Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu (Josh Smith) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Wanted: Non-Fundamentalist Christian sect Message-ID: Date: 24 Jul 90 08:42:14 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Swarthmore College CS Dept. Lines: 51 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I've been looking at Christianity for a while now, and have begun to see some of its appeal; however, I simply cannot accept the idea that the Bible is 100% true as an a priori assertion (i.e. the Bible is accurate simply based on the fact that it is the Bible, not based on any analysis of what it actually says). Can anyone point me towards any Christian sects that explicitly do NOT support Biblical infallibility? I suspect that there may not be any, but if there are, I'd be interested in checking them out. Thanks for your time... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Reality: Josh Smith | Josh Smith '92 | | Internet: irilyth@cs.swarthmore.edu | Swarthmore College | | BITNet: JBS92@SWARTHMR.BITNET | 500 College Ave. | | #include | Swarthmore, PA 19081-1397 | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Most of the "mainline" denominations accept Biblical criticism, which means they reject Biblical inerrancy. This includes the United Methodists, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, etc. The American Baptists, Episcopaleans, one of the Lutