(please read these Reformation articles in numbered order)

Here is an analogy of vocabulary between math and theology.

Adding and subtracting are based on counting real objects, which everyone can understand from a very early age.

Somewhere, someone introduced two intangible terms to “explain” adding and subtracting larger numbers.

And ever since, teachers (myself included) have perpetually created unique gymnastics to explain “borrowing” and “carrying” and somehow bring adding and subtracting back to the real world (where it all started in the first place).

(Available soon:  This problem is solved by SIBA—“SImple BAsics revolutionize education.)

Now, the comparable term in theology.

God is real, and the Bible tells us everything we need to know about Him, and how to have a wonderful, personal relationship with His Son, Jesus.

And then we can spend a lifetime reading and studying the Bible to get ever closer to the King of the universe.

But early on, someone, somewhere, decided to invent an intangible word to explain God, and it has been a disaster ever since.

“the trinity”

And, just like “borrowing” and “carrying” in math, theologians and Bible teachers have been standing on their heads, trying to explain “the trinity.”

That word is a mistake, with extensive damage and no benefit at all to bring people to Jesus and closer to Jesus.

Why was “the trinity” invented?

Basically to put God in a box—a three-sided box—and to put people in a box, to control them.

Theologians created “the trinity” (not in the Bible)—in a sense they created God, with exclusive claims to explain Him, and to show common people that only theologians understand God, because they know more.

Any organization that develops an exclusive terminology creates an exclusive club.

And for some weird reason, that develops an irresistible attraction for people who want to belong.

It’s sort of like the strange rituals of initiation into gangs.

The ritual, the language, makes no sense, but it’s cool to belong.

And so, the church goes on, repeating history, repeating control of people in the place of God.

Of course no one thinks they are doing that at the time (3rd century to 15th century to 21st century).

There is much more to be said for theology and evangelism without ever using “the trinity.”

Just one specific example:

Witnessing to Muslims would be simplified if the obstacle of “the trinity” never existed.

(please read these Reformation articles in numbered order)

Man creates doctrines to divide, and labels to solidify debate.

Then church leaders and church followers feel obligated and compelled to take either/or positions on numerous issues.

Certain Bible verses have to be used and emphasized on one side of an issue, while others have to be avoided and minimized.

This is totally unnecessary and very harmful.

Churches would do far better to avoid “division by position”, on things not vital to salvation and discipleship.

Instead, just encourage open study of all Bible verses on any topic, with the people, without conclusions in advance.

The biggest pitfall is telling people what to believe, and then telling them to look up selected Bible verses to back it up.

That works fine for each church group as long as leaders maintain control of the church membership—like those belonging to a club—which becomes most important.

It is a life-giving breath of fresh air when God’s people get excited about studying their Bible and applying it to their personal lives.

We need to rediscover the challenge of obeying the parts of the Bible we clearly understand, and waiting for understanding on other parts.

The Bible has helpful words of comfort, as well as words of warning, on both sides of most issues.

Apply the truth, “All Scripture is given for  .  .  .”

(please read these Reformation articles in numbered order)

I had an embarrassment and an enlightenment several decades ago, talking with a friend who was in the same name-brand church.

I was looking for a Bible verse, and I couldn’t find it.

After much searching, I found it in the church liturgy.

That was a dead give-away to the deadly danger of what the church creates continually.

You can’t tell the difference between man’s words and the Bible, and I knew both well.

Not long after Jesus went back to heaven, the church started this practice of creating statements of what they believe, which developed into prominence rivaling the Bible.

Reciting creeds and liturgy and following forms of worship end up taking more priority time than sharing Bible verses.

And recently, individual churches and organizations are pressured to write “mission statements,” to somehow make them distinct from others.

Local churches, and groups of churches, would do far better to simply be known for Bible verses that they stand on instead of elaborate man-made wording, both old and new.

If you want a sure test of any church, note the prominence of Bible verses shared in church, then get out your own Bible and study it yourself until you find out if the church matches what you read.

After all, that’s what Martin Luther did.

We need to do that, plus be willing to let go of all the distracting and dangerous church stuff that serves to keep the show going, rather than “the one thing needful”—just listening to Jesus.

Luther was used mightily by God, and we are thankful, and we rightly celebrate 500 years after his boldness was broadcast to the world (thanks to Gutenberg, also inspired by God with the printing press).

But Luther did not finish the job—so there is much for us to do.

The church needs reformation.

The church needs revival.

The church needs repentance.

Christians in America will soon learn the sweet renewal of authenticity brought on by persecution—historic, guaranteed, welcomed by the remnant.

Whether the church can officially change is uncertain, just like the Catholic church couldn’t change, but they can’t stop true repentance, revival, and reformation outside the walls.

“God does not need our success.

He wants our surrender.”