Different Beliefs

[MystyRock]

I became a member of my local Methodist Church 2 years ago and have been learning about UMC beliefs. Comparing these beliefs to previous church experiences has me wondering. Both claim to base beliefs on the Bible; how can there be so many differences between them? Is it because they interpret it differently? Can a belief be wrong if it is based on the Bible?

 

[Dave-W]

What was your previous denomination?

 

[GraceSeeker]

How can there be so many differences between them?

You do a good job providing your own answer:

Because they interpret it differently?

Can a belief be wrong if it is based on the Bible?

A little bit tougher to answer, but I believe the answer is YES. Let me illustrate.

Let's say that the year is 1816 instead of 2016. And let's say that you happen to be a slave on a cotton plantation in Mississippi run by a plantation owner who is Methodist. And let's say that to prove that he is a nice guy he actually gives you Sunday off and has the local Methodist preacher to come out to his plantation every Sunday after he attends church in town and he feeds him a big chicken dinner and then he comes out to the cabins and preaches for you and all the other slaves. The preacher tends to preach from just a couple of passages:

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.

Titus 2:9
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory,

Or perhaps from Philemon emphasizing how it is that Paul sent the slave Onesimus back to Philemon, his owner, even though "I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; but I preferred to do nothing without your consent."

Can you see how one might interpret BASED ON THE BIBLE an idea that slavery is justified and approved? And people really did, in all sincerity, produce these interpretations. But, I would argue that even though they did so in sincerity and based on the Bible, that they were nonetheless wrong, completely wrong, that there is nothing justified about slavery.

200 years later the issues that we debate may have changed, but the potential for misinterpreting them, or interpreting them in light of what we want to hear them say is just as strong as ever.

 

[MystyRock]

What was your previous denomination?

I came from a legalistic fundamentalist background; left it several years ago, but my views were still based on those ideas. We were not allowed to talk to people of different denominations. The first time I talked to a Methodist (3 years ago), I felt like a rebel!

 

[MystyRock]

You do a good job providing your own answer:



A little bit tougher to answer, but I believe the answer is YES. Let me illustrate.

Let's say that the year is 1816 instead of 2016. And let's say that you happen to be a slave on a cotton plantation in Mississippi run by a plantation owner who is Methodist. And let's say that to prove that he is a nice guy he actually gives you Sunday off and has the local Methodist preacher to come out to his plantation every Sunday after he attends church in town and he feeds him a big chicken dinner and then he comes out to the cabins and preaches for you and all the other slaves. The preacher tends to preach from just a couple of passages:

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.

Titus 2:9
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory,

Or perhaps from Philemon emphasizing how it is that Paul sent the slave Onesimus back to Philemon, his owner, even though "I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; but I preferred to do nothing without your consent."

Can you see how one might interpret BASED ON THE BIBLE an idea that slavery is justified and approved? And people really did, in all sincerity, produce these interpretations. But, I would argue that even though they did so in sincerity and based on the Bible, that they were nonetheless wrong, completely wrong, that there is nothing justified about slavery.

200 years later the issues that we debate may have changed, but the potential for misinterpreting them, or interpreting them in light of what we want to hear them say is just as strong as ever.

Certain denominations claim they are the only ones who interpret God's word correctly. They say others don't understand because they are not real believers. Can we really distinguish the truth? Or is everyone just guessing based on what they read and understand?

 

[Nik Onder]

Can you see how one might interpret BASED ON THE BIBLE an idea that slavery is justified and approved? And people really did, in all sincerity, produce these interpretations. But, I would argue that even though they did so in sincerity and based on the Bible, that they were nonetheless wrong, completely wrong, that there is nothing justified about slavery.

This is a great example of the beauty of Wesley's Quadrilateral. Taken in the context of scripture alone, anyone could warp a defense of American slavery using scriptural literalism (or pretty much anything else, as history has shown, and thus why experience is important). By utilizing tradition, reason and experience we know to interpret those verses in the context of their time and understand that the concept of slavery amongst Jews and Christians around the first century period (debt based servitude) was COMPLETELY different from that during the American Civil War (socially justified racism and power-mongering used to subdue a less militarily advanced people).

