Dogma, Doctrine, Tenet...

I seem to have come across the word "dogma" a lot recently. According to dictionary.com:

• dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.

The same definition is given for 'tenet', which is also defined as:

• tenet: an opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.

And both of these definitions point to 'doctrine', which is:

• doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school

Other definitions of doctrine are given as:

• a principle established through judicial decisions
• a principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma
• a rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent
• a statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy

What is the point of me quoting all this? Well, on this blog (and, indeed, in life) I am attempting to be critical of what I believe. As a scientifically minded person I find it really hard to accept some things without proof. Therefore I must be critical of dogma, even Christian dogma.

However, that doesn't mean I need to dismiss all doctrine. If a doctrine is established as reasonable (that is, as through judicial decisions or when established by precedent, as defined above) then it should be accepted, even without proof, until such times as proof is found (either supporting or otherwise) or further judicial decisions are made.

The question for us today is which established doctrines should now be dismissed due to proof or judicial decisions, and which should be maintained?

Worship works!

One of the most compelling reasons for believing that I've found is that Christianity works. However many doubts or intellectual uncertainties I may have about the bible and God, the thing works. You can experience God. You can know forgiveness. You can be transformed. You can become a better person. You can find purpose in life. Of course, there are still uncertainties, but there are certainties too.

This morning, at our church service, I felt God's presence. I felt Him there because I was worshipping, and worship works.

Worship works by showing us a tiny glimpse of who God is and who we can be if we let Him work in us. Despite not actually singing it this morning, I am particularly reminded of this song by Brian Doerksen (who is possibly my favourite worship song writer).

When You call my name
(by Brian Doerksen & Steve Mitchinson (c) 2000 Vineyard Songs UK/Eire)

There’s a hunger in this wilderness
For Your revelation
To hear the words of life that strengthen me
Come and show what You’ve prepared for me
Speak your confirmation
Show me how I fit into Your plan

For when You call my name
I can see again
Who You are and who I’m meant to be
And as You beckon me
I am free to see
Who You are and who I’m sent to be

I am seeking true identity
In the light of Your presence
I am longing to know how You see me
In the time that You have given me,
Release the strength to follow
And the grace to be who You say I am

Proof of God's existence

Recently I've listened to a few Christian vs atheist podcasts and radio shows. The Christians always seem to use the same sorts of arguments to prove the existence of God, and these lines of reasoning always seem unquestionable to the Christian and unconvincing to the non-believer.

The three I've heard most often are:

1. The evidence of creation. Look at the world - its pretty amazing isn't it. That couldn't have happened by chance could it?
2. The evidence of selfless people. There are people who have done amazing things for other people and got nothing for themselves in return, that shows there's a God, doesn't it?
3. The evidence of the bible. The bible says that Jesus died and rose again, there are no first century documents disputing this, therefore it must have happened.

Even I, as a believer, am not convinced by those arguments. Some scientists have done a pretty good job of explaining how the world could have developed in the absence of a God. And you can also point out the apparent flaws in creation to question the competence of a designer - surely the world would be better without earthquakes and tsunamis and disease, etc, etc.

And just because there are selfless people doesn't mean that there has to be a higher selfless being. If that reasoning worked then the existence of a higher selfless being would have to imply the existence of an even higher selfless being, and so on.

And there doesn't seem to me to be any point in trying to prove the historical authenticity of the bible in an argument. The events are so long ago in the past that they are beyond the reach of convincing historical certainty. Sure, the events might have happened, but you cant prove anything.

Why do none of these people use contemporary evidence? If there is a God who wants to interact with people today, then surely that interaction can be observed and experienced. If it can't then there is no reason to believe, if it can then everything else falls into place.

The Bible

The current selection of 66 books that make up the bible as used by most protestants (as far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic bibles contain slightly different selections of books) was not finalised until a few hundred years after they were written.

So why is it that many Christians will use the text of some of those 66 books to claim that the contents of all 66 (and only those 66) books are divinely inspired?

2 Timothy 3v16 speaks of 'all scripture' but how can we assume that this refers to the current selection of 66 books? At the time he was writing Paul (or whoever) had a much smaller selection of 'scriptures' which did not include any of our current new testament.

Jesus frequently used phrases like 'my words will never pass away' and so on, but if you compile all of the things that Jesus said from the gospels, you end up with only a few hours worth of sayings. In my opinion, it is these sayings that we, as Christians should seek to follow. Of course, some doubt if Jesus Himself actually said all these things, but even assuming that He did, the sum total of all His Words is tiny compared to the entirity of the bible. When Jesus speaks of 'my words' I don't believe that He meant everything in the bible - He just meant the things He was saying.

I can't believe that everything in all 66 books is the inspired and infallible Word of God (see, for example, the story of Noah and the Ark), but I can believe that most of the words attributed to Jesus are things He said, or are interpretations of the things He said as understood by His disciples (e.g. the things Jesus apparently says in John's gospel are different to what He says in the other three - this is generally understood as being John's interpretation of what Jesus meant, rather than a word-for-word account of what he actually said).

We know that the Jews couldn't live up to the 'burden' of the old testament law (Acts 15:10). Neither can we. Thankfully, as Christians we only need to follow Christ and His words, and this is something we can manage.

Wine

I find it very hard to understand teetotal Christians.

My understanding of the term 'Christian' is someone who follows the teachings of Christ or seeks to be like Him in some way. And Jesus expressly told His disciples to drink wine to remeber Him. So why do so many Christians shun alcohol in all its forms? They are commanded to drink it!

Yes, I know there are several anti-drunkenness passages in the bible, but having a glass or two of wine is as far from drunkenness as driving sensibly is from breaking the speed limit.

What I believe... Part 1

I suppose I should put this blog in context. I appear to have a few occasional readers, including some who don't know me, so over the next few posts I'll try to explain how my beliefs have developed and changed over the years...

I was raised in a 'conservative evangelical' bible-believing family and church environment. From a young age I was exposed to preaching which emphasised the authority of the bible and the importance of prayer, but viewed 'charismatic' gifts and behaviour (e.g. raising hands in worship) in a fairly negative way.

When I was aged 11 I was at a Christian camp which included an evangelistic talk with a 'call' for folk to become Christians. To be honest, I'd never really thought about becoming a Christian up until that point, I'd kind of assumed that I was one by default. But that night I made a decision... I decided not to be a Christian. I realised at that point that I believed in Jesus and all that stuff, but that being a Christian was more than just a matter of belief, it was a matter of action as well - doing things for God and denying things for yourself, so I opted out.

For what its worth, I still believe that I truly was a Christian (by default) up until that point and I chose to opt out. Over the years since then, some folk have insisted to me that I couldn't have really been a Christian before I was 11, because if I was I wouldn't have opted out. While others have tried to explain to me that I really have always been 'on the right track' and therefore I didn't cease to be a Christian when I decided not to be. I still maintain that I was raised a Christian and it wasn't until I chose to opt out that I ceased to be one.

Anyway, I made the mistake of not telling my family about the choice I had made, so for most of my teens I lived a double life - at school and with my friends I was just a normal teenager with no 'religious' belief, but to my family and at church I still appeared to be a Christian... If anyone reading this is in the same situation (and I have met several folk who have been there) please just be who you are - don't try and be something you are not just to keep your family happy. It'll make life easier in the long run, I promise you. Towards the end of my time at school it became harder and harder to keep the two sides of my life seperate - i.e. hiding the Christian side of my life from folk at school and hiding the 'secular' side of my life from my family.

1988 brought a few changes to my life - I moved away from home to university, in a town where I knew almost nobody, so I didn't have to do the double life thing anymore (or so I thought) and made lots of new friends - almost all of them outwith church circles. However, for the first time in my life I began to see a reason for actually chosing to become a Christian.

In October 1988, about a month after starting university, I was at a Scripture Union camp reunion. I saw the stark contrast between the Christians at the camp and the non-Christians at uni, and realised what the difference was: it was plain to me that there was some connection between these Christians that I didn't share in. There was a dimension to their lives that I didn't have. Quite simply, I finally saw the additional quality of life that the Spirit of God brings to Christians. It wasn't just a small difference, it was like the parable of the merchant who finds the pearl of great price - it was worth giving some things up in order to gain the Spirit.

And so, on the train on the way home from the camp reunion, I prayed the prayer that I had rejected about seven years earlier. And, having been raised in the church I was raised in, I knew that that was it - I was a Christian and shouldn't need any sign or manifestation to confirm this.

Nothing happened for a whole day. And (I must stress this) I really didn't expect anything to happen at all. But the following night the Spirit really did come with power and great joy. I really did feel like the Spirit filled me up so much that I would burst. I find it really hard to put this into words, but I felt like someone had emptied a well of joy into me, and had left it there - from that point on I could (and can) tap into that well and find joy in even the hardest of situations.

And so, to summarise, my outlook on God, His Spirit and the Christian life really starts with two main observations:

1. The Spirit of God is real: even non-Christians can see His presence and the additional quality of life that He brings to the lives of Christians (notably, when they are together, not so much as individuals - this is important for effective evangelism!), and
2. The Spirit of God is real: I experienced Him in an amazing way, even when I wasn't expecting it. And this is a lasting thing, not a transient one - He is still in me and that well of joy hasn't run dry.

So despite being raised in a church environment where 'the Word' was considered all that was necessary, my journey of faith began with two experiences, rather than anything to do with head-knowledge. This is very important to me, especially when I came to doubt the historical accuracy of parts of the bible - if everything was built on the foundation of the Word alone, my whole belief structure could have come crashing down, but even if parts of the bible turn out to be inacurate or outright false, that can't take my experiences away from me.

I have experienced God, so I know He is there. Exactly who He is, is another matter entirely...

2 Timothy 3:16

[16] All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [17] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I've been reading a lot of other people's blogs recently. One verse which crops up again and again on the blogs of Christians (particularly those trying to defend things like creationism) is 2 Timothy 3:16 (and 17). This verse is used to defend all sorts of issues that it says nothing about. In fact, I'm sure many folk out there manage to interpret the words above to mean:

Every verse in the bible was dictated by God and is completely accurate in terms of historicity and scientific content, and it can be used to counter any argument about science or history, however much actual evidence supports the opposing arguement.

Which frustrates me immensely! The bible has an agenda - it is for 'training in righteousness', it is not actually that interested in science (largely because 'science' didn't really exist when the bible was written) and, while it does contain some history, it is not primarily a history book.

Let's have a look at that verse in detail:

• 'All scripture is God-breathed' - what does that mean? In fact, I see this statement as a bit of a truism - if it wasn't God breathed it wouldn't be scripture. But (as you will see from my earlier posts) I'm not utterly convinced that everything that is in the compiled book that we call the bible is actually divinely inspired. I believe this collection of writings contains scripture, but not that it is all scripture. And does 'God-breathed' mean that God chose the words or that He inspired the writer? Whenever I've been 'inspired' to do something or write something, I've often found that the end result of my actions or writings is somewhat different to the original inspiration - yes, it contains the inspiration but it also contains a lot of me and my ideas too. I believe the same is true of the bible - Paul's letters (for example) contain the inspiration of God, but they also contain the writings of Paul. And, just to rock the boat slightly, are there 'scriptures' that aren't part of the current canonical bible?
• 'and is useful' - useful? Not 'essential' or 'invaluable' but merely 'useful'??? This suggests to me that it does not actually answer every question, and isn't the only thing to rely on when training in righteousness, etc.
• 'teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness' - as I said above, this agenda does not include 'teaching history' or 'correcting scientific theories'.
• 'so that the man of God' - who is the scripture for? Not for bashing the non-believer with, but for equipping the disciple. That's not to say that folk can't come to know the Lord through the bible, but it is pointless to try and argue a case with someone who doesn't believe in God by relying on the 'authority of the bible' - it won't get you anywhere. Take the non-believer to a church gathering and let them see God in His people.
• 'may be thoroughly equipped for every good work' - the agenda of the bible is not to persuade people to believe certain things, it is to equip disciples to do.

I am pretty firmly of the opinion that arguing with non-believers over issues like creation/evolution and trying to assert the authority of the bible to folk who don't know the Lord is generally a waste of time. Take them to meet Jesus - either in the words of the bible (and while I'll agree with Chris that Genesis etc. do point to Christ, nothing does it better than the actual Gospels) or to a church meeting where He is present.

Oh, and use the bible to equip yourselves and each other for the task!

Getting ecumenical

I must be getting old or something. Recently I've been getting more and more ecumenical in my outlook. I can remember the days when I used to avoid ecumenical church gatherings (i.e. meetings between members of different church denominations, often to discuss common ground or share communion together - and I suppose that is more or less common ground for us all), largely because I thought that the part of the church that I adhered to was more correct than many of the other parts who would be joining in in the meeting. I guess I thought that meetings in a church who do things wrong were largely a waste of time.

However, recently my thoughts have been more along these lines:

1. The whole point of the church (global - including protestant, catholic and orthodox) is to be the bride of Christ - a body of people in relationship with God.
2. God is continually preparing the bride for her wedding - He is actively involved in getting the church to the state He wants it to be in.
3. Therefore, the majority of the church cannot be 'wrong'. Sure there might be bits that stray too far from the truth and need removed - the bride might need to loose a few pounds here and there - but on the whole the majority must be more or less on the right lines.
4. Therefore, it is the common ground between the denominations (e.g. the Lordship of Christ, celebrating communion, etc.) that is important and not those little things that separate us (e.g. infant or believers baptism, veneration of the virgin Mary, etc.)

