Borders?

[Hans Deventer]

"Beyond gatekeeping on boundary-setting doctrinalism toward a generous orthodoxy with pietistic emphasis"

This statement from Steven B. Sherman (http://rogereolson.com/2011/04/13/a-good-description-of-postconservative-evangelical/), as part of a describtion of post conservative evangelicals, made me think.

Obviously, if you let go of "boundary-setting doctrinalism", the challenge is to define a congregation. Who's part of it, and who is not? A question that needs answering, if only in order not to lay even heavier burdens on the pastoral staff.
And if you seek officers for a church, you'd like to know who you can consider a Christian, and who isn't there (yet).

It's the old question regarding the essentials all over again. We still need a way to describe them, even if we drop the doctrinalism, or no longer limit our essentials to it.

Thoughts?

[Kevin Rector]

Well, one of the fundamental problems is that you still need doctrines, even if you don't need doctrinalism. I still need to be able to speak coherently about God in a meaningful way and I need language to do so, I can't just fly off into left field allowing for anything. Generosity yes, anything goes... no. We still need boundaries.

So, I'd still go back to the eight agreed statements for Nazarenes. They've served us well for a very long time and if we leave them alone they could serve us well for a very long time to come.

[Hans Deventer]

Well, one of the fundamental problems is that you still need doctrines, even if you don't need doctrinalism. I still need to be able to speak coherently about God in a meaningful way and I need language to do so, I can't just fly off into left field allowing for anything. Generosity yes, anything goes... no. We still need boundaries.

So, I'd still go back to the eight agreed statements for Nazarenes. They've served us well for a very long time and if we leave them alone they could serve us well for a very long time to come.

Kevin, I agree we still need doctrines. What on earth would orthodoxy look like without? I have no concept of that. So as I understand the guy, he's describing the move from a pretty narrow set of doctrines to a wider "playing field", probably much like you describe it. In a Nazarene context, the generous orthodoxy would still have boundaries.

But I wonder about the pietistic emphasis and what that means.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think that I have been thinking about just this a lot of late, without the terminology and haven't quite been able to form the words to express it, yet.

[Ryan Scott]

I've been wondering a lot about this in light of our congregation. We do a good job of embracing the "belong before belief" idea. However we seem to lack some central principle of seeking. We allow people who have been a part of the congregation their entire lives "belong" in the same way do for people who had never set foot in a church before three months ago. It just seems like we need a common creed - or if not a creed (if its too doctrinal) a mission, to seek an ever increasing Christ-likeness. You have to know the people with whom you worship are genuinely interested in more of God.

I'm not sure how we get there, though. Thoughts?

[Todd Erickson]

On the way to church this morning, we were discussing that my son does not entirely understand what it means when we ask him, "do you understand?"

I argued that if he understood what I meant, then he would do what I had said.

April argued that just because you understood something, didn't mean that you actually agreed to do it. To which I responded that many Christians Understand Christ, without actually Agreeing with Him in a manner which intends action.

So if we are trying to redefine church in a way which steps beyond belief/understanding in a whole modern/western sense, and in more of a return to the 1st century sense, where to believe something was to enact it, our language must then take on those characteristics.

[John Reilly]

Hans, my initial thoughts are that we can not let go of doctrine. "if you let go of "boundary-setting doctrinalism", the challenge is to define a congregation." I think doctrine is required to define the church which I define as the "Mystical Body of Christ." What ever terms we chose to define a congregation will require a set of doctrinal statements. Even to describe church as the "Mystical Boy of Christ" will require a definition of terms. I think to let go of boundary setting doctrines will result in an unscriptural entity.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've been wondering a lot about this in light of our congregation. We do a good job of embracing the "belong before belief" idea. However we seem to lack some central principle of seeking. We allow people who have been a part of the congregation their entire lives "belong" in the same way do for people who had never set foot in a church before three months ago. It just seems like we need a common creed - or if not a creed (if its too doctrinal) a mission, to seek an ever increasing Christ-likeness. You have to know the people with whom you worship are genuinely interested in more of God.

I'm not sure how we get there, though. Thoughts?

Ryan, I must agree with you here, I think a common mission is necessary. I think that is in line with what Jesus actually did/had with His disciples and followers. the Bible seems to portray Him as more missional than creedal.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, my initial thoughts are that we can not let go of doctrine. "if you let go of "boundary-setting doctrinalism", the challenge is to define a congregation." I think doctrine is required to define the church which I define as the "Mystical Body of Christ." What ever terms we chose to define a congregation will require a set of doctrinal statements. Even to describe church as the "Mystical Boy of Christ" will require a definition of terms. I think to let go of boundary setting doctrines will result in an unscriptural entity.

John, I agree. Hence my second post in the thread, trying to explain how I understand the statement. We will always need some kind of boundry setting doctrines, otherwise we might just as well be Muslims or Buddhists or atheists. Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that being a Christian isn't only defined by a creed. I think that is where the objection to doctrinalism comes from.

[Paul DeBaufer]

John, I agree. Hence my second post in the thread, trying to explain how I understand the statement. We will always need some kind of boundry setting doctrines, otherwise we might just as well be Muslims or Buddhists or atheists. Having said that, I'm sure you'll agree that being a Christian isn't only defined by a creed. I think that is where the objection to doctrinalism comes from.

I think that Islam and atheism both have very narrowly defined and rigid boundary doctrines, can't speak to Buddhism. I do agree that for us it is much more than a creedal statement or something else that is formulaic. I like Todd's idea that it somehow involves action/implementation as well as words.

[Todd Erickson]

Doctrine gives us language, but language exists to free us to participate and communicate, not to bind us.

[Rich Schmidt]

This reminds me of what I read in one of Brian McLaren's books about the difference between bounded sets and centered sets. Bounded sets draw the boundary lines, and the point is to determine who's inside the lines and who's outside the lines. Centered sets focus on the center point, and the point is to determine how close you are to the center, and if you are moving toward it or away from it. And in the case of Jesus, that center point is moving, too. So that raises the question of whether or not I'm moving in the same direction as Jesus is.

Anyway, I don't know if this is connected to Sherman's idea. But it's what it brought to mind.

[Steven Martinez]

This reminds me of what I read in one of Brian McLaren's books about the difference between bounded sets and centered sets. Bounded sets draw the boundary lines, and the point is to determine who's inside the lines and who's outside the lines. Centered sets focus on the center point, and the point is to determine how close you are to the center, and if you are moving toward it or away from it. And in the case of Jesus, that center point is moving, too. So that raises the question of whether or not I'm moving in the same direction as Jesus is.

Anyway, I don't know if this is connected to Sherman's idea. But it's what it brought to mind.

Thanks Rich. I preached on this today for Easter. The basic premise is that it is difficult to follow a Risen, living Lord since Jesus moves around and asks us to follow Him. It is much easier to follow a dead Jesus who is still nailed to a cross because He does not move. People tend to like their doctrine as a static state and not one that moves. I must admit that I love doctrine and I love our doctrine, but what I like about it is that it seems that as Nazarenes we are more interested in following Christ than following laws. I know that is not the same for some Nazarenes but in my fine experience the rule has been churches led by Godly men and women who were more interested in finding Jesus today than trying to tie down or contain Jesus in a box.
Thanks for the validation, it made my day.

[Todd Erickson]

Michael Spencer makes the point that many Christians who are leaving church due to lack of community find acceptance, warmth, compassion, community, etc. outside of the church in communities which have little to do with Christianity.

Many churches have painted a picture where "you only find good things here", but it's frankly not the case. In fact, you find everything in a church that you find outside, along with tendencies toward the puritanical and the legalistic.

So it's not anything like good enough to say "Well, I'm doing my best to live a good life, and to love people, and hopefully they'll come around and eventually visit my church". Because in general, nothing substantial is being offered there. Some people come and find that thing that they were looking for, and the rest drift away unmet. We could, I suppose, declare this the process of God sifting out those who are truly faithful, in which case everything is working fine, and we have no problems.

But if this isn't the case...then we need to figure out what actually should be different; what that difference would look like. And how to embody it, practically, rather than principally.

[Ryan Scott]

Sometimes I feel like the church is one of many places in which people find acceptance, all with their own specific set of accepted behaviors. In a sense, I don't think this is a bad thing. The real struggle seems to be moving beyond accepted behaviors to a lifestyle - or even moving beyond accepted behaviors to the reason for those behaviors.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I know a church which is very legalistic about its anti-legalism. But they do have a sense of community, a community of blind faith--not really friendly to the non-believer, not very open to questions (maybe because they can't answer them). I've also experienced the country club church where acceptance is dependent upon income and number of children, these tend toward cliquishness.

I don't know how the above is relevant, but....

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks for the replies so far. I think some good points have been made. I like the idea of a "centered set" of dogma's. Though I would want to argue that it's not just the dogma's, it's also a way of living. The question, are you moving to the Centre (Christ) or away from the Centre is perhaps the key question. Since this obviously is dynamic, a fluid thing, an annual covenant service might not be so bad. Perhaps at the beginning of Advent? "We're starting a new year, do you want to join us in following Jesus?" And perhaps the word isn't so much, do you want to be a "member" (though we are members of one Body, and the image is thoroughly Biblical) but that of a fellow traveller, a fellow pilgrim, because the image of a journey, of movement is there.

I think I'd love that service. Come to think of it, next Sunday I'll be preaching and serving communion. This might be a very good question. For whom is this meal? For all those who want to join the journey to follow Jesus, perhaps not even understanding all that much. (Welcome to the club, I don't understand all that much either). But who want to follow and in doing so, get to know Him.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I like the centered set idea much better than the bounded set idea. I'm not keen on creating boundaries to distinguish who's in and who's out. I think that can set up an hierarchy of self-righteousness. "I'm in so I'm better than you," sort of mentality, even if not so blatant and only on a subconscious level. I think that those excluded sense that and then begin not to want to be a part of the in group. But centered kind of levels the field. There is no in not out. Some get closer to the center and in so doing become guides, even unwittingly, to those further out who desire to get closer. The dichotomy is gone. Yeah, I like it.

[Dale Cozby]

I like the centered set idea much better than the bounded set idea. I'm not keen on creating boundaries to distinguish who's in and who's out. I think that can set up an hierarchy of self-righteousness. "I'm in so I'm better than you," sort of mentality, even if not so blatant and only on a subconscious level. I think that those excluded sense that and then begin not to want to be a part of the in group. But centered kind of levels the field. There is no in not out. Some get closer to the center and in so doing become guides, even unwittingly, to those further out who desire to get closer. The dichotomy is gone. Yeah, I like it.

I think we need to strike a balance of the exclusive and inclusive language. The dichotomy still exists and scripture is full of such dichotomies. Even if we acknowledge that we are not the one's who get to ultimately decide, good from evil, left from right, wrong from right, heaven from hell, black from white, sin from righteousness, unholy from holy, saved from lost, night from day, repented from unrepented, clean from dirty, to have or not have, etc... there are just too many dichotomies to ignore them as if it did not exist.

Using language of a center draws me into the idea of orbits, we have heliocentric(around the Sun) orbits, Geocentric(around a planet) orbits, Apogee, Perigee and Epigee. I would ask what scripture supports an orbital relationship best? Near or far is what comes to mind. If we compare the use of near/far uses to in/out language which seems to have more scriptural examples? Perhaps the balance found in scripture may be a starting point for us to find the balance.

Of course it is always easiest to not balance, balancing takes a lot of work and has us rocking back and forth to maintain it....sort of like Apogee and Perigee.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Jesus comes upon the fishermen and simply says, "Follow me." They drop what they are doing and follow. Not a bounded set, but a centered set with Jesus as the center which we are called upon to follow, should we choose. There is still the dichotomy, those who follow, those who do not.

[Rich Schmidt]

Using language of a center draws me into the idea of orbits, we have heliocentric(around the Sun) orbits, Geocentric(around a planet) orbits, Apogee, Perigee and Epigee. I would ask what scripture supports an orbital relationship best? Near or far is what comes to mind. If we compare the use of near/far uses to in/out language which seems to have more scriptural examples? Perhaps the balance found in scripture may be a starting point for us to find the balance.

Hmm.... I can completely understand why the centered set language makes you think of orbits... but that image is very different from what I picture. I'm picturing human beings, with Jesus as the center, walking along, calling people to follow him. The focus is on the center, Christ, and whether or not I'm following him, sticking close to him, etc. (Perhaps the biblical language of being "in Christ" would fit? Or drawing near to Christ?) Language that focuses on boundaries isn't focused on how close we are to the center but how close we are to the edge.

Hmmm... The more I think about it, the more I might be OK with the orbit imagery... but I have to "zoom out" to consider a much larger scale. At first I was too "zoomed in" and thinking I didn't like the orbit imagery because the planets are always circling, influenced by the center but never actually moving any closer to it. But if I "zoom out" then I can picture that these planets are the ones who are drawn to the star, who are centering their lives around it. Meanwhile, comets zoom past, maybe influenced momentarily by the star, slightly adjusting their paths because of it, but not re-orienting themselves to center their lives around it. And other planets center their lives around other stars, barely feeling the influence of the Christ star at all.

BTW, I like the call to the biblical imagery. I think that's always a good move. At the same time, I think it's OK for us to look for new images and metaphors as well.

[Dale Cozby]

Jesus comes upon the fishermen and simply says, "Follow me." They drop what they are doing and follow. Not a bounded set, but a centered set with Jesus as the center which we are called upon to follow, should we choose. There is still the dichotomy, those who follow, those who do not.

Or those caught in the net and those not in the net. Or those caught by the orbital gravity and those that are not caught in the gravity well. Relational concepts are hard to pin down, I don't know a person, I know of them, I have met them, I know them a little, I know them well, I am best friends with them, I am married to them. If orbiting bodies, we have escape velocity, we are in orbit, we are going into collision, we have collided. If we consider that all masses have a gravity(even us) then God could be said to be the center of all orbits at some point, even if we are orbiting other things that orbit Him. The only things that do not orbit are beyond His pull...perhaps that is the image of hell, to be so far removed from God that one is truly beyond the edges of creation itself.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Or those caught in the net and those not in the net. Or those caught by the orbital gravity and those that are not caught in the gravity well. Relational concepts are hard to pin down, I don't know a person, I know of them, I have met them, I know them a little, I know them well, I am best friends with them, I am married to them. If orbiting bodies, we have escape velocity, we are in orbit, we are going into collision, we have collided. If we consider that all masses have a gravity(even us) then God could be said to be the center of all orbits at some point, even if we are orbiting other things that orbit Him. The only things that do not orbit are beyond His pull...perhaps that is the image of hell, to be so far removed from God that one is truly beyond the edges of creation itself.

I think the idea of planetary orbits isn't helpful as planets are not seeking the center. I think that a magnet and iron filings fits centered sets better. Of course gravity between tow objects is centripetal but add a third and now you have gravity pulling the two apart, so yeah I'm not thinking planets and gravity fit so well. So the planetary metaphor is, to me, a poor one.

[John Reilly]

If we name and define the center, missio Dei; then each concentric circle around the center necessarily defines closeness and distance from the center. The resulting effect is of inclusive and exclusive boundaries. Boundaries are inevitable. Jesus speaks in terms of boundaries, i.e.; "my sheep know my voice." "enter through the narrow gate" "without holiness no one will see God."

[Paul DeBaufer]

Maybe were wearing out this bounded versus centered set idea, but "my sheep know my voice," actually fits the centered set idea far more closely than it does the bounded. Sheep were free range, the shepherd kept a watchful eye and the sheep stayed near to the shepherd, some further some closer. When the shepherd moved he called and his sheep followed. All have the ability to be in The Shepherd's fold. We all are given the opportunity through prevenient grace, to hear Our Shepherd's voice and follow, seek Him as center. The more I think about it the more I see the centered set as the more biblical of the two in this set theory.

[Todd Erickson]

I see this a lot in discussions. I tend to associate relational theology very much with the centered idea...being within discipleship frees me to go out into the world and find where Jesus is working and attempt to work and live alongside the Master. But Boundaried Theology demands that I only go where the rules allow me to go, and that anything which might smack of "false teaching" must immediately be corrected and rebuked, even if it's evident that God is already working there.

