And, I rather suspect that truth is neither hard cut nor easy to come by

How would you distinguish such a view from that which Pontius Pilate took— “What is truth?” He too would have agreed that it’s all too hard to work out. It’s really a view that says that truth is not discoverable.

No I am not asking the same question Pontius Pilate was. I think truth can be to some measure understood.

Christ himself is the Way the Truth and the Life: not words on a page, not the words of a bishop, not anything revealed or unrevealed.  It is in him that ultimate Truth resides; until we get to heaven, everything we see here on earth of the truth is through a glass darkly (yes, even the “revealed stuff” in the bible). But we can be confident that Christ is the Truth, and strive to understand him, his action in the world, and his will in our lives more clearly.

I am convinced that it’s not by right thinking and correct doctrine we get to heaven or find favour with God. And of course you all will be sitting there going “no, no, of course not”. Rather I think that what matters is our ongoing relationship and journey with Jesus - which includes the search for doctrinal truth, but also includes the manifestation of faith in what we do and who we are, the living of Christ’s life in our day-to-day world. It is on how much we have desired him, how much we have tried to do what we wants us to do, and how much we have loved, that we will be measured - not on whether we believe hell exists or not, or (shock horror) on whether we believe the Bible or Tradition is more authoritative (which is a false dichotomy anyway). I see you all jumping up and down in your seat again, but rest assured, my whole argument about life in and through our Lord is premised on the grace of God in salvation in the first place; there is no relationship with God apart from his grace.

What I am saying is that the truth is not always blatantly obvious, and the truth is not always what we think it to be, even when it seems obvious to us in our current worldview.

Which gets back to the point of my post, which you haven’t answered directly, but to which your posts on here give me an oblique answer:

We cannot agree on what we understand truth to be if we have differing views of authority. Until we can be mutually respectful of a different understanding of authority, we really have no ground on which to stand and talk. Your posts prove the point: you, by your understanding of What The Bible Says™, are right, and everyone else who disagrees with you are flat out wrong, because they are interpreting the Bible wrongly (or insufficiently).

A case in point is the exchange above:

Chris Albany wrote:
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.

How specific does Chris have to get? He’s talking about the bulk of what is in the Gospels about what Jesus said, and what he did - and his understanding of what that means for us. Your language belies your disclaimer of “not being sarcastic” (specifically the use of “just a vibe” and the implied criticism of “thinking the way you do"). It also shows that you want other people to argue with you from within your worldview: you like to see specific verses and chapters quoted; other people don’t work like that and can only argue from within their own worldview… I rest my case about authority and approaches to hermeneutics.

My aim in pointing this out is not to criticise, Gordon. I am not making a personal attack on you or your approach. What I am showing is that different approaches think differently, and very rarely the twain shall meet - precisely as I said in my first post: we can’t even begin to argue because of the old conundrum… According to my understanding of authority and where it resides, you are wrong; according to your understanding of authority, I am wrong.

The question is how we surmount the barrier. Which, until we are able to accept people arguing from “where they are” rather than from “where we are”, is not going to happen. We have to realise that none of us have a monopoly on the Truth because none of us have a monopoly on Christ, who is Truth.

Thanks Nunc for beginning to answer Gordon’s question. I obviously haven’t been clear in the way I have expressed myself. It is not a"vibe" - what I am saying comes out of my reading of the scriptures, in this specific case the Gospels as they are the record we have of Jesus’ life - his words and actions. To take just Matthew 5-7 as an example, as they have been referred to above. They begin with the Beatitudes, the focus of which is the attitudes or behaviour which make persons blessed. No mention of beliefs. then a section about fulfilling the law and the prophets, about keeping the commandments again about our behaviour. Then a succession of “you have heard it said but I say to you” statements about interpresonal relationships and seeking reconciliation; adultery and lust and causes of sin; about divorce; about swearing; about retribution and loving enemies as well as friends. All about how we are to act and behave. Then Chapter 6 goes onto talk about our practise of piety, prayer, fasting, giving alms etc; then about not being anxious but trusting in God. Again the focus is on actions/behaviour not belief. Chapter 7 begins with an admonition not to judge least we be judged. This chapter even contains the perhaps surprising verse “Not everyone who says to me “Lord,Lord” (?belief) will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does the will of my Father in heaven.” (?action). I rest my case for now. It would be good to hear Gordon’s promised explanation for his earlier statement about Matthew 5-7. Or some one else’s comment for that matter. Someone may have a perspective on this that shifts my understanding.

