The doctrinal approach

[Barry]

Why do you think that the "doctrinal" approach that many "leaders" have is so divisive?

It seems that everywhere one turns this is happening.
Very "well studied" bible students are dividing and severing fellowship over doctrinal points and how those point are defined.
Is there an alternative? If yes, what is it?
Is this doctrinal approach the right approach?
If yes or if no why?

Any thoughts?
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

What would you say if I told you that I thought your questions are the answers imo?

Amie

[christyG]

Great question, Barry.:clap2:

Great point, Amie.:clap2:

I am wondering, Barry if you are speaking of doctrines within the Christian religion or of religious doctrine in general?

God does not seem to be in my head. God is in my heart. Doctrines seem to be created in our heads from information we have gathered and categorized through our experiences. Doctrines seem to be limited by our experiences.

And maybe you are asking if we don't preach a doctrine, what do we preach?

Love? Oneness? Experiences of the divine?

Christy

[alicia]

Hello everyone,

I think the doctrinal approach has too many rules and is too black and white. No two situations are alike, there are always some variables that are different. I think a situational approach would work great. Usually the Golden Rule covers every aspect -- if you treat others as you would want to be treated, that means you have to take EVERYTHING into account before moving forward and ideally it would involve compassion, honesty, respect, etc....and hopefully a little humor in the middle if there's room for it :) There was an interesting article about this in TIME magazine a couple of months ago on this very subject. I'll try to find it....

Alicia

[alicia]

Here it is.....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541466-1,00.html


Alicia

[Barry]

Great input everyone.
I really want to know your thoughts on this subject!

In connection with some thoughts expressed here:
What if the "doctrine" that was applied within the transition period was a move and a moving from the "glorying" attached to man's (and women's) natural idol image to one that could be formed through a working in the inner person?

Just as idols were natural images of "gods" the natural man of appearance formed his own self image and idol personification. (I also believe that Satan is linked to this in many fundamental ways, as are the demons and "the doctrines of demons").

Doctrine is a big word. And many today may say that we must have doctrine.
But if the conclusion of doctrine is love and unity and oneness of value and worth in the love of God then it seems that a different doctrine approach may be in order.

This doctrine approach would be hard to see without "fulfillment". It is hard to follow the "heart" without seeing something. It's like the heart give us glimpses but the mind without manifestation or revelation gets in the way. Hence in the transition of the ages the followers were given the "mind of Christ".

Any thoughts?

Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

How are you defining "fulfillment" in you last post?

Amie :)

[Lou]

It is like in the first century the religious were “nit-picking” every word of Scripture and failing to step back and see what God wanted. (The big picture) They see the “letter” but not the “spirit.” :2cents:

[Barry]

Barry,

How are you defining "fulfillment" in your last post?

Amie :)

"This doctrine approach would be hard to see without "fulfillment"."

If we remain stuck in the "transition of the ages" always trying to move toward the fulfillment of all things written, then our "doctrinal approach" will likely be one of "“nit-picking” every word of Scripture".
Without seeing the fulfillment of all things written, it is hard to see the conclusion of the doctrinal teaches. What those teachings were bringing forth in the first-fruits.

Hope this made some sense,
Barry

[Amie]

Barry,

It made sense. Is seeing the fulfillment of all things the equivalent of our doctrine? If not, how would you make the distinction?

Amie

[Barry]

Barry,

It made sense. Is seeing the fulfillment of all things the equivalent of our doctrine? If not, how would you make the distinction?

Amie

This gets back to Doug's last comment on the ego-man part two, (as well as Davo's, repeating it).
Yes, in the sense that it is now "historical". What God has done, he has done. No one can undo it through rebellion or ignorance.

The fighting and squabbling over the color of the church carpet cannot change the historical reality. Coming to that understanding, one acquires the like-mindedness of that reality.

Our doctrine is that God is love and he is sovereign. No detail can change that.
Our doctrine is that God has made us one in him, (that all may be in all).

My understanding is that a false image of ourselves is formed when this understanding is not present.
Worth and Value are set in place. Nothing can increase or decrease it.
My function does not establish it or diminish it. My function however relates to my understanding of these things.

