Hey josh, I think you are right we as Christians can put people in a certain type of box without really listening to them or representing them fairly. I see this on both sides of the theological equation. I guess the question for us is are we doing the same and also when we have criticism leveled at us are we willing to man up and listen to it objectively?

I just wonder whether our theological education is helping us or hindering us. I try to read widely and i must admit in my own opinion i don’t do as well as i wished, but the only one at college who encouraged me to read a variety of different books and see what i could learn from them was Bruce Smith.
As to “are we doing the same and also when we have criticism leveled at us are we willing to man up and listen to it objectively?”
I agree with the concept but what do you do when the criticism doesn’t make sense or is subjective and based on praxis, but they have transformed it into theology?

I used to categorise people according to my perception of their theological correctness, but “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now” (Mr R Zimmerman). Now I try a little more to follow Mr Lou Reed’s ironic advice: “there’s something to be learned in every human experience”, and expect to learn something from thoughtful people even if I disagree with them about many things. It’s the non-thoughtful rather than the wrong that I learn less from.
Categorisation is a mild form of demonisation, which can be used to distance ourselves from people so we can more easily criticise them or mistreat them. If you go, for example, to an atheist forum, you’ll find christians and theists generally are often categorised in that way, and it is both unfair and hurtful. Hopefully we don’t do it so harshly amongst ourselves, but sometimes …..
I guess in the end it all depends on what we value the most. If we think following Jesus in God’s kingdom is the most important, other matters will be things to discuss rather than argue over, but if we think doctrine is more important than that, or if we think doctrine determines who is in the kingdom, then we’ll likely categorise much more.
Who says unkleE doesn’t like sermons!!!???

hey Josh, are there any particular examples of this that come to mind?

Hey Unkle E, what are your thoughts on 1 Tim 4:16, and how this refers to doctrine and its importance for teachers?
“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers?”

I think we also need to be careful that we dont begin to create a duality in a person. For example, a person ought to live on the basis of what they believe, and if they dont live that way then you can realistically question their beliefs.
So I wouldnt want to drive a hard and fast wedge between the man and the ball, they are at some level one and the same thing. If what you are saying is that we cannot put anyone in a category or box, then I would encourage you to come out of your self made ‘no such thing as boxes’ box, and rather than judge people and their beliefs with harshness and a lack of evidence, instead come to discern people and what they say and believe, and be open to change that view when it becomes apparrent that the person of whom you are speaking have themselves changed their mind.
As for praxis and theology, you cannot separate the two, everything we do includes God, and therefore has an inherant theological value, and a theological stance which we must be aware of and discern without judgementalism

Hey Josh I think there is a massive link between theology and praxis. So we cannot be orthodox with out being orthox prax and vice versa. However if we have a bgunch of people coming to us saying something that they dont like e.g sitting on a stool when we preach or playing a guitar solo for 4 bars of a song in chapel we can say that they are more cultural and then we can generally ignore it. However i think when people do have a tru theological concern we do have to listen to them we cant say as bell says: When people say that the authority of Scripture or the centrality of Jesus is in question, actually it’s their social, economic and political system that has been built in the name of Jesus that’s being threatened. Generally lurking below some of the more venomous, vitriolic criticism is somebody who’s created a facade that’s not workin.That’s how I respond to criticism
This is a way of not hearing the issues. I do think that our theological education at moore does make us far more aware of precieved faults in others. But I think that is also the issue with reformed evangelicals everywhere.
Is this post a general concern like you are pissed off with christians being critical and then couching it all in theological jargon or is there something recent someone has said?

Josh,
Two cents’ worth:
Why do we play the man rather than the ball?
1. Good old laziness. It’s far easier to read what a second person says about a third person, rather than interact with the third person’s written material and come to our own conclusions. This process is much easier when we are aligned with the second person’s . . . .
2. Faction. So when C, for example, publishes a book that is sharply critical of M; and we move in a group which by and large approves of C and disapproves of M, then we conform to the group by reading C’s books rather than M’s books.
3. Because we have been brought up to do so. A standard mode of argument in my alma mater went like this: Label, then dismiss. “Oh yeah, him – he’s just a (liberal/Arminian/bleeding heart/emerger), you’d expect him to say that.”
Rob

Hey Rob,
You have done the very thing you want to deny! You could have used better disgusies than C and M surely?
There is a highly pejorative nature to your comments at point 2 above.
Josh is right, we do need to read widely, and appreciate the points others make, but we also need to be discerning. Also, it should not come as a surprise that there will be ‘camps’ after all, we are told that some teachers will gather around them a group of people who are ready to hear his words with ‘itching ears’ while others will stand for the truth in their group.
While we may not always be in the right ‘group’ on these issues, we must see the fact that belonging to such a group is not wrong, but it is wrong to have a ‘hermeneutic of humility’ to the point where we actually say nothing and affirm nothing.
The point is we must be very discerning, protect the flock, and care for the brethren, without being judgemental, and as much as possible, we should endeavor to disagree in relationship.

Steve K,
Not sure why you asked me that question (“what are your thoughts on 1 Tim 4:16, and how this refers to doctrine and its importance for teachers?”) in this context, but I will do my best to answer it.
I think it all depends on how we understand the word “doctrine”. I’m not a scholar, but the Greek word used in 1 Tim 4:16 seems to be best translated as “teaching”. Doctrine can mean teaching in this general sense, but is often used to indicate a systematic and comprehensive presentation of teaching, including things quite far removed from the “faith once delivered to the saints”.
I was using it in this second sense, and in that sense, I believe the good news, the basic facts on which it is based, the life we have together as God’s people, and our mission to love and serve and, if possible, save, the world, are more important than the systematic teaching of finer points of doctrine that so often divide rather than unite christians.
Thus I believe obeying Jesus in his commands to (for example) love God and love our neighbour, the latter to be done by serving as in the parable of the good Samaritan, and in making disciples as in the “great commission”, these things are more important than arguing over (for example) evolution, the role of women, charismatic gifts, the alleged inerrancy of Scripture, etc.
It is so important to remember that we are saved by grace, through faith, not through right doctrine. Teaching is a means to that end, and doctrine should only be a means to that end, twice removed. Scripture is full of warnings about being puffed up with knowledge, and criticises the Athenians for always discussing stuff.
So that’s what I meant. And lest I be seen as disobeying my own injunctions, this is pretty much the only forum/blog where I interact with christians and discuss “doctrine” – most of my web adventures are aimed at assisting atheists, non-believers and open-minded inquirers to understand reasons why they should “look into Jesus”.
I hope that answers your question – if not then I guess I’ve answered my own question! : )

hey Josh, it’d be cool if you could suggest some examples of this – easier to understand real-life examples than abstract concepts.

hey Kryger,
I am not going to mention names or situations in a public forum like this because as soon as that happens people will take sides based on names mentioned and I personally don’t think it is helpful. I suppose the question and the post are more for people to reflect on personally and get people to ask themselves the question “Am i operating on what i think of the person/heard of the person” or am I operating on “What they are actually saying”

hey Josh, I wasn’t suggesting names, just an example scenario that puts the concept into context. It’s all good.

Hi Unkle E, I’m not sure it’s as easy as you suggest to separate faith from doctrine. Without a right understanding of sin, we won’t have a right understanding of our need for God. Without a right understanding of the purpose and fulfillment of Jesus sacrifice, we won’t have a right understanding of our new standing before God. Even these ‘basic facts’ are rooted in fundamental truths. Whilst the gosepl is certainly about God’s grace in saving me, the gospel is understood in the context of why I needed to be saved, saved from what, saved by whom, saved how, and saved for what. This is all ‘teaching’ in a doctrinal sense. I think I can understand where your coming from, and can see a desire to not get bogged down in detail or foolish controversies (Titus 3:9) and I really respect that. However, I don’t understand how you’ve come to the conclusion that some teachings and practices are more worthwhile than others. Clearly teaching is important, because otherwise the Bible wouldn’t contain warnings against false teachers. If we can’t agree on teaching, we can’t identify false teachers.

Steve K
I think we are agreed on a fair bit, so I’ll just comment on where I think we may still learn from each other …..
1. I don’t think “right understanding” is as important for salvation, faith or obedience as you seem to. Did the thief on the cross have “right understanding”, do children, do any of us really? Jesus didn’t seem to be as worried about it as we are – e.g. he sent the disciples out without any formal training and with very limited understanding, and he wasn’t worried about unknown people acting in his name (Mark 9:39). He seemed more concerned with what they did.
2. We don’t actually need a “right understanding” of sin or salvation to be saved, just a sufficient understanding. Nor do we need a right understanding of who is our neighbour to love and serve people.
3. So of course faith is related to doctrine, but just not as closely as is sometimes claimed. It is more related to truth, but even then we can be saved and wrong. It is nice to know as much of the truth as we can, but not always as necessary or even as possible as we western christians would often wish.
4. Can we agree then that there is a sliding scale of teaching, from things that we can know and hold of first importance (as in 1 Cor 15:3ff), through things that we can know only partly (e.g. last things) to things that are highly arguable (e.g. how to do evangelism)? Arguing or separating about anything other than the most important things seems unjustified, and even spending long on them is poor priorities if we can be using the energy to better effect loving and serving the world.

On the question of doctrine, I came across this interesting article in my feed reader today:
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/05/09/why-doctrine-matters/