Perspectives about denominations

[Peripatetic]

Peripatetic,
In my case, the "bullhorns" just slammed me and drowned out reason. I grew tired of trying to communicate with people who weren't going to listen, who are just going to call my ideas on the subject slippery slopes and call me names like "relativist." It just makes more sense to sit quietly in the corner, let the loud ones lead the discussion, and stay in my little free-thinking closet so I don't get rejected from my church.
Maybe you'll have a better experience...

I think it's all a matter of checks and balances. If some people didn't have a passion and borderline fanaticism about certain beliefs, they may have died away. Ultimately, I think we are better for knowing different points of view when they are rational explanations for the unknown.

Not all "interpretations" are benign and healthy to consider of course. Some have been twisted into dangerous false teachings tainted by worldliness, evil, or just misguided intentions. One example is a prosperity gospel that says God gives riches to the righteous and financial trouble to the sinners. Another would be the teaching that we shouldn't use medicine or doctors because we should leave our health up to God's will alone.

Unfortunately, for some people there is no difference between a "rational alternative interpretation" and "false teaching from a wolf". The bullhorns that you mention leave no room for the former.

 

[sunlover1]

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
2It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard,
even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion:
forthere the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think the issue is denominations per se. There are plenty of dogmatic non-denominational people. Indeed sometimes they're worse, because they think that because their beliefs didn't come from a denomination, they are the obvious truth.

How many times have Christians said "enough of this denominational business, let's start over" and come up with even more restrictive things that just aren't called denominations. Remember that the Mormons came out of one of those restoration movements, and in some sense so did the JW's. And of course, the CITYNAME Church of Christ is absolutely convinced that it's not a denomination, but the pure Gospel.

The responsible denominations know that there are dangers in having your own organization and beliefs, and guard against them. The non denominations still have organizations and beliefs, but may not be so careful.

Denominations have a couple of advantages:

* a structure beyond the church. This can help counteract weirdness. If local churches are isolated, the pastor tends to dominate them, and with no other structure, there's nothing to balance that one pastor's views, or to help the church if they have a problem with him.

* readymade structures for mission. Of course there are parachurch ministries for this, but more at the international level. On the community and area level, a lot of the work is coordinated by groups such as diocese or presbytery.

* a theological tradition. It's hard to follow "generic" Christianity. Lewis, in his wonderful "Mere Christianity" notes that he doesn't intend the common theology he describes to be the sole content of anyone's Christian beliefs. It's a common starting point, but real Christians need to grapple with the details, and for that you will want the guidance of a more specific tradition. Without any theological tradition, groups tend to pick what I regard as naive traditions, thinking of course that they've somehow escaped from having to make theological choices, while in fact making ill-considered ones.

The trick however is to realize that the structures and theological traditions are not of ultimate significance. They help us do our work and think about God. In that, they're useful. But they shouldn't isolate us from members of other denominations and traditions, nor should we place more weight on them than appropriate. What we need are humble denominations.

 

[realtruth101]

It is amazing how the people in denominations show that key doctrines are idols to them . They push and push specific doctrines that they consider define their groups . It is *soooo* important that everyone else believes those key doctrines . They bring them up again and again - as if there were no responses whatsoever in previous threads/discussions or that they have no memory that there *were* previous threads/discussions . Yet , again and again they act as if they are curious as to why others don't agree with their doctrines because they are so well spelled out .

Actually its because so many new and different doctrines are taught, which really is the reason for so many different denominations. People long to find a group of Christians that believes the way they do, whether it is right or wrong like minded people are less likely to argue with each other, and why should they when they have everyone else to argue with

 

[realtruth101]

I think this is where you and I fundamentally disagree. It's not a matter of ignoring or RE-interpreting scripture because there is no single baseline interpretation to change. There are hundreds of passages in the Bible for which learned theologians (who have studied "the whole of scripture") do not agree.

Consider John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

What does this mean? The Bible Knowledge Commentary describes five different "accepted" views: 1. Water = natural birth, spirit = birth from above; 2. water = the Word of God; 3. water = Baptism as an essential part of regeneration; 4. water = symbol of the Holy Spirit; 5. water = repentance (because water was used as a symbol for cleansing).

How do you know which one is right? Someone who believes in Baptism as "an essential part of regeneration" would say that it couldn't be more clear, while others would explain the context and why it shouldn't be taken literally. That same person may claim that another passage is obviously literal and dismiss the alternate contextual meaning. This is what is known as Confirmation Bias: favoring data (ie. literal interpretation vs. contextual explanation) that supports a preconception.

I saw a great example of this on a web site about tattoos. The author said that Leviticus 19:28 prohibits tattoos, therefore tattoos are sinful. When countering a question about the verse right before it that prohibits cutting hair and trimming a beard, the author said that you have to consider the context, the culture at the time, and that it related to the verse about sorcery and divination. Most unbiased readers would probably infer either that both of those passages were literal rules or that both were contextually linked to pagan culture and the verse about sorcery. FYI: I don't particularly like tattoos, so this isn't about the substance of the argument... just using it as an example of the author's confirmation bias and apparent blindness to it.

Think of the hundreds upon hundreds of verses that have multiple accepted meanings, linguistic nuances, lost idioms, unknown contexts, etc. Now, consider the fact that our interpretations of all of these come from what we've been taught or conclusions that we've reached on our own. There are only two possibilities:

1. One or more human beings was granted the gift of inerrant Biblical interpretation and has directly or indirectly passed it on to me without distortion. Those who have other interpretations are wrong.

OR

2. No human being (other than Jesus) has been granted the gift of inerrant Biblical interpretation. My theological understanding is based on a combination of mostly good, but flawed teachings and my own imperfect inferences. I am confident that most of my views are correct, but I am unsure of some of them and concede that those with different interpretations may be right.

I chose #2.



Again, relativism says that there is more than one system of truth. I'm saying that there is only one perfect system of truth, but we aren't capable of knowing all of it. We know the important foundational aspects, but some debatable matters are not knowable by God's design. I believe that that lack of complete knowledge is part of our humility. The understanding that God gives us is sufficient, and we trust in him the way a child doesn't understand all of the aspects of household finance, but trusts that he will be cared for.

The comment about not right or wrong, but different was more in line with denominational differences - not doctrine per se. Some speak in tongues, some don't. Some feel a physical rushing in of the Spirit and have a "born again moment", others don't. Some do infant Baptism sprinkling, some adult immersion Baptism. Some have structured liturgical services, others are less formal. Not right, not wrong... just different.

I just misinterpreted everything you just said!.......just kidding! good post!

 

[Peripatetic]

I don't think the issue is denominations per se. There are plenty of dogmatic non-denominational people. Indeed sometimes they're worse, because they think that because their beliefs didn't come from a denomination, they are the obvious truth.

...

The trick however is to realize that the structures and theological traditions are not of ultimate significance. They help us do our work and think about God. In that, they're useful. But they shouldn't isolate us from members of other denominations and traditions, nor should we place more weight on them than appropriate. What we need are humble denominations.

Well said. Narrow thinking is not confined to denominations. To your list of advantages, I would add accountability. Non-denominational churches don't really answer to anyone, and are very dependent on the theological beliefs of the head pastor. Most are probably fine, but I've heard plenty of stories that made my heart sink. Of course the same thing happens in denominations sometimes (including the leadership), but there's a better chance of accountability when a leadership system is in place.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The Moravian church has a motto that starts with "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty". I confess that I don't know too much about them, other than what Wikipedia has to say, but I've grown to understand how unusual that belief is. I guess the crux of the argument is: what is essential and what is non-essential?

Speaking of the Moravians this is from Count Zinzendorf in "Classics of Western Spirituality, Pietists , selected writings."

I like that he stressed the centrality of experience and methods over concepts :

Religion must be a matter which is able to be grasped through experience alone without any concepts. If this were not so a deaf or a blind, or a mentally deficient man or a child could not have the religion necessary for salvation...

There is less at stake in the truth of concepts than in the truth of experience; errors in doctrine are not as bad as errors in methods and ignorant person is not as evil as a blockhead.

Understanding arising from concepts changes with time, education, and other circumstances. Understanding arrived at from experience is not subject to these changes; such understanding becomes better with time and circumstances.

Despite this he didn't teach that man couldn't pull himself up by his bootstraps but that he required the revelation of Christ. The initiative starts with God and not man:

If the divinity did not give itself to be understood by a man, it could not desire that a man understand it

Revelation is indispensably necessary in human experience;that revelation be reduced to conceivable concepts , however is not so much necessary as useful.

Though he thought relationship with God transcends concepts and perfect rational formulation he still encouraged investigation and an almost scientific testing of doctrines and teachings biblicaly and through lived experience.

He also was very ecumenical and provided safe haven from persecution for people of differing beliefs. In fact he encouraged the people he converted NOT to leave the Christian denomination they belonged to by birth but merely to live the Christian way more devoutly.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The Moravian church has a motto that starts with "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty". I confess that I don't know too much about them, other than what Wikipedia has to say, but I've grown to understand how unusual that belief is. I guess the crux of the argument is: what is essential and what is non-essential?

That's precisely why it's unusual. It's a soundbite phrase for people to brush aside doctrinal differences and pretend that there is unity when there really isn't any. Every denomination has completely different ideas of what is "essential" and what is "non-essential."

It's also a way for people to justify the existence of their belief system. Stating "We cannot know the full truth" (which isn't really based on anything solid, mind you) allows them to rationalize the idea that they are probably right. It gives their own beliefs legitimacy while allowing them to come off as "accepting" of other beliefs even if they disagree with those beliefs.

For what it's worth, here is my very abbreviated take on it: the elements of the Nicene creed which most of us share is the absolute foundation or basement. From there, is the "first floor" of beliefs that are almost universally followed, but may not be directly in the creed. The "second floor" contains a number of important theological doctrines that are debatable. Examples include end times/rapture, predestination, real presence in the Eucharist, timing and importance of Baptism, etc. Finally, you'll find the "attic" which leaves room for the lesser-important debatable matters that Paul goes to great lengths to describe in Romans 14. Paul's examples are eating meat, which day to celebrate the sabbath, and drinking wine, but there are plenty of others that we could list.

My take is that Christianity is built on belief AND understanding of the basement and first floor. The second floor is filled with divine mysteries of which we have been given only a glimpse and partial understanding. These concepts have been debated for centuries. While I may have a position on most of them, I also submit that I could very well be wrong, and almost certainly can't fully understand them. For these, I have respect for the differences and seek to understand them. The attic is where the devil attacks us the most. It is where he plants seeds of condemnation and guilt cycles that distract us from the important things in the lower floors. When in reality, most of them are non-essential and could go either way depending on how the Holy Spirit convicts each person.

A house divided cannot stand. If the foundation is broken, it will fall apart. If the first floor is broken, it will cave in. If the attic is broken, you'll have a giant hole in your roof and rain will seep in. None are good, and the first two are cataclysmic.

It's "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." It's not "One (or sometimes three!) Lord(s), thousands of variations on the faith, and as many baptisms as you feel are necessary."

Our role is to love God and one another, not to come to a firm conclusion on every piece of theoretical doctrine.

The full truth of God's revelation has been transmitted to mankind, and has been known for thousands of years.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

That's precisely why it's unusual. It's a soundbite phrase for people to brush aside doctrinal differences and pretend that there is unity when there really isn't any. Every denomination has completely different ideas of what is "essential" and what is "non-essential."

Maybe unity isn't based solely on the concepts we have about the issues they consider non-essential? Maybe its about union with Christ? Couldn't there be a spiritual unity between people who love Christ and their fellow man even if they might not agree on every fine point of theology. If one person thought Church services should use an organ and the other didn't think that was appropriate would that exclude a person from the body of Christ? Even on actual theological issues say if a person looked at salvation through the lens of Calvinist predestination and the other through Armenian free will would that exclude one of the two from the body of Christ if the others model was closer to the actual reality ? If it didn't and God doesn't exclude them from the body of Christ why should we?

 

[Yab Yum]

Details matter - ecumenism tries to squish everything together into a soup which ends up not tasting very good. Peppermint just don't go with orange juice no matter how much you want em to.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Couldn't there be a spiritual unity between people who love Christ and their fellow man even if they might not agree on every fine point of theology.

Not really, no. It is at best an imperfect unity and at worst a false unity. And to be clear, I'm talking about major beliefs. There are few very fine points of doctrine in which "debate" is still somewhat open. I'm talking about things like baptism, communion, etc.

If one person thought Church services should use an organ and the other didn't think that was appropriate would that exclude a person from the body of Christ?

I am talking about theology, not liturgical details. Liturgical details can and do differ between cultures, but theology does not (or should not, anyway).

Even on actual theological issues say if a person looked at salvation through the lens of Calvinist predestination and the other through Armenian free will would that exclude one of the two from the body of Christ if the others model was closer to the actual reality ? If it didn't and God doesn't exclude them from the body of Christ why should we?

Since the advent of Protestantism, the range of "acceptable" beliefs in Christianity has widened considerably. There is a single, objective truth that was transmitted by God to man. There are not a bunch of different truths that all happened to be equally valid.

It's sort of like school grades. A D is a passing grade, but just barely. The teacher expects you to get an A, reflective of a full understanding. If you get a D, you still pass, but there are obviously issues to work out. Just because both grades are passing doesn't mean they're equal.

 

[realtruth101]

That's precisely why it's unusual. It's a soundbite phrase for people to brush aside doctrinal differences and pretend that there is unity when there really isn't any. Every denomination has completely different ideas of what is "essential" and what is "non-essential."

It's also a way for people to justify the existence of their belief system. Stating "We cannot know the full truth" (which isn't really based on anything solid, mind you) allows them to rationalize the idea that they are probably right. It gives their own beliefs legitimacy while allowing them to come off as "accepting" of other beliefs even if they disagree with those beliefs.



A house divided cannot stand. If the foundation is broken, it will fall apart. If the first floor is broken, it will cave in. If the attic is broken, you'll have a giant hole in your roof and rain will seep in. None are good, and the first two are cataclysmic.

It's "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." It's not "One (or sometimes three!) Lord(s), thousands of variations on the faith, and as many baptisms as you feel are necessary."



The full truth of God's revelation has been transmitted to mankind, and has been known for thousands of years.

Yes its called the bible, while some churches don't use it as their doctrinal guide rather they elevate unbiblical traditions to have more authority than the written word of God, others use the bible as their guide but follow mens misinterpretations of it and fall into error and that about sums it up!

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes its called the bible, while some churches don't use it as their doctrinal guide rather they elevate unbiblical traditions to have more authority than the written word of God, others use the bible as their guide but follow mens misinterpretations of it and fall into error and that about sums it up!

It's actually far more complicated than that.

 

[sunlover1]

Since the advent of Protestantism, the range of "acceptable" beliefs in Christianity has widened considerably. There is a single, objective truth that was transmitted by God to man.

Like Indulgences and the exatling of Mary to Co Redeemer?

Hate to hafta tell ya, but protestantism isn't the cause of all ills.

 

[realtruth101]

It's actually far more complicated than that.

No! its only made complicated by those who say theirs is the only true church, and refuse to follow the written word, thats where it gets complicated. The bible is very easy to follow

 

[bbbbbbb]

The full truth of God's revelation has been transmitted to mankind, and has been known for thousands of years.

And where, pray tell, might one find this apart from the Bible? Assuredly, it is not in any denomination, including your own which continues to reveal and define God'e revelation through its ever-evolving Tradition.

 

[realtruth101]

Like Indulgences and the exatling of Mary to Co Redeemer?

Hate to hafta tell ya, but protestantism isn't the cause of all ills.

you best not mention Mary worship, the dark lite has aready deleted one of my post regarding Mary worship, and I was simply asking a question.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Like Indulgences and the exatling of Mary to Co Redeemer?

Hate to hafta tell ya, but protestantism isn't the cause of all ills.

I'm sure you know what co-redemptrix really means. And what do indulgences have to do this?

No! its only made complicated by those who say theirs is the only true church, and refuse to follow the written word, thats where it gets complicated. The bible is very easy to follow

Christianity is bigger than the Bible and it always has been. History attests to this fact. All one needs to do is look up the formation of the biblical canon.

And where, pray tell, might one find this apart from the Bible? Assuredly, it is not in any denomination, including your own which continues to reveal and define God'e revelation through its ever-evolving Tradition.

I'm sure you are quite aware that I believe it's the Catholic Church. I'm also sure you that you are quite aware of how Catholicism distinguishes between doctrinal revelation and doctrinal development. Thus, I don't feel the need to explain those here.

Regardless, we're not talking about the source of the objective truth. We are discussing whether or not there is one.

you best not mention Mary worship, the dark lite has aready deleted one of my post regarding Mary worship, and I was simply asking a question.

"The Dark Lite." Makes me feel like Batman. Or a night light. I'm gonna stick with Batman.

 

[Peripatetic]

Please... let's not turn this thread into denomination vs. denomination or a debate on specific doctrines. There are plenty of places to do that here. I'm not naive enough to believe that I or anyone else will build real bridges between Christian factions, so this is more to get a better idea of why people think differently than me. Different perspectives are welcome here.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Details matter - ecumenism tries to squish everything together into a soup which ends up not tasting very good. Peppermint just don't go with orange juice no matter how much you want em to.

I believe details matter as well. I simply believe that on some issues people can have disagreements and yet still be Christian. If someone is Christian then I recognize them as a fellow brother or sisters in Christ. If they are Christian they are in communion with me. Sometimes people can even be wrong and still be a Christian.