I'm following the example of MTalkingsworth and starting a thread about something that happened at church today..

I attend an Adult Education class that typically discusses somewhat "liberal" (theologically, not politically) subjects, and most of the attendees have beliefs that mirror that. There is one guy who is more conservative, and he often injects opinions that make the meeting more interesting (who wants to discuss things only with people who agree?). For a couple of weeks a new guy has attended (he's the husband of our new minister) and he ups the number of conservatives to two. To set the scene a bit more, it's a United Methodist church, and we are encouraged to form our own opinions on theology.

Anyway, today the subject was raised (as a side issue, as these things often are) of Christian exclusivism (is Jesus the only way to God?). Most of our group would answer "no" to that, but the new guy was firmly on the other "side" and made the statement "If you don't believe (a list of things that included exclusivism) you are not a Christian"!

Our discussions are always friendly and this was no exception, but at the end of the class I had to say to myself "This guy just said I'm not a Christian". OK, I'm not offended, I'm quite comfortable with where I am theologically, and I freely admit that according to his definition I'm not. Nevertheless, it made me think. There is a wide range of beliefs within Christianity, and religious pluralists (like Marcus Borg, to name just one) are quite happy to describe themselves as "Christian" and so am I.

That said, anyone want to kick it around a bit? To set some ground rules, say whatever you like (politely please), but restrict the discussion to this one point of belief. I don't want to open it up to a discussion of all beliefs that someone might feel are essential to Christianity. That's interesting too, but lets stay focussed on this one. The whole area of open discussion and the encouragement of varying beliefs within a congregation is also fair game. Is it OK for people with widely varying beliefs (within Christianity) to be in the same congregation? Should ministers lay down strict ground rules about belief?

Originally posted by Alien

I'm following the example of MTalkingsworth and starting a thread about something that happened at church today..

I attend an Adult Education class that typically discusses somewhat "liberal" (theologically, not politically) subjects, and most of the attendees have beliefs that mirror that. There is one guy who is more conservative, and he often injects opinions that make the meeting more interesting (who wants to discuss things only with people who agree?). For a couple of weeks a new guy has attended (he's the husband of our new minister) and he ups the number of conservatives to two. To set the scene a bit more, it's a United Methodist church, and we are encouraged to form our own opinions on theology.

Anyway, today the subject was raised (as a side issue, as these things often are) of Christian exclusivism (is Jesus the only way to God?). Most of our group would answer "no" to that, but the new guy was firmly on the other "side" and made the statement "If you don't believe (a list of things that included exclusivism) you are not a Christian"!

Our discussions are always friendly and this was no exception, but at the end of the class I had to say to myself "This guy just said I'm not a Christian". OK, I'm not offended, I'm quite comfortable with where I am theologically, and I freely admit that according to his definition I'm not. Nevertheless, it made me think. There is a wide range of beliefs within Christianity, and religious pluralists (like Marcus Borg, to name just one) are quite happy to describe themselves as "Christian" and so am I.

That said, anyone want to kick it around a bit? To set some ground rules, say whatever you like (politely please), but restrict the discussion to this one point of belief. I don't want to open it up to a discussion of all beliefs that someone might feel are essential to Christianity. That's interesting too, but lets stay focussed on this one. The whole area of open discussion and the encouragement of varying beliefs within a congregation is also fair game. Is it OK for people with widely varying beliefs (within Christianity) to be in the same congregation? Should ministers lay down strict ground rules about belief?

Historically that has meant confessing the Creeds of Christianity. Even Islam has hedged their bets by including Christ as a prophet. One has to draw the line somewhere or it's just a bunch of lonely ships at sea bumping into each other once in a while - that's not His church - that's just chaos. 'When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?' That's Christ's own question and I do not think it was a rhetorical one.

Originally posted by Alien

Is it OK for people with widely varying beliefs (within Christianity) to be in the same congregation?

Interesting thread here, Alien. Thanks for it.

I would hold that a congregation has to be united and have the mind of Christ (sound spiritual discernment, in other words) in terms of essential doctrine. It's a more difficult question in this context, because I know liberal congregations are more apt to disagree with the historic creeds. But you absolutely need to have a groundwork for even calling the congregation "Christian." If you don't hold to at least a number of essentials, you cannot have any perfect unity "in mind and thought" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and you may as well call yourselves a Unitarian Universalist church and stop pretending to hold to Christianity.

Should ministers lay down strict ground rules about belief?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a minister, in my opinion. You have a number of churches who work democratically, of course, like Presbyterians (PC USA is obviously more liberal, but they have the same governance) and Baptists. Here, the members have authority in generally everything. So there is in this type of setup something that appears pretty effective; these churches do obviously have a set doctrine of essentials, and members are of course free in their hearts to disagree with essentials, but those essentials can't be changed unless a majority expressly agrees to it. And the non-essentials are just that with any church... Really, have debate all that you want, but strive not to divide a congregation over non-essentials (as defined by your church, I guess, because we're talking about a liberalized theology here?) in any church.

Originally posted by RanRan

Historically that has meant confessing the Creeds of Christianity. Even Islam has hedged their bets by including Christ as a prophet. One has to draw the line somewhere or it's just a bunch of lonely ships at sea bumping into each other once in a while - that's not His church - that's just chaos. 'When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the earth?' That's Christ's own question and I do not think it was a rhetorical one.

So, how would you handle dissent in a congregation? And how would you discover that dissent? Is it OK to just keep quiet about your doubts, or is a public affirmation of one's belief required?

Originally posted by cbacavis

Interesting thread here, Alien. Thanks for it.

I would hold that a congregation has to be united and have the mind of Christ (sound spiritual discernment, in other words) in terms of essential doctrine. It's a more difficult question in this context, because I know liberal congregations are more apt to disagree with the historic creeds. But you absolutely need to have a groundwork for even calling the congregation "Christian." If you don't hold to at least a number of essentials, you cannot have any perfect unity "in mind and thought" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), and you may as well call yourselves a Unitarian Universalist church and stop pretending to hold to Christianity.

I agree that the church itself has to have some public statement of belief, and I guess that has to be arrived at internally. Certainly the UMC has that. I guess my question is how far should the church go in enforcing those beliefs on the membership (which is impossible as stated of course, but should people be ejected for "wrong" belief)? And how would one go about determining that? Our church doesn't expect anyone to believe anything just to attend; the requirements for membership are stricter, but still pretty loose in practice. In the day to day life of the church, discussion and disagreement is encouraged, though not to the point of division of course. (I should note that I am describing the church I attend, not the UMC in general).

It doesn't necessarily have to be a minister, in my opinion. You have a number of churches who work democratically, of course, like Presbyterians (PC USA is obviously more liberal, but they have the same governance) and Baptists. Here, the members have authority in generally everything. So there is in this type of setup something that appears pretty effective; these churches do obviously have a set doctrine of essentials, and members are of course free in their hearts to disagree with essentials, but those essentials can't be changed unless a majority expressly agrees to it. And the non-essentials are just that with any church... Really, have debate all that you want, but strive not to divide a congregation over non-essentials (as defined by your church, I guess, because we're talking about a liberalized theology here?) in any church.

Agreed. There have been some divisions in the past, but I think they have been over personalities rather than doctrine (can't be sure about that).

Originally posted by Alien

So, how would you handle dissent in a congregation? And how would you discover that dissent?

As a Lutheran, we confess the Apostles Creed at every service. If one can't confess it, then they don't belong in the congregation, which is not a debate forum.

If an entire congregation can't confess the Creeds then it's not a Christian Church, per se, it's a social club talkin' 'religion.'

Originally posted by Alien

I agree that the church itself has to have some public statement of belief, and I guess that has to be arrived at internally. Certainly the UMC has that. I guess my question is how far should the church go in enforcing those beliefs on the membership (which is impossible as stated of course, but should people be ejected for "wrong" belief)? And how would one go about determining that? Our church doesn't expect anyone to believe anything just to attend; the requirements for membership are stricter, but still pretty loose in practice. In the day to day life of the church, discussion and disagreement is encouraged, though not to the point of division of course. (I should note that I am describing the church I attend, not the UMC in general).



Agreed. There have been some divisions in the past, but I think they have been over personalities rather than doctrine (can't be sure about that).

At my church we require all members to attend a class that covers our basic or "core" beliefs. We also requrie them to sign an affirmation of our core beliefes. It is important to me that I attend a church where none of my beliefes are considered "heretical" or divisive.

Before I joined, I scheduled a meeting with the pastor to discuss my eschatology (preterism) which some here in the Bible Belt consider heretical and/or devicive (had a friend who was not allowed to join a church for this very reason). Turns out the pastor was also a preterist so my fears were for naught.

When interviweing the new pastor (I was on the pastor search team) I asked him if he had a problem with a non-premiller being in his congregation. He said no. I was fine with that (even though he is premill, for now, I'll fix that soon enough....)

Originally posted by Lizard

At my church we require all members to attend a class that covers our basic or "core" beliefs. We also requrie them to sign an affirmation of our core beliefes. It is important to me that I attend a church where none of my beliefes are considered "heretical" or divisive.

I had the same circumstance in a Baptist church. The class for those interested in new membership was just a Theology 101, and then we were given a statement to sign that showed we agreed with their essential beliefs. Great church, no divisions, and yet the congregation was pretty diverse theologically and politically.

Before I joined, I scheduled a meeting with the pastor to discuss my eschatology (preterism) which some here in the Bible Belt consider heretical and/or devicive (had a friend who was not allowed to join a church for this very reason). Turns out the pastor was also a preterist so my fears were for naught.

