In my on-going effort to be "up to date," I have been pretty active on Facebook. One of the oddities on Facebook is that people like to repost "tweets" from Twitter. So, in an odd way, I end up reading lots of tweets that someone I know on Facebook received from someone I do not know. Anyway, such is life.
Tweeting is fine, I suppose, but there is a real problem. The limitation of characters (no more than 140) leads to carelessness in what is said. This tendency feeds into one of the worst characteristics of modern American Christianity, heavy reliance on cliches and cliched ideas.
Recently, for example, someone posted the following tweet: "Your doctrine is not displayed by the books you read but by the life you live." Okay, fine. First, of course, this is simply a straw man argument. No one I know believes that your doctrine is displayed by the books you read (I read many books with which I disagree). But the second part is the bad part. That is, the idea that "your doctrine is displayed by the life you live." This is one of those popular cliches that are not correct.
First, of course, it says nothing beyond suggesting that "the life you live" is the measure of your knowledge of truth (doctrine). This is false and creates the tendency to be legalistic. This is the idea that "Christians don't drink" or "Christians don't dance" or "Christians don't" whatever you dislike. This is like the preacher saying that "true religion can be told by your calendar and your checkbook." No, no, and a thousand times "no." "True religion is to keep oneself unstained by the world and to visit widows and orphans in their distress" comes to mind in place of this cliche. See James. Your "doctrine" is not measured by your actions at all.
Second, of course, it ignores the reality that almost all true doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with "the life you live" before the world. The doctrine of the Trinity is not immediately ascertainable from observing someone's behavior, for example. Behavior tells me nothing about doctrine.
Third, it is false because many people who are good in the eyes of mankind (whose "life they live" is excellent) hold views that are entirely in error. Mormons, who hold doctrines of damning error, are some of the nicest people in the world. When you meet them, you would would never know their doctrine holds that God used to be a man like us, that women's ultimate resurrection depends on their husband's choice, or that "spirit intelligences" from the sex of the gods come to live in our children. Pharisees had wonderful lives to point to, but no truth in their hearts. I do not decide a man is saved because of how he acts in the world.
Finally, it is false because doctrine takes time to change lives. When you teach a man a truth, he does not suddenly become righteous in his daily life. The whole point of Protestantism is that salvation is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, not on our personal righteousness. We continue, in our lives, to deal with sin. The fact that a man sins is not proof that his "doctrine" is in error, it is only proof that he has sinned.
The statement is true in only one, very limited sense. It is true that how we live ought to be consistent with how we think. Our doctrine ought to inform our daily lives and, eventually, transform those lives.
But, of course, truth takes more than 140 characters, so we post the idea that everyone in the world should judge everyone else in the world on the basis of their observable behavior, deciding (based on observable behavior) who is or is not correct in their doctrine. This is simply wrong.
Tweeting is great for sharing your personal experiences. It is not good at all for sharing truth.
Tweeting is fine, I suppose, but there is a real problem. The limitation of characters (no more than 140) leads to carelessness in what is said. This tendency feeds into one of the worst characteristics of modern American Christianity, heavy reliance on cliches and cliched ideas.
Recently, for example, someone posted the following tweet: "Your doctrine is not displayed by the books you read but by the life you live." Okay, fine. First, of course, this is simply a straw man argument. No one I know believes that your doctrine is displayed by the books you read (I read many books with which I disagree). But the second part is the bad part. That is, the idea that "your doctrine is displayed by the life you live." This is one of those popular cliches that are not correct.
First, of course, it says nothing beyond suggesting that "the life you live" is the measure of your knowledge of truth (doctrine). This is false and creates the tendency to be legalistic. This is the idea that "Christians don't drink" or "Christians don't dance" or "Christians don't" whatever you dislike. This is like the preacher saying that "true religion can be told by your calendar and your checkbook." No, no, and a thousand times "no." "True religion is to keep oneself unstained by the world and to visit widows and orphans in their distress" comes to mind in place of this cliche. See James. Your "doctrine" is not measured by your actions at all.
Second, of course, it ignores the reality that almost all true doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with "the life you live" before the world. The doctrine of the Trinity is not immediately ascertainable from observing someone's behavior, for example. Behavior tells me nothing about doctrine.
Third, it is false because many people who are good in the eyes of mankind (whose "life they live" is excellent) hold views that are entirely in error. Mormons, who hold doctrines of damning error, are some of the nicest people in the world. When you meet them, you would would never know their doctrine holds that God used to be a man like us, that women's ultimate resurrection depends on their husband's choice, or that "spirit intelligences" from the sex of the gods come to live in our children. Pharisees had wonderful lives to point to, but no truth in their hearts. I do not decide a man is saved because of how he acts in the world.
Finally, it is false because doctrine takes time to change lives. When you teach a man a truth, he does not suddenly become righteous in his daily life. The whole point of Protestantism is that salvation is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ, not on our personal righteousness. We continue, in our lives, to deal with sin. The fact that a man sins is not proof that his "doctrine" is in error, it is only proof that he has sinned.
The statement is true in only one, very limited sense. It is true that how we live ought to be consistent with how we think. Our doctrine ought to inform our daily lives and, eventually, transform those lives.
But, of course, truth takes more than 140 characters, so we post the idea that everyone in the world should judge everyone else in the world on the basis of their observable behavior, deciding (based on observable behavior) who is or is not correct in their doctrine. This is simply wrong.
Tweeting is great for sharing your personal experiences. It is not good at all for sharing truth.