djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/16/91)
In article <Jan.9.23.23.40.1991.20695@athos.rutgers.edu> gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) writes: >Someone recently made the comment that they were not in a "church" >because they were not in agreement with any group. That was me. >I find that most people have the idea that a local church is made up of >people who all think alike, who are in agreement on every principle. >Certainly unity is required on some points. The fact of Christ's diety, >the plan of salvation, these and others are examples of things that must >be agreed upon for the group to worship together. Agreed... as far as you go. But the fact that there _are_ different churches (as opposed to the one Church, of which I am a member and presume you are also), shows that these various temporal organizations are indeed very doctrinally based. The only one I can think of offhand that _isn't_ is the Unitarian Universalist church, and since I'm a trinitarian, I can't exactly feel comfortable there. >Fellowship with God is based on Faith in God, not in flawless knowledge >or performance. If God does not demand perfect knowledge of us how can we >demand it of each other? To know God is, and has alway been, to pay >attention to lovingkindness, justice, and righteouness. There is a difference between fellowship and membership in a temporal organization called a "church." I am practicing fellowship by participating in this forum, n'est-ce pas? As a devoted reader of C.S. Lewis, I _do_ understand your point; and I recall his observation that the variety of churches is like a long hall with lots of doors, and that what matters is that you get into some room and not remain in the hall. But I have this in reply: I find that (because of who I am) I become irritable and rebellious during most church services. Now, first of all, if I become enough so that I spoil someone else's experience of the service, I am clearly doing more harm than good by being there. And, second, I remember Jesus' telling us that we should make ourselves right with our brothers before we come to offer sacrifice. While I am a bit concerned that an unwilling soul (such as mine may be) may use this as an excuse to avoid churchgoing when I know perfectly well I should, I feel that, in combination with the above, I would do more harm than good by attending church. Catholics -- with whom I am in a great deal of doctrinal harmony -- and other sects would point out to me here that I am cutting myself off from the Lord's Supper. All I can say is that, in my opinion, this is not so, but to explain it would involve a doctrinal discussion even more out of place on this forum than I suspect this excess of personal effusion is. Praise God and pass the A-1 sauce, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [The degree of doctrinal commitment for a number of churches is quite limited. Baptists specifically deny that they hold members to a creed. Presbyterians -- although we have standards that officers pledge to be guided by in some general sense -- require nothing of members other than the pledge that they have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I believe Methodists are similar. A lot of differences have to do with church government, liturgy, etc., though I admit that there are some general differences in belief. --clh]
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (01/16/91)
In article <Jan.9.23.23.40.1991.20695@athos.rutgers.edu> gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) writes: >Someone recently made the comment that they were not in a "church" >because they were not in agreement with any group. >But the concept of agreement on all principles is not found in the Bible. >For example the church at Corinth contained some who thought it wrong to >eat meat sacrificed to idols. Others saw nothing wrong with that. Paul >refers to both as brethern and did not urge a break in fellowship. Rather >he encouraged the one to bear the infirmities of the other. The head >covering would be another example of this. I think I would draw more precise guidelines than Stanley, although I appreciate much of what he said. A prequisite for fellowship is agreement on doctrine, i.e., the things that are clearly taught in Scripture. Practices which are neither forbidden not commanded by God -- adiaphora -- must not be an obstacle to fellowship. Clearly we will not refuse fellowship to those who do not understand all of christian doctrine, either because they are new to the faith, or are still immature in their faith, or who are mentally impaired. The church does have a responsibility to intruct these in the basics of the faith. Those, however, who oppose the doctrines of Scripture, we must not practice fellowship with. The clearest passage on this is Romans 16:17-18: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Their are other relevant passages: 2 Cor 6:14-18, Amos 3:3: "Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to do so?", and, ultimately, the commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me." --Ex 20:3. I think it is apparent that few people who join a church understand all of its doctrine. Most Lutherans, regrettably, have not read the Lutheran confessions. However, I would prefer that first they read the Bible. Some people join a church, perhaps holding some reservations about doctrine. The main thing here is that their conscience must be clear. I would advise against joining a church that teaches something clearly contrary to scripture. The place where 'full agreement in doctrine' has its most important application is in fellowship or merger between two or more church bodies. In this century, unfortunately, many churches have merged without prior agreement in doctrine. The end result is that the church's confession of faith is watered down; or internal strife results when the members of the the resulting church realize they are not in agreement. I think this is particularly true of the ELCA. We are starting to see a call for orthodoxy from some in the ELCA; in some cases it comes from men such as Braaten who have taught a great deal that is unorthodox. Perhaps this reflects a change of heart; I certainly hope so. But the time to call for orthodoxy is before the papers are signed! David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [The most extreme venture in this direction is the Consultation on Church Union. Many people thought it had died, but I can testify that it's still going on its way. The latest proposal is for 9 denominations (in the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalean traditions, if I recall) should "covenant" with other, rather than completely merge. This involves recognizing each other sacraments, ordination, etc. Most of the other groups have at least titular bishops. It's going to be interesting to see Episcopaleans recognizing Methodist bishops as equivalent, and even more interesting to see what the Presbyterians present as an equivalent. (We figure it will be a commission consisting of half Ministers of the Word and Sacraments and half Ruling Elders.) --clh]
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (01/16/91)
In article <Jan.9.23.23.40.1991.20695@athos.rutgers.edu> gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) writes: >Someone recently made the comment that they were not in a "church" >because they were not in agreement with any group. >I find that most people have the idea that a local church is made up of >people who all think alike, who are in agreement on every principle. >Certainly unity is required on some points. The fact of Christ's diety, >the plan of salvation, these and others are examples of things that must >be agreed upon for the group to worship together. ... >Fellowship with God is based on Faith in God, not in flawless knowledge >or performance. If God does not demand perfect knowledge of us how can we >demand it of each other? To know God is, and has alway been, to pay >attention to lovingkindness, justice, and righteouness. This sounds pretty reasonable to me. Along these lines, here is something I posted previously on t.r.m. I suspect some will disagree with parts of it (especially the last paragraph) but i submit it as food for thought anyway so I'm not going to worry too much about that. Anyway, here it is: Obviously we feel more comfortable in a church we agree with. After all we expect the church to teach truth and if it is really from God it ought to do so. If I believe differently from what my church teaches then I believe the church must be in error on the points of dissagreement. That said I think there are other points also to consider: 1. I probably don't agree 100% with any other person. 2. I am imperfect and this applies to my wisdom and beliefs. Therefore, in at least some cases I am wrong. (If I only knew which of my beliefs were wrong things might be easier - or harder if I had to give up some dearly held beliefs.) 3. Any human organization is made up of people with these same problems. Therefore these fallible people will make mistakes and have some false beliefs (although these false beliefs will not necessarily be part of the official doctrine, if any). 4. In light of the above we ought not expect perfection in any person or organization on this earth. What then should we expect from a church? I'm sure there are many different reasonable answers, depending mainly upon the background of the person responding. However, here's a list I would use: 1. The church should be founded upon the truth. This of course is a problem to test unless we are absolutely sure of what the truth is but at least I can look for one founded upon what I believe to be true. 2. I probably ought to agree with most of its teachings. However, realizing that I am fallible I should be prepared to consider that I may be wrong and the church right. 3. The church should attempt to conform to the will of God, not try to make his teachings conform to the will of man. 4. I would go so far as to say that the church should be authorized by God. 5. If the Lord gave us apostles, prophets, etc. "Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man..." (Eph 4:11-15) then it would be nice to find this in a church today. I think true apostles and prophets would be an indication that a church is authorized of God.
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/23/91)
Ye Moderator writes: >[The degree of doctrinal commitment for a number of churches is quite >limited. . . A lot of >differences have to do with church government, liturgy, etc., though I >admit that there are some general differences in belief. --clh] It may be that what I am calling differences in belief, you are referring to as liturgical and church government... For example, one of the reasons I can't quite bring myself to become a Catholic is the matter of ecclesiastical authority; I don't buy it. Similarly w.r.t. liturgy: they do indeed vary, and to participate in a prayer I disagreed with would be, imho, lying to God. While I'm as human as the next & realize I undoubtedly lie to myself and to God, I can't feature doing it _knowingly_. Dan'l
mark@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mark Smotherman) (01/25/91)
>>[... Presbyterians -- although we have standards that officers >>pledge to be guided by in some general sense -- require nothing of >>members other than the pledge that they have Jesus Christ as their >>Lord and Savior. ...] > [... I don't know what standards the PCA, OPC, etc., have for > membership. Our PCA church requires that each prospective member come before the Session (i.e., board of elders) and have a credible profession of faith. This involves sharing his/her testimony of faith and answering questions, which, for our pastor, always include one of the Evangelism Explosion questions: "If you died tonight, are you sure you would go to heaven?" + "Why?" "If you were to stand before God at death and he asked why he should let you into heaven, what would be your response?" This is true for anyone, even those who "want to move their letter". Membership, therefore, does not require acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which represents what the denomination believes is a summary of what the Bible teaches. However, the PCA was founded in 1973 with the idea that officers (teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons) would strictly subscribe to the WCF and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's a current issue among some in the denomination as to whether "strict subscription" is being followed or not. Under strict subscription, a sticky point comes with Sunday School teachers, small group leaders, music directors, etc. Should they be required to subscribe strictly or not? What our church has done in the past is to ask the candidates for these positions to read the WCF and state any points on which they disagree. These points are listed in the Session minutes along with the motions to accept the candidates, and the candidates are asked to avoid teaching on any areas of disagreement. > > I think the primary difference between PC(USA) and PCA is that the > PC(USA) does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the PCA > does. Out of this come all the other differences, such as ordination > of women. > --clh] Agreed. -- Mark Smotherman, Comp. Sci. Dept., Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 INTERNET: mark@hubcap.clemson.edu UUCP: gatech!hubcap!mark
mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (01/27/91)
This post discusses the PCUSA practice, in an attempt to explain some
of the differences observed between it and the PCA.
In article <Jan.25.00.40.16.1991.13149@athos.rutgers.edu> mark@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mark Smotherman) writes:
Our PCA church requires that each prospective member come before the
Session (i.e., board of elders) and have a credible profession of
faith. This involves sharing his/her testimony of faith and answering
questions, which, for our pastor, always include one of the Evangelism
Explosion questions:
"If you died tonight, are you sure you would go to heaven?" + "Why?"
"If you were to stand before God at death and he asked why he should
let you into heaven, what would be your response?"
This is true for anyone, even those who "want to move their letter".
Membership, therefore, does not require acceptance of the Westminster
Confession of Faith (WCF), which represents what the denomination
believes is a summary of what the Bible teaches.
The PCUSA used to have specific questions to be answered by people
being received into membership. With the new Directory for Worship,
those questions have been removed, and the language is simply that
they make a "profession of faith". Personally, I would like to see
the old questions reinstated, to remove ambiguity. Nontheless, here
is more about what the Book of Order has to say about the process:
When persons baptized as infants reach an age when they are ready to
make public their profession of faith and accept their responsibility
in the life of the church, the session should invite, encourage, and
help them prepare for their responsibility as active church
members....
When persons who have not been baptized desire to profess their faith
in Christ and be incorporated in the life of the church as believers,
they shall do so by making public their profession of faith and
receiving Baptism after appropriate instruction and examination by
the session....
It is sometimes the case that persons who previously made a
profession of faith and became active members in a particular church
are unable to secure a certificate of transfer or other evidence of
church membership. After instruction and examination by the sessoin,
these persons shall reaffirm publicly their profession of faith and
their acceptance of responsibility in the life of the church.
(G-5.0101)
A faithful member accepts Christ's call to be involved responsibly in
the minstry of the church. Such involvement includes ... praying and
studying Scripture and the faith of the Christian church.
(G-5.0102)
The session shall have responsibility for preparing those who would
become members of the congregation.
