Very well put Chris, the Jesus that I know through the gospels does indeed speak more about love and justice than doctrinal purity, it is the emphasis on “purity” at the expense of love of God and your neighbour that Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for.

Yes, but my point was not a statistical one about number of pronouncements concerning love and justice, vs number of pronouncements concerning doctrine (which would be an interesting though slightly academic study). My point is that failings in the area of both are intolerable.

I don’t see why people keep setting one up against the other, since Jesus wanted us to be perfect. A bit like saying, sure my left arm is broken, but my right arm is not too bad, and look at you, your right arm is broken!

Only God is perfect, as Christians we must humbly strive towards perfection, knowing that it is only through grace that we are forgiven for our sins.  I don’t think anybody is saying we shouldn’t always seek the truth-the issue is what to do when sincere Christians differ on issues of doctrine. 

If I, as a reformed Christian humbly study the scriptures and pray about an issue but come to a different conclusion to another reformed Christian who has also humbly studied the scriptures and prayed-who other than GOd can say that one of us isn’t a Christian?

Edited to put the r in strive-imperfect typist that I am

[quote author="Melinda Seed"]Only God is perfect, as Christians we must humbly stive towards perfection, knowing that it is only through grace that we are forgiven for our sins.

Basically I agree, but the standard in Mt 5:48 is higher and we shouldn’t wimp out on what Jesus actually says

If I, as a reformed Christian humbly study the scriptures and pray about an issue but come to a different conclusion to another reformed Christian who has also humbly studied the scriptures and prayed-who other than GOd can say that one of us isn’t a Christian?

Sure, that is up to God and God alone, on the day of judgment. But the actual issue is whether it’s possible to know now what God is saying, or whether when we stumble on a disagreement, we then throw up our hands and say, like Nunc, “It’s hopeless”.

It’s not hopeless.

Melinda,

I think it depends on what the issue is.

If the issue is that Person B denies the ressurection, or the deity of Christ, then you have a problem being united to person B.

If person B is pre-millenial, and you are amillenial, then it’s not so important.

-A-

but the standard in Mt 5:48 is higher and we shouldn’t wimp out on what Jesus actually says

Higher than “what” Gordon?

Sure, that is up to God and God alone, on the day of judgment. But the actual issue is whether it’s possible to know now what God is saying, or whether when we stumble on a disagreement, we then throw up our hands and say, like Nunc, “It’s hopeless”.

I agree, I hope we don’t say it’s hopeless, rather in a spirit of love we should work together in fellowship to spread the gospel .  I think the problem arises, not just when people throw up their hands and say it’s hopeless but also when people “fold their arms” and assume that their way of interpreting the bible is the only way of working out what GOd is saying and therefore, anybody who doesn’t agree with them can’t be a Christian.

[quote author="Melinda Seed"]

but the standard in Mt 5:48 is higher and we shouldn’t wimp out on what Jesus actually says

Higher than “what” Gordon?

well, you said in the prev post

as Christians we must humbly st[r]ive towards perfection

but Jesus doesn’t say “humbly strive toward”, he actually does say “be perfect”. Just because we can’t do it doesn’t mean we should lower the standard.

I think the problem arises, not just when people throw up their hands and say it’s hopeless but also when people “fold their arms” and assume that their way of interpreting the bible is the only way of working out what GOd is saying and therefore, anybody who doesn’t agree with them can’t be a Christian.

But there is a middle way, isn’t there? We could try to work out who has it right, or if no-one has it right, we could all change our minds.

What we don’t want is the silly situation of having two (or more) people disagreeing and either saying “well we’re all speaking the truth” or “well it’s impossible to work it out so let’s forget about it”. Even the slightly more reasonable-sounding “well we’re all partly right” needs to be argued for, and not blandly asserted.

Basically I agree, but the standard in Mt 5:48 is higher and we shouldn’t wimp out on what Jesus actually says

Indeed we should not. But exactly what is Jesus saying in Matthew 5:48?
Both the context of this verse at the end of a passage about love (of enemies as well as friends no less) and the Lucan parallel Luke6:36 (where Luke uses a word translated variously as merciful or compassionate) suggest that Jesus is talking about us being like God in our loving or compassion or mercy. The text itself says nothing at all about doctrine so perhaps we need to look elsewhere than Matthew 5:48 for our Biblical support for the need of doctrinal purity or perfection. That support may well be forthcoming, but please let us not read into the text what is not in fact there.

Really? That entire section, Mt 5-7 consists of Jesus teaching by contrasting himself with, and correcting, the false doctrine of the Pharisees.

As I said above, the problem is the either/or disjunction that people keep attempting to force between doctrine and practice.

Please say more Gordon. Where in Matthew 5-7 is Jesus talking about “doctrine” in the way we seem to have been using it in this thread? Throughout those 3 chapters all I hear Jesus talking about is what we are to “do”, how we are to “act”. Nothing about “doctrine” or what we are to believe. His complete focus is on how we are to live and relate to one another is this world - on the practice of the Christian life. Also where does the text tell us that Jesus is correcting the false doctrine of the Pharisees? It may well be that it is the Pharisees that Jesus is speaking against, that may be the correct inference to make (though I am not personally convinced that is the case - much maligned as a group are the Pharisees and perhaps unfairly so!) but I do not think that is what the text actually says.

Chris wrote

Please say more Gordon.

Thanks Chris, I will have a bit of a go when I get a chance. However I would also be interested to hear your reason for the doctrine/action split you seem to be assuming…

This is going back a few messages, but I don’t get to use the computer much each day and want to reply to Rod’s earlier response.

A wink and a nod does seem a bit strong - but I will stand by that statement for now. Rod, please let me explain further what I meant.

I suppose the best example of this is the way the teachings of Jesus are handled in some (many, most?) congregations. It seems to me that even a quick reading of the first three Gospels reveals that Jesus’ attitude and teachings on wealth is very different from what I would call the middle class concerns of church.

So when I say a wink and a nod, I feel there is an unspoken understanding that it is not really polite to discuss some of the more radical teachings of Jesus in mixed company.

If there is a passage that we all supposedly agree on, I hear the phrase, “The Bible is quite clear on this issue.” used freely and the verses are taken at face value. But if there is a passage that could possibly challenge how things are, it seems that “You need to understand the context.” or “It actually doesn’t mean what it says you have to understand it’s spiritual meaning.”

When I hear this second pair of phrases, it is not from liberal theologians, but from evangelicals who take their Bible seriously. This is what I struggle with. Sometimes there appears to be a certain arbitrariness to what is clear, and what is not. This is when I wonder whether Archbishop Peter Carnley’s approach to the Bible is so different to what we do anyway.

I realise this is not a simple issue and this thread is not the place to explore it further - but my comments are based on what I see emphasised (and neglected) in churches I have belonged to. If anyone wants to pursue this further I am willing to offer more thoughts - but I am equally happy not to right now.

[quote author="Samantha Young"]If there is a passage that we all supposedly agree on, I hear the phrase, “The Bible is quite clear on this issue.” used freely and the verses are taken at face value. But if there is a passage that could possibly challenge how things are, it seems that “You need to understand the context.” or “It actually doesn’t mean what it says you have to understand it’s spiritual meaning.”

Samantha thanks for the clarification.

I believe there are passages which are quite straight forward and require little interpretation, Luke 9:23 ‘If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’ Others are harder to take at face value and you will have to understand the context a bit more, 1 Cor 11 on head coverings would be an example. This is just a fact of the literature which we have in the bible.

However I think your point is that your experience has been that these approaches have been use to support or deny doctrines that people already believe, which is unfortunate. There are probably lots that do this including evangelicals. I would agree that in our society we do play down the problem of riches because it makes us all uncomfortable.

The good thing is that we have Gods word in our own language in an accurate form and lots of resources to assist us in understanding it. We can test what we are taught ourselves and question it (a great characteristic of the Christian faith IMHO).

Gordon asks

However I would also be interested to hear your reason for the doctrine/action split you seem to be assuming…

I think I introduced the notion of such a split when I said in an earlier post

The Jesus I read about in the Gospels seems more concerned about loving one another and “being one” and doing justice than about doctrinal purity.

There’s my reason. As I read the Gospel’s I see a Jesus who is constantly talking about and modeling the way we are to live our lives (action). I seldom hear him talking about what we are to believe (doctrine). That just does not seem to feature largely in Jesus’ agenda. As I also said earlier there may well be Biblical support for the need for correct doctrine but let us find that in those texts where it is quite explicit and not read it into texts where it is not. All I am arguing for is us to take the Bible seriously, to work with what the text is actually saying and not try because of our prior assumptions/beliefs to make parts of it say what they do not.

Samantha wrote

Sometimes there appears to be a certain arbitrariness to what is clear, and what is not. This is when I wonder whether Archbishop Peter Carnley’s approach to the Bible is so different to what we do anyway.

Hi Samantha

Do you have a specific ‘worst case’ example or examples?

[quote author="Chris Albany"]Gordon asks

However I would also be interested to hear your reason for the doctrine/action split you seem to be assuming…

I think I introduced the notion of such a split when I said in an earlier post

The Jesus I read about in the Gospels seems more concerned about loving one another and “being one” and doing justice than about doctrinal purity.

There’s my reason. As I read the Gospel’s I see a Jesus who is constantly talking about and modeling the way we are to live our lives (action). I seldom hear him talking about what we are to believe (doctrine)

Now is this just a vibe or have you got specific reasons for thinking the way you do? I’m not being sarcastic, it is an honest question.