Simple Doctrine- What do we believe?

[Nik P.]

How do we define basic Christianity without getting into endless doctrinal debates? What are the non-negotiables of following Christ?

[Editor]

I asked Tim if we could post this here:
Posted by Tim Mather on December 6, 2008 at 8:15am on Simplechurch.com
Now that everyone seems to be finished with the accusations and the inane discussions about trivial points of doctrinal disagreement, don’t you think it’s time to get to the real heart of what it means to be free of the institution? It is simply this: To assist in midwifing one another out of our stagnant, and potentially deadly, institutional thinking.

The only important doctrine in the Kingdom is about relationship – relationship with Father and relationship with one another. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, `Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28 NIV).

And what about the eleventh commandment? "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35 NIV). He could have used this opportunity to advance one or more of your pet doctrinal theories, but noooo! He kept it simple: Love one another.

And what about the Jerusalem Council? This was the apostles’ chance to set the doctrinal direction for all time, and what did they do? It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell (Acts 15:28-29). What??? Nothing about eschatology? Nothing about hell, or whether they should speak in tongues? Nothing . . . except concern for their personal well-being.

Astonishing.

The divisive spirit under which we all suffered while doing time in the institutional church prison remains quite alive among those of us who are on this simple pioneer journey you call S.C. So far, it doesn’t seem any different than the institution. There are little pockets of doctrinal partisan rebels out here who, left to their own devices, WILL FORM SC DENOMINATIONS over time. I am ashamed to be linked to such an abomination . . . AGAIN (since I was a denominational pastor).

Simple Church is simply about simplicity. IC is all about one convoluted law, doctrine, or denominational distinctive piled mercilessly upon another, until it has become burdensome, cumbersome, and downright destructive to its captives. But if we pretend to be SC while thinking and acting IC are we not the greatest bunch of hypocrites on the planet?




Someone, from one of my blogs or discussions on this site, asked me what we do when a person dumps a heresy into our group. Great question! My answer was simply: We laugh. Coming to maturity has some wonderful perks, not the least of which is the lack of fear of doctrinal differences. What difference does it make if you don’t believe hell is literal? We’re not going there anyway! Or who really can’t live another day not knowing for sure if the pretribulation rapture theory is accurate? Do any of these help you to know me? Here’s a thought: But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless (Titus 3:9 NIV).

We laugh for a couple of simple reasons. First, the devil’s heresy committee hasn’t come up with a new one for some time; they seem to have lost their creative edge. So, Father has already quashed it. Second, we know that heretics (big or small) only succeed in painting a target on their backs when they are around us. And what do we shoot at that target? Try to think simply . . . come on you can get it . . . wait for it . . . LOVE. Heretics need coffee; take them out and buy them some. Heretics need a ride to work; put yourself out for them. Heretics need a mommy very, very badly; don’t talk about the heresy, get to know them, earn the right to love them, and watch the transformation.

We laugh because they think their doctrine is important. We laugh because we don’t care about their doctrine, we care about them, and that’s delightful.

This stuff is pretty simple.

Original Post

[JaJireh]

The first thing that comes to my mind is Hebrews 6:1-3:

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.

Imbedded within this passage, to me, is the description of basic Christianity:

1. Repentance from dead works
2. Faith toward God
3. The necessities of water baptism and the baptism of the Spirit
4. The benefit/purpose of laying on of hands
5. The knowledge/belief in the resurrection of the dead
6. The knowledge/belief in eternal judgment

The writer of Hebrews indicates these prinicple beams were the foundation upon which to further grow the Body of Christ.

The simplicity of these thoughts seem to surround the entirety of the faith. Would you not agree?

[Al Silvestri]

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME.
John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

The blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony consists of faith in Christ who is the Word of God.
Scripture is the plumbline.

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, that you also love one another.
The way Jesus loved is the example of how we are to express that love, and does not relegate "love" to a simply mushy emotional ideation.

That example is framed in the Word of God:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (God's breath), and is profitable for doctrine (teaching), for reproof (plumbline in short), for correction (rebuke), for instruction in righteousness (wisdom to be gotten ahead of time instead of afterthought), 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Cor 13:4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails...

Balanced with:

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

and
2 Corinthians 7:10 For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Yet, all this futile if not for the intimacy that the Holy Spirit brings us into.

Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize (saturate) you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Our perspective experiences of baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire probably will vary, and that's okay, but I think the things described above as a whole are foundational.

[Nik P.]

This was taught at the seminary I attended by a very beloved professor. This is dedicated to Bob Webber.

An Introduction to the Ancient-Future Movement by Robert Webber

An Ancient-Future Faith calls upon us make three commitments as we seek to bridge this divide between the traditional evangelical church and the emerging church. First, an Ancient-Future Faith calls us to return to our ancient roots in the first centuries of the church. Christianity emerged in a culture somewhat similar to ours - very religious, very secular, very pagan. Early church worship proclaimed and enacted God’s saving work, established the church as community, affirmed and wrote the universal creeds; determined the churches relation to culture; developed forms of evangelism, discipleship, spiritual formation, and laid down Christian ethics of behavior. Their proclamations of absolutes and exclusivity resulted in the rapid and wide spread growth of the church and determined the common roots of the whole church - Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. It is to these roots that an ancient-future faith will return.



Second, an Ancient-Future Faith is characterized by connection. It is alright to be an Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic or Contemporary Christian. While there are differences, Christians are not to be divided over them, but seek to understand particulars while affirming unity in the common tradition. These divisions and new movements are to be understood in their cultural settings and affirmed. Because there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, we are brothers and sisters connected to the same family. This ecumenical conviction is central to an Ancient-Future vision.



Third, an Ancient-Future Faith seeks to be authentic in a changing world. The truth of the Christian faith does not change because we live and minister in a new cultural era. How faith is communicated and defended, however does change. In today’s postmodern, post-Christian, secular and pagan world, the church must emerge as a counter-cultural movement in its message, its community and its ethics. Yet, authentic Christianity affirms and relates to many cultural changes: The shift in science from a mechanistic view of the world to the world as a web of interconnections; in philosophy from rationalism to mystery; in globalization from mono-culture to multi-culture; in historical consciousness from anti-historical to nostalgia for the past; in language from propositional to performative; in communication from monologue to dialogue; in technology from word to image; in society from individualism to community; and in the rise of terror that moves us from a state of stability to personal vulnerability.

[Editor]

Handling Pluralism with Open, Hospitable Christian Witness

Original Post Here

Most evangelical Christians have considered pluralism a bad thing. For them, pluralism has been a problem that needs to be overcome, defended against and even defeated as part of our evangelism strategy. For evangelicals, the existence of other religions is a threat. Ironically John Howard Yoder thinks pluralism is the opposite. Pluralism is a good thing. It is a necessary thing that God has given us in order that we might better be the living church of Christ in the world.

I contend our evangelical strategies towards engaging pluralism have been defined by what I shall call Political Liberalism (PL). This is the doctrine that says our country shall be governed by only stuff we can all agree on. PL will not allow, for instance, content from specific religions to determine public policy. For PL, religious knowledge is private - science and reason are public. I contend that this founding ideology of democracy influences the way we evangelicals engage other religious as Christians. For like the good Americans that we are, we either engage other religions through rational arguments based in neutral forms of reason, or we are tolerant and encouraging in allowing (implicitly) all religions to find their way. It is either a competitive argument, or a therapeutic conversation to find "your higher power."

Now, admitting that the discussion of the merits of PC is much deeper than this, and acknowledging that PC has been critiqued by and developed much further by people like Stout, Habermas, Taylor, Rorty, McIntyre, Coles and even Derrida, I wish to contend that John Howard Yoder shows us all the way forward as how to be missional in the tsunami of pluralism we find ourselves in. Yoder tells us we should not seek first one on one arguments based upon a common reason with folk of other religions (especially if they are coercive), neither should we seek tolerant conversation where we encourage the pursuit of each one's own spirituality (especially if said spiritualities are demonic), rather we seek to be open non-violent, hospitable and humble communities which seek to engage "the other" vulnerably in order to both learn from them and display the gospel before them all the while entrusting the world's salvation to the Sovereign Lord.

What makes possible such an open community? For Yoder, it is that God has chosen pluralism as the instrument for God to work for His truth in the world. In Yoder's "Meaning After Babel" (Journal of Religious Ethics 24, no.1 (Spring 1996):125-39) he argues that Babel (Genesis 11) was divinely ordained of God. Instead of a curse brought on by sin, the pluralism that resulted was divinely intended as "a providential occasion for clarification of the gospel." And so in a stunning way, Yoder tells us that pluralism is not a bad thing for the church. No, in fact pluralism is a good thing for the gospel that we simply cannot do without. For Yoder sees that Babel was the means God ordained to prevent people from taking God's will into their own hands. Instead God ordained that it would be through vulnerable interaction with other religions and other people that God would reveal His truth to us furthering the gospel in us, through us and in the world. Through the loss of one singular language at Babel, God enabled that we would be able to see something about the gospel that was not visible before. It made us an open community dependent upon each other to learn in submission to His Lordship in mutual vulnerability. Imagine I say! Pluralism is the condition for God to work out His truth in us over time in relation to other religions.

Now you may think that this means Yoder was a raging inclusivist thinking God works in all religions to bring us to Christ. You may think even worse of Yoder, that he is a religious pluralist believing God is bringing all people in all religions to their own god. But this couldn't be further from the truth. For Yoder actually shows how believing "Jesus is Lord" creates the condition for a non-coercive, faithful witness of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world. For who needs to worry when Jesus is in control. All we need to be at this point is faithful.

Yoder's writings on pluralism brilliantly combine several themes. He combines a.) what he calls "the epistemological preference of the poor" and vulnerable (THIS IS GENIUS!), b.) the proclamation that THERE IS NO OTHER GOD, c.) the noncoercive witness of the good news and d.) the weak, vulnerable, welcoming, open community living within the contingencies of history, to fashion a marvelous picture of a witnessing community that is vulnerable, hospital yet confident in its own history. It is this open community of Christ that is perfectly situated to bring the good news to the poor and the lost souls of pluralism.

I commend this approach to pluralism. As opposed to hand to hand combat with other religions where we seek to win on the turf of a mystical neutral rationality, as opposed to the ever tolerant conversations that assume everyone is going to the same god eventually, I propose we missional Christians engage in being open communities of Christ, interested and learning about other religions on their own terms so as to learn from them and minister to them in their moments of greatest need. We can do this because we know "Jesus is Lord" sovereign over all things, working for his truth in the very encounters we are vulnerable to. I propose we live boldly the salvation we have been given in Christ through love, justice, prayer, the saving of the innocent. Yet we never engage coercively for we believe all salvation comes at the initiation and work of the Holy Spirit, we are just to be faithful. We never engage in violence, excessive persuasive technique, or trounce on the weak for we believe truth requires no coercion, violence or undue defensiveness. It is in fact our vulnerability which reveals how grounded in truth we are as a community. It makes it safe and attractive for those seeking truth to come. We are called to be witnesses not prosecuting attorneys. This is just some of what I would call an open community of Christ amidst the pluralism of our day.

Hauerwas sums up this approach with some good words. Notice the non-coercion here. The rejection of extraneous judgments towards other religions we cannot possibly know enough to judge. Notice the ground of engagement is the life witnessed by and in the open community.

The command to be a witness does not entail apiori judgments about the beliefs and life of others - e.g. what is right or wrong with Hinduism or Islam - though such judgments after time may be appropriate, but rather witness derives from no other source than that which invites us to "look what manner of life has been made possible among us by the power of the cross and the resurrection of Christ." The invitation to join such a life is made not on the assumption that there is something wrong with the others' beliefs, but it is made because we are all sinners and through participation in this community we have the possibility of finding redemption. (Community of Character p. 105)

Sometimes I fear that the work emerging writers have been doing in this area argues too much or seeks to assuage arguments from a neutral plane of reason. Brian McLaren's Last Word, and Spencer Burke's Heretic's Guide help us understand and think through some doctrines we may need to think through. But in order to become the kind of witnesses that effect a society, that bring Christ's redemption, I believe Yoder is the next place we need to go. In the face of the dominant pluralisms of our day, we need to know how to nurture and lead communities that embody the life Christ has given us to share, the community, the fellowship, the justice, the servanthood, the nurturing and care of children, the reality of God, all He has done in Christ through the Spirit in worship, the hospitality and the invitation to those who are lost to find their way to the Triune God … For Yoder says it is in the presence of this open community in and among the pluralities of religions that all will be invited to look and see "what manner of life has been made possible among us by the power of the cross and the resurrection of Christ."

When I think of "open communities" I think of some churches I know in Baghdad whose sharing of the peace and love of Christ in the face of constant threats has won many souls in Christ's Kingdom. I think of some peaceful communities planted in impoverished gang infested territories of cities. I think of safe places planted amidst Mormon towns in Utah. I think in some ways all missional comunities must become open communities in the territories of post-Christendom most of us find ourselves in. We try to do book clubs, theology pubs to make safe third spaces for these kind of conversations.

What do you think about Yoder's open community approach to pluralism versus other approaches you've encountered?

Posted by David Fitch Saturday, February 03, 2007

[Miguel]

Well, since I am a reformed, protestant, Calvinistic Charasmatic, preterist, supralapsarian, orthodox, fundemental, non-denominational, non cessationist, emerging sort of guy.... I will have to get back to you on that.

[Stephen (steve) Cornell]

thanks for this! I really want to share this with many.

Steve Cornell

Editor said:

I asked Tim if we could post this here:
Posted by Tim Mather on December 6, 2008 at 8:15am on Simplechurch.com
Now that everyone seems to be finished with the accusations and the inane discussions about trivial points of doctrinal disagreement, don’t you think it’s time to get to the real heart of what it means to be free of the institution? It is simply this: To assist in midwifing one another out of our stagnant, and potentially deadly, institutional thinking.

The only important doctrine in the Kingdom is about relationship – relationship with Father and relationship with one another. On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, `Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28 NIV).

And what about the eleventh commandment? "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35 NIV). He could have used this opportunity to advance one or more of your pet doctrinal theories, but noooo! He kept it simple: Love one another.

And what about the Jerusalem Council? This was the apostles’ chance to set the doctrinal direction for all time, and what did they do? It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell (Acts 15:28-29). What??? Nothing about eschatology? Nothing about hell, or whether they should speak in tongues? Nothing . . . except concern for their personal well-being.

Astonishing.

The divisive spirit under which we all suffered while doing time in the institutional church prison remains quite alive among those of us who are on this simple pioneer journey you call S.C. So far, it doesn’t seem any different than the institution. There are little pockets of doctrinal partisan rebels out here who, left to their own devices, WILL FORM SC DENOMINATIONS over time. I am ashamed to be linked to such an abomination . . . AGAIN (since I was a denominational pastor).

Simple Church is simply about simplicity. IC is all about one convoluted law, doctrine, or denominational distinctive piled mercilessly upon another, until it has become burdensome, cumbersome, and downright destructive to its captives. But if we pretend to be SC while thinking and acting IC are we not the greatest bunch of hypocrites on the planet?




Someone, from one of my blogs or discussions on this site, asked me what we do when a person dumps a heresy into our group. Great question! My answer was simply: We laugh. Coming to maturity has some wonderful perks, not the least of which is the lack of fear of doctrinal differences. What difference does it make if you don’t believe hell is literal? We’re not going there anyway! Or who really can’t live another day not knowing for sure if the pretribulation rapture theory is accurate? Do any of these help you to know me? Here’s a thought: But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless (Titus 3:9 NIV).

We laugh for a couple of simple reasons. First, the devil’s heresy committee hasn’t come up with a new one for some time; they seem to have lost their creative edge. So, Father has already quashed it. Second, we know that heretics (big or small) only succeed in painting a target on their backs when they are around us. And what do we shoot at that target? Try to think simply . . . come on you can get it . . . wait for it . . . LOVE. Heretics need coffee; take them out and buy them some. Heretics need a ride to work; put yourself out for them. Heretics need a mommy very, very badly; don’t talk about the heresy, get to know them, earn the right to love them, and watch the transformation.

We laugh because they think their doctrine is important. We laugh because we don’t care about their doctrine, we care about them, and that’s delightful.

This stuff is pretty simple.

Original Post