I see what you’re saying Chris, but given Paul & others spend so much of their time correcting & warning against false teachers & their teaching, that seems to me like they take correct beliefs pretty seriously, esp as the bible on the whole seems to record humanity consistantly getting it pretty wrong, wouldn’t you agree?

Hi Chris, you wrote

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)

I thought this would be a good jumping off point for the question of whether life and doctrine can be separated. I said I’d get back to you on Mt 5-7, and I think your summary of topics looks pretty right. You are quite right, the topics you’ve mentioned are all about how we live.

However that’s not really a problem for my view, which (just to repeat it), is that life and doctrine can’t and mustn’t be separated. If I am right that Mt 5-7 is fundamentally doctrinal in character, then it follows that it must absolutely deal (on my view) with matters of day to day living like lust, greed, anger and so forth.

I think what you are arguing, however, is that any of issues of doctrine, or

what we are to believe

are either incidental to, or absent from, these chapters.

Now I suppose I could just upload the whole of Christian Counterculture by John Stott, which from my distant memory is absolutely terrific and an easy read on this part of the Bible, but the devil is in the details (if I can put it like that), so if you don’t mind could we just start with Matt 5:48, which says

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Now if I’ve understood you rightly Chris, you believe (consistent with your view that Mt 5-7 is about life not doctrine) that this is not at all a doctrinal statement, but simply a statement about right living or right action.

And I say, how could this not be a doctrinal statement, dealing as it does with the very character of God?

To clarify by contrast: a Muslim may have said, “be perfect because Allah is a just judge”. A Moloch worshipper might have said “offer infant sacrifices because blood satisfies Moloch’s lust for death”.

The point is, the actions we perform stem out of the thoughts we think, and in particular, the thoughts we think about God.

I’ve got more to say about the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, but I thought it worthwhile to make a start with Mt 5:48 because it is a key part of this discussion and it is a key summarizing statement for the whole first section of the Sermon on the Mount. The idea of the perfection of God our Heavenly Father is not therefore just a pious tack-on, but is right at the guts of why we behave the way we behave.

Next post I will make some observations about Mt 5:1-12, but perhaps there will be a response to the Mt 5:48 point first?

Gordon,

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

I suppose one example of how I feel many evangelical Christians have a selective approach to the use of the Bible is the warnings in the Gospels about the dangers of wealth.

How often do I feel challenged by those passages while in fellowship at church? Rarely, if ever. Basically the message I get is that provided one’s attitude is right it is OK for him (I say him because in the circles that I mix it is assumed the bread winner of a household is male) to:

* Own a nice large comfortable home.

* Have at least one car.

* Use insurance as a hedge against misfortune.

* Make investments in the stockmarket with the goal of increasing wealth.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have found that such actions are not out of place in the churches of what is called middle class areas of Sydney. Yet such behaviour may be the direct opposite of what Jesus taught. To pick a few passages, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 6:34, 19:16-22, Luke 6:24.

Yes, I know there are other passages that can be used to justify wealth provided I am generous and serving God, but that is part of my point. How quickly do we use those as a defence of our comfortable lifestyles. (To any readers who are struggling financially, this post is not for you.)

But really, when I see the size of the homes my Christian friends have and hear their talk about renovations, jobs and what they need to able to raise a family these days I can’t help but wonder if we’re trying to store up treasures on earth. And where is the challenge to what is accepted as a valid wealthy lifestyle, during a typical Sunday morning worship? Rarely in the preaching, if at all.

There seems to be a blind spot when it comes to teachings that threaten to offend and make the wealthy uncomfortable. I am not sure how the Gospels can be read without the feeling that as a Christian in a household that earns an average income (or more) that I belong to the wealthy in society and need to be challenged on this. Instead I am exposed to repeated sermons based on the letters of Paul and the importance of correct beliefs.

