “not what they do.”
I am not sure we drift further apart. You still seem to agree with me that you must compare church teachings to Scripture before believing them. That is the essence of what I said. Thus, we seem to agree on the “big picture.”
I definitely would flatly disregard a CHURCH’S teaching that “non-natural” contraceptives are wrong. Once again, a church is not guided by the Holy Spirit, so its proclamations have no weight in my mind. Now…if a pastor of the church strongly believed the teaching, I would be more inclined to consider it. Once again, this is because the pastor is being guided by the Holy Spirit, unlike the church. If you think it odd that a pastor would disagree with something his or her church teaches, you have not gotten to know many pastors.
I certainly agree with you that “Particularly issues not touched upon in Scripture must be considered with all the tools we can control.” However, the church’s teachings simply are not a useful tool, since the church has no real stake in an individual’s life – only in its own life as an organization.
You are absolutely wrong that my militancy leads to abandoning the church. In fact, my militancy helps to reform the church. When people in the church see that others who are diligently pursuing Christ can go against church teachings, it gives them the confidence to question church teachings themselves. If some of those people are the “movers and shakers” of a church, then the church’s teachings might be changed from within. When you obey the church’s teachings without question, there is no hope for the church to change. That is the worst thing you can do if your goal is to bring the church closer to Scripture.
The church as an organization affects EVERYTHING the church does, including how it interprets Scripture. Let me give you a specific example. The Free Methodist Church teaches “storehouse tithing.” This means that ALL of your tithe MUST go to the church. It twists Malachi 3:10 to make its case. This is obviously not what Scripture teaches, and it essentially says that the church knows what to do with your tithe better than you do.
We do not follow this unScriptural teaching. We give roughly 5% of our income to our church, and the rest of our tithe (and more) is split among missionaries, parachurch organizations, etc.
Even though “storehouse tithing” is clearly against Scripture, it is obvious why a church would teach such a heresy – it benefits the church. Thus, the way a church looks at Scripture is filtered through what works best for it as an organization. This affects all things, including doctrine.
Yet another difference: I should be inclined to accept Storehouse Tithing as Biblical. Under the Jewish tithing system the tithe was given to the “Church” which distributed it among temple repairs, paying the Levites, and helping the poor. Moreover any personal giving–paying seers or permitting gleaning for example–was surples to God’s 10%.
Likewise you say that you’d blankly ignore the idea that “non-natural” contraceptives are wrong. As I’ve said I think accepting “natural” ones is against scripture, but claiming that contraception is not allowed could be a valid point. The Bible does not permit any form of contraception. It claims that children are a gift from God rather than something to be avoided. In addition there is an idea that you can “have sex without actually having sex” through a condom which I believe the church must strive to oppose.
I can identify three valid positions on this matter–no contraception, all contraception, or only pre-fertalization contraception. With only an academic interest in the issue I shan’t give an opinion except that no contendor should be disqualified unless directly contradicted by scripture, and certainly not on such petty grounds as “this is what the church teaches but I say they haven’t sufficiently proven it.”
So back to the original matter: I have acknowledged from the start that all proclamations of a church must be examined with scripture and wisdom and opposed if they fail the test.
I can understand your arguments under the following definitions, though I have only now identified them (correct me if any are wrong.)
“The church” refers to a denomination.
It’s teachings are those of its top overseers.
But a minister is a pastor within a local congregation.
Now I’m sure I’m very naive not to assume the worst of those at the highest level in church leadership, but I do wonder what is wrong with Christ’s Church if they are not mature, prayerful, spirit-filled believers. It would of course be typically human to reverse focuses, treating God and conversions as food for the church as an ideal rather than the church a servant to God and Man. Maybe that is indeed the real issue, rather than church doctrine per se.
However It still seems that this high level of leadership, coming after study and being noticed in the church, must have a better grasp of scripture than practically anyone bellow them. Therefore while I acknowledge that what you consider groundless orders ought be challenged I would not dispute the authority of the leadership itself.
I don’t want to debate either “storehouse tithing” or contraceptives, as that was not the purpose of the original post. Suffice it to say that I think storehouse tithing is clearly heretical, and I don’t have a problem with contraceptives. If you have the opposite view on those subjects, that’s fine. However, there are other churches that specifically preach AGAINST storehouse tithing and FOR contraceptives. Thus, those churches are not good sources of moral rules or Scriptural interpretation for you. Thus, you cannot follow the teachings of those churches. This once again confirms my position – the individual should not accept rules or doctrine simply because they come from a church.
I think you do have my position correct with your definitions. However, you still mischaracterize my views by implying that I “assume the worst of those at the highest level in church leadership.” I certainly do not. However, I do recognize the obvious fact that when acting for the church, they do not have the interests of individual Christians at heart. In fact, they cannot. As keepers of the church, they MUST have the church’s interest at heart. The more seriously they take their job, then, the more they confirm my position.