Imagine those gossip magazines disappearing from view because their sales are insufficient.
Imagine the fellowship that is possible.
IMHO "fellowship" will be the driving force.

Imagine not having to endlessly seek ways of building one's self up.
Imagine living life, working hard at whatever we do, because we know who we are, as opposed to spending all that time on how we appear to others, as if we have something to prove, something to defend, something to protect about our identity.

And this IMHO is the key, our doctrine attaches itself to our identity. Then people fight tooth and nail concerning these things because in their mind it says a lot about themselves to themselves.

Imagine being free.
JMO Barry

[Amie]

Our doctrine is that God is love and he is sovereign. No detail can change that.
Our doctrine is that God has made us one in him, (that all may be in all).

You know that I agree that God is love, God is sovereign, and that God has made us one in him - I hope :).

I looked up the word "doctrine" because frankly with my background, words like that were 'man-talk' ;).

So Webster's has:


1 archaic : TEACHING , INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations

Do we teach and instruct here, or do we share? Is there a difference? Are we dogmatic? Are we fundamentalistic as long as the foundation is ours?

So my question is, are we using a doctrinal approach? If we are, are we causing division? If we are not causing division, then specifically what is?

Thanks,

Amie

[Paige]

Amie,

Sometimes I thinks its hard to get around being doctrinal. Why do I say this? Because I believe and teach:


God is love, God is sovereign, and that God has made us one in him

Even in sharing, I am teaching. As I live, I'm teaching even through my actions (hopefully my actions back up my words). I guess we might have to ask; is all teaching divisive?

Am I even making sense, :o

Paige

[lynn]

So my question is, are we using a doctrinal approach? If we are, are we causing division? If we are not causing division, then specifically what is?I had a situation at (my very fundamentalistic) church last Sunday which is relevant here, I think. Someone there did something that hurt me; he got a fulfilled-minded friend of mine, my only one, asked not to come back to church. :( I felt angry at said someone, but when he came to shake my hand, the first thing that I thought of was, “Even though you are wrong, God is thrilled with you.” Because I believe that all God’s wrath was poured on 70 AD’s Jerusalem, not anytime afterwards, I can, like God, also choose to refrain from wrath. Responding the way I did wasn’t easy, but I can honestly say now that I am not angry anymore. If God isn’t angry then can I also choose not to be so? Yes.
"This doctrine approach would be hard to see without "fulfillment"."

If we remain stuck in the "transition of the ages" always trying to move toward the fulfillment of all things written, then our "doctrinal approach" will likely be one of "nit-picking” every word of Scripture". Without seeing the fulfillment of all things written, it is hard to see the conclusion of the doctrinal teaches. Yes, Barry. Without “fulfillment” I would never have been able to accept my offender as he is. And I would probably have tried to find ways in which his views are not doctrinally correct, nit-picking. Instead, maintaining fellowship with him is more important.
Imagine those gossip magazines disappearing from view because their sales are insufficient.
Imagine the fellowship that is possible.
IMHO "fellowship" will be the driving force.

Imagine not having to endlessly seek ways of building one's self up.
Imagine living life, working hard at whatever we do, because we know who we are, as opposed to spending all that time on how we appear to others, as if we have something to prove, something to defend, something to protect about our identity. . . .Imagine being free.Barry, that’s beautiful, bringing tears to my eyes. I dream of that too. It’s scary though. Just yesterday I Googled my city’s “Unitarian-Universalist” church. Their doctrinal approach seems that basically anything goes. I imagined myself sitting in their church with a Buddhist chanting and doing yoga on one side of me and a Catholic with her rosary beads, saying “Hail Mary’s” on the other side. :eek: God is thrilled with both of them, I’d try to tell myself. But it’d be hard. Know what I mean? :uhh:

[Amie]

Lynn,

I'm sorry that you experienced some very real division. I agree that we can choose not to be wrathful, and am glad that you found some peace in that. Will you be responding in a new way?

Paige,

That's exactly what I'm asking I think. Either we need to rethink our own approach (and as you said it doesn't even seem possible), or we need to rethink the cause of division. (Unless someone else is aware of another option that I hadn't thought of of course).

Amie

[christyG]

Whoa, this has taken off.

Barry, it does seem that you are definitely talking within the parameters of Christianity. You said:
Imagine not having to endlessly seek ways of building one's self up.
Imagine living life, working hard at whatever we do, because we know who we are, as opposed to spending all that time on how we appear to others, as if we have something to prove, something to defend, something to protect about our identity. I see this quality in some people of other religions. I see it as the practice of some religions. I see this as what is "preached" in some religions. Buddism actually names the act of working hard at what we do because it is something we love and are called to do, they call is "right livelyhood".

Amie asks some very good questions:
Do we teach and instruct here, or do we share? Is there a difference? Are we dogmatic? Are we fundamentalistic as long as the foundation is ours?

So my question is, are we using a doctrinal approach? If we are, are we causing division? If we are not causing division, then specifically what is?
I hope you all know I love you all, but there is definitely "doctrine" here. Some can be dogmatic and many are relatively fundamentalistic, but I love you.:o The appraoch is love and compassion for sure, but are there any dialoguing members that practice a religion other than Christianity? I believe some of you would like to avoid the label of religious at all, but all that I have read over the years has been religious for sure. So, we thus have division. The audience is Christian, does anyone find that to be a hinderance, why or why not?

Lynn, you said:
I imagined myself sitting in their church with a Buddhist chanting and doing yoga on one side of me and a Catholic with her rosary beads, saying “Hail Mary’s” on the other side. I actually think that would be wonderful. I have been known to say a chant or two. One, the Shema (Jewish "mantra" from Deuteronomy) and the other a Sanskrit mantra for knowledge and understanding, along with the occassional "Ohhhmmmmmmm.";) I have also considered buying some prayer beads.:) I now start everyday with the yoga series of "sun salutations", and I end most days listening to some meditative music. These things have all had a very positive effect on me. I believe God is very please to hear me and feel me during these times. I know that these things help me to feel closer to the divine.

But, that's me and I understand that it may not be for everyone. I feel that my own experience gives some validity to the religious practices of other religions, if you know what I mean. It is too bad that any activity must carry with it the label of a specific religion. Why must we limit things. Good practices are good practices. Asking forgiveness and being able to let go of our guilt each day, or once a week or whatever a particular religious practice may be ( I am thinking of Catholic practices) is a good thing. Quieting our busy minds is a good thing no matter what we say ( or chant;) ) to achieve that. Learning that moving our bodies in certain ways can actually provide us with whole-body wellness is a good thing.

Where to go from here? Doctrine or no doctrine, what do we preach? Maybe we don't preach, maybe we listen. Maybe we learn and maybe we grow together in love.

Christy

[lynn]

Lynn, you said:
I imagined myself sitting in their church with a Buddhist chanting and doing yoga on one side of me and a Catholic with her rosary beads, saying “Hail Mary’s” on the other side.
I actually think that would be wonderful. I have been known to say a chant or two. One, the Shema (Jewish "mantra" from Deuteronomy) and the other a Sanskrit mantra for knowledge and understanding, along with the occassional "Ohhhmmmmmmm." I have also considered buying some prayer beads. I now start everyday with the yoga series of "sun salutations"You cultist! :eek:

Seriously, Christy, just a few years ago I'd be trying to urge you to pray quickly, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, (or some other such unbiblical nonsense.) But with my fulfilled view, I say, good for you. You're happy in your religious practices. God's happy too, IMO.

Did I just teach doctrine? :D Delete that. :rolleyes:

[Amie]

Where to go from here? Doctrine or no doctrine, what do we preach? Maybe we don't preach, maybe we listen. Maybe we learn and maybe we grow together in love.

I am open to share my point of view with those who want to hear it. I like to believe that preaching is when we share it with people whether they want to hear it or not, lol. And, I have a point of view on many things :).

I'm thinking that we can all be different and keep our perspective views, without division. As you pointed out Christy, there is gain in accepting others where they are at and even learning from them.

You are right Christy, I was defensive when you first pointed out my religious nature. It had been a bad word to me for a long time. I'm glad that you decided to be my friend, even though I can be stubborn at times (though hopefully not disrespectful). Now I see that good can come of religion.

As a matter of fact, per the definition of religion, everyone is religious: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Everybody believes in something.

As for our mostly Christian audience, I think that we can connect with folks of differing religions and find common ground with them. Christianity is largely known for its' exclusivist attitude though, and I feel that 'doctrine' such as ours is beneficial in nurturing those relationships. However, I'm sure that there are other 'doctrines' within Christianity that benefit it as well.


So, we thus have division.

Do you think that there is a difference between individuality/distinction and division? I'm currently thinking that there is, else I wouldn't care to have the friends that I have (who are not all even Christian).


Did I just teach doctrine? Delete that.

HAHAHAHA!!

Amie

[christyG]

Lynn said:
Seriously, Christy, just a few years ago I'd be trying to urge you to pray quickly, accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, (or some other such unbiblical nonsense.) But with my fulfilled view, I say, good for you. A few years ago I would have been praying for myself too.:biglaugha:

Amie said:
I am open to share my point of view with those who want to hear it. I like to believe that preaching is when we share it with people Good point. Sharing views is important. Not as a way to coerce someone or manipulate, but as a way to learn. This is definitely the one thing that I have found here that sets this site apart.:clap2:


As a matter of fact, per the definition of religion, everyone is religious: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Everybody believes in something. Agreed.


Do you think that there is a difference between individuality/distinction and division? Yes, I guess I do. That seems to be a very delicate line though. I can be separate but equal from someone without being "divided". Separate but equal carries positive connotations with it. While divided seems to express finality, a divide that cannot be crossed. Separate but equal has as much to do with me and my attitude as it does with the other person. I must feel as though I am equal as well as have the other person treat me as equal.

Christy

[Amie]

This is what I understand people to be saying so far that would help to avoid division.

Focus on the heart and not the head. Allow for freedom and flexibility. Be considerate, compassionate, honest, respectful, and make room for laughter. Follow your heart, embrace awareness. Focus on the bigger picture. Relate with love, release fear. Embrace ourselves and one another. Find freedom from wrath through acceptance. Dwell with God in a way which builds you up.

I'm sure that I left some out, but what a collection of beautiful words!! I'm also pretty sure that doing the opposite of the above, nurtures division.


Christy,

I agree that seeing one another as different and equal is beneficial for both us and others. I do say "different" rather than "separate" since I see us all as connected (not saying that you don't) and there's all of those bad connotations related to that word like there is with "division". I'm betting it's safe to assume that we are on the same page.

Amie

[Barry]

Go to work for a few hours and look what happens LOL.

Amie said:
"You know that I agree that God is love, God is sovereign, and that God has made us one in him - I hope ."

Amie, I have never seen you in person and I love you (I love Paige, Lou and Christy too). When I meet you I will love you even more. Though that is hard to imagine.

However, I am severly right brained. My answers or responsces are reiterations of my own thoughts, which are often blind to inferences that they may carry. They are consepts and ideas without implications towards, other's thoughts. IE, of course I know that sis! :)

Christy:
If E.T. set foot on earth, I would speak of Jesus and God. Not because I feel a need to convert E.T. (which would upset him and he would want to "go home"), but because I would wish to express how the Universal has expressed himself to many in human history.

Love Barry

[Amie]

I would wish to express how the Universal has expressed himself to many in human history.

Oh my goodness how well-worded!!!

Can that be expressed without alienating anyone else?

Amie

[Barry]

Oh my goodness how well-worded!!!

Can that be expressed without alienating anyone else?

Amie

E.T. would not feel alienated if he knew and felt the love of God and sensed the desire of unconditional fellowship from a fellow sentient.
Barry

[Amie]

E.T. would not feel alienated if he knew and felt the love of God and sensed the desire of unconditional fellowship from a fellow sentient.
Barry

"alienated", lol.. I don't get it :ufo: ;)

"Unconditional fellowship". Now there's another one for the books. You're on a role tonight bro :).

Amie

[Barry]

""Unconditional fellowship". Now there's another one for the books."

Shunned
Disfellowshipped
Withdrawn from
Excommunicated
IE. if we don't get rid of you, you might poison our doctrine

:)
Barry