How many lessons and parables of Jesus warning of the dangers of wealth need to be in the Bible before we wake-up and realise that as a wealthy society, Jesus is talking to us?

It is interesting that you mention Christian Counterculture by John Stott, because on most Sundays based on what I hear I find it hard to see how the practicalities of day to day living of most Christians is different from secular society. So while I worship God and love Jesus, at the end of the day the pursuit of security and a good home loan probably consumes more energy (leaving myself wide open here) and no sermons that I have listened to in the past twelve months have challenged that way of thinking.

Now for contrast, I witness the huge amount of energy and urgency with which some passages of Paul (and some innuendo) are used to justify the continued submission of women to men. That is what I mean by how we pick and choose what we make important in the Bible whether we would call ourselves a liberal or not.

I find it difficult to reconcile why a passage such as 1 Corinthians 11:3 is treated so reverently, yet Matthew 6:19-21 is not. Note, I am not wanting to debate the ordination of women, or whether the Franciscans have the right idea. But when truth is being talked about I hesitate to judge my more liberal brothers and sisters when I feel my own evangelical tradition also has the tendency to overlook that in the Bible that doesn’t fit with what is commonly accepted.

Anyway, they’re my thoughts and feelings and you may say I am way of track, but Hey, I am just trying to think about how we use the Bible - and make a point about being careful about judging others. Hmmm… I think I’ve left myself wide open on that point as well.

[quote author="Samantha Young"]I suppose one example of how I feel many evangelical Christians have a selective approach to the use of the Bible is the warnings in the Gospels about the dangers of wealth.

On a tangent (sort of) has anyone read Brian Rosners book Beyond Greed (available from Matthias Media)? There may have been a review in the Briefing, anyone know of an online one?

Rodos

[quote author="Rod Haywood"]
On a tangent (sort of) has anyone read Brian Rosners book Beyond Greed (available from Matthias Media)? There may have been a review in the Briefing, anyone know of an online one?

Rodos

Ah Rod, my good friend, your cheque is in the mail. you can click through to a sample chapter by visiting this

Thanks for your thoughtful post Samantha, I am keen to respond but may let it sit for a while so can think. Anyway, I’m sure others will have things to add!

Not at all off track Samantha. An excellent post, absolutely spot on. I was trying to say something similar a while back on the ”That they all may be one” Ecumenical prayer for today thread re the inconsistent way the different things Paul admonishes against in 1 Cor 5 are treated. In particular the way the admonition against greed is largely ignored in our affluent society. (If I remembered how I’d do a here link to that post, and my further contribution 4 or 5 posts later on that thread on the same day but that degree of technical sophistication is beyond me!). Help please Luke! (Subsequently edited to include the link thanks Luke. :-)

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Ah Rod, my good friend, your cheque is in the mail. you can click through to a sample chapter by visiting this

Just drop it in the pigeon hole <grin>. Have you read the book though, can you confirm its worth the read. Brian is great but, trying to stay on topic, does it cover what Sam is refering to here?

Rodos

G’day Rod

I’ve not read the whole book, no, but Brian Rosner is at our church and I heard him give a review of it outlining the contents; also the sample chapter gives you a very good feel for what is about to come (that’s dangerous to say isn’t it, if I haven’t read the whole thing). I would say it’s right on topic—or at least, right on Samantha’s question. What was the topic of this thread again? Who is Peter Carnley?

Well, FWIW, I’ve had a completely different experience than Samantha

[quote author="Samantha"]I can’t help but wonder if we’re trying to store up treasures on earth. And where is the challenge to what is accepted as a valid wealthy lifestyle, during a typical Sunday morning worship? Rarely in the preaching, if at all.

I think the issue of greed/materialism (especially in the last few years) has been preached on constantly! At my local church, CMS Summer School, at Katoomba Conventions, on Club 5 etc etc etc.

In fact, I reckon it is referred to more times than an issue such as sexuality etc. So I find it hard to cop the argument that evangelical churches ignore parts of the bible to suit themeslves, and that they focus on sex more than greed. IMO, that’s a load of rubbish.

Here’s some resources to consider on this issue

-A-

Thanks for the encouraging comment Chris, I must admit after posting I felt like it was bit of a rant and too repetitive - mental note to self don’t post on forums late at night/or when tired.

Rod, I will be interested in finding out more about the book Beyond Greed. I haven’t read the extract yet, but will let you know what I think.

If you have any comments Gordon, I look forward to them as these are issues that I really find challenging.

By the way, Chris, Melinda and Nunc I have enjoyed reading your posts too.

G’day Samantha,

[quote author="Samantha Young"]Basically the message I get is that provided one’s attitude is right it is OK to:
* Use insurance as a hedge against misfortune.
Yet such behaviour may be the direct opposite of what Jesus taught. To pick a few passages, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 6:34, 19:16-22, Luke 6:24.

I’m not sure how these passages speak against taking out insurance - unless you equate taking out insurance with being anxious about the future. For myself, I have taken life insurance so that if I die in the near future my wife and two young children will be provided for financially, so that they will not require financial assistance from either genetic and/or spiritual family members. I try not to be anxious about the possibility that I might not make it home from work today, but I’m not convinced that taking out insurance is something Jesus is against, at least from these passages. Could you explain the line of thinking that sees the use of insurance as something inappropriate for Christians?

[quote author="Samantha Young"]And where is the challenge to what is accepted as a valid wealthy lifestyle, during a typical Sunday morning worship? Rarely in the preaching, if at all ... at the end of the day the pursuit of security and a good home loan probably consumes more energy (leaving myself wide open here) and no sermons that I have listened to in the past twelve months have challenged that way of thinking.

I preached yesterday on Mark 4:1-34, containing the parable of the seeds. One specific application (challenge?) I made was that we are in great danger here in Australia of becoming thorn-infested ground, where “the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things” prevents us from being fruitful members of God’s kingdom. I have heard similar challenges to secular middle-class materialism every month from other preachers at my church.

Perhaps you could challenge those that preach at your church to raise our susceptibility to greed and materialism as an issue for public teaching, or that they not focus exclusively on sections of the Bible that don’t consider this issue (e.g. perhaps regular sermons from the gospels rather than sections of the epistles that don’t address avoiding love of money).

Cheers,

Timbo

[quote author="Chris Albany"](If I remembered how I’d do a “here” link to that post, but that degree of technical sophistication is beyond me!). Help please Luke!

Try this :)

1. Find post you want to link to
2. Right click on the # symbol at the bottom of the post (next to “quote")
3. Create a link like this: here so it should look like this:

and that would link to your post. Try it out and hit ‘preview’ to see if you get it right, any probs PM me :)

I find it hard to take the notion that greed is not preached against. In my experience, I have heard sermons on it at church (including last night where we were told the greatest two threats to our faith could be in the form of materialism and hedonism), read some great articles about it in The Briefing, Heard about it both times I have been to Mid Year Conference (next week yay! :)), and a consistant theme of challenges is to consider what I can give up for the sake of God’s kingdom.

How often do I feel challenged by those passages while in fellowship at church? Rarely, if ever. Basically the message I get is that provided one’s attitude is right it is OK for him (I say him because in the circles that I mix it is assumed the bread winner of a household is male) to:

* Own a nice large comfortable home.

* Have at least one car.

* Use insurance as a hedge against misfortune.

* Make investments in the stockmarket with the goal of increasing wealth.

A few reflections here, most of which I can make having just moved from on global terms Affluence (Western Sydney) to Increased Affluence (North Shore)…
None of these things are wrong on their own. Owning a home is often seen as the responsible thing to do, and although I have been inside more lavish homes this year than for the rest of my life, that doesnt mean that it is wrong. A car is a neccessity for anyone who lives or does anything more than 10 minutes walk from a train line/Eastern Suburbs Bus route. Insurance is sensible, and the stockmarket is not just this crude gambling tool, but also a way to keep the economy going, so new ideas can turn into businesses, and businesses can create jobs etc.

I think that what is more important than how much, or what a person has is their actual attitude in how they deal with it. Where a person has little and keeps all, they are much more greedy than a person who has lots and gives lots.