Why I Couldn't Join Most Churches
- 1 view
[pvawter]Ron Bean wrote:
There are doctrines worth dying for. I don’t think eschatological opinions approach that level of importance. Jesus is coming back. That is a certainty! A lot of the surrounding details are not as clear. When it comes to eschatology, I am encouraged when I read that the disciples, after sitting at the feet of Jesus, didn’t understand the details of his return.
Ron,
the disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection, either. Should we give someone a pass for being fuzzy on the doctrine of the bodily resurrection because he’s only being like Jesus’ disciples?
Paul
Paul,
They were very clear on the resurrection after it happened, which is entirely the point. You might say the general Jewish confusion on the Messiah and the disciples’ blindness on the resurrection and that it had been entirely foretold as an ominous warning to us. If I were God writing the story of the end times and I were consistent in the story, I’d write in something about church-age Christians being confused on the subject. It seems entirely likely that the vast majority are mistaken about what God will do next, and so has it ever been. What’s up to us is to follow men like Simeon in the temple who held baby Jesus declaring “for my eyes have seen your salvation” and know the work of God when we see it.
Shayne
[TylerR]Tyler, this is where the issue hangs in the balance. Most church include eschotology in their doctrinal statements, and then require all new members to support and uphold the doctrinal statement of the church. I have quietly attended these churches in the past, pleased to fellowship and grow together, but I could not become a member of these churches if my views on escholotogy do not align wth the doctrinal statement. And I am not faulting them for take the position they have - their doctrinal statement should identify and direct them. I just think it is an issues most churches have failed to even notice over the years.A family is joining my church this Sunday. He is a covenant premillennialist. I don’t care. I’m not asking for dogmaticism, rigidity, or an elevation of eschatology to a “fundamental” of the faith. All I’m saying is that a Pastor who essentially throws up his hands and says some variation on:
“Gee, all that stuff is so confusing, and the Left Behind series is so stupid … who knows!? Jesus is coming back, and that’s good enough for me!”
is not a serious Pastor.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Chip:
I hear what you’re saying. When I said before that “I didn’t care,” I meant that I didn’t care if his views on eschatology matched the church’s precisely. He is well aware of what our eschatology is, and understands that this is what will be taught and preached in every area of the church. the new family has to understand that when they join the church.
- This isn’t a “we’ll agree to disagree” situation.
- It’s a “we’d love to have you, but know right now that you’re joining an unashamed premillennial, dispensationalist church” situation
As a matter of fact, the family has been coming just as we began a short excursus on Dan 9:24-27, and other end-times material. They have acknowledged that the points I”ve raised are good, and many of them they’d never considered before. This is all healthy and good stuff.
I suppose the larger issue is whether a prospective member has to be in perfect agreement with everything in the doctrinal statement. Is there no need for submission on their part, to be willing to live with and perhaps learn from a perspective they don’t necessarily agree to?
- Eschatology is one of those areas where this can be healthy
- Another family recently joined. They’re soft KJVO. We use the KJV. I told them we wouldn’t tolerate any hint of KJVO-ism in the church, and they ought to know that right up front. They said they understood and could live with it. They joined the church.
I suppose there are two types of prospective members:
- Those with absolute, firm convictions who seek a like-minded church that reflects their views more or less precisely
- Those with more open minds and somewhat softer convictions on second-tier issues (like the fine points of eschatology) who are willing to deal with, and perhaps learn from, perspectives they don’t fully agree with.
In the end, it depends how you classify the importance of different areas of doctrine. If you think models like Mohler’s “theological triage” have merit, then eschatology is something a prospective member may be willing to give a little on.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I suppose the larger issue is whether a prospective member has to be in perfect agreement with everything in the doctrinal statement. Is there no need for submission on their part, to be willing to live with and perhaps learn from a perspective they don’t necessarily agree to?
- Eschatology is one of those areas where this can be healthy
- Another family recently joined. They’re soft KJVO. We use the KJV. I told them we wouldn’t tolerate any hint of KJVO-ism in the church, and they ought to know that right up front. They said they understood and could live with it. They joined the church.
Tyler, may I ask why you still use the KJV? Genuinely interested, Thanks,
Robert's church website is www.odbc.org.au.