Rather than trying to oppose yours, here are my views on the matter.
* A church can give good advice, both on doctrine and on practical life.
* A church’s advice is not infallible.
* A church’s advice should be considered, but considered together with prayer and bible study.
* It should not however be ignored simply because it conflicts (as you claim in saying that churches which disagree with me are wrong for me) with an individual’s prejudice or pre-decisions.
* A church’s corporate bias is paralleled by the natural wishes of the individual (whose purpose is actually often similar, with a reversed object, to that of the organized church.) That is, where a church demands a full 10% for its own reasons, many individuals (your esteemed self not included) would deny that for their own reasons.
* The majority of people do not have the resources (time, intelligence, knowledge, books, ancient Greek language, etc) to produce a reliable judgement. These should not be encouraged to arbitarily discard doctrine lest they throw out the gold with the glitter. In most cases neither a teen preasured to do drugs nor a woman contemplating an abortion nor many others in such situations are on their own able to reach a position. Their church (Local church, but that normally takes doctrine from the denomination.) will often be the best source of moral authority they can find.
* In addition although a church focusing upon a trivial matter may be a waste of time and often respectablility, it is preferable to having a divided church which focuses on arguing over the trivial matter.
* Therefore measure of flexibility should be allowed before delivering a charge of “HERESY!”. That is arguments for and against predestination for example are irrelevent to salvation. If one disagrees with ones church on this matter they ought hold their piece.
* However if one disagrees with their church on the divinity of Jesus Christ, or another critical matter, they should publically stand for their beliefs and/or leave that church.
* Essentially I acknowledge that critical appraisment is crucial for matters of doctrine. I trust that in reaching your expressed views you have followed such, and I suspect you’re quite intelligent enough, and presumably pious enough, to do it well. It is critical of course that this process be followed fairly, not with pride or arrogance holding to a predetermined outcome.
* However I differ on your extremist position “throw it all out.” I think there are many cases where the Church IS correct even when not firmly rooted in scripture. While they should be personally certified it is as I’ve said hillariously adolescent to insist upon starting from the beginning.
I shall respect your wishes and not debate matters of specific doctrine. Please could you explain exactly where your logic and mine part paths, whereupon we might possibly reach a concensus without an ombudsman or jury intervening.
I don’t think we will ever reach a consensus on the matter, as your views are far too different from mine, especially as they relate to the capability of Christians to be led by the Holy Spirit.
* A church can give good advice, both on doctrine and on practical life.
I disgree. Individuals within the church, indeed, even church leaders, can give good advice. However, the church is neither led by the Holy Spirit nor does it have the needs of the individual at heart. Thus, it is one of the least reliable sources on doctrine and on practical life.
* A church’s advice is not infallible.
I agree.
* A church’s advice should be considered, but considered together with prayer and bible study.
If you want to consider a church’s advice, you certainly can. However, you would be better off listening to the advice of Christians you recognize as being very Christ-centered.
* It should not however be ignored simply because it conflicts (as you claim in saying that churches which disagree with me are wrong for me) with an individual’s prejudice or pre-decisions.
I agree that it should not be ignored because it conflicts with an individual’s prejudice or pre-decisions. It should be ignored because it has little value.
* A church’s corporate bias is paralleled by the natural wishes of the individual (whose purpose is actually often similar, with a reversed object, to that of the organized church.) That is, where a church demands a full 10% for its own reasons, many individuals (your esteemed self not included) would deny that for their own reasons.
This is one of the places we disagree significantly. A church’s corporate bias has ALMOST NOTHING to do with the natural wishes of an individual. A church must survive as an organization. An individual’s wishes, desires, needs, etc. have little to do with that.
Also, you continue to mischaracterize my position. As I have made abundantly clear, I do not reject storehouse tithing for my own reasons. I reject it for BIBLICAL reasons. The Bible clearly tells us to give (at least) 10%. However, it certainly does not tell us to give it all to the church.
* The majority of people do not have the resources (time, intelligence, knowledge, books, ancient Greek language, etc) to produce a reliable judgement. These should not be encouraged to arbitarily discard doctrine lest they throw out the gold with the glitter. In most cases neither a teen preasured to do drugs nor a woman contemplating an abortion nor many others in such situations are on their own able to reach a position. Their church (Local church, but that normally takes doctrine from the denomination.) will often be the best source of moral authority they can find.
This is our biggest difference. You seem to think that we poor Christians are just too uninformed, too dull, or too swayed by sin to form reasonable conclusions on morality and doctrine. I believe that because we are led by the Holy Spirit, and because Scripture is written directly to US, we have a better ability to make decisions about morality and doctrine than does the church. An honest Christian seeking the Lord is better equipped to hear what He has to say because than is any church.
* In addition although a church focusing upon a trivial matter may be a waste of time and often respectablility, it is preferable to having a divided church which focuses on arguing over the trivial matter.
I certainly have no trouble with a church filled with members who disagree on many, many things. After all, the body of Christ disagrees on many, many things, so why shouldn’t the members of an individual church simply reflect the body of Christ?
* Therefore measure of flexibility should be allowed before delivering a charge of “HERESY!”. That is arguments for and against predestination for example are irrelevent to salvation. If one disagrees with ones church on this matter they ought hold their piece.
Once again, I strongly disagree. A person should make it very clear where he or she thinks the church is wrong, as that is the only hope for real reform in the church.
* However if one disagrees with their church on the divinity of Jesus Christ, or another critical matter, they should publically stand for their beliefs and/or leave that church.
Wait a minute…in an earlier post YOU said that MY views lead to leaving churches. It is now YOU who are advocating leaving a church. I strongly disagree. It is better to attempt to reform the church from within than leave a church entirely.
* Essentially I acknowledge that critical appraisment is crucial for matters of doctrine. I trust that in reaching your expressed views you have followed such, and I suspect you’re quite intelligent enough, and presumably pious enough, to do it well. It is critical of course that this process be followed fairly, not with pride or arrogance holding to a predetermined outcome.
How in the world would you know whether or not I am intelligent or “pious” enough to determine matters of doctrine for myself, but most other Christians are not? What separates me from the “rabble”? You see, unlike you, I think that MOST Christians have the ability to determine right from wrong without the help of an organization. All they need is Scripture and help from the Holy Spirit.
I do agree that one should avoid pride, arrogance, or the reliance on a predetermined outcome. You seem to think that most Christians are to dull or “impious” to do that. I think quite the opposite.
* However I differ on your extremist position “throw it all out.” I think there are many cases where the Church IS correct even when not firmly rooted in scripture. While they should be personally certified it is as I’ve said hillariously adolescent to insist upon starting from the beginning.
There are many cases where the church is correct. After all, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again. Also, there are some churches that are open to reform from within, and if that reform comes from individuals, it tends to lead the church in the right direction.
Once again you mischaracterize my position. I have never ANYWHERE suggested “starting from the beginning.” I have suggested ignoring the source that is the least likely to give us sound advice. However, there are many sources over the history of Christendom (individual theologians, inspirational writers, Christians who have led by example, etc.) that have built a huge storehouse of good advice on morality and doctrine. If you are interested in making solid decisions on these matters, you should consult THEM, not an organization that has only its own survival at heart.
You missed a few sources off your list: an individual conscience, the holy spirit, application of the golden rule and greatest two commandments… and the church. You see I do not assume most christians to be such a pitiful lot, although I’m sure you are aware that some individuals are not quite so particularly strong. However I would assume, as would you, that theologians or ministers would generally be more adept to make difficult decisions than most other christians, having all the same advantages plus Biblical education and experience.
However, and this is where we mostly disagree, I am not so disillusioned with the church to cease considering it made up of believing men and women. I believe that the church IS a body filled with the Holy Spirit because each (hopefully) of its cells is itself filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore I agree that individual theologians and inspirational Christians are excelent sources of moral authority, and I would say the Church includes these people, and its words are a refined cocktail of the best of their utterings.
Now in the Bible Paul demonstrates this idea. He sends letters, notably Timothy and Corinthians.
He says to chastise various heretics and gives the official Church possition. He tells off the man who took his father’s wife, and tells off the church for letting it happen. It is irrelevent whether he was primarily concerned for that man’s soul or for the reputation of the body of Christ. BOTH ARE WORTHY AIMS. Likewise in scripture the results of the Council of Jerusalem are circulated throughout christendom. Actually I can see so little Biblical basis for your position that if I accepted it I should instantly revoke it.
Now actually I would think that a church must reform from within, but beleiving the church is formed from christians I can see only one way to reform it: Reform the people. If the people of the church are Christian the church will be Christian and its teachings will be Christian. If not then the church has a problem but simple refusal to comply is more likely to alienate you from the wider church than to cause others to realize the truth of your position. Also it does not give you the opposition needed to ensure that you are making the right choice.
We do not disagree at all on the ability of Christians to be led by the Holy Spirit, but we do differ on the ability of the Church to be so led.
A few answers to your criticism.
“Wait a minute…in an earlier post YOU said that MY views lead to leaving churches. It is now YOU who are advocating leaving a church. I strongly disagree. It is better to attempt to reform the church from within than leave a church entirely.”
I would indeed say that if, for example, a man finds himself a member of the Jehovah’s witnesses he should leave that church for the sake of his own soul and try to convert his fellows too. But as I said above, my approach would be completely different if the matter in question were marginally less serious.
“Also, you continue to mischaracterize my position. As I have made abundantly clear, I do not reject storehouse tithing for my own reasons. I reject it for BIBLICAL reasons. The Bible clearly tells us to give (at least) 10%. However, it certainly does not tell us to give it all to the church.”
I do not wish to mischaracterize your position, nor did I refer to your position. Indeed I have promised not to debate matters of specific doctrine. I merely stated the truth–there are people who claim that it is not necessary to tithe at all. Surely that must be considered an equal level of bias to the demand of a church for the full 10%.
I agree that INDIVIDUAL “theologians or ministers would generally be more adept to make difficult decisions than most other Christians, having all the same advantages plus Biblical education and experience.” However, the CHURCH is not more adept than the individuals, since the church does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside it, and since the church’s main function is to survive.
The church is certainly not a “refined cocktail” of their best utterings. In fact, it is a filter through which their best points often get eliminated, because the church is an organization and as such has completely different goals and needs from a person.
Your example of Paul urging the chastisement of heretics is a perfect example of my point. If the church had been capable of making good moral and doctrinal decisions, it would have already chastised the heretics. In 1 Corinthians 5:1, for example, Paul chastises the Corinthian church because it is allowing a man to have an affair with his stepmother. Most likely, that man was powerful in the church, so for its own survival, the church allowed the man to stay. It took an INDIVIDUAL to make it clear what should be done. Once again, then, it is the INDIVIDUAL, not the church, that is best equipped to make moral and doctrinal decisions. The idea that today’s church has moral authority has no Biblical basis.
You claim that you don’t want to mischaracterize my position, but you continue to do so. I am certainly not “so disillusioned with the church to cease considering it made up of believing men and women.” Of course I think it is made up of believing men and women, because I want THEM to make their OWN decisions rather than relying on what the church says. The Holy Spirit dwells in the believing men and women, not in the church. That is the point. Look to the believing men and women for spiritual guidance, not the church.
Your statement “If the people of the church are Christian the church will be Christian and its teachings will be Christian” is as dangerous as it is false. There are all sorts of churches out there that teach very heretical things. However, they are mostly made up of good Christian people. The problem is that once again, a church teaches what is best for its own survival, not what is prompted by Scripture. As a result, many churches made up of serious, Bible-believing people end up teaching heretical things.
This is why it is so important to challenge your church’s teachings. In order for a church to teach proper things, it must be continually checked by its people. Otherwise, it becomes corrupt.
Jesus challenged the Jewish teachings of the day. He was a militant. If we are to be like Christ, we must challenge the incorrect teachings of the church today. We must be militants, which is (I think) David’s original point. That point is made even stronger as a result of this discussion.
I can see no evidence to suggest that that man held a position, and the corinthian church actually seems to have been as member-led as you could wish for. Nethertheless when they were faced with a question of doctrine “does our new-found freedom from the Law release us to sleep with our step-mothers just as it lets us eat pork?” they needed a representative from the wider Church to answer it. I accept your point that this was an individual from church leadership rather than the entire Church leadership; Paul rather than Apostles Inc. so to speak. However that did exist. I have already mentioned the Counsel of Jerusalem. At the Choosing of the Seven the apostles as a Church leadership team were approached with a problem and delegated it to seven Spirit-filled christians. Paul went to them and was interviewed by them before being permitted to serve, and so on.
The vital fact, as I have already stated, is that each of these men was filled with the Holy Spirit. Each led a holy life. Each had contact with Jesus. And working together they were as I said a bit of a cocktail of their bests–Cephas’s teaching with Paul softening his Jewish bias, Paul’s firm discipline with John plastering a little love over his harshness, and so on until we now have a far better model of life and faith in the Bible they wrote and the teachings they gave (and not they but the Holy spirit working through the church which they formed).
This continued onward. Look for example at the Nicene Creed, confessing the belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because that creed was authored by a group of many church leaders rather than Arius the vagrant songwriter, I am far more confident taking it as a doctrine source. I would give it a higher weighting than the teachings of an individual theologian (though infinitely less than the Bible should the two conflict.) and thus certain that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are mistaken.
On your previous post you said that the church becoming fractured is not important, as the global church is already fractured. This is illogical, unbiblical, and deadly. The Bible is quite clear that the body of Christ must be united. Its cracks seriously harm the effectiveness of its mission, make it look rediculous to the wider world, and cause bickering. Further splits in the local church must be allowed.
It is irrelevant whether or not the man in an affair with his step mother held a position in the Corinthian church. He was allowed to continue his immoral life and be a part of the church because the church did not have the stomach to stop him. It took an INDIVIDUAL to tell the church the right thing to do. Once again, this is because a church is an organization and as such has little ability to correctly determine moral or doctrinal decisions. It can only ensure its own survival.
You seem to be confusing the apostles with a church. The apostles were a group of believers who had the privilege of sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning from Him. That gave them unquestionable authority. There is no such council today. You can’t compare today’s church to the council of Apostles!
You can take a creed as a doctrinal source if you wish. I prefer to use the Bible as my doctrinal source, however. I think I have chosen the safer path. Remember, your initial response was that my position was “dangerous.” If you rely on the words of men and not the Bible, it is your position that is QUITE dangerous.
It is certainly not “illogical, unbiblical, and deadly” to have no worries about a fractured church. The Bible is quite clear that the body of Christ is to be united in PURPOSE, not in liturgy, morality, or doctrine. You and I obviously disagree about a lot of things, but we probably have the same purpose. In fact, the reason we both strongly believe opposite things comes from the fact that we both are so devoted to that same purpose. The fact that we can carry on this conversation not only helps both of us in our spiritual journeys, it probably (at least I hope) helps others in theirs. If it weren’t for the fact that we are “fractured,” this whole interesting conversation would not have occurred.
Thus, the fact that controversy exists within any church is a very healthy sign. It means that we can sharpen each other as iron sharpens iron. As I said before, a church in which there are no reformers is destined to be a corrupt church.
If we all agreed with one another, we would not grow in our faith, and there would be no need for militants like Christ. David has it right. Christ was a militant, and the church needs militants.
Yes, it is irrelevant. I mentioned it merely because you did. Now the Corinthian Church was not the methodist church or even the greek church. It was a single congregation of believers, presumably with its own elders if not pastors. The fact is that those members as a group rejoiced in their brother’s freedom to be sexually immoral, and it required an outside authority to correct them. That is one danger to your position, contending as we are with a sinful nature, individual freedom can lead to harm as easily as to good.
Now in this instance it was true that the external conciense belonged to one man, but I do not believe that needed to be the case. Could not representatives from a nearby sister church not have performed the same function? Or for that matter couldn’t the apostles leading the Jeruslem Church (which we know maintained authoritive prominance during this time)?
I do not confuse the appostles with the church. I fully recognize that at that time they were a part of the church, as were the Seven, Paul’s helpers, Jewish believers, Samaritan believers, Corinthian believers, and many more besides. I would say that they were the equivalent to what would now be called a church leadership team at the denominational level. That they had had direct contact with the Son uniquly permitted them to write the New testament. However as you have already stated members of the modern church are taught through the Bible and the words of the holy spirit. How much more then must those who lead them be so led?
If I correctly understand your possition you would say that the actions of the modern leaders of our churches are at best partially led through these means. I have trouble believing that to be so, and do feel that if a man is so concerned with the survival of the corporate church as to deliberately decieve their brethren on matters of doctrine, he is quite unfit for the post at all. However if the church is led by servants of Christ, heeding the advice of the spiritual counselor he sent, surely we must pay it heed. The Bible tells us to respect and obey secular authority as all authority is instituted by God. Likewise the apostles were chosen and mentored by God, and I believe the modern church is too.
As to the creed, I should consider it a doctrinal source much as you might take the writings of an individual christian such as Luther or Wesley. We both listen (safely) first to God’s word and then to that of humans. However I would say that a creed crafted with debate by the combined input of hundreds of Bishops and accepted by more than 99% of them is of more value than a statement made by either of those above (if the two happened to conflict.) Of course if they conflicted I should actually be looking to the Bible for judgement rather than to either party.
And as to unity I should indeed prefer a debate such as this, the aim of which is to resolve a dispute. However simply allowing such disputes to fester or even break apart the church (note well that where churches disagree on single doctrines they are often unwilling to colaborate even on what they agree on) is not something to encourage. At any rate I shall request that you return a favour and leave this question to return to the original debate.
The man having an affair with his stepmother is NOT irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether or not he was in leadership. His situation shows the extreme danger of your position. You see, because this man’s church had no problem with his sinful nature, according to your view, he was fine. He should continue to sin, because his church thought it was okay. Not only was his discernment in error, his church was GIVING HIM MORE REASON to believe that what he was doing is okay. That’s why you can’t trust your church’s judgment. It’s only purpose is to survive. It is not a good source of information on morality or doctrine.
I am not sure what you mean by, “However as you have already stated members of the modern church are taught through the Bible and the words of the holy spirit. How much more then must those who lead them be so led?” If you are saying that the leaders of the church are taught by the Bible and the Holy Spirit and thus can end up making good decisions about morality and doctrine, you are quite wrong. The leaders of the church must make decisions that are best for the church’s survival, not what is best for individual Christians. Thus, if they are doing their job properly, they CANNOT make the best decisions for individual Christians.
You are also incorrect to “feel that if a man is so concerned with the survival of the corporate church as to deliberately decieve their brethren on matters of doctrine, he is quite unfit for the post at all.” It is not a question of deception. A leader does not deceive when he or she makes decisions that are in the church’s best interests. In fact, he or she is doing his or her job. The problem is that the church’s interests do not always align with the individual Christian’s needs. That is the point of the entire discussion. The church is not a good resource on morality and doctrine, because it is not a PERSON.
Have you copyrighted your oft-used line about misstating your position? If not I should dearly like to pinch it.
I told the Bible story, you said that the man was probably high up in the church, I said “I see no evidence…” and you said it, your own statement from part II, was irrelevent. I did nothing but agree with you, in the words “yes it is irrelevent.” I fail to see how you’ve milked that from my words at all.
Now the situation here is not the church failing you are hunting for. It is that one man falls into sin and the local pastor says nothing, the local prophet says nothing, his local members say nothing to chastise him for it. This is not a leadership meeting with men in suits discussing pros and cons to the church of excommunicating him. That in fact is why it is clearly not safe to only trust one’s own judgement. A Christian is constantly battling against sin and the Devil is always out to lead us astray. We agree that an individual is a fallible source of authority for exactly this reason. However every individual is so fallible, and it seems to me that the only way to account for that is to bring many christians together until they reach a concensus on a matter.
Let me give you an example. I should say that a sincere youth pastor is a good source of moral authority. I should likewise say that a youth group is a good source, in so much as it is a group of christian young people meeting together (with the youth pastor) and discussing within a christian context how they should deal with matters. Most will face the same issues and they can support each other. Clearly there remains a risk that the entire group can err, which I suspect is similar to what happened in our Corinthian case study. However the group is far less likely to fall and more likely to reach a good decision than any one individual would be. This is the scenario I should be looking for in the wider church as well.
I should have accepted and applauded your original position if it included bringing the entire church together to decide where they stand as that would be the church reforming itself, through the actions of its members of course as no other way is possible. However allowing an internet audiance diversely scattered over at least 3 continents and many denominations to rebel against their church’s teachings will allow that human nature to cause havoc.
On your second and third paragraphs, I am indeed saying that the leaders of the church must as christians be taught by the Bible and the Holy Spirit, and too are trained in matters of lifestyle, church history and doctrine. Therefore they can reach a good decision about morality. Their position is at least as good and probably significantly better than the average. Now the question lies in whether they share this wisdom with their church.
If so, if your church teaches storehouse tithing because the leaders read through the Bible, prayed upon the matter, disputed it, etc and came to that conclusion, I don’t think you have the right to arbitrarily refuse except if you confer with others including others of the opposing point of view.
If the leaders have read the bible, prayed, disputed and decided that tithes are necessary but its fair to give half elsewhere BUT then they talked to the accountant and changed 5% to 10% and said the “Bible supports storehouse…” this is a clear case of undeniable deception. Perhaps they should move into law, or Politics, but not the Serve-ocracy that is the church. If that is the state of the leadership I can see where your position comes from, but would still think it vital that a conference be arranged.
There would be no need to repeat the “misrepresenting my position” phrase if you stopped misrepresenting my position. Note that I did not use that phrase in the previous response.
The situation of the man having an affair with his stepmother is definitely a case of the church failing, and as I said before, it represents the extreme danger of your position. Since Paul knew about the affair, the church obviously knew. However, it did nothing. Thus, the church SUPPORTED his immoral lifestyle. If you actually place merit on the church’s position, then you would see this as a confirmation that his behavior was morally acceptable. After all, if the church is a good source of moral leadership, and if the church knows about the behavior and allows it, it must be a moral thing to do. That’s the problem with looking to the church for guidance. It makes its decisions based on what is best for the organization, not what is best for the cause of Christ.
The scenario you are looking for in the wider church does not happen. I agree with you that a youth pastor can be a great source of moral leadership. Indeed, an entire youth group discussing morality might be a great source as well. However, a group of church leaders making decisions FOR THE CHURCH is not that kind of group. The youth group (or prayer group or whatever) is interested in YOU and in YOUR spiritual walk. If it is filled with spirit-filled Christians, it is also interested in what is best for the cause of Christ. A group of leaders deciding on church policy is not (and indeed CANNOT) be worried about you and your spiritual walk or even what is best for the cause of Christ. It must be worried first and foremost about the church’s survival. Thus, the official positions of the church are not a good source of information for individual Christians, as the group that makes those decisions has goals that are often counter to your goals as a Christian and the greater cause for Christ.
I strongly disagree with your statement, “However allowing an internet audiance diversely scattered over at least 3 continents and many denominations to rebel against their church’s teachings will allow that human nature to cause havoc.” In fact, having spirit-filled Christians rebelling against their church’s incorrect teachings will help make the church better. And it is not just this internet post that encourages rebellion. The example of Jesus Himself encourages rebellion. Jesus did ALL SORTS of things that the religious leaders of the day abhored. He was a rebel, and if we are to be like Christ, we must be rebels, too.
My church teaches storehouse tithing because it is best for the church, not because it is a Biblical position. They may have read the Bible and prayed about it, but it was all through the filter of what is best for the CHURCH, not what is best for the cause of Christ. It is not that they made the decision after they talked to an accountant. They made the decision because their JOB is to ensure the church’s survival. As such, it colors their view of Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Once again, it is not about deception. It is about the fact that the church’s needs are DIFFERENT from the needs of the body of Christ, because the church is an organization. The body is not.
We do not have to infer the knowledge of the Church from Paul’s knowledge. The Bible clearly says that they were proud of the situation. Indeed it appears that this was a situation anallogous to the youth group I mentioned earlier, rather than an organized church per se.
Immagine, to modernize the case study, that our hypothetical youth group discovers one of the members is “Doin’ drugs.” (Now I’ll assume for the moment you don’t sanction this self-destructive, socially unacceptable practice.) But since the average age in the group is 16, and few members have been sincere christians for more than the last five of those, the general concensus is a disappointing “Go 4 it Man!” I have already said that I would normally approve of such a group giving some moral support and I don’t recant of that. But this is clearly a case for the next level of external authority to step in and stamp out the issue.
Now I do acknowledge that this, regardless of whether it is the local pastor or Paul the apostle, is a single christian human being. But (unlike within the youth group or Corinthian church meetings) this individual has been granted special authority by the church (and by God, for it is God who instills all authority.) The Bible makes it clear that it is necessary to have such leaders in the church, and though they are still able to sin or make a mistake (the Bible also says how to deal with this, after the sin has been confirmed by two or three witnesses) they are proved to be at a marginally higher notch than the rest of us and able to rebuke our mistakes.
If a single such leader confronted either of us on any matter we would both at least listen to their wisdom. However you say that when a few of these leaders come together in official role to speak for the church, their words are somehow less trustworthy. I understand that you believe them to be doing their job and it is not a matter of deciet. I would say that if they give an unbiblical possition they know is false to do their job; this is clearly a matter of deciet. Furthermore it is a misuse of authority.
However though we are to actively disobey authority–and I shall extend this to both church and secular authority–when it refers to a sinful matter (such as when the Romans wished the Early church to worship the emperor) we are not to disobey on a lesser issue. I Believe church leaders to be more worthy of our respect than some politician. We know the politician could claim huge amounts of our income as tax; yet when the leader of your church says it can be more effective with a full 10% you give him half. Don’t take offence (or retort with your favourite line either). I am well aware that you believe this a serious biblical issue and have more respect for your POV than for a number of others. But the fact remains: you aren’t discussing the matter with the church, you are simply refusing to pay.
Now in my own situation I cannot publically do what you’d suggest because my father is the missionary to, and hence largely overseer of, our churches in this country. If I disagreed with his decision I could not say so publically while remaining within the fifth commandment. At the same time I do have quite a good view of, though not experience in, church heirarchy and I do notice that the proclamations of the church actually tend to be quite sane and scriptural (even when they come from the church executive rather than just my own father.) Perhaps your church or even your country is more business-orientated than that of Mozambique, but I should strongly contest your views given my own observations. If people can scarcely read the Bible (literacy and availability issues) and are under pastors of a better but not optimal station clearly the teachings of the church form an integral part of their moral foundation which must be buffeted by independent heretical churches, traditional anemism, and many other trials.
This is an utterly different scenario to a British or American congregation but I suspect you must have those too with problems and unsure foundations. Perhaps this will help put my POV in perspective for you. The primary need of the church is for it to fulfil its purpose of serving believers.
.
.
.
.
.
On “Spirit filled christians rebelling…”
Fair enough where the teaching is actually incorrect. However often the issue is trivial and even a Spirit filled christian is able to err himself and worsen the situation. Indeed Paul admits that he was constantly warring with a sinful nature and also recounts that he had to chastise Peter for surrendering to contention of the cult of the Judedizers.
The Bible certainly does make it clear that there are to be leaders in the church. Every organization needs leaders. However, the Bible certainly does not indicate that THE CHURCH should be telling people what to believe and how to live. The Scriptures and the Holy Spirit should be doing that.
Once again, you don’t seem to understand the point of what happens when people lead an ORGANIZATION. The leaders that make decisions for a church are not giving, “an unbiblical possition they know is false to do their job.” They are giving an unbiblical position they THINK is true BECAUSE OF THEIR JOB. They are viewing the Bible through the filter of keeping the church alive. When your focus is on an organization rather than a person, your view of Scripture is warped. You start thinking in terms of what is best for the organization, not what is best for the cause of Christ. This is why I said an individual or a group of individuals is a better source of information on doctrine and morality than a church. The individual or group of individuals is looking at Scripture through the filter of what is best for YOU and for the cause of Christ.
On the subject of tithing, how in the world do you know that I am not “discussing the matter with the church” but am “simply refusing to pay”? Of course I am discussing it with my church. It is bad enough for you to misrepresent my position. It is worse when you libel my behavior! I am refusing to pay, but I certainly am discussing it with my church. It is my goal for the church to reach the Biblical conclusion on this issue – that storehouse tithing is not correct. This is exactly the point. Just as Jesus rebelled against the errant teachings of the synagogue, we must rebel against the errant teachings of our church. That’s the only way we have hope of the church reaching Biblical positions – for the INDIVIDUALS to correct the church.