My pastor at the church I mention was more of an eschatological agnostic, so my transition to preterism was basically encouraged in my talks with him, provided I had biblical support for any convictions.

But he actually lent me copies of "The Last Disciple" and "The Last Sacrafice" from his library after I read Hanegraaff's "Apocalypse Code" on my own. The encouragement was great and, actually, I would eventually uncover answers to hundreds of questions I had about covenants and end-times and all of it.

Alien, Jesus said he was the only way. Don't you believe him?

should people be ejected for "wrong" belief)? And how would one go about determining that?

Yes, people should be expelled from a church for heretical doctrine, but again this has to be essential doctrine. And that's up to the local church itself. Anyone diverging from the essentials, who's allowed to stay without any discussion or any discipline, has an open opportunity to mislead others too.

Our church doesn't expect anyone to believe anything just to attend

Makes sense to me. How else can anyone from the outside world ever come into the congregation?

the requirements for membership are stricter, but still pretty loose in practice. In the day to day life of the church, discussion and disagreement is encouraged, though not to the point of division of course. (I should note that I am describing the church I attend, not the UMC in general).

A congregation does need to be united. If someone believes a heresy deep down inside, fine. That's their issue. But if there's any vocalized disagreement with essential doctrine, it can't just be given free reign. That always has to be addressed and the influence removed if it isn't changed.

Why even stick with a church that one doesn't agree with on essentials? If someone's beliefs are unorthodox, surely they should try to find a church that holds to their own views. Otherwise it is apparent that the unorthodox person is trying to infiltrate and change church's minds.

The problem with Christian pluralism is that it stands in direct opposition to its founder and God, who said, "No one comes to (God) the Father, except by me."

And a rejection of a statement by Christ creates all kinds of problems leading to Christianity being incoherent.

Does it mean you're not a Christian? I don't know. I doubt it.

Michael

ETA: (Excuse the double negative. I don't think this belief disqualifies you from being a Christian.)

For me there are two "levels", if you will, of essential.

There is one "level" that I consider to be esential to salvation.

The other level is "essential" for me to consider joining. (Except essential is a poor choice of words since if there was only one local congregation, I would join as long as they had the first set of essentials, but since I have a choice I can be selective.)

All religions are exclusive, precisely because there is such a thing as the law of non-contradiction. If you believe anything at all, you cannot affirm the opposite and still belong. If you don't "believe" what they believe, you won't be a part of that system. To affirm that anything at all is "true", is to become exclusivist.

"Becoming" a Christian is not so much in affirming creeds as it is coming to an understanding of Christ and applying it to your life. Yes it is believing things, but it is also trust, faith, and relationship. Becoming a Christian is more about "placing trust" in Christ as your ticket to salvation, then it is about believing truth statements about him, although the two go hand in hand. You place trust based on the truth value of some statements, but the power is not in the statement, but in the truth of it in your life. As is often said, even Satan knows the truth value of many statements, that they are true, yet it doesn't get him saved. Simply knowing something, or believing something is true, is only half the battle. You've got to apply it to your life. You've got to live it. The Bible says "consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God". This is more than just believing it as a truth claim, but this seems to suggest we aught live like it. To "consider" ourselves dead is more than just believing a creedal statement that we are, it is actually living like it. We all believe McDonalds food is bad for us, but we all continue to eat it. So either we don't really believe it's bad for us, or we don't care. How would God think it if we believe statements of truth about him but we don't care, when we believe things are true but we don't live like it, we don't jump both feet forward? Obviously this kind of belief isn't what God is after, not just a simple intellectual acknowledgment, but full participation.

Besides, I'd say Christianity is the most non-exclusive religion of all (if it can be called a religion). Yes Jesus said he is the only way, but this is only exclusive insofar as terms of salvation, it is NOT exclusive in who can believe or "join". In other words, it doesn't matter if you are 4 years old or 98 on your death bed. Doesn't matter if you are male or female, white or black or red or yellow, tall or short, rich or poor, powerful or meek. It doesn't matter how long you've been a believer. It is not an exclusive club for gentlemen in suits. There is nothing preventing people from joining based in its "exclusive" nature. So is it really all that exclusive? Who is it excluding, and why? Is the complaint that it is exclusive because people have to believe it to join? Well duh, you tend to have to believe what it is you want to join. You can't "join" Christianity, hoping for its promised rewards, while affirming Satanist creeds. Law of non-contradiction and all that. You wouldn't be "excluded" because of some personal flaw or inadequacy, there is nothing preventing you from dropping conflicting beliefs and embracing Biblical truths except your own dark heart. So if a person cannot embrace the truths of Christianity, it isn't because Christianity is exclusive, it's because of their own preexisting loyalties. Christ requires those same loyalties.
If there are expressed on earth 5 ways to eternal salvation and bliss, one cannot just believe them all and hope for the best. If they conflict, one has to choose where one's loyalties lie. "Choose this day whom you will serve." And one cannot "serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
You cannot place your trust in multiple people, or multiple systems, to save you.
In any event, being more or less exclusive speaks nothing about how true it is. Less exclusive doesn't mean more true, it might mean more comfortable perhaps. If one believes all people go to heaven no matter what, then that is a pretty good deal, you don't really have to "believe" anything. But that doesn't make it more true then an ultra-exclusive system. God may in fact only like women and so all men go to Hell, period. Sucks for men, very exclusive, but that doesn't make it less true. So arguing that something is exclusive really doesn't show anything anyway.

All that said, if you wonder if you are really a Christian, just ask yourself if sin really matters to you. Do you believe there is a creator God with a perfect standard and sin will keep you from entering his domain (Heaven)? If so, how do you get out of this sin problem? Do you earn your way out? Obey rules until death? Or do you accept that God sent his Son to "become sin for us", to take our penalty, so that "by his stripes" we can be healed? Do you believe this was done for you? That if you call upon the name of Jesus, he can forgive and wash you clean before God?
This isn't just truth statements that you say "yes... yes... yes..." to. It is trust, and faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please him". These truths you have to have embedded in your heart. These truths are all eggs you've put in one basket, your life is in that basket. Everybody can sit around talking about how bad fast food is even as they pass the Big Macs around the room.
If these truths mean something to you beyond an agreement with a creedal statement, then I'd say you're a Christian.
"So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
One thing will certainly boot you from the Christian camp, and that is to deny Jesus. You could probably deny a whole mess of things (probably to your own regret), and still be Christian, but you can't deny that. There are very few "essentials", the rest is just how good your understanding of God is, and doctrine and theology. I'm sure many "ignorant" (willfully or otherwise) and rebellious will enter Heaven, but nobody can who isn't cleansed by the pure blood of Jesus.

None of us aught judge the heart, nor label each other saved and not saved, but I think it's pretty safe to label when it is so clear in scripture. I'm not to worried about labeling a person unsaved who denies Jesus and blasphemes God. But if you are the type of person who thought Jesus was just a moral teacher and it sucks he died, but we get to Heaven by going to church on Sunday and trying to "be good" as best we can, and shouldn't God accept us because we "gave it our best go"? Then I'd be worried you're not a Christian.
I would not worry so much, if the point of contention is just more liberal or more conservative points on doctrinal views.


Peace

Originally posted by RanRan

As a Lutheran, we confess the Apostles Creed at every service. If one can't confess it, then they don't belong in the congregation, which is not a debate forum.

If an entire congregation can't confess the Creeds then it's not a Christian Church, per se, it's a social club talkin' 'religion.'

Well, that's one opinion, clearly stated. Thank you.

Originally posted by Alien

Well, that's one opinion, clearly stated. Thank you.

Hey Alien, I'd suggest you check out some books on various Christian approaches to understanding other religions in light of the gospel. One that I've read that is particularly well-nuanced, balanced, and fair to all positions is Paul F. Knitter's Introducing Theologies of Religions , which walks through the basics of different approaches, including several different degrees of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. There are a lot of views out there, each of which emphasize different portions of the biblical witness to make their case.

Originally posted by Sparko

Alien, Jesus said he was the only way. Don't you believe him?

Wooo! Shall I attempt to answer that? I did start the thread with a pretty wide open agenda ...

Several begged questions there Sparko, and no simple yes/no answer. The Bible appears to say that, yes. Did Jesus actually say that? If he did, did he mean what we are assuming he meant? If so, could he have been mistaken? I have no ready answers.

On the other hand, I believe that God wants everyone to be saved. I also believe that God is good, and that means that he wouldn't deliberately discriminate against whole sections of people, and people tend to follow the religion of their family and the culture they grow up in. Does someone who is born and lives his whole life in Saudi Arabia have the chance of becoming Christian? I guess so. Is it overwhelmingly more likely that he will be Muslim? I would think so. So does the God who wants everyone to come to him and is essentially fair about that simply write off a huge section of the world because they happened to be born in the wrong place?

Consider also that every society that has ever existed has had some concept of God. Religious belief seems to be a universal phenomenon. This is less compelling perhaps, but I see it as evidence that God exerts an all-pervasive "influence" throughout the world. Might this mean that he is more interested in getting some response than one particular one?

Though different religions hold varying, and often conflicting, beliefs on factual matters, there are common threads. The one I see most clearly is the idea of personal transformation, becoming closer to the ideal that (I believe) God holds out to all people.

So, I am left with two conflicting indications. First, what my logic tells me about the nature of God and what that suggests about how he relates to us. Second, a sentence from the Bible. I've made my decision; I could be wrong.

(Hah! that was a long answer to a short question! )