My personal opinion is that a "denomination" which carries on about how wrong everyone else is doing things is the one that is less likely to really understand why they believe what they believe and do the things they do and tend to be more reclusive and paranoid due to a fear of being challenged in their fiercely held, passed-on beliefs. I know this may sound potentially offensive, but there is a reason that more educated and/or traveled people tend to veer towards the Mainline Protestant denominations. Christ came to unite the world, not divide.

 

[Dave-W]

I came from a legalistic fundamentalist background; left it several years ago, but my views were still based on those ideas. We were not allowed to talk to people of different denominations. The first time I talked to a Methodist (3 years ago), I felt like a rebel!

I get that. Fundamentalism is dangerous IMO.

My favorite SBC pastor (Charles Simpson) once quipped that "Fundamentalism as a doctrine is fine. Fundamentalism as an attitude is deadly." Unfortunately the attitude is more prevalent than the doctrine. And to tell you the truth, I am not that fond of it as a doctrine anymore either.

It is the fundy attitude made you feel like a rebel. It has an approach to both scripture and life that defines things very narrowly when a reasonable reading of NT scripture allows for a variety of beliefs and practices. (within bounds of course)

I can tell you from personal experience that it can take decades to purge that mentality. It helps to focus on seeing Christianity as more about relationship and less about abstract rules and interpretations. Think about how you relate to your parents, your siblings, your spouse and children (if you have them). If they are healthy relationships there is a lot of room to be yourself. It is the same in relating to God.

 

[MystyRock]

I get that. Fundamentalism is dangerous IMO.

My favorite SBC pastor (Charles Simpson) once quipped that "Fundamentalism as a doctrine is fine. Fundamentalism as an attitude is deadly." Unfortunately the attitude is more prevalent than the doctrine. And to tell you the truth, I am not that fond of it as a doctrine anymore either.

It is the fundy attitude made you feel like a rebel. It has an approach to both scripture and life that defines things very narrowly when a reasonable reading of NT scripture allows for a variety of beliefs and practices. (within bounds of course)

I can tell you from personal experience that it can take decades to purge that mentality. It helps to focus on seeing Christianity as more about relationship and less about abstract rules and interpretations. Think about how you relate to your parents, your siblings, your spouse and children (if you have them). If they are healthy relationships there is a lot of room to be yourself. It is the same in relating to God.

In past experiences, relationship with God was not possible because we are sinners. Having to rewire my thinking... and it's not easy.

 

[Nik Onder]

In past experiences, relationship with God was not possible because we are sinners. Having to rewire my thinking... and it's not easy. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1445020441508-1'); });

Why on earth did God send his Son in the first place? As a sacrifice for the sin of mankind!...I literally can't understand the exclusionary ideas some people willfully force on themselves. It seems obvious that such a system is meant to willfully subject everyone to the judgemental gaze of everyone else in the congregation (incidentally, another issue that I have with congregationalism). I am so happy for you that you are finding true freedom in God's justifying grace

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You're honing in on the issue of claiming to "Believe what the Bible says". Almost all of us do. We just don't agree on just what exactly the Bible says. What tends to happen though in Fundamentalist circles, at least in the ones I've been a part of; is this notion is DRILLED into you that the Bible is easy, simple, plain, literal; and that it has and always has had one clear meaning and all Christians agree on that meaning. So Christians who believe differently are willingly and knowingly rejecting the Bible.

As I grew in faith I realized a couple of things. First, and most damning for my Fundamentalist faith of the time, was how radically different modern fundamentalism was with the historic faith. That shattered the notion that Fundies have the Bible all figured out; because how could they believe differently than the church fathers? Especially in such radical and profound ways? Second was indeed learning that most Christians, indeed the vast and far majority, have a high view of Scripture. While there are Christian traditions that either reject parts or even all of the Scripture; those are exceedingly rare. From right-wing Southern Baptist to left-wing Episcopalian and UCC, Christians tend to have a high view of scripture. What changes is how they interpret it, and how they think it's meant to be viewed. Many Christians, for example, are fine to accept that parts of the scripture are contextual and non-applicable to today (dietary restrictions are the 'easiest example' here, but you could extend that to passages about the treatment of slaves). Others are fine understanding that we're "missing the context" of some passages. And still others have a view that it's all literal and inerrant and should be taken as law, every word. It's all a high view of scripture; because it's all rooted in the believe that Scripture contains the truth. It's a difference, then, in how to find that truth.

 

[circuitrider]

To add to what R-5-8 has said, you will also find that some Christians try to say that they get their beliefs from "scripture alone - sola scriptura." But the truth is that every church/denomination/group of Christians have traditions that have been passed down, some from as far back as the Apostles and others from the founders of their denominations.

Also we have to use the intellect and reason that God gives us to read scripture. Also our own experiences of God working in our lives shape our reading of scripture.

All Christians actually use scripture, tradition, reason and experience to follow the Bible. But one of the differences for mainline Christians including United Methodists is that we are clear that we do use those four elements to help us figure out what God is telling us while fundamentalist Christians basically pretend that they are only using the Bible.

Methodists call those four elements the "Wesleyan Quadrilaterial" because it is the way we use John Wesley using the scriptures. (The term was coined by Methodist historian Albert Outler.)

 

[GraceSeeker]

Certain denominations claim they are the only ones who interpret God's word correctly. They say others don't understand because they are not real believers. Can we really distinguish the truth? Or is everyone just guessing based on what they read and understand?

Some people will be put off by this response, but at one level it is true that we are all just guessing. While I have some evidence to support my claims, in the end I don't really know that the Gospels are accurate records of Jesus' life, let alone of his death and resurrection. If that is true about historical events that are fairly well substantiated from non-Christian sources, imagine to what degree interpretation of the meaning of those events and subsequent writings arising from them is dependent on my own unique worldview? We can't escape it; no one can. And the person who tells you that they have been able to, that they view everything objectively, and interpret only what things actually mean, not what they want them to mean is either a liar or a self-deluded fool not to be trusted. We all reach for that goal, but none of us will ever make it. For even if we were born a blank slate (which we aren't), we certainly don't stay one very long.

But, I don't think that means it we simply can't discern the truth, or that it is hopeless to try. Some of the discussion above has given reasons why: scripture, reason, tradition experience are good barometers to help us determine the weather and whether or not something has the ring of truth to it. But there is another that is really important and I'm surprised that no one mentioned above -- the Holy Spirit. God's Holy Spirit is give to guide us into all truth.

"You know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you." (John 14:17b)
"The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (John 14:26)
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." (John 16:13)

 

[GraceSeeker]

A friend of mine, another UMC pastor, tells of a conversation he recently had with another pastor of a more fundamental stripe than himself. "I got in an argument with a fundie preacher who kept peppering me with largely unrelated questions, trying to prove I don't believe the Biiiible. I just kept asking him one, which he never answered, 'Do you believe that the sky is a solid dome over the Earth (as the Hebrew says) and that on the other side is an endless ocean?' Because that's what the Bible says."

Point being, most people who claim to be literalist and only believe exactly what the Bible says, aren't. They think they are, but they really aren't. They've just got a different list of which passages they read as something other than literal and want everyone else to agree with them as to which those are and which aren't, and if you don't agree with their particular list, well then you're the one who is twisting the Bible to make it say something that it doesn't, never them.

Btw, there are "fundie" liberals too, people who want the Bible read one particular way (a way that our culture calls "liberal") and any other reading is, to their mind, acceptable. I figure anyone who can be so narrow is still a "fundie" regardless of whether his/her interpretation happens to be liberal or conservative, it's still "fundie" in its approach.

 

[MystyRock]

To find the truth, we should not rely on others. We all have a personal responsibility to discern the truth by trusting the Holy Spirit within us and developing a relationship with God?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Rather than either/or, I see it as both/and. If we don't have a relationship with God we will never be able to discern the truth, even if revealed to us it won't make sense.

"The unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with—they just don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things. The spiritual man, on the other hand, has an insight into the meaning of everything, though his insight may baffle the man of the world. This is because the former is sharing in God’s wisdom, and ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ Incredible as it may sound, we who are spiritual have the very thoughts of Christ!" (1 Corinthians 2:14-16, J.B. Phillips)

But, at the same time, there is also wisdom in not relying wholly on what one understands for one's self, for any of us can get off track and misunderstand. If we have a unique understanding of the scriptures we should ask why it is that no one else in the entire history of Christianity has ever had these thoughts, but that God should reveal them only to us and wait some 2000 years to let the truth be known. This is where the Church as the body of Christ can be helpful, why the Catholic Church speaks of the importance of it's magisterium, a belief that the Pope and bishops who assist him have the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. While I don't think they have any more authority than anyone else, I do think the fact that they don't come up with interpretation in isolation from the traditions of the church and the experience of many people has value and helps to prevent them from becoming cultic the way that many groups that are led by a single or very small group of interpreters can become cultic in nature.

Hence, BOTH personal discernment, AND the sharing of corporate wisdom lead to the best understandings of scriptures and the appropriate manner for applying that understanding.

 

[MystyRock]

While I don't think they have any more authority than anyone else, I do think the fact that they don't come up with interpretation in isolation from the traditions of the church and the experience of many people has value and helps to prevent them from becoming cultic the way that many groups that are led by a single or very small group of interpreters can become cultic in nature.

Hence, BOTH personal discernment, AND the sharing of corporate wisdom lead the best understandings of scriptures and the appropriate manner of applying that understanding.

Someone recently mentioned to me that my previous experience was a cult. I can't believe I was in a "cult" and stayed there for years. I can't forget that time and the things I was taught and experienced. How does someone get past that?

 

[Albion]

To find the truth, we should not rely on others. We all have a personal responsibility to discern the truth by trusting the Holy Spirit within us and developing a relationship with God?

I don't think so, Mysty. The fact is that there are different interpretations of many Bible verses, some critical and some not so much so. But Scripture was written, like many things a person of our own times would write, using expressions and allusions that can be misunderstood, especially by people of another time and language.

We do have lots of theologians and Bible experts who have studied these meanings far more than you or I can do. It is a good idea to see what they have to say before relying upon one's own guesswork.

That doesn't mean that they will be in agreement with each other all the time, but the average person does well to take account of what they have said and to see which teachings or interpretations are generally agreed to by the experts and why they are in agreement.

Someone recently mentioned to me that my previous experience was a cult. I can't believe I was in a "cult" and stayed there for years. I can't forget that time and the things I was taught and experienced. How does someone get past that?

It's hard to answer that without knowing the identify of the group. Some people throw around the word "cult" rather easily and the church may not have been a cult at all. If it was a cult, however, not everything that it taught would necessarily have been in error, so I would urge you not to dwell on your former membership unduly, so long as you are aware of which teachings of your former church conflict with basic Christian doctrine.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Someone recently mentioned to me that my previous experience was a cult. I can't believe I was in a "cult" and stayed there for years. I can't forget that time and the things I was taught and experienced. How does someone get past that?

It's hard to answer that without knowing the identify of the group. Some people throw around the word "cult" rather easily and the church may not have been a cult at all. If it was a cult, however, not everything that it taught would necessarily have been in error, so I would urge you not to dwell on your former membership unduly, so long as you are aware of which teachings of your former church conflict with basic Christian doctrine.

Albion gives you good advice, Mysty. You've told me quite a bit about your old group, and even with that knowledge I can't say whether they were or were not a cult. The thing is it really isn't important what they were or even are today. You are not a part of them. You have found a new church home, another faith community, that you have become a part of, and the people there treat you with respect and love. It's good to know where we've come from, but it is even more important to know where we are going and who we are going there with now. If you have those two things in order, remember what this season of Good Friday and Easter is all about. It is about forgiveness (i.e., letting go of the past so that it no longer has control over you in the present) and resurrection (i.e., a new life that by God's grace arises out of the decay of our past to something more glorious than we ever had before). You owe it to yourself to celebrate Easter this year by experiencing resurrection to the newnews of the life that Christ has already won for you.

 

[MystyRock]

True. I can choose to live in the past or learn from the past. Prayer has been awkward for me and I tend to avoid it completely. But, today, I did spend some time in prayer. And it helped - hmm.

Thanks for the patience and advice, everyone.

 

[circuitrider]

Btw, there are "fundie" liberals too, people who want the Bible read one particular way (a way that our culture calls "liberal") and any other reading is, to their mind, acceptable. I figure anyone who can be so narrow is still a "fundie" regardless of whether his/her interpretation happens to be liberal or conservative, it's still "fundie" in its approach.

I know what you mean about liberal extremism but this is a pet peeve of mine. Fundamentalism is an extreme position to the far right. So if you use it to describe a radical liberal you end up basically saying "right wing left winger." It makes more sense to talk about radical liberalism or closed minded liberalism rather than "fundie" liberalism.

The same goes for fascism (right wing) and socialism and communism (left wing). You can't be a fascist socialist or a right wing communist. There are a lot of similarities between some folks on the far right and the far left but they aren't interchangeable.