hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (06/17/91)
A number of people have been interested in discussions within the
Presbyterian Church (USA) about sexuality. Thus I thought you might
find it interesting to see the text of the letter that the General
Assembly asked to be read in all churches today.
-----------------
A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (U.S.A.)
Dear Members and Friends:
We, the commissioners and advisory delegates to the 203rd
General Assembly, write you out of pastoral care for our church.
We have acted on a number of important matters. None, however,
has drawn more attention than human sexuality. We write to communicate
our actions and to offer a pastoral word for our church.
We have not adopted the special committee's Majority Report
and recommendations, nor have we adopted its Minority Report. We have
dismissed the special committee with thanks for their work, and with
regret for the cruelties its members have suffered.
We have reaffirmed in no uncertain terms the authority of the
scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. We have strongly reaffirmed
the sanctity of the marriage covenant between one man and one woman to
be a God-given relationship to be honored by marital fidelity. We
continue to abide by the 1978 and 1979 positions of the Presbyterian
Church on homosexuality.
We are also convinced that the issues riased again by this report
will not go away. Though human sexuality is a good gift of God, we
and our families are in pain. We are being torn apart by issues of
the sexuality and practice of adults: single, married and divorced;
teenage sexuality and practice, sexual violence, clergy sexual
misconduct, new reproductive technologies, AIDS, sexually transmitted
diseases, and the sexual needs of singles, gay and lesbian persons,
the disabled, and older adults.
That pain was felt by us here in Baltimore, expressed by people
of very different perspectives. Some of these are issues on which
these is considerable theological and ethical disagreement within the
church.
We also believe that at the heart of the recent debate lies a
painful distrust of the General Assembly by many of our members.
Often the General Assembly has been perceived as telling individual
members what to think. Let it be said that in Baltimore the 203rd
General Assembly heard the cry of the church for an Assembly that
listens to its grass roots. In that spirit, we have instructed the
Theology and Worship Ministry Unit of the General Assembly Council to
prepared a plan to encourage us as Presbyterians in our theological and
ethical decision-making. We reaffirm that the church is healthiest
when it honors what we Presbyterians have always believed, as expressed
in the "Historic Principles" of 1788: That God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments
of men and women which are in anything contrary to God's Word, or
beside it, in matters of faith and worship; and also that there are
truths and forms with respect to which people of deep faith may differ
(G1.0300). This is an opportunity to learn again what it means to be
a Presbyterian.
In conclusion, we wish to reaffirm that we are all one as
Christ's body and while we are diverse, we are one family of faith
because of the unconditional love of God for all persons. We welcome
your responses to our action as we rejoin you this Sunday. May the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ keep us and bless us in the
spirit of divine grace and love.
Yours in Christ,
Herbert D. Valentine James E. Andrews Gordon C. Stewart
Moderator Stated Clerk Moderator, General
203rd General Assembly Assembly Committee
on Human Sexuality
-------------
I talked with our pastor, who was at the meeting where this was
adopted, to get a feeling for the intent. To a large extent this is
an attempt to allay widespread concerns by the membership that the
church was rejecting critical Christian values. In fact, none of the
proposals rejected the authority of Scripture -- though the majority
used somewhat free interpretive approaches, nor did they challenge the
sanctity of marriage. This Assembly has clearly left the church with
very serious unfinished business. The report of the Special Committee
had created so much opposition (in many cases bordering on hysteria)
that it is unlikely that any study based on it would have accomplished
much. Thus a new start was needed.
My personal concern is that the church may find itself in a position
it is impossible to get out of. The membership is simply not prepared
to believe that the God allows sex outside of marriage. But at least
the leaders understand that the current stand of the church is viewed
as unrealistic by many members and children of members, and that many
of these people consider that the church's position is causing them
great personal pain. I believe many people are hoping to find a way
to reaffirm traditional values without being willing to take a clear
stand that those who violate them need to repent. The letter itself
shows clear signs of this ambivalence.
I have long believed that the unsettled issues of Biblical authority
are a time bomb ticking away within the liberal churches. I think the
bomb may be about to explode. What I mean by this is that churches
such as the Presbyterian Church (USA) have both rejected inerrancy and
accepted that the Christians may do things that are condemned by
passages in the Bible. Our seminaries teach the critical approach to
the Bible, and our leaders accept liberal interpretive principles.
However our membership by and large does not, and even our cleryg are
unwilling to accept all of their consequences. As far as I can tell,
the church has not made a serious attempt to educate its membership in
the approach to the Bible that its scholars believe is correct, nor to
look seriously at what the implications of those beliefs would be for
ethics. The Special Committee is one of the clearest expositions
possible of the consequences of liberal Biblical interpretation
(though there are some areas in which even on its own principles some
further ethical guidelines are called for). So far it appears that
the church is trying to reject the consequences while continuing to
practice the nethodology that leads to them.
-------
By the way, I promised a few people that I would tell them how to get
copies of the report. Unfortunately I do not find anything in the
report saying how to get a copy. However it seems a pretty safe bet
that you could contact
Distribution Management Services
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
100 Witherspoon St.
Louisville, KY 40202-1396
I believe their number is 1-800-524-2612. Although it isn't the exact
title of the report, I think the clearest way to refer to it is the
report of the General Assembly Special Committee on Human Sexuality.
You probably want both the majority and minority reports.math1h3@ELROY.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/21/91)
I applaud (what appears to be) our moderator's appeal for consistency and honesty in dealing with the laity of 'liberal' churches. A church should not represent itself as standing in the 'Sola Scriptura' tradition of the reformation when it manifestly has left that tradition. People should know what they are supporting with their offerings of time, talent, and treasure. Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the Scriptures and understand them? There was an interesting dipole between points made in the 'Pastoral letter' and in Chuck's comments. The letter noted that 'people seem to distrust the General Assembly,' whereas Chuck noted the disparity between what is taught in seminaries and what is taught to lay people. Isn't this the real source of 'distrust?' If the people want a conservative church, shouldn't they focus their attention on the seminaries, rather than the peripheral issues that (as a consequence of false teaching) are always appearing before their General Assembly? And shouldn't they learn to practice doctrinal discipline? I hope this General Assembly marks the beginning of a movement to bring back Scriptural Christianity in the PCUSA. While I know a few 'conservatives' in the PCUSA, they appear to me to be very lonely (and under-nourished) Christians in this church. Charitably yours, David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran (WELS) and ex-Presbyterian. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I'm not sure the people in the PCUSA do in fact want a conservative church. Certainly some of our members do, but I don't think most of them are really fundamentalists. What is clear is that they have very strong emotional reactions to homosexuality, and that once these are raised, they are probably not going to be able to hear much discussion on the subject. That doesn't mean that in the long run nothing is going to happen. You are absolutely right that if the membership wants a conservative church they should take steps to make sure that conservative standards are used in choosing leaders. (In the PCUSA this would have to be done in ordination exams, not in the seminaries. There are essentially no seminaries left under the control of the church. There are several with nominal ties to the church, but the church has stopped supplying more than a symbolic amount of money, and I don't think they have control either.) This is the battle that was fought earlier in the century, and the PCUSA is the "liberal" side of the resulting split. I'm not yet convinced that the membership wants to reverse that. I'm just not sure they've yet realized the full consequences of the earlier decisions. You obviously think that once they do see all the consequences, they'll change their mind. That remains to be seen. --clh]
jackk@leland.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) (06/23/91)
In article <Jun.21.05.36.00.1991.16758@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@ELROY.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: > >Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >Scriptures and understand them? > Actually, I believe the situation is quite the reverse....it seems to me that it is the ultra-conservative churches that are beginning to deny the 'priesthood of the believer' and 'the competency of the soul in spiritual matters'. These two principles were in important in the statement of the Baptist Faith and Message published by the Southern Baptist Convention. Recently, however, the trend has been to enforce one central interpretation of scripture. Those disagreeing with this interpretation are labeled with the epithet "liberal" (amusing because even "liberal" Southern Baptists would be considered "conservative" by many), and a purge is currently underway in the SBC seminaries of any who disagree with the interpretation of scripture determined by the "conservatives" currently in power. The whole notion of "someone in power" who enforces a certain scriptural interpretation seems counter to the whole history of the Southern Baptists who have traditionally had no notion of hierarchy in church polity. Another trend I dound disturbing was the slow abandonment of the traditional Baptist view on separation of church and state. Baptists have, in the past, been wary of mixing the two due to the historical persecution of, for instance, the anabaptists. Today, with their rise to political power, the Southern Baptists have been quite willing to encourage laws that favor the mixing of church and state. For these reasons, I decided to leave the Southern Baptist denomination after 26 years, and join a local Lutheran congregation (which most Baptists would consider a "liberal" denomination), as I found it more closely followed principles formerly held dear by the Baptists. I welcome any discussion the people may have on these trends in traditionally conservative protestant churches. Jack Kouloheris
fullmer@dolphin.sps.mot.com (Glen Fullmer) (06/23/91)
In article <Jun.16.13.35.51.1991.14798@athos.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: > We have reaffirmed in no uncertain terms the authority of the > scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. We have strongly reaffirmed > the sanctity of the marriage covenant between one man and one woman to ^^^^^^^^^ Moses, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph would be *glad* to hear that! > be a God-given relationship to be honored by marital fidelity. We > continue to abide by the 1978 and 1979 positions of the Presbyterian > Church on homosexuality. -- Glen Fullmer/Data Warehouse Project, fullmer@dolphin.sps.mot.com, (602)962-2743 ******************************************************************************* * "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence * * over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman * *******************************************************************************
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/24/91)
In article <Jun.23.00.07.33.1991.21253@athos.rutgers.edu>, jackk@leland.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) writes: >In article <Jun.21.05.36.00.1991.16758@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@ELROY.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >> >>Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >>anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >>Scriptures and understand them? >> > >Actually, I believe the situation is quite the reverse....it seems to me >that it is the ultra-conservative churches that are beginning to deny the >'priesthood of the believer' and 'the competency of the soul in spiritual >matters'. These two principles were in important in the statement of the >Baptist Faith and Message published by the Southern Baptist Convention. >Recently, however, the trend has been to enforce one central interpretation >of scripture. Here you are running up against another doctrine which is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Namely that Christians should not practice fellowship with those who teach false doctrine. See in particular Romans 16:17-18, although ultimately this doctrine can be traced back to the command, 'You shall have no other gods.' I don't know that much of the history of the Baptists, but it appears to me that they have been slow to learn this. What should we judge to be 'false doctrine?' We can't just base this on a difference of opinion. However if something is clearly taught in Scripture, and someone teaches contrary doctrine, and we admonish them, yet they persist and do not repent, then we cannot practice fellowship with them. An example I might use has to do with the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper. This is clearly taught in Scripture, for Christ said 'This is my body' and 'This is my blood.' Also Paul wrote, "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord," (1 Cor 11:27) and, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanksa participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"--1 Cor 10:16. So I could not practice fellowship with someone who taught that the bread and wine only represent Christ's body and blood. But then some people believe they can determine the moment when the real presence takes place. Now it is Lutheran doctrine that the real presence is effected by Christ's words (the 'Words of Institution'), and these words are always repeated when we celebrate the sacrament. This is similar to Luther's explanation of Baptism, where he said that Baptism is not just water, which of itself has no power, but water connected with the Word of God. But Scripture does not indicate when the real presence takes place, and furthermore, as far as I can tell, it does not edify us to know when this takes place. We need only to believe and trust Christ's words, 'take, eat, this is my body...take, drink, this is my blood.' Now if you choose to believe that the real presence takes place *when* the Words of Institution are spoken, there may be no harm in that. But if you start telling me that I have to argree with you on *when* the real presence takes place, then you are going beyond scripture, and violating my conscience and my priesthood. >Another trend I dound disturbing was the slow abandonment of the traditional >Baptist view on separation of church and state. Baptists have, in the past, >been wary of mixing the two due to the historical persecution of, for instance, >the anabaptists. Today, with their rise to political power, the Southern >Baptists have been quite willing to encourage laws that favor the mixing of >church and state. It is rather interesting that the trend among Lutherans has been the opposite. Luther, of course, worked under the protection of his Elector, Frederick of Saxony, and Lutheran churches, as a consequence of the treaty ending the thirty years war (correct my history if I'm wrong) were 'state' churches. (the religion of a political entity was determined by the prince/duke/whatever). But the Lutherans that came to the US about 150 years ago came here because they saw that the state church had abandoned the historic Lutheran faith, and that the state persecuted those that wanted to exercise that faith. And so Lutherans in this country have a very healthy respect for the separation of church and state. Incidentally, the separation of church and state is a *biblical* doctrine. For Christ said, "Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, but give to God that which is God's". >For these reasons, I decided to leave the Southern Baptist denomination >after 26 years, and join a local Lutheran congregation (which most >Baptists would consider a "liberal" denomination), as I found it more >closely followed principles formerly held dear by the Baptists. >I welcome any discussion the people may have on these trends in >traditionally conservative protestant churches. There are Lutherans and then there are Lutherans. I would probably consider the ELCA 'liberal', the LCMS 'moderate' (and still fighting) and the WELS and ELS 'conservative'. Then there is TAALC, which split off from the ELCA, and which appears to be charismatic. These labels can be misleading. I still run into ex-LCMS people who tell me how 'strict' the LCMS is or was, but I don't associate 'strict' with 'conservative.' Then again, what you seem to be showing us is that labels such as 'Lutheran' or 'Baptist' aren't very reliable, either. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [Do you have any references other than Rom 16:17-18? There are a number of reference about using excommunication in the case of moral offenses, but I can't immediately think of one suggesting it for doctrinal disagreement. The Rom passage condemns those who would cause dissensions and offenses, as well as people who use wiles to deceive the innocent. This seems somewhat different from saying to keep yourself separate from people who disagree with you theologically. The closest thing I can find is 2 Jn 1:9-10: "Everyone who does not abide in the teachings of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God ... Do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching." However in context this seems specifically directed against those who deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It may not necessarily be applied to all disagreements. One passage that has often been used to argue for unity of doctrine is Eph 4:5: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", though again it doesn't say what to do when unity doesn't exist. One could probably even argue that Rom 16:17 and Eph 4:5 oppose splitting the church on doctrinal grounds. "You shall have no other gods" is interesting, but like Eph 4:5, having one God does not necessarily say what to do when people disagree about what God wants us to do. The NT in general, and particularly the Pastorals, talks a lot about false teachers. Oddly enough, mostly it just condemns them. It doesn't normally say to eject those who believe things that are false. Note that the emphasis is primarily on condemnation of people who teach false doctrines from false motivations. The implication is that false doctrine can come only from a desire for influence and power. It is less clear what to do when genuine disagreements exist within the body of Christ. (Of course historically there has been a tendency to say that everyone who disagreements does so from corrupt motives. This sort of automatic ad hominem seems to have become unconvincing in the last century or so.) In most cases Paul seems to counsel toleration, as in the case of eating meat. Note also Titus 3:9, which prohibits controversies over the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (As moderator, I agree completely.) It also prohibits having anything to do with anyone who causes divisions. Should we apply this to people who refuse to have communion with those who differ on eucharistic theology? --clh]
iadt1kr@prism.gatech.edu (J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR)) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.24.01.45.29.1991.13567@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >Christians should not practice fellowship >with those who teach false doctrine. See in particular Romans 16:17-18, > >What should we judge to be 'false doctrine?' We can't just base this >on a difference of opinion. However if something is clearly taught in >Scripture, and someone teaches contrary doctrine, and we admonish them, >yet they persist and do not repent, then we cannot practice fellowship >with them. > >An example I might use has to do with the Real Presence of Christ's body >and blood in the Lord's Supper. This is clearly taught in Scripture, for >Christ said 'This is my body' and 'This is my blood.' If you believe that all direct statements in the bible must be interepreted literally then you must, of course, believe literally that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If you allow that the creation story as recorded in Genesis is allegorical then how do you distinguish between texts which should be interpreted literally and which should be used as inspirational material which should not be interpreted literally? As for your specific example of transubstantiation, are you saying that Jesus literally tore pieces from his still-living body at the last supper and fed them to the disciples? How is saying that the bread is the body of Christ different from saying that the Church is the body of Christ? (At least, if I'm recalling my Westminster Confession even approximately it asks "who is the head of the Church?" and the proper answer is "Jesus Christ is the head of the Church." Further, somewhere in there it states that the Church is the body of Christ on Earth, or something similar. While the WC is not scripture it is based on careful study of scripture and the words were quite carefully chosen. I am composing this response without ready access to reference sources and so am no doubt leaving myself open to thorough denunciation, but when adament positions are taken based upon "clear" statements which are not open to interpretation, especially when such positions lead to arguments for denouncing other believers (not practicing fellowship with ...) then I get frustrated with the arrogance of those who believe they have found "the Truth" which they claim others have gotten all wrong.) -- J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR) Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!iadt1kr ARPA: iadt1kr@prism.gatech.edu
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.24.01.45.29.1991.13567@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: Our moderator writes: > >[Do you have any references other than Rom 16:17-18? There are a >number of reference about using excommunication in the case of moral >offenses, but I can't immediately think of one suggesting it for >doctrinal disagreement. > On the positive side, we have 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." This describes what our fellowship should be like. On the negative side, there is Amos 3:3 "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?" If I walk in fellowship with one who teaches false doctrine, and do not admonish him, the Lord may impute his sin to me! also 2 Cor 6:14-18: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty" This, curiously enough, was cited by the Lutherans in the Formula of Concord in answer to the question, 'In times of persecution, when a confession is called for, and when the enemies of the Gospel have not come to an agreement with us in doctrine, may we with an inviolate conscience yield to their pressure and demands, reintroduce some ceremonies that have fallen into disuse and that in themselves are indifferent things and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, and thus come to an understanding with them in such ceremonies and indifferent things?' [Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article X] Of course the 'enemies of the Gospel' that were in view were the Catholic Church, and, to a lesser extent, the Zwinglians. Do I have the stomach to say that somebody who, for example, denies the real presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Lord's supper, is an unbeliever? Not really. (I confess, I sometimes chuckle to myself about 'those unbelieving Baptists', but I really don't mean it. Or do I? :-) ) At the same time, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the difference in doctrine over the real presence *has* caused divisions in the church, starting at Marburg, we might say. >In most cases Paul seems to counsel >toleration, as in the case of eating meat. Note also Titus 3:9, which >prohibits controversies over the law, for they are unprofitable and >worthless. (As moderator, I agree completely.) Paul counsels toleration concerning indifferent things, adiaphora. These are things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. I don't find him counselling toleration regarding doctrine--what is clearly taught in Scripture. There is a clue in Titus 3:9 where he mentions 'genealogies'. Doubtless there were a number of Jewish Christians who still clung to arguing about fine points of the law, such as whether a woman cound wear a gold tooth on the Sabbath--things that are not determined by Scripture, or simply not applicable to the Christian (ceremonial law). Do I argue the Law too much? Perhaps. But for me, the Law concerning homosexuality and fornication is comletely non-controversial. Paul also discusses a similar problem in 1 Timothy 1:3-7. But then he goes on to say "We know that the law is good if a man uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irrelegious; for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--**and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.**" Is there a distinction between the sin of teaching false doctrine and 'immorality'? First of all, I think teaching false doctrine is a sin against the commandment 'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.' In the old testament, where we see that somebody 'called on the name of the Lord', they were probably preaching and teaching. If anything, teaching false doctrine, particularly doctrine that leads people away from their savior, is the worst sin imaginable. We might respond to this the same way the disciples responded to Jesus' teaching on marriage: "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry (or preach)". Yet there are still some, who, even though they recognize themselves as men of unclean lips, still respond to the Lord's call with "Here am I, Send me!" And thank God, people still get married, too. Amen. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "The Church's one foundation Is Jesus Christ, her Lord; She is His new creation By water and the Word. From heav'n He came and sought her To be His holy bride; With His own blood He bought her, And for her life He died. "Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, 'How long?' And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song." --The Church's One Foundation, v. 1,4 --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #473. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I don't see in any of this any Biblical passages that counsel breaking fellowship over doctrinal disagreements. Amos 3:3 is really tenuous, if you look at the context. As you point out yourself, 2 Cor 6:14 is talking about non-Christians, and you don't *really* mean to say that Christians you disagree with are non-Christians. You talk about teaching false doctrine as a sin. Although you don't cite any Scripture here (aside from the 1st Commandment, and I doubt you *really* believe your Baptist colleages are worshipping idols), I agree that Paul and other NT authors condemn teaching false doctrine in a number of places. Their comments in doing so tend to associate false teaching with causing divisions. It seems to me that it's one thing to eject a teacher of false doctrine in order to prevent him from causing divisions, and another to deal with the differences once they have occurred. I claim that in refusing communion to those who disagree with you, you are compounding the damage. --clh]
jackk@leland.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.24.01.45.29.1991.13567@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >>>Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >>>anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >>>Scriptures and understand them? >Here you are running up against another doctrine which is clearly taught >in the Scriptures. Namely that Christians should not practice fellowship >with those who teach false doctrine. See in particular Romans 16:17-18, >although ultimately this doctrine can be traced back to the command, >'You shall have no other gods.' > >What should we judge to be 'false doctrine?' We can't just base this >on a difference of opinion. However if something is clearly taught in >Scripture, and someone teaches contrary doctrine, and we admonish them, >yet they persist and do not repent, then we cannot practice fellowship >with them. The problem is just *who* is the 'we' that decides what is false doctrine? The traditional Baptist belief has been that it is the conscience of each believer with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not any centralized authority. If one cannot in good conscience remain in fellowship with a body of believers, then one moves on to find a body with 'like mind and belief.' I find myself in general agreement with the moderator's comments on your posting. I will avoid commenting on your comments on Eucharistic theology. I think that there has been more than enough debate on this subject and on infant baptism in this newsgroup recently and would hesitate to open either can of worms again. > >Then again, what you seem to be showing us is that labels such as >'Lutheran' or 'Baptist' aren't very reliable, either. Thanks be to God! Shouldn't the label "Christian" be more important? Jack
carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) (06/25/91)
In article <Jun.21.05.36.00.1991.16758@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@ELROY.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >Scriptures and understand them? I hesitate to generalize about the Episcopal Church at large (anyone should), but I've been involved in fruitful and productive Bible study on a number of occasions with fellow Episcopalians whose views on Scriptural interpretation would have to be described as "liberal". On the other hand, my experiences as a United Methodist were entirely different. Nearly all the Bible study I participated in there was pretty juvenile, centering on personal feelings and reactions rather than the Scriptures themselves. My parish priest speaks quite glibly of the priesthood of believers, although we don't have laymen celebrating the Eucharist or pronouncing absolution (yet). -- Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/26/91)
In article <Jun.25.03.42.20.1991.7377@athos.rutgers.edu>, ssc-bee!ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > > My parish priest speaks quite glibly of the priesthood of believers, >although we don't have laymen celebrating the Eucharist or pronouncing >absolution (yet). Few conservative theologians would confuse the 'priesthood of believers' with the public, pastoral ministry. However the priesthood of believers did play a role in the Lutheran rejection of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic bishops. Melancthon, in his Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, says that the "keys of the kingdom" were given "to the church, and not merely to certain individuals: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' " (Matt 18:20) "Finally, this is confirmed by the declaration of Peter, "You are a royal priesthood," (1 Peter 2:9). These words apply to the true church which, since it alone possesses the priesthood, certainly has the right of electing and ordaining ministers. The most common custom of the church also bears witness to this, for there was a time when the people elected pastors and bishops. Afterwards a bishop, either of that church or of a neighboring church, was brought in to confirm the election with the laying on of hands; nor was ordination anything more than such a confirmation." I thought you might find this interesting as a point of history. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/26/91)
In article <Jun.25.03.35.50.1991.7274@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >Our moderator writes: >>[Do you have any references other than Rom 16:17-18? There are a >>number of reference about using excommunication in the case of moral >>offenses, but I can't immediately think of one suggesting it for >>doctrinal disagreement. (I had supplied some more references, including Amos 3:3, 2 Cor 6:14, 1 Tim 1:8-11, 1 Cor 1:10. > >[I don't see in any of this any Biblical passages that counsel >breaking fellowship over doctrinal disagreements. Amos 3:3 is really >tenuous, if you look at the context. As you point out yourself, 2 Cor >6:14 is talking about non-Christians, and you don't *really* mean to >say that Christians you disagree with are non-Christians. I believe that yes, Christians must try to prevent divisions. I think Luther really tried to come to agreement with Zwingli--not by compromising, but by explaining the Scriptures to him. And in fact they came to agreement on everything except the Lord's Supper. And so, to their mutual regret, they had to go their separate ways. Regarding the use of 2 Cor 6:14, I think that at various points in its history, the church has come to a point where at least one side has to say, 'We have tried to come to terms, but you persist in teaching this false doctrine. Therefore we have to recognize that a division has occurred, and that you and we are practicing two different religions. Therefore our fellowship is broken.' In particular this is what happened between the Lutherans and the Catholics. Now the Formula of Concord, 1580, was written some time after this split had taken place (we might say the split started with Luther's excommunication). Yet some were still trying to achieve a false peace by compromising with Rome on Adiaphora. The authors of the Formula (Martin Chemnitz, James Andrae, others) recognized the danger to the church this represented (people might return to thinking of Rome as 'The Church', other forms of backsliding) and so emphasized the split with the words of 2 Cor 6:14. >You talk about teaching false doctrine as a sin. Although you don't >cite any Scripture here (aside from the 1st Commandment, Just for clarification, Lutherans call "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD you God", the second commandment. Some number them otherwise, and I do not judge them. > Their comments in doing so tend to associate >false teaching with causing divisions. It seems to me that it's one >thing to eject a teacher of false doctrine in order to prevent him >from causing divisions, and another to deal with the differences once >they have occurred. I claim that in refusing communion to those who >disagree with you, you are compounding the damage. Is the damage done by maintaining a separation, or by teaching false doctrine? Just a few more references: Jude, 2 Peter 2, Galations 1:8-9, 1 Tim 1:18-20, 2 Tim 2:16-18, 2 Tim 3:1-9, particularly v. 5, 2 Tim 4:1-4,. As for avoiding fellowship: "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him" --Titus 3:10. You might say that this applies only to those who get involved in "foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law." But you have already admitted that false doctrine causes divisions. In my Bible there is a suggestion that Titus 3:9,10 is connected to Titus 1:10-16. Let me try to explain how I would apply this in ordinary church life (apart from major schisms). Suppose a church member disagrees with me in doctrine, say, in a Bible class. Do I insist that he be kicked out, then and there? No. I try to explain the truth of Scripture to him--particularly as it is taught in this church. If he agrees with me, or even says, 'I'll have to think about that for a while', fine, I have no problem in continuing in fellowship with him. But if he continues to argue with me, and, moreover, is wrong, and makes trouble, or secretly goes about trying to win people over to his views, then out he goes--or I go. I find this preferable (and more scriptural, and perhaps even more loving) than the sort of fighting that is going on in the LCMS or the SBC. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Built on the Rock the Church doth stand Even when steeples are falling; Crumbled have spires in ev'ry land, Bells still are chiming and calling, Calling the young and old to rest, But above all the soul distrest, Longing for rest everlasting." --"Kirken den er et gammelt Hus" v. 1 --Nicolai F. S. Grundtvig, 1837. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (06/26/91)
In article <Jun.25.03.42.20.1991.7377@athos.rutgers.edu> ssc-bee!ssc-vax!carroll@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes: > I hesitate to generalize about the Episcopal Church at large >(anyone should), but I've been involved in fruitful and productive Bible >study on a number of occasions with fellow Episcopalians whose views on >Scriptural interpretation would have to be described as "liberal". > > On the other hand, my experiences as a United Methodist were >entirely different. Nearly all the Bible study I participated in there >was pretty juvenile, centering on personal feelings and reactions rather >than the Scriptures themselves. Yeah, generalizations are *very* easy to make, and not a good idea at all. We all know that the beliefs and practices of different religions vary widely. Differences can be easily found between the denominations of Christianity, and also between different congregations in a single denomination. One of my pastoral friends is currently researching a paper she is writing on the differences of belief between members of the same congregation. She finds that they can vary widely, even their feelings on the fact that other members of the church believe differently than they do. While one rejoices in diversity of belief, another believes that they must search for a congregation where everyone agrees on what this particular Christian knows to be "the truth". Back in the early 80's I was invloved in a cast of Godspell that went about performing in churches in upstate New York (mostly Roman Catholic churches). While one church insisted that we perform in a social hall, (which had no stage), another church insisted that we perform in the sanctuary. Still another church had us perform in the sanctuary, but took great pains to (pardon my lack of correct terminology) remove "the host" from the box up front, and leave the door open so that all could see that "the host" was absent. Three or four years later, I again toured with Godspell, (put on by the same organization), we revisited a number of the churches. In many cases, the individual congregations reversed their stand on where the show should appropriately be performed. (In most cases they moved us from a social hall to the sanctuary.) These differences didn't surprise me much. I was raised in one church of a two-point charge, (two congregations served by the same pastor). And I had observed how different our two congregations were, (and yet how similar). The two churches had families that changed membership back and forth, (obviously not because of the pastor). My congregation might be considered liberal. Travel less than 3 miles and you'll find another UMC congregation that is more conservative. Travel 5 in a different direction and you'll find one which is still more conservative. Travel 10 miles, and you'll find a number which are more liberal. One man who has been worshipping with us lately told me how much more accepting our congregation was. He had come from a small Lutheran congregation who he said "wouldn't even worship with the other Lutheran congregation down the road." From this I wouldn't draw the conclusion that UMC congregations are more accepting than Lutheran congregations, only that our particular congregation was perceived by him to be more accepting than another congregation which happened to be Lutheran. My present pastor has two masters degrees, and is working on her dissertation. Her Bible studies appear in our conference newsletter, and might be called "challenging" or "scholarly", but certainly not "juvenile". I don't conclude from this that all UMC pastors are highly educated biblical scholars. What much of it comes down to in my view, is not the denomination, but the people involved. This is why I get frustrated when someone makes a sweeping generalization about a denomination based upon their experiences with a very small minority of that denomination. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton Christian First United Methodist Second
tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard) (06/27/91)
Since one of the keys of this discussion seems to be 'who' makes the decision
as to what is 'false belief', I would like to insert something that I have not
noted in anyone's belief system. (Maybe I just have not been around long
enough.)
The Doctrine of the Supremacy of the Informed Conscience will make the
decision for a believer, if there is doubt after spiritual direction, reading
and prayer. When we have met the tests of the informed conscience, then we
are able to discern right from wrong. This doctrine understands an honest
attempt at discernment, and a full investigation of the problem. It accepts
individual decision as supreme when all the criteria are met. It is much
like the Baptist view put forth by the last writer, except requires more
meditation, direction, prayer and study. In other words, you don't just say
"OK, God, tell me what the answer is by revelation" and not pursue the quest
for revelation through traditional means.
To comment on the thread, I hold that the Pauline epistles, excluding the
basic core Christology, are specific answers about specific questions asked by
the specific church, and are not a general thesaurus of Chrsitian doctrine to
be applied across the board to everyone in every situation. The seeming
inconsistancies of Paul then become clear, as the problems of the Christians
in Rome were much different that the problems of the Christian in Corinth.
Grace and Peace... /Len Howard
a confessing Episcopalian