[Shaynus]And they actually offer a great deal of teaching on eschatology after the resurrection, which I think they expected the disciples of Christ to understand. Their confusion did not extend to the end of their lives, but after they received the Holy Spirit they were able to understand the things that had confused them.Paul,
They were very clear on the resurrection after it happened, which is entirely the point. You might say the general Jewish confusion on the Messiah and the disciples’ blindness on the resurrection and that it had been entirely foretold as an ominous warning to us. If I were God writing the story of the end times and I were consistent in the story, I’d write in something about church-age Christians being confused on the subject. It seems entirely likely that the vast majority are mistaken about what God will do next, and so has it ever been. What’s up to us is to follow men like Simeon in the temple who held baby Jesus declaring “for my eyes have seen your salvation” and know the work of God when we see it.
Shayne
[pvawter]Shaynus wrote:
pvawter wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:
There are doctrines worth dying for. I don’t think eschatological opinions approach that level of importance. Jesus is coming back. That is a certainty! A lot of the surrounding details are not as clear. When it comes to eschatology, I am encouraged when I read that the disciples, after sitting at the feet of Jesus, didn’t understand the details of his return.
Ron,
the disciples didn’t understand Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection, either. Should we give someone a pass for being fuzzy on the doctrine of the bodily resurrection because he’s only being like Jesus’ disciples?
Paul
Paul,
They were very clear on the resurrection after it happened, which is entirely the point. You might say the general Jewish confusion on the Messiah and the disciples’ blindness on the resurrection and that it had been entirely foretold as an ominous warning to us. If I were God writing the story of the end times and I were consistent in the story, I’d write in something about church-age Christians being confused on the subject. It seems entirely likely that the vast majority are mistaken about what God will do next, and so has it ever been. What’s up to us is to follow men like Simeon in the temple who held baby Jesus declaring “for my eyes have seen your salvation” and know the work of God when we see it.
Shayne
And they actually offer a great deal of teaching on eschatology after the resurrection, which I think they expected the disciples of Christ to understand. Their confusion did not extend to the end of their lives, but after they received the Holy Spirit they were able to understand the things that had confused them.
My statement about the disciples was meant as an aside. The disciples weren’t as sure about eschatological details as some of the experts today. Personally, I think that essential doctrines like justification and the resurrection don’t require the page flipping explanation required for the pre-mill, pre-trib, 70th Week, two-stage return of Christ to establish an earthly kingdom based in Israel.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[TylerR]I suppose the larger issue is whether a prospective member has to be in perfect agreement with everything in the doctrinal statement. Is there no need for submission on their part, to be willing to live with and perhaps learn from a perspective they don’t necessarily agree to?
Tyler, I would agree that for any prospective member joining a church, there most definitely needs to be submission on the part of the one joining. However, if the church requires 100% complete agreement (not just submission), that may be a sign that that church is not a good fit. It would be hard for me (or most here, I’d imagine) to be in complete agreement with just about any church on every single doctrinal point, especially if the doctrinal statement goes into a lot of detail on things like eschatology where the Bible is less clear.
I have a couple of disagreements with my current church (minor), but I’ve been open and honest with my pastor about those, as he has with me. I understand what will be taught, and though I have taught some, there are subjects I would just stay away from, as I would not want to be in any way causing dissension in the church. I’m also willing to listen and learn, but as yet, there are some areas where I have not been convinced. I think if people are honest with themselves, and if they actually attempt to use their brains (or, in biblical parlance, be Berean in their thinking), they will realize there is no such thing as 100% agreement on all points among any body of believers greater than 1 member.
Of course, how a church thinks on this will in part determine how narrow a doctrinal statement needs to be. Obviously, you don’t want it so wide any protestant or even Catholic could affirm what’s in it, and yet you don’t want it so narrow that every single person in the church will find something to disagree with when it delves into too many areas that have been argued about since the time of Christ, especially if these are minor and not things like soteriology.
I realize that some will think submission is just code for outwardly conforming, but I think it’s a valid biblical principle that if used correctly, will help deal with the fact that 100% agreement among all will be impossible unless your doctrinal statement is as short as the 5 solas.
Dave Barnhart
You asked:
Tyler, may I ask why you still use the KJV? Genuinely interested, Thanks,
My answer is that I have other battles to fight right now. The Bible version issue isn’t something I’m interested in delving into at this point in time. There are more pressing things to deal with! The KJV works fine for us, and the folks are used to it and comfortable with it. “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” and all that …
I should also add that since I started studying Greek (I just finished my first year, which means I’m only moderately clueless about the language), I’m perfectly happy with the KJV translations. I do my devotions with the Greek text beside my Bible, and haven’t seen any glaring translation issues. My confidence in the beauty and accuracy of the KJV has only been strengthened. It has it’s issues (James 3:4, anyone!?), but I’m content to leave it alone for now, and likely for a long while.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion