Swords or Plowshares?
by MW Cook
Doctrine!
Dogma!
Orthodoxy!
Good or bad, small or big, all depending on your point of view.
Or, perhaps more pointedly put, depending on your view of the point.
The point!
The point!
What is the point?
A statement usually uttered in the dark depths of despair, never really expecting an answer to reach that far down into Shadow’s lair.
But my cry is not hopeless or thoughtless or a cry for attention. I want the point, no matter it’s sharpness.
The greatest of men once called only a few things important, and maybe just one. So what is the one? What’s the point?
What is the true dogma?
What is the true doctrine?
Wherein lies that romantic orthodoxy?
Is it not to live life as Christ’s proxy?
Surely life as a proxy outweighs popular orthodoxy.
This insight just might tell me there’s no need to fight over who’s wrong or right in this plight.
For I say and confess that dogma is less than the over-all stress of Christ to clean the mess of this world and our souls.
So why should I complain when you say it is plain that Saviour’s campaign in his battle with pain was to sustain and maintain a healthy dogma?
For that’s a doctrine and my thoughts make another. And I’ve already established that doctrine is secondary.
Ah! But wait!
I suddenly fear a fight must ensue.
For your doctrine dictates your life.
And when your doctrine holds itself in its own high esteem the outcome borders obscene.
Ivory towers with puzzle doors, the residents within claiming to have food but will not open their gates except to those whose poor tongues can utter ‘Shibboleth’
Ivory towers stand in the land of famine, claiming to burst with true mana. But the gates are locked and the password is Shibboleth and most in that land cannot manage the post-alveolar fricative – SHHHHH.
When dogma preaches out that doctrine has the clout to show who is in or out of the kingdom of Christ, then your disciples will flout everyone who is without as they sit and tout their books and their preachings.
And those towers of ivory will forever be empty of everything good, except for the slaves and sermons and books and matrices.
So what do we do, who stand at the base of the beast and look within, after knowing that there is no food to be had?
We leave and find Him who feeds.
And what of the crowd, growing ever so loud, demanding to be let in so they can freely starve with the keyless gatekeepers? Must their lives become ash? Must the monks in the tower perish without the power they claim to wield over the elements?
Or must that tower be burned?
I have two objects before me. Both pregnant with power. In my one hand I have a plow, the likes of which can wound the earth so that it gives birth to those things that nourish and cure and enrich.
Shall I use it?
In my one hand I have a sword, which I may turn upon that tower, standing tall with all the pride and beauty of ancient Babel. This sword can chip and slash and bite and gnash away at the tower, so full of power, that mayhap it will crack and the monks will see the attack and realize they lack whatever it was they were searching for. And maybe they’d leave that tower of sin and begin to take part in the noble plowing.
A sword and a plow, which one ought I use now?
Can I hold them both here at once?
Matt W Cook 
Matt, I find your view of doctrine unbalanced and one-sided. If taken too far, we would have to conclude that all are saved – J.W.’s, Mormons, all Catholics, etc. If doctrine doesn’t matter and only lifestyle, hey, some of these people are living better than some Christians. Yet some believe salvation is by works, which is against the doctrine of Scripture, so we know that are not saved, by what they confess. For it is the object or content of your faith that saves you, not the lifestyle of your faith – one is of works, the other is of faith.
The two verses below (1 Tim. 4:6 and Eph. 4:14) show that doctrine is very important to God, not lifestyle only.
Ortho (straight) doxy (thinking)
In pointing out these things
to the brothers and sisters
you will be a good servant
of Jesus Christ, constantly
nourished on the words of faith
and of the sound doctrine
which you have been following.
As a result, we are no longer
to be children, tossed here
and there by waves and carried
about by every wind of doctrine,
by the trickery of men,
by craftiness in deceitful scheming.
It’s funny how the charge you place on me is the very same one that I place at the feet of evangelicalism in general – an unbalanced and one-sided view of doctrine. I figure doctrine’s place is second. Evangelicalism seems to place it first.
Or how about the way evangelicalism’s doctrine is theoretical and intellectual (although that could be debated) without emphasis on the practical? And any practical element seems to emphasize getting others to think like we do or follow our specific rules(as if Jesus came to replace the old set of rules with a new set). Most of our fights seem to be about theologies (which no one seems to admit are man-interpreted) and rules. Both have value, but neither is at the heart of gospel (at least as I understand it).
If doctine as defined as “a set of theoretical rules and practices that distinguish my faith,” then no, I don’t want doctrine to be first either.
But if doctrine exists for the reason I think it does. . .to allow us to better understand and worship God and live in a way that is pleasing to him, then how can it be second?
Sometimes I get so tired of the, “Doctrine is optional, I just love Jesus” perspective (incidentally I don’t think this is what your saying. . .is it?) Jesus cannot be loved without being understood (to a certain extent, obiviously he will never be completely understood) and doctrine, at least as I understand it, exists to help us get there.
Maybe we should count up the number of times that sound doctrine is mentioned, and then the number of times Jesus tells us to give to the poor, and see which one wins? Then we should forget we ever counted and realize that neither should be discounted. After which we should come to the conclusion that when we get to Heaven there will be A LOT of things we all got wrong. I only hope that Jesus finds our ridiculousness mildly amusing.
Let’s work with that ‘Jesus cannot be loved without being understood’ bit. How understood? Look at the PILES of resources the evangelical church spends on getting its doctrine right. Conferences, seminars, books and books upon books all devoted to subjects that are theoretical. I get that knowing Jesus is important. But must I know him to such a painful specificity that the money and time and anger we spend on theological discussions is worth it?
Look at our church culture. What is the center of the church event? The sermon. What is next? Bible studies. What is the main advice to a new convert? An established church that preaches the Bible. It looks as if having specific, accurate doctrine is the way in which a Christian grows. And that’s just not true. That’s not how Jesus did his stuff. He didn’t go around preaching sermons so that people would better understand the depths of the Trinity and why substitutionary atonement was better than recapitulation atonement. It started with a basic “Hi, I’m Jesus” and moved on to “Repent and follow me.” And you don’t follow someone primarily by studying him. You follow him by getting up and doing what he does. And in doing so you happen to learn a lot about him along the way.
And, here we may find we differ, I’m not convinced that our doctrine saves us. I can’t get away from passages like Hebrews 6:1&2 where we’re told to MOVE ON once we’ve figured out the elementary stuff. Or Luke 18:18-25 and Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus seems to imply that if you don’t do good things you’re not a part of him. I desperately don’t want to start a discussion on these verses (I nearly didn’t post them because of it), I just want ya’ll to see that I’m not in a rage against figuring out theology. I am just very sad about how evangelicalism judges your spirituality level by what abstract facts you hold to and how often you mention them. I figure if it was a damnable offense to believe strange things about the trinity or the atonement or about the relationship between works and atonement, Jesus would have been more clear. He wouldn’t have confused people with Matthew 25:31-46.
It seems to me that we’ve created ivory towers for ourselves and how we’ve put up signs that say ‘unless you believe these twenty things, Jesus will kill you.’? And it leads us to do unnatural things like praise teachers of the past just because they were good teachers while condemning folks like Mother Theresa because she belonged to the wrong denomination.
I find that sometimes I’m a horrid communicator. Here’s one last attempt to communicate what I’m thinking:
Jesus is kinda like food. Obviously you need some knowledge of food before you can eat it. But that knowledge is rather little and basically consists of ‘Look, food!’ It’s a good idea to know as much as you can about food, for that will inform your nutritional choices, but if all you know is “Look, food!” you’ll be able to eat. Indeed, you could have a mess of incorrect knowledge about food and still fill your belly. You’d probably be healthier if you had correct knowledge, but you’ll live. On the other hand, you could know every last fact about food and the origins of food and the molecular constructs of food, but if you don’t take a bite or two, you’re going to die.
As I look over than analogy I feel I’ve failed again, because it sounds like those silly reductionist cliches from Sunday school. When I say ‘eat’ I don’t mean ‘ask Jesus into your heart’ or any other variation of it. I mean live like Jesus…
Or maybe I’m just a silly heretic with too large a mouth and too much thinking time.
Doctrine, a big word for “teaching” has two flavours,true and false.
How essential is correct Doctrine?
I would say failure to believe correct “doctrine” is what has got us in the mess we are in now.
Back in the garden we have a battle over these 2 types of “doctrine” the truth claims of God vs the lies or false teaching of the devil.
The pain in my neck and knees right now remind me just how important belief in true doctrine is!
Jesus reveals His thoughts on these 2 types of doctrine in John 18 where you might notice He doesn’t identify His reason for coming into the world as to feed the poor or any other of many wonderful examples He shows us in His life. The reason He was born and came into this world He say was to “testify to the Truth” then He goes on to say that “everyone on the “side of Truth” Listens to Him.
We are back to the true doctrine of God vs the false doctrine of the Devil.
So does doctrine take first place in the Lord’s view here well it seems that if that were the reason “He was born and came into the world” “to Testify to the Truth” correct doctrine matters.
After 40 days of fasting Jesus shows us that there is something far more important than food as essential as food is to our existence in His words ““It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
The truth of God vs the lies of the devil.
It’s not about how I live although each of us will give an account for the things done in the body it is ALL about What He did.
Bill Gates like Gandhi could live out a far more Christ like life giving ALL his money to the poor and still die with the wrath of God upon him for eternity.
As to the sermon being “centre church event” I would disagree and say it is the ‘breaking of bread’ since we are told to “go into the world” and preach yet to His followers He said: This do in rememberance of Me”
It is at this event that doctrine and the heart go hand in hand.
The bread the reminder that the Almighty creator of all things took on human flesh so that by His stripes we might be healed and by the shedding of His blood He (God)purchased the Church.
Jesus came to “set the captives free” from what? What held us captive? The lies of the devil. What sets us free? The truth claims of God.
Who we are,who He is,what He has done, and what we need to do,what He will do.
As to interpreting Jesus in the light of Paul?
2 problems there #1. I believe all scripture is God breathed therefore Paul’s words are God’s words. #2. I believe in progessive revelation so in Paul’s writings we are finding out new truths not contained in the Gospels.
Just let me point out 2 Hermeneutic principals that are broken here A. ” Always proceed from then to now” B. “recognise the fact of progressive revelation”
What new, vital truths does Paul tell us? If someone had only the gospels and trusted Jesus as revealed in them but did not have the epistles and therefore did not know of justification or the atonement as laid out by Paul, could they still be a healthy follower of the Way?
Enjoying the discussion, not wanting to necro this thread (since it’s a bit old) but curious if my thoughts jive or trainwreck:
[15] I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. [16] They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [18] As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
(John 17:15-19 ESV)
Now, I don’t think Matt is making an anti-intellectual argument here (after all, he just typed out a missive filled with good words, some of them academic in nature). However, I do feel compelled to point out that Scripture talks a lot about the importance of “sound doctrine”, and a lot about the importance of fruitful living (aka walking in obedience, by the Spirit). I don’t know if Matt is trying to tip the scales between those one way or another (it’s not clear), or even if he thinks they’re at odds (as many seem to think), but I’d just throw this into the mix:
We’re called to be sanctified (to grow in the grace, knowledge, image, likeness, and love of God – and that’s not an exhaustive list!).
Jesus prayed that we would be sanctified “in the Truth” – what Truth? The Word of God aka the Scriptures.
He then sends us to a dead and dying world, being sanctified in that truth, with that truth as what changes us (changes entirely: actions, thoughts, motives, attitudes, emotions, grace, love) and as what we take to others as news – the news that Jesus is way, truth, life, salvation, grace, forgiveness, mercy, and has given us the Sanctifying word to accomplish that change in us.
Wheat. Chaff. Blow on it and see what remains.
Further reflection: http://goo.gl/ZmK1l
My realization is just that the evangelical world has taken the good thing of having correct opinions about God and accidentally made it the most important thing. So most of the church’s money and time and resources goes toward sermons and books and buildings in which we can listen to sermons and read books.
I do think we need to tip the scales. Because once I have attained some elementary knowledge of Jesus there no need for me to do it again. Once I agree that Jesus is the Son of God there is really no need for me to read books to convince me that he’s the son of God. I got it already. The actual outworking of the Jesus life, on the other hand, is full of repeatable actions.
I enjoy intellectual discussion and even the occasional doctrinal chit-chat. But as a hobby. Kinda like writing. Is it useful? Sure! Is it needed? Nope. And I only fear that we in evangelicalism have made the pursuit of doctrine the highest ideal. And once that becomes the highest ideal we will of necessity spend most of our resources on achieving it. This is why, I think, people get angry with those who have ‘deviant’ doctrine more than with those who don’t help at soup kitchens. Since doctrine and its pursuit is paramount in fundamentalism, everything else can fall by the wayside. So we don’t feel bad or consider it strange to spend billions its pursuit. I’m not trying to make a dichotomy or anything. But isn’t it telling that the heroes of fundamentalism are pretty much only known for their preaching? Sure, they may be doing more. But a culture will always raise its heroes based on what their highest virtue is. Therefore people like Mohler and Piper are the greatest and best. People like McLaren are the worst.
An interesting side note, I think, is that when Jesus says that God’s Word is truth, I think he’s talking about himself, not the Bible (logos).
I don’t know what the “evangelical world” has done, because it is way to diverse for me to label it one thing. But here is what I have done. I feel that all my actions spring out of my doctrine, and that has been the source of right living for me. Of course this is Jesus Christ, but I need something to hang my hat on, and that is doctrine – not to mention the whole error and deception thing that is out there. (Is it not?) Therefore, doctrine keeps me straight. As for the soup kitchen, people should be living for the Lord or they are denying the doctrine of godliness. The book of Titus is clear: doctrine and godliness are equal. You can’t have one without the other. Is a book that proves Jesus is God really written for Matt Cook? Probably not. But it is written for those who waffle on that doctrine. So that’s good, I say. My kids will grow up within a church that is not Jehovah Witness, or whatever, because somebody wrote a book on the doctrine of Christ and helped the body of Christ better understand the Scriptures. The heroes of fundamentalism (or conservative Christianity? I don’t know) are preachers who live what they are preaching, in my opinion. How else is anybody going to get saved if we don’t preach? Good works ain’t going to save anybody, unless they hear the gospel (Rom. 10:15-17). McLaren is undoing confidence in the “knowability” or “trustworthiness” of the Scriptures, and that is why he is dangerous, in my opinion. He wants a politically correct Jesus, which pleases the world, but he ain’t fooling me. As for Mohler and Piper, believe it or not, I never heard of them until about a year ago, especially Mohler.
I think your first couple sentences highlight a big part of what I think the issue is. You say what you DO springs from Jesus as understood through DOCTRINE. That strikes me as off. Because what I do springs from Jesus through love. I am not kind because I UNDERSTAND that Christ, in taking the form of a man and being merged in the hypostatic union, died a substitutionary death for those who had been elected. I am kind because I LOVE. And I love because of what Jesus did. Not because I understand what he did, but simply because of what he did. It is not doctrine that moves and motivates and guides. It’s love. It’s gotta be love, doesn’t it? Doctrine is the backdrop. It’s behind. It was never supposed to me the main deal. It was never supposed to be the motivator. It’s not the food. It’s just the knowledge that the food is there. “Look, food!” is sufficient. Anything more is a bonus. But I feel like instead of eating, we’re spending most of our resources talking about food.
Notice also how we speak in regards to eating spiritual food. We talk about going to church and hearing a sermon in order to be filled or eat and stuff like that. But when Jesus talked about being full of spiritual food it was because he was out in the world doing the will of God (John 4). Not in a building listening to a sermon.
And in regards to the examples I threw out for evangelical heroes, different circles have different heroes. In the Brethren movement we prefer F.F. Bruce, J.N. Darby, H.A. Ironside and William MacDonald. Either way, our heroes are always preachers. Preaching is the holiest job around for the evangelical movement. And I think that’s sad.
Matt, what we know about Jesus does influence what we do in huge ways. Let’s look at it from another point of view. Why do we love the dalit people when Hindu society treats them as less important than animals?
Their “doctrine” tells them that some people are to be valued and others are not. In their way of thinking, if they help the dalit, they are actually going against what karma has dictated. So they leave the orphans and widows to starve and die. They HAVE to, in order to be faithful to what they believe.
There were a bunch of things that Jesus did that were extremely unloving, so just saying “Jesus is love, so I need to love” isn’t enough. We need to learn about what Jesus loved, and why, if we really want to follow Him. He hated hypocrisy and legalism. He loved children and humility. Every time I read the gospels, I learn something new about what it means to be more like Christ. Others do too, and sometimes they share the things they’ve learned in books. That’s okay! It’s not a crime to appreciate those, even though it’s cooler these days to get our ideas about the Bible from blogs (which are essentially unedited, rough copies of books that have been put into short bits on the internet).
I think it’s definitely sad that we elevate preaching above other spiritual gifts. But at the same time, we don’t need to expect that preachers need the gift of compassion (ie. a life dedicated to serving the poor) in order to be doing what God called them to do. There are some people that are called and gifted to preach. And that’s a good thing. Others are doing less “up front” roles because God has given them gifts of mercy, giving, service etc. We all have a role to play and none is more important than another. We all have different passions too and God has given those to us.
But I think it would be wrong for me to say to you “just because you don’t share my passion for studying the Bible and discipling new and older believers, you are doing the wrong thing”. In the same way, I think it’s wrong to tell a preacher “just because you don’t share my passion for serving the poor, you’re doing the wrong thing.” The body needs all the parts and the sooner we can live as if that was true, the sooner there can be some semblance of the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17.
I am beginning to wonder if we are all kinda talking about different things here.
I don’t hate books. I read them all the time. Heck, I’ve tried writing a couple. I don’t think getting my theology from blogs is cool or trendy and I’m a little confused by the reference. I really read very few blogs – mostly written by people I personally know. I don’t hate sermons. I’m a preacher after all. I don’t hate churches. I go to them regularly.
Your illustration about the Hindus and the dalit cleared things up for me and I think I’m beginning to understand what our disagreements are based on. I fear that the doctrine of evangelicalism places, as the highest spiritual pursuit, doctrine itself. That is, the pursuit of good doctrine is the main part of the pursuit of godliness.
The doctrine I hold to, on the other hand, places love and its expression as the main part of the pursuit of godliness (I cannot think of any time when Jesus was unloving. Maybe you don’t mean unloving toward people but toward abstracts?).
Doctrine is a backdrop for life. It’s not possible to live or think without doctrines about life, the universe and everything. I like learning more. I like the idea of slowly crawling closer to clearer and more accurate truth. But it’s not the main thing. Living out the Jesus life is better. Something simple like feeding the poor is not a spiritual gift. It’s a non-negotiable. Because my doctrine says that when I care for the helpless I’m caring for Jesus. And that’s objectively more important than matters concerning the age of the universe, whether the atonement is substitutionary or recapitulation, or how this whole hell thing is going to play out. The examples Jesus lived out of non-retaiation, productive self-denial, bending over backwards to benefit others and all those other aspects of his life in which he lived love are all better.
I don’t mean finding clear truth is useless. It’s just not as important. Like Love is greater than Faith and Hope. But that doesn’t make Faith and Hope garbage. They just aren’t as good as Love. They aren’t as good as getting out into the world and healing hurts wherever we find them.
So the irritation comes, for me, when I see statistics that place 74% of the average church’s income spent on thing that directly benefit the donors, usually in the form of sermons and books and buildings. Where we put our time and money determines what we value most. And the evangelical church, it seems to me, values the pursuit of doctrine greater than the pursuit of lived-out love. And I don’t think that has anything to do with spiritual gifts. It has to do with their view of the primacy of doctrine itself. Which is kinda a weird circle. It’s like a trying to shine a beam of light on itself.
Love is greater than faith and hope, I like that. If that is all you are saying, then I agree. Evangelical preachers say the same thing all the time, i.e. that we should live what we believe. What Evangelical would deny that love of God is the greatest commandment, and love of neighbor is the second greatest? I think it is foolish to call “evangelicalism” misled when it is the people who fail evangelicalism that are the problem, not evangelicalism itself. There will be always be people who fail whatever versions of Christianity there are. People are sinners. They sin. That cannot be eradicated. We preach the doctrine, or simply put, the teachings of the Bible, and press people with application, at the same time modeling it in our own lives. And we cry out for God to revive His church. Doctrine as backdrop, or secondary, is just poor wording, I guess. The teachings of the Bible are the “hows” and “whys” of following Jesus. Without it, all you got is “Gandhism,” who followed Christ while rejecting Christ’s message.
Another thing that might clear things up. There is doctrinal teaching that is sound, and doctrinal teaching that is just silly, like allegorizing the toenails of the beast of Daniel, like pre-lapsarianism, or making any “castles of air” that have no application to following Jesus. I just throw those books away, or turn those preachers off. But all evangelicalism guilty of it – no way.
I personally don’t think my church spends 74 % of its budget that directly benefits the donors but I will check. The building costs a lot, but I think it is paid for. Do you think selling it is the answer?
Really, alot of this just has to do with personality, and spiritual passions, I think. That’s why I think we should be careful with generalizations. Some personalities love to do (sometimes impulsively, without thinking….haha), others like to think and then do, others just like to think (they are idea people). The last group often includes preachers and writers. They are the ones who inspire the “doers”. They are the visionaries. It’s not that they would never go on a missions trip, or serve at a soup kitchen or sponsor a child…often they do all these things and more. But they are best used by God when they are igniting other people’s passions by their words or their writings. And that’s a good thing! Something to be celebrated. When we’re all doing our part in the body, God is honoured. We can’t all be feet or hands. Some of us are mouths or eyes or other less “active” parts.
Someone who comes to mind is Joni Eareckson Tada. Obviously she can’t do as much in the way of physically serving, since she’s paralyzed. And yet God has used her as a writer and speaker in HUGE ways. (I’m assuming you’ve probably heard of her and her work on behalf of handicapped people all over the world… http://www.joniandfriends.org/)I don’t think this is just because she is in a wheelchair, either. I think it’s because it is how God has gifted her. There are others who can still walk but have similar giftings. They can’t do everything and be everywhere, so they do what God has called them to do.
Again, I’m not saying this means ignoring the poor or not caring about the single mom who lives nearby. But, if I spent every day at a soup kitchen, who would care about my neighbour downstairs who needs God? More importantly, who would teach my daughter about Jesus if I was always going off to serve other people? (nothing worse than MK’s who say “my parents always had time to help other people but they never seemed to care about me…” I’ve heard that one too many times….)
If our pastor spent all his time serving the poor, how would he teach God’s word on Sunday morning with the insight and depth and applicability that I see every week? That only comes with hours of study…there’s no way around that!
Bottome line: we have to say no to some things so we can say yes to other things. And so we just need to be faithful to what God calls us to. I guess what I’m trying to say is that when you say that everyone should share your passions for what is most important, you’re assuming that it should be the same for everyone. And the Bible doesn’t teach that. It teaches many roles, and one body.
Jesus got in trouble sometimes for not doing what others wanted him to. They wanted food NOW and he made them wait while he preached. They wanted a healing NOW and he took his time arriving to heal the person who was sick or had died. His priorities weren’t always the same as the people’s. His sense of compassion expressed itself differently than merely ensuring that everyone was always well-fed and healed (although he did heal and feed…but on his own schedule and to those he chose to heal). One time, when they wanted him to stay and heal more people, he said this: “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” (Mark 1:38) Ironically, he’s known for his compassion to those around him, but he felt that a big part of his mission was to preach.
I guess if Jesus were here today, we might criticize his insistence that preaching and teaching were important. Why not heal and feed more people? Then again, he was always pretty good at coming back to more important things than our physical state.
John 6:26-27 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
That’s why I believe that God DOES care about the poor (Jesus showed that) but it isn’t the only thing He cares about. He also cares about the wealthy who need to be humbled so they can see their need of Him. And the ignorant or confused who need someone to explain the Word to them in a way they can understand (ie. with good teaching). And the orphans who need families or even just a “father figure” or “mother figure” to walk alongside them. And the woman who’s had an abortion and needs to find forgiveness and healing from the guilt she carries around. There are so many things God cares about. But those very things correspond to the giftings He has given us. Some of those things in the list above ignite my passions…others don’t as much. But He gifts us so we can be His hands and feet and body on earth, so together we can meet those needs.
Stephanie you said many great and true things, but again, this is not what Matt is trying to say… His post is kinda ignored and yet somehow answered with true things that don’t really relate to the post.
“I guess what I’m trying to say is that when you say that everyone should share your passions for what is most important, you’re assuming that it should be the same for everyone.” Again, making assumptions like this isn’t the best thing. Matt isn’t saying just help the poor and NO preaching… where do you get that?
And yes, whatever gifts you have, you’ve got to use them but loving and helping out isn’t really a gift. We ought to just do it. Know what I mean?
Good talks but lets all just really re-read all the comments and see how often they are topic related and go from there. :)
Sorry, Ruth and Matt…I wasn’t really replying to Matt’s original post (none of us are at this point, since he’s been clarifying what he meant for the last few comments). I was specifically replying to his last comment and other comments above where he indicates that it’s a tragedy that our evangelical heros are preachers. It will make more sense in relation to this part of his last comment:
“Something simple like feeding the poor is not a spiritual gift. It’s a non-negotiable. Because my doctrine says that when I care for the helpless I’m caring for Jesus. ….I don’t mean finding clear truth is useless. It’s just not as important.”
I was trying to clarify my earlier comments. We both agree that feeding the poor is worthwhile. But he feels that it’s a non-negotiable (and so those who focus mainly on preaching or doctrine are off-track) while I would say that in order to focus on one thing, you have to do less on other things. And that’s not a bad thing, when it’s the one thing God has called you to!
Find what God called you to, and do it with all your might. But don’t assume that because someone has a different calling that it’s wrong. If you were in their shoes, you’d probably see things differently.
I know Matt isn’t saying that those callings (preaching, studying doctrine etc) are wrong. But he’s indicating (whether purposely or accidentally) that they are less honourable than something like serving the poor. Yet Jesus came to preach. He never said he came to make poor people wealthier (other than spiritually).
So let’s honour every part of the body, even when in doesn’t line up with what we feel passionate about. Does that make more sense?
I’m not talking about passions and special interests. When Jesus suggests that if you don’t help the helpless you’re going to hell (Matt. 25), I figure it’s a non-negotiable. So, yes, I am trying to indicate that general, practical love to others is more important than the pursuit and propagation of doctrine.
If I have a special interest in doctrine (which I may), I will pursue it. But not so much that I lose sight of the strict commands of the Bible to do unto others as I would be done by and to help the helpless in general practical ways. But the church is spending far too much time and money on this special interest. And that, I think, hurts the world.
Well, I just want to affirm where I agree with you because it seems lately all I have been doing is disagreeing with you. So yes, I agree, general practical love to others is more important than the pursuit and propagation of doctrine. Can’t say I agree with your isolated interpretation of Matthew 25:31ff, but that is another discussion…
In one sense, the goal of the pursuit and propagation of doctrine should be love, especially in the eyes of the world, whom we are trying to “save from the fire” (Jude 23). A good verse that summarizes that love is the purpose of preaching doctrine is 1 Timothy 1:5 comes to mind, but 1 Timothy 4:16 is good too.
I am also a firm believer in the principle of balance. We cannot exalt love at the expense of truth, nor truth at the expense of love. Both are needed, and both are connected. Wouldn’t you agree?
Agreed, Matt & Shane…the goal of our doctrine is love. If it doesn’t end there, you have the 1 Cor. 13 situation where it’s all kind of pointless.
That got me thinking-If I’m just typing out my opinions and you can’t sense any love, what is the point, afterall?? The internet doesn’t do a very good job of conveying the right tone or emotions. I had a whole list of questions that your post made me think of..but you know, it would be way better to ask those someday in person. Less likely for it to be misunderstood too!!
Blessings, Matt. Have an amazing Christmas with your family!!