Faith like a child
I recently came across a wonderful tool called visuword.
Which is in their words a “online graphical dictionary”. They have this to say about it:
Look up words to find their meanings and associations with other words and concepts. Produce diagrams reminiscent of a neural net. Learn how words associate.
Having a little fun with it I decided to check out some words about the Christian faith. First I checked Jesus. Then I checked Christianity, theology and doctrine. It was interesting that Jesus was a very simple non-complex diagram but Christianity, theology, and doctrine were a convoluted mess. It was even more interesting that there were some negative connections made to Christianity, theology, and doctrine but none to Jesus. So all of this got me thinking about our faith (which also had some negative connotations).
Jesus in his earthly ministry used parables and stories to illustrate the nature, character, and make-up of the kingdom of God. There were no deep theological discourses explaining the complex concepts of truth. Rather he used simple and common, yet powerful, illustrations of Gods desire for all of humanity. For Jesus if you wanted to study God (theology) he simply said “follow me”. Jesus’ life was the only theology necessary to understand the kingdom of God.
There is no seminary degree required to understand “be a servant” or “feed my sheep” or “what you have done unto the least of these you’ve done unto me”. Nor do you need a PhD to grasp the concept of being “Born Again”. In fact Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3:
10″You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?
If we are honest with ourselves it is often a fruitless (pun intended; Galatians 5) endeavor to engage in debate about theology. Sure we have lots of opinions about what is the best way to follow God but aren’t we all called to walk our own path? Are we not all called to walk the way of Christ? To die to ourselves?
If so then should we not spend more time focused on what he means to “follow me” then nailing down our eschatology or our doctrinally viewpoints. There is no Arminianism in “follow me” nor is there any Calvinism.
Friends the way of Christ is simple yet profound. I’ve yet to understand or fully grasp “If you want to live then die” but this is the way of Christ; the way of the cross. A path made clear for all that answer the call to “follow me”.
Grace and Peace
HT to marko
May 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Many well-made points here (such as the lack of human requirements like PhDs and ThDs and all that junk as well as a reference to the simplicity of Christ). Paul was a man that went to Bible school and before the Lord could use him, he had to unlearn (Phil 3) it all before God could use him - his doctorates and wall plaques were counted as dung in the face of Christ’s glory.
I too agree that when you boil Jesus and the Father down into theological templates, you somehow lose the essence of what was intended: a lifestyle lived in obedience and submission to Christ that bears the fruit of the Spirit over time.
That being said, truth is vitally important. We should not set up a false dichotomy that says its either truth or love. Truth and love go hand-in-hand, and both serve to stabilize us.
I make this challenge: find an epistle (Paul, Peter, James, John, Jude) that didn’t deal with false teachings and concepts creeping into the church.
ALSO, the reason Jesus is so “loved” today (as you claim) is the same reason the prophets were “loved” in Jesus’ day. Though they were stoned in their own day, the Jews claimed them as their fathers in Christ’s time. Today the world “loves” Jesus, Christians quote Paul. But all were rejected by their own in their day. We love them because they are not directly challenging us to our face, but only through what it written of/by them - which, of course, is subject to our interpretation (read: we can make them creations of our own).
May 30th, 2008 at 10:00 am
From Jesus’s words and actions, I suspect he’d rather us err on the side of loving people, rather than being obsessed with details.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am
This is true, but I would say that the false teachings that were either things that dealt with the very nature of Christ, i.e. gnosticism and docetism, or with things that affected the way Christians dealt with each other, i.e. rich people in Corinth excluding the poor from communion.
They weren’t about one’s view on election, evangelism methods, or music styles. So it wasn’t so much about making sure everyone had watertight doctrine as it was about making sure people kept Jesus in focus and they remembered their mandate as Christians.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Phil - I agree to an extent, and this is largely due to the fact that the church was in its infancy and therefore the plethora of false teachings and concepts we have today couldn’t possibly have evolved yet. BUT - the premise is the same.
Paul warned several times about “another Jesus” (Gal 1 & 2 Cor 11). 2 Peter 2 and Jude deal with the same issue of False Teachers. Even Jesus was very clear about His warnings of false teachings.
We have to understand that the world has been sown down with both wheat and tares. They look similar and grow closely together. If you value your salvation, you will use discernment to ensure you don’t swallow everything whole.
This doesn’t mean you don’t love. In fact, I would counter that (as Solomon says), “The wounds of friend are better than the kisses of an enemy” (or something like that).
the type of democratic, round-table, civil rights-style Christianity we have going on today is ridiculous and shameful. It is not love, but to the fleshly man, it would appear so.
On the other hand, find a prophet or an apostle that wasn’t persecuted for telling people the truth. Look at Isaiah’s intro (Is 1) where he likened the people to being dumber than oxen and more stubborn than donkeys. “Is that anyway to introduce yourself?” Wouldn’t have gone over well with Dale Carnegie.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Interestingly enough most of that persecution came from within the people of God.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I actually just read something about this. Actually the wheat and tares look very similar. The word used for tare is actually describing a weed that looks so similar to wheat that it can be hard to tell the two apart. That’s why in the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, the master tells the servants to let them both grow together.
So Jesus is specifically saying that it’s not necessarily our job to differentiate the two. He’ll sort it all out in the end.
It’s not that I have a problem with pointing out potentially dangerous teaching. I have a problem when people start labeling true and false Christians.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Most of this is over simplified. We are to reject heretics, how can we if we do not have criteria with which to identify them? Why “study to show yourself approved” if there is no need for doctrinal studies? Why all the epistles that are doctrinally specific?
I agree we can make our brand an idol, but teachings and doctrines are important unles we are willing to accept JWs, Mormons, and Christian Science as legitimate Christian teachings as long as they are nice and do humanitarian efforts.
There is a balance which I am not sure I have ever walked accurately for one entire day.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Well, is it possible to reject the heresy without rejecting the heretic? That seems to be the rub.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
The Scriptures suggest to reject a heretic himself because of his teachings. You cannot have an active heretic in your church.
I still contend a heretic can be a saved man.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I guess it depends on what you mean by “reject”. It seems to me that ex-communication is done both for the purpose of protecting those within the church and for the hope of eventually restoring the person being ex-communicated. It’s a way for them to see the error of their ways.
Anyway, I think it’s all well and good within the context of a local body. What we don’t need is a grand pooba sitting behind his computer deciding who’s in and who’s out.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Who said anything about herectics or false-teaching?
It certainly wasn’t me.
Over-simplified? Well I guess that was the point.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
My point was that the New Testament makes room for identifying those which would indicate a certain amount of doctrinal comparison.
The church is not moving toward more exclusivity, it is moving toward doctrinal inclusion.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Oh…I get it now. Kinda
May 30th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Holy happy
face it actually stays 
were it’s supposed too! 
May 30th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
OK, my comment imitation of Joel Osteen -
May 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I don’t think Jesus would make fun of Joel Olsteen.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I think he might have. A little bit anyway.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
chris - You have concretely proven I am not Jesus. No need for a diagram on that one!
May 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Jesus would make fun of lots of people, were they to actually get his jokes, but he would do it in such a way that people could always “opt in” and laugh with him.
But so many people read the Bible the with the same dirge-like tone as people sing old hymns.