WHAT IS PERFECT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE?

Religion: What is perfect Christian doctrine? 

Emerging Christian-mystic Carlos Iggy Shelton wrote in his blog: "I find it rather strange how some will demand perfect doctrine from others…"   

Not everyone agrees. As one commenter, Lordodamanor, argued: "Stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught."

Further down he adds: "If you do not know it to be the truth and the only truth, keep your mouth shut." Is Lordodamanor right?

What follows are Lordodamanor's arguments and my reaction to him for calling Iggy down.

This article is a defense of Christian mysticism. Upon reading a criticism of Emerging Christian Carlos "Iggy" Shelton (http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/) I decided to respond to comments made by someone using the online name "Lodroramanor."

LORDODAMANOR criticizes Emerging Christian Carlos Iggy Shelton for writing: "I find it rather strange how some will demand perfect doctrine from others…" (http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/).  

 I feel inspired to respond; please see my comment beneath each of Lordodamanor’s quotes as follows:

LORDODAMANOR: I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another...and

ELTOPIAFRANK: As I understand Lordodmanor’s comments, he “goes beyond what is written” quite a bit, and his own comments seem to be a matter of favoring one group of brothers – those who agree with his interpretations -- over all others

LORDODAMANOR: As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God...and

ELTOPIAFRANK: Indeed, many will come in my name -- and they are all literalists! “Speaking as the oracles of God” means speaking with honesty and integrity, not making up artificial rules (many of the not found in the scriptures at all) that would impose an antediluvian worldview.

LORDODAMANOR...knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation...and

ELTOPIAFRANK: Actually it says, of any private interpretation. The scriptures should be studied open and above board, not “protecting God” with all kinds of diversionary tactics to keep people from seeing what is actually being said. As examples, that the gospels cannot be made to harmonize, in spite the great lengths that literalists go to in order to try to make them seem to harmonize.

LORDODAMANOR: Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar...and

ELTOPIAFRANK: The context is Proverbs 30: 5,6: Every word of God proves true. He is a shield to all who come to him for protection. Do not add to his words, or he may rebuke you and expose you as a liar. (NLT 2007) This is one way that we know that the Word of God is not limited to the scriptures. The scriptures alone are not perfect, they are flawed in many ways, from words interpolated by scribes to errors in references to geographical locations, to misinterpretations of OT texts quoted in the NT,  to contradictions in time and place and on and on. The word of God goes deeper. The word of God is perfect, converting the soul.

LORDODAMANOR...I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book....

ELTOPIAFRANK: This is a famous quote from (the book of) Revelation. In the first century, anybody’s writing was fair game for any revisionist with an axe to grind, which may be one reason that the New Testament accounts are hard to reconcile, one with another. This is reflected in the author’s comment warning people not to tamper with what he had written, and he includes a curse at the end of the book to discourage adding to or changing from (what is now) the last book of the Bible.

If Lordodamanor thinks this quote applies to the full body of Christian literature known as the Bible, we have a lot of work to do. To make his caes, Lorodamanor will have to account for the fact that many changes have been made to the existing body of literature: In fact, it seems that the “infallible” NT authors themselves did a lot of that changing.

A case in point: The Old Testament used at the time of Timothy, for example, was the Septuagint, a version that contains books that are not in the Protestant Bible; and of course it lacked any of the New Testament books. The gospels at that time were known as “memoirs.” Only much later did they mistakenly come to be thought of as inerrant or infallible,  or to reflect a “single point of view.”

More along these lines

Lordodamanor goes on to add some arguments (much of which contains references to scriptures) some of which I would also like to address:

Lordodamanor states:  “That which is opinion is not truth.”

I don’t know where he gets this: Certainly the Bible does not say that. Some opinions are closer to truth than others, however.

Lordodamanor goes on: “Only that which can be established as true is to be taught. That is what Paul and Peter, Solomon and Jesus were saying: Do not go beyond what is written.”

Two rubs: In order to preach “the gospel”the following expansions upon "what was written" had to take place. In addition to that, the theory is thwarted when those considered infallible contradict each other.

Firstly, Paul and Peter of necessity had to go beyond what was already written. Otherwise, there would have been no gospel. So they invented some new books and said some new things. And they kept adding to that record. And then others came after them, including the writers of the four gospels, adding to the body of literature that was to become cannon.

As if that were not enough, some of the things written contradicted other scriptures: Jesus’ teachings on the Sabbath and on marriage contradicted Moses; the church dismissed of dietary laws, even though the scriptures had warned that the Son of Man would destroy those who were eating pork; the laws related to temple worship (had to be reinterpreted), the significance of the Passover Feast, in fact the downplaying of the Jewish holidays and the abandonment of the Jewish calendar, the adoption of Greek as the national language and so-on and so forth.

Secondly, in order for us to follow Lordodmanor’s advice, something must first have been “established as true.” But that is what has never happened in the church. To this day the gospels are not in agreement as to what constitutes the essential elements of faith: Two gospel writers ignored the supposed “virgin birth” altogether, for example. Some of the biblical writers were apocalyptic, holding out for a battle/revolution in the Valley of Hinnon, with God coming to Jerusalem's rescue; others preached peace, submission and adaptation and love of their Roman “enemies.” Sometimes even today, people hold both incompatible views simultaneously.

Given that some three hundred years later the church was still of divided opinion as to what was “established as true”, and is still of divided opinion about that, there seems to be a problem with this theory. The new “conversation” amongst theologians and lay people alike involves trying to discover, recover or reclaim what is true. For people like Lordodmanor, this was established by a certain collection of bishops gathered together and pressured by the Roman Emperor Constantine to hurry up and make up their minds. The decisions they made permanently divided the church and anathematized one of the most prolific and scholarly bishops of all time, the one, in fact, who assembled and translated the collection of books we now know as the New Testament.

Lordodamanor writes: “The rule is this: If you do not know it to be the truth and the only truth, keep your mouth shut, or as Proverbs would say: Even a fool is counted wise when he remains silent, or a fool does not wait to hear the end of a matter before speaking.”

Well, a lot of people would like for us to keep our mouths shut about things that we realize we don’t know. That way they can pretend to know a lot of stuff that actually just ain’t true.

Lordodmanor says: “There are sound words to learn and if there are not, then we have no Bible, even a poorly translated one to refer to.”

I don’t think anyone in the emerging/emergent church is saying that there are no sound words to learn. If we didn’t both believe in such a thing we would not even be having this discussion.

Lordodamanor writes:

“Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain...So the brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter...I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them...charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine...If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed...Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers...”

That was a rather lengthy quote, and there are several mistaken assumptions at work in it.

We respect the words of Jesus, more-so than many literalists, who often downplay the social aspect of his ministry.

Most people in the emerging/emergent/Christian-mystic paths are highly respectful of the words of Jesus, and would agree that it is unseemly to be “puffed up with conceit.”

As we mature in Christ, however, we are often confounded to learn that what we thought we “knew” just wasn’t so. That’s what the emergent church is all about for me. It’s having the freedom to reexamine the evidence and to question decisions made hundreds of years ago by medieval men wearing pointed red hats or something.

When Paul says to “hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter...” he was addressing a controversy within the early church! And it was not just a matter of bickering among lay persons. As near as we can tell, Paul was disputing with the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem and elsewhere.

Paul versus the other Christians 
Paul was having heated discussions with the original disciples over issues that were central to his vision for the church. It was Paul (and maybe Peter sometimes) over and against the rest of them. He deridingly calls them “super-apostles.” Since the other apostles knew Jesus “after the flesh,” Paul counters that “the flesh profits nothing.” According to Paul it is the spirit of Christ that matters (not the “historical Jesus” that so many are determined to discover today.)

James apparently sided with the “Judaizers.” At the very least, his disciples criticized Paul for eating with Gentiles, for not requiring them to be circumcised, for eating food offered to idols, and many other such issues. Eventually, they came to something of an agreement whereby they “allowed” Paul to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. (I can almost hear them snickering about that one.)

Given that the Apostle Paul was a radical who single-handedly co-opted the Jesus movement and carried it over into the Roman/gentile world, there is little wonder that he admonished his followers to accept what he had been teaching as Christianity, over and against what James, the Jerusalem church -- and even Peter at times -- believed.

Lordodamanor writes: “The fact is Iggy, the Word of God, that is Jesus Himself (ref Revelation) commands us to hold perfect doctrine.”

Well, that’s a great ideal, but I don’t think it says that. I wish he had given chapter and verse.

Lordodamanor continues:

“ It is a simple thing, as I said. Stay within the bounds of what you know. To do more or less is to condemn yourself: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Wow. As I stated before, the reason that some of us are being criticized is that we frankly admit, “I don’t know that,” about some of the stuff they think they know. At least I and some of the others are attempting to follow this advice and stay within the bounds of what we know.

As to the part about the good tree/good fruit, what can I say? He wrongly applied this scripture to something completely out of the context: It is wrong to apply this to people who are living clean lives and who are involved in a lifelong quest for truth and spiritual reality.

The people who speak carelessly are those who are too lazy to research what is now known about the early church, about the formation of the body of text we know as the Christian Bible, and about modern scripture analysis. What we are really being criticized for is our refusal to mindlessly follow a path of scholastic ignorance and spiritual poverty.

Lordodamanor tops his comments off with this whopper:

“To put it in the language of the emergent, get your pompous head out of your posterior cavity and come into the light...

“Sorry for the crudeness, but these are straight forward statements of Scripture all agreeing with one another, simple enough that even a child can understand them. I have simple words for my children: The world is not pink, your head is not your butt, and don't piss on a flat rock. Crude but effective with children and all Biblical, in a weird sort of way. I would not preach it that way except to my kids. They understand it though.”

That was not much of an apology: Why make such a comment at all, if not to demonstrate gross disrespect toward a Christian brother?

Lordodamanor concludes with this oddly out-of-place comment: “One last thing: What do you have that you did not receive?”

My answer: Nothing, of course. Who is disputing that?

Note: More religion articles by this author are posted at the following URL: http://shadowsofturning.blogspot.com