[Dale Cozby]

Maybe were wearing out this bounded versus centered set idea, but "my sheep know my voice," actually fits the centered set idea far more closely than it does the bounded. Sheep were free range, the shepherd kept a watchful eye and the sheep stayed near to the shepherd, some further some closer. When the shepherd moved he called and his sheep followed. All have the ability to be in The Shepherd's fold. We all are given the opportunity through prevenient grace, to hear Our Shepherd's voice and follow, seek Him as center. The more I think about it the more I see the centered set as the more biblical of the two in this set theory.
In your example you missed the idea of the fold having boundaries. see here: http://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+fold&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1056&bih=516

Thus sheep are in or out of the fold. When one is lost it is out of the fold and the Shepard goes to find it and put it back in the fold.
We can never get completely away from boundaries if we are to remain true to a fuller understanding of our relationship to Shepard.

I think both are Biblical. Isn't holding to one paradigm as being more Biblical becoming exclusionary as well, just in the opposite direction?

[Billy Cox]

This reminds me of what I read in one of Brian McLaren's books about the difference between bounded sets and centered sets. Bounded sets draw the boundary lines, and the point is to determine who's inside the lines and who's outside the lines. Centered sets focus on the center point, and the point is to determine how close you are to the center, and if you are moving toward it or away from it. And in the case of Jesus, that center point is moving, too. So that raises the question of whether or not I'm moving in the same direction as Jesus is.

I like the addition of 'motion' into the metaphor. Who of us believes precisely what we believed 5-10 years ago. Beliefs are in motion, if only by virtue of the way that human experiences colors or even alters our beliefs. Reducing belief to a point on a continuum us incredibly static and far too mechanistic to be useful for describe a set of organic beliefs.

The centered set metaphor also opens the possibility that someone from another faith could share a center with us, while their ancillary beliefs, history and practices put them in a different 'orbit'.

For instance, I believe that Allah and the God of Abraham whom Jew and Christians worship are one and the same. I have heard Christians 'disprove' this with the argument paraphrased here: "Muslims are not Christians, therefore they do not worship the same God that we worship."

[Paul DeBaufer]

In your example you missed the idea of the fold having boundaries. see here: http://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+fold&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1056&bih=516

Thus sheep are in or out of the fold. When one is lost it is out of the fold and the Shepard goes to find it and put it back in the fold.
We can never get completely away from boundaries if we are to remain true to a fuller understanding of our relationship to Shepard.

I think both are Biblical. Isn't holding to one paradigm as being more Biblical becoming exclusionary as well, just in the opposite direction?

When I used fold I was referring to sense 2a, not to sense 1, I apologize for the confusion. As far as sense 1 goes it is my understanding that the sheep are brought into the enclosure for certain purposes, e.g., shearing, but mostly were watched by shepherds out in the fields, free range.

1fold
noun \ˈfōld\
Definition of FOLD
1
: an enclosure for sheep
2
a : a flock of sheep b : a group of people or institutions that share a common faith, belief, activity, or enthusiasm

[Billy Cox]

It's the old question regarding the essentials all over again. We still need a way to describe them, even if we drop the doctrinalism, or no longer limit our essentials to it.

Thoughts?

What is your operating definition of 'doctrine'? Is it synonymous with essentials or is it beliefs that are beyond question?

[Billy Cox]

In your example you missed the idea of the fold having boundaries. see here: http://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+fold&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1056&bih=516

Thus sheep are in or out of the fold. When one is lost it is out of the fold and the Shepard goes to find it and put it back in the fold.
We can never get completely away from boundaries if we are to remain true to a fuller understanding of our relationship to Shepard.

I think both are Biblical. Isn't holding to one paradigm as being more Biblical becoming exclusionary as well, just in the opposite direction?

By saying that he has sheep of other folds, Jesus refuses to be confined to the divisive categories that we have invented. So Jesus' use of the sheep fold metaphor cannot be seen as Jesus putting a divine seal of approval on our exclusionary practices.

[Hans Deventer]

What is your operating definition of 'doctrine'? Is it synonymous with essentials or is it beliefs that are beyond question?

Doctrine is the teaching of the church. That teaching will contain essentials, but not all of the teachings of the church are essentials.

[Billy Cox]

Doctrine is the teaching of the church. That teaching will contain essentials, but not all of the teachings of the church are essentials.

What then is the difference between doctrine and doctrinalism? I can just hear the baby-bathwater argument coming.

[Ryan Scott]

What then is the difference between doctrine and doctrinalism?

Isn't this the question we're trying to answer in this thread?

[Dale Cozby]

By saying that he has sheep of other folds, Jesus refuses to be confined to the divisive categories that we have invented. So Jesus' use of the sheep fold metaphor cannot be seen as Jesus putting a divine seal of approval on our exclusionary practices.Sheep of many folds, but what about the goats? What is said about goats in Jesus metaphor? I don't think it is helpful to say we are the inventors of categories, divisive or otherwise. Jesus did that without our help.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Except in Jesus metaphor of the goats it is the actions, actually lack of action, of the goats which make them goats, it seems that it is their choice to be a part of a different fold. And our theological tradition seems to state that we are all goats at some point, but then through God's grace we are given the choice to become sheep, to join Our Shepherd's fold, to follow the Master. The sheep don't create the categories and boundaries, the goats in choosing not to listen to or follow the Shepherd, not obey the Master choose to remain or be goats.

I do see your point, but it is not up to us to enforce the boundaries, but to follow Our Shepherd and obey Our Master, or not and join the goats.

[Todd Erickson]

And thus, the battle between Grace and Justice already shows itself again.

[Dale Cozby]

And thus, the battle between Grace and Justice already shows itself again.

Grace and justice are two sides of the same coin. Like heads and tails.
A coin wholly owned by Jesus. Heads Jesus dies for your sins, tails Jesus dies for your sins.:smilies1722:

[Benjamin Burch]

I think we need to strike a balance of the exclusive and inclusive language. The dichotomy still exists and scripture is full of such dichotomies. Even if we acknowledge that we are not the one's who get to ultimately decide, good from evil, left from right, wrong from right, heaven from hell, black from white, sin from righteousness, unholy from holy, saved from lost, night from day, repented from unrepented, clean from dirty, to have or not have, etc... there are just too many dichotomies to ignore them as if it did not exist.

Using language of a center draws me into the idea of orbits, we have heliocentric(around the Sun) orbits, Geocentric(around a planet) orbits, Apogee, Perigee and Epigee. I would ask what scripture supports an orbital relationship best? Near or far is what comes to mind. If we compare the use of near/far uses to in/out language which seems to have more scriptural examples? Perhaps the balance found in scripture may be a starting point for us to find the balance.

Of course it is always easiest to not balance, balancing takes a lot of work and has us rocking back and forth to maintain it....sort of like Apogee and Perigee.

While I can understand seeing orbits, I have never seen the centered set presented as such. It is always just a picture of a cross with people either walking towards it or away from it.

[Billy Cox]

Sheep of many folds, but what about the goats? What is said about goats in Jesus metaphor? I don't think it is helpful to say we are the inventors of categories, divisive or otherwise. Jesus did that without our help.

Keep in mind that the sheep folds are manmade, whereas Father is the judge of the sheep and goats. His ways are so foreign to us, that sheep and goats alike are befuddled by the judgment:

Sheeps -- "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?"

Goats -- "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"

Neither group seems aware of their in/out credentials, so how do you get any assurance from that? The point of the sheep/goats parable is not to bullet-point a clearcut definition of who is in and who is out. The other parables are even less easy to tame - with those who think they are in being out and vice versa.

Surely you could imagine that in a post-traditional theology forum, you're not going to find many fans of the idea that the Bible contains repeatable spiritual recipes. :rolleyes:

[Billy Cox]

Isn't this the question we're trying to answer in this thread?

Maybe so, but isn't that the first step to not talking past each other -- to agree on what the question is to start with?? :rolleyes: ...baby steps, I know.

[Billy Cox]

And thus, the battle between Grace and Justice already shows itself again.

I'm just curious as to when counterpoint becomes tiresome.

[Hans Deventer]

What then is the difference between doctrine and doctrinalism? I can just hear the baby-bathwater argument coming.

Doctrine is teaching. Doctrinalism, according Wikipedia: doctrinalism (plural doctrinalisms) = The abuse, or strict adherence, of a doctrine to a specific purpose

[Billy Cox]

Doctrine is teaching. Doctrinalism, according Wikipedia: doctrinalism (plural doctrinalisms) = The abuse, or strict adherence, of a doctrine to a specific purpose

I couldn't find a Wikipedia entry for doctrinalism, and the stated definition seems very subjective. 'Abuse' can be in the eye of the beholder.

I have an intuitive sense of the term though...so, would it be helpful to identify the forces at work when doctrine shifts to doctrinalism?

[Hans Deventer]

I couldn't find a Wikipedia entry for doctrinalism, and the stated definition seems very subjective. 'Abuse' can be in the eye of the beholder.

I have an intuitive sense of the term though...so, would it be helpful to identify the forces at work when doctrine shifts to doctrinalism?

I'm sorry Billy! My mistake. This is the source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/doctrinalism

And yes, that would be helpful.

[Dale Cozby]

Surely you could imagine that in a post-traditional theology forum, you're not going to find many fans of the idea that the Bible contains repeatable spiritual recipes. :rolleyes: It is POST-traditional not NON-traditional or ANTI-traditional right? WE don't start from scratch but build on....or am I wrong?

[Hans Deventer]

It is POST-traditional not NON-traditional or ANTI-traditional right? WE don't start from scratch but build on....or am I wrong?

No, you are right! And thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[Billy Cox]

No, you are right! And thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Sadly, this distinction evades many people in the same way that many people think of 'deconstruction' and 'destruction' as synonyms.

[Dale Cozby]

Sadly, this distinction evades many people in the same way that many people think of 'deconstruction' and 'destruction' as synonyms.

Deconstruction reminds me more of recycling. You take the old theologies and doctrines you have left lying around in disuse, melt them down and form them anew into something useful.
Kind of like when scripture says use recycled swords to make plows.

[Billy Cox]

Deconstruction reminds me more of recycling. You take the old theologies and doctrines you have left lying around in disuse, melt them down and form them anew into something useful.
Kind of like when scripture says use recycled swords to make plows.

Actually deconstruction is done on beliefs and practices that are very much in use, otherwise there would be no compelling reason to examine them in the first place.

[Todd Erickson]

Grace and justice are two sides of the same coin. Like heads and tails.
A coin wholly owned by Jesus. Heads Jesus dies for your sins, tails Jesus dies for your sins.:smilies1722:

In terms of how we practice it? Yes. In terms of how God uses it? Not particularly. God can give grace, and still cause justice to occur, which we would never be able to pull off.

[Steven Burton]

Doctrine gives us language, but language exists to free us to participate and communicate, not to bind us.

But it can also bind us. It is a set of regulation and you can not fully express what you want even through the language you speak. Doctrine has seem to have set us against those we are trying to reach. We use a vernacular that is hard and sometimes nearly impossible to communicate to those we want to reach. I for one respect doctrine but to the extent that it keeps us from being able to communicate to our community that I do not agree with.

[Todd Erickson]

But it can also bind us. It is a set of regulation and you can not fully express what you want even through the language you speak. Doctrine has seem to have set us against those we are trying to reach. We use a vernacular that is hard and sometimes nearly impossible to communicate to those we want to reach. I for one respect doctrine but to the extent that it keeps us from being able to communicate to our community that I do not agree with.

You appear to have missed my point here. Doctrine gives us language, but the point of language is to communicate and participate. Thus, in any way in which Doctrine is destruction to communication and participation, it is acting against it's purpose.

But doctrine is a tool, and the cause of the tool not accomplish it's purpose lies in the wielder, not in the tool itself.

[Todd Erickson]

I'm just curious as to when counterpoint becomes tiresome.

*shrug* when you're mostly invisible, it doesn't matter whether counterpoint is tiresome or not.

[Steven Burton]

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

You know horses are better at finding water than we humans are anyways. ;)

[John Kennedy]

You know horses are better at finding water than we humans are anyways. ;)

Now, THAT has some interesting theological implications.