I agree with you that “The primary need of the church is for it to fulfil its purpose of serving believers.” Thus, its pronouncements on doctrine and morality are useless. It should serve the community of believers by making it possible for them to reach sane conclusions about doctrine and morality instead of simply pronouncing those conclusions. Rather than assuming the flock is dull and dimwitted, give them the tools they need to be able to make decisions for themselves. The believers are better equipped to make those decisions than is the church, as the believers do not have to worry about the survival of an organization.
I don’t know what it is like in Mozambique, but in the US, there are a myriad of churches and they all make mutually exclusive statements on doctrine and morality. I don’t know of a single church in the US that doesn’t hold to heretical views, and most of these heretical views can be traced specifically to what it takes for those churches to survive. Only if believers are willing to follow Christ and be rebels will any church end up being drug kicking and screaming to a reasonable view of Scripture.
I can but give my sincerest appologies for libeling your behavior. I have at no point tried to misrepresent your position, and have not done so at all but that I have myself misunderstood your position. In this case too I assumed that since you have thus far been so focused upon rebelious actions rather than reconcilatory words and had not even mentioned any act except to refuse to pay, that this was indeed your position. It was unwarrented and as I’ve said I appologize.
You are however still presenting the danger in your position. You say that your aim is “for the church to reach the Biblical conclusion on this issue – that storehouse tithing is not correct.” However I have already said that I disagree. The leaders of your church likewise would claim storehouse tithing is biblical. You of course insist that they’re viewing scripture through a lense, and warping it to a heretical position. Now you said that was your goal as an individual. There is nothing inately wrong with this, but if you are unwilling to accept the other view it could be dangerous to yourself and others. That is why I continue to advocate working as a group.
The Bible says that at least two witnesses are needed to substanciate an accusation against an elder, and surely more must be needed to strike at church doctrine. Of course the reforms of Martin Luther came from individuals, but so did almost all serious heretics. From the Judedizers to the Jehovah’s Witnesses every error came from people. I shall not slot you into either group; I can only say to be careful Mr. Wile. You too easily label heresy any teaching you do not agree with, while neglecting the simple fact that there are people who have come to the other position. You asked yourself how you’d know if you were pious or intelligent enough to make a right decision. You argued at the time that all believers can make such decisions, yet seem to think that youth, bias, or a myriad of other factors render someones analysis unacceptable. Certainly they place limits (which is partly why I too did not wish to argue over specific matters of Doctrine. However as Elihu argued in the Book of Job “it is the Spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” (32:8, NIV). You admit that you command no more of a monopoly on this spirit than Job’s friends, surely you must therefore be willing to listen, even if critically, to others.
Indeed your “militant Jesus” said that the teachers of the Law sit in Moses seat and therefore should be obeyed (even when they do not practice what they preach). The same applies to us. If our leaders make an unbiblical proclamation (for example if they sanction sexual immorality or divorce.) they should be challenged. If you strongly believe that Storehouse tithing is such a matter by all means try to oppose it, but you must try in all sincerity and humility while remaining open to, and while loving, the other side. Furthermore saying do away with every doctrine not founded upon scripture remains dangerous and divisive (as well as unscriptural), since strong guidance can indeed be found within the church teachings. It is not a blind squirrel. Indeed it is the embodyment of the light of the world.
Amen.
I’m not comfortable comparing Jesus with Che. I went to Cuba a number of years ago, bought the hat with Che on it and wore it for a while, then found out what he was really like.
Jesus was hardly the Che of his generation. Che got rid of his opponents by knocking them off. Perhaps Osama could be called a revolutionary?
I understand the point though. I just don’t have respect for Che or his methods, or even his ideologies. I’ve seen what they’ve done to Cubans.
Getting back to the original rant, David is being unnecessarily provocative. The Gospels as he well knows came out of oral tradition and John’s Gospel has more to say about the divinity of Christ than many of the epistles. Hence his chronological argument is flawed.
Moreover David’s expressed need to portray Jesus as a radical and a rebel ignores the fact that he deliberately excluded non-Jews from the bulk of his ministry. His disciples were commanded to avoid the Samaritans, he was deliberately rude to the Syro-Phoenicean, he likewise ignored the Greeks who wanted to see him and passed on the opportunity to preach to Pontius Pilate. Hence in many ways he behaved like a conventional Jew, a far cry from the rebel David wants to conjure up. If anything the apostle Paul comes across as the far greater rebel, abandoning much of the Torah and embracing mission to the Gentiles, something that Jesus was not concerned to tackle.
Now, before my son rebukes me, I understand something of the reason for Jesus’ rationale. He came first and foremost to reach the people of Israel. All the rest of the worldwide mission came later. But a rebel – hardly!
Thanks for your comments. Comments on this post are now closed.