While the preparation is a part of the continuing nurture of the
congregation, particular care shall be taken to prepare children of
members for public profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Instruction
shall be given in the meaning of this profession, the
responsibilities of membership, and the faith and order of the PCUSA.
Similar instruction shall be given to others who make a profession of
faith. The session shall determine whether this instruction shall be
given before or after the public profession.
(G-5.0401, 5.0402)
Those desiring the Sacrament of Baptism for their children or for
themselves shall make vows that
-- profess their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior,
-- renounce evil and affirm their reliance on God's grace,
-- declare their intention to participate actively and responsibly in
the worship and mission of the church.
(W-3.3603)
[The same requirement is made of children who are being received into
active membership by W-4.2003.]
The session ... has the responsibility and power ... to receive
members into the church upon profession of faith, upon reaffirmation
of faith in Jesus Christ, or upon satisfactory certification of
transfer of church membership....
(G-10.0102a)
As our moderator has pointed out, this all boils down to the lack of
very strong doctrinal requirements on members. They are asked to
participate in the church, to declare faith and trust in Christ, and
to be subject to the discipline of the church. That discipline
extends only so far as removal from membership, and is rarely
exercised against those not ordained.
However, the PCA was founded in 1973 with the idea that officers
(teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons) would strictly subscribe
to the WCF and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. It's a current issue
among some in the denomination as to whether "strict subscription" is
being followed or not.
The PCUSA (which has the same list as officers) also has stricter
requirements. We find:
It is necessary to the integrity and health of the church that the
persons who serve in it as officers shall adhere to the essentials of
the Reformed faith and polity as expressed in the Book of Confessions
and the Form of Government. So far as may be possible without
infringing on the rights and views of others, and without obstructing
the constitutional governance of the church, freedom of conscience
with respect to the interpretation of Scripture is to be maintained.
It is to be recognized, however, that in becoming a candidate or
officer of the PCUSA [candidates are those in the process of
ordination to the minstry of word and sacrament] one chooses to
exercise freedom of conscience within certain bounds. His or her
conscience is captive to the Word of God as interpreted in the
standards of the church so long as he or she continues to seek or
hold office in that body. The decision as to whether a person has
departed from essentials of Reformed faith and polity is made
initially by the individual concerned but ultimately become the
responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves.
(G-6.0108)
[The confessions of the PCUSA] are subordinate standards in the
church, subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as
the Scriptures bear witness to him. While confessional standards are
subordinate to the Scriptures, they are, nonetheless, standards.
They are not lightly drawn up or subscribed to, nor may they be
ignored or dismissed. The church is prepared to counsel with or even
to discipline one ordained who serious rejects the faith expressed in
the confessions.
(G-2.0200)
One of the questions for all those to be ordained is:
Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the
Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as
authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to
believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those
confessions as you lead the people of God?
(G-14.0207c, 14.0405c)
The important difference between this and the PCA is the degree of
adherence required. The PCUSA requries acceptance of the "essential
tenets", which the PCA requires "strict subscription". This allows an
officer of the PCUSA to disagree about particulars, but not with
whatever is "essential". The PCA requires a stricter standard.
Under strict subscription, a sticky point comes with Sunday School
teachers, small group leaders, music directors, etc. Should they be
required to subscribe strictly or not? What our church has done in
the past is to ask the candidates for these positions to read the WCF
and state any points on which they disagree. These points are listed
in the Session minutes along with the motions to accept the candidates,
and the candidates are asked to avoid teaching on any areas of
disagreement.
When the church teaches, it is expected to use the confessions. This
applies to Sunday School and all the rest. However, there is, again,
much more latitude here. The job of the church's teaching office is
not regarded in the PCUSA as inculcating the proper ideas and beliefs,
but rather one of challenging people to think about their own faith
and its relationship to the world.
I once thought that the average member in the PCUSA really didn't know
much about the doctrinal differences between their church and others.
This, I still suspect to be true. But I have discovered, somewhat to
my surprise, that the officers of the church, even when not
consciously seeking adherence to the confessions, still have a
distinctly Reformed tinge to their statements and ideas. They are
easily identifiable as members of the Reformed tradition.
-mib