I now believe that we should be seeking to abolish the boundaries between all the different denominations of the church - between presbyterian and baptist, between protestant and catholic, etc. and ecumenical services may be part of the way ahead.

The joint Good Friday service in my community today is in the Catholic chapel. Perhaps I should go...

Murder, rape, genocide?

I used to ignore this debate. But I've read quite a few websites (e.g. this one) where its discussed recently and have had to re-think my position on it.

The issue is does God endorse murder, rape and genocide in the old testament?

The answer, if you take the bible at face value, is yes!

Numerous times throughout the early books of the old testament (Genesis through to Samuel) the text clearly says that God instructs the israelites to utterly destroy a nation, including all men, women, children and even animals sometimes. There is no other word for this than genocide. For example, Deuteronomy chapter 7v1-2 says:

"When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you-Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you - and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion!"

On other occasions, e.g. Deuteronomy 21v10-14, the Israelites were instructed to spare all female virgins from the genocide in order that the Israelites might have sexual relations with them and take them as their wives.

"When you engage your enemies in warfare and the Lord your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners, if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife, you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails, discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, go to your house, and lament for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. If it should turn out that you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her."

This is not a consentual relationship we're talking about here, this is clearly rape and sex-slavery! And there are many instances of it in the OT.

The question is did God actually command the Israelites to do these things?

The only stance I can take on this is that the God of love would not command these things. Thus these stories, presented in the bible, cannot be the inspired word of God. Surely they must be a modified history of the Israelites, written some time after the events described - it was known what happened, so it was assumed that these actions must have been God endorsed, so it was recorded accordingly.

Or is there a way of defending these actions and maintaining that God did indeed order these things but is still the God of love that we speak of today?

Yesterday, today, forever?

When I was young, one of the popular songs that was sung in Sunday school went like this:

Yesterday, today, forever, Jesus is the same
All may change but Jesus never
Glory to his name...

That song and those words are permanently imprinted on my memory. I guess its based on Hebrews 13 v. 8 (which actually seems out of context when you read it in context!).

But what does it mean? And what does it mean for us?

On one level it can't be true - Jesus was born a baby, grew up, was crucified, died, rose again and ascended to heaven where he was given the name above all names. All that shows a process of change from boy to man, from un-scarred to permanently scarred and from not-the-name-above-all-names to name-above-all-names.

Perhaps the words are meant to apply to the post-ascended, name-above-all Jesus - maybe it was at that point that he started not changing?

I've generally understood the words to mean that God/Jesus will always treat us the same way, but I began to question that assumption several years ago when I read the book "The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery" by Richard Elliot Friedman (read chapter 1 online here). The book is split into three sections, the second and third of which are a lot less interesting than the first and which I won't discuss here. The first section however looks at the way God interacts with his people in the Old Testament. It makes the astounding observation that the way God has dealt with his people has progressively changed through time!

For example, consider the following biblical people:

1. Adam: spoke with God face to face; disobeyed and was severely punished.
2. Abraham: spoke with God face to face; tried to persuade God to change his mind (re: Sodom) but wasn't able to; unquestioned obediance was expected.
   
3. Moses: spoke to God but didn't see his face; negotiated (sucessfully) with God; when commanded to do something was able to persuade God into letting him take his brother along with him; when commanded to speak to a rock to produce water he struck it instead but the miracle still worked (Numbers 20); but was still punished for this weakness.
4. Joshua: didn't have the same level of contact with God as Moses; yet still was accompanied by numerous miracles etc.
5. The judges: much fewer miracles; much less direct communication from God. Note the way that Samson behaves - that sort of behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in the time of Abraham or Moses, but God seems to let it go here.
   
6. Samuel: is the last named person in the bible who God 'revealed' himself to.
7. Solomon: is the last person in the bible who God 'appeared' to.

From there on in, God speaks only thorough the prophets, and their writings and communications diminish in volume and in the number of 'thus sayth the Lord' as time goes on. By the time we reach the last (chronological) book in the old testament, the book of Esther, God does not feature as an explicit character, he is not even named and there is no communication from him, only prayers to him.

Anyway, there's whole lots of interesting things to be deduced from that process of change, but one thing is clear - God does not behave the same way to all people at all times.

So even if we know how God treated his people in biblical times, how can we be sure how he will treat us in the future?

Comments anyone?