sailgirl7 wrote:wenglund wrote:
I don't think you correctly understood my point. I am not criticizing people for learning or for sitting at a teachers feet and being taught. Nothing I have said could reasonably be interpreted to suggest that I had. I am not looking at this in an either/or way. I agree that to everything there is a season: at time to sit and learn, and a time to act. I believe that Christ struck a healthy balance in how he presented the gospel of love and how he taught of God. From what I could tell, he didn't establish some elaborate and scholarly systematic theology, but rather he discriminately (as each situation made amenable) conveyed basic principles in stories/parables, particularly in the story of his life. He didn't get hung up on whether something was "official doctrine" or not. He didn't seem to me to worry about inconsistencies or paradoxical contradictions that some may suppose in what he said. He seemed more intent on bettering mankind and conveying general principles than on doctrinal exactitude, precision, and consistency. Again, if that was good enough for Christ, then it is good enough for me.
To understand my point better, it may be helpful to discover that there are various instructional methodologies and learning styles. In a broad sense, there are two main systems of thought: Western and Eastern. Western thought is more "left-brain" oriented, and geared towards linear, sequential, rational, analytical, objective, detail/micro-oriented, and rote epistemics; whereas, Eastern thought is more "right brain" oriented, and geared towards random, intuitive, holistic, synthesizing, subjective, global/macro-oriented, and experiential epistemics. The former is more intellectual based (the "head") and scientifically inclined, whereas the latter is more emotion-based (the "heart"), and artistically inclined.
Which instructional methodology do you think Christ favored? Which do most Christians favor today?
While I was raised to think more in Western ways, I have recently discovered (by attempting to learn how to draw and paint) the value in adopting some Eastern ways of thinking, and attempting to strike a balance between the "head" and the "heart" in how I grow in faith--believing that the head without the heart limits knowledge and understand just as does the heart without the head. As such, I find quibbling over what is "official doctrine" to be using way too much head at the unhealthy expense of the heart--actually, in modern psychology it may be termed as "anal-retentive". ;-)
But, that may just be me.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Well, your
point is your
opinion based on your interpretation of the things you have read. But does that mean that you are correct or that you are right in your interpretation? To you perhaps, but it's not correct to me based on my interpretation.
I can respect that. I don't wish to argue about this, but rather merely to explain how I see things.
I'm not sure what you mean by "He didn't get hung up on whether something was "official doctrine" or not." Why did he rebuke the Pharisee's for their false doctrine then? “… In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. 15:8–9.)
As I see it, the major qualm that Christ had with the Scribes and Pharisees, beside their rank hypocrisy, was the overly burdensome priority they placed on the letter of the law (their notion of doctrinal purity?), in which things like the simple doctrine of the sabbath had been systematically analysized and exacted to the Nth degree, thereby inadvertantly making man for the sabbath rather than, as intended, the sabbath for man. So fixated were they on the law and the prophet (i.e. the doctrines) that they failed to recognize and know the Savior and Redeemer when he appeared among them--the very object for which the laws and prophets were a type and foreshadowing thereof.
Your interpretation that "He seemed more intent on bettering mankind and conveying general principles than on doctrinal exactitude, precision, and consistency," I don't see supported in the text- in fact Jesus was very clear about teaching the "higher law" and doing away with the Law of Moses. He was very specific about his teachings especially in the Sermon on the Mount. He rebuked the Pharisee's and the Sadducee's who taught different doctrine.
In terms of the sermon on the mount, do you think that Christ was speaking to "doctrinal purity" when he spoke of the salt loosing its savour, or the light being hid under a bushel? Was he speaking of "doctrinal purity" when he said that "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, he shall in no case enter into the kindom of heaven"? Did the "higher law" that Christ taught on the Mount pertain to doctrines regarding the nature of God (systematic theology), or was it, as I have intimated, intended as a thought and behavioral guide the adherence to which will enable men to become more godly (perfect even as the Father), and thereby better know God by having experienced godliness and having been, to some degree, godly?
We are told to keep the "doctrine pure". How are we to do that if we don't know what is "pure" to begin with. And if we aren't supposed to worry or put forth effort to find "pure" doctrine- how will we know when something is taught that it is pure or not? Pres. Hinckley said that "Small aberrations in doctrinal teaching can lead to large and evil falsehoods”. So are we being obsessive or "anal" if we try to figure out if small aberrations are being taught?
Again, I think you misunderstand my point. I am not suggesting that doctrinal purity is not important. In fact, I have said that it is important in my last post. Where I may differ with some, is the extent to which that effort should be undertaken and at what cost. I see "doctrinal purity" as an ideal to be reasonably strived for, and not an absolute necessity. I see it as the end objective of a process involving imperfect and fallible people, and one that I expect to take a somewhat modest zigzag course (sufficiently modest to still be considered reliable, though not infallible or perfect) rather than a straight line. I also see it as an objective that may be of lesser priority (though still high) than changing the nature of mankind to becoming Christlike.
Again, if you see it differently, I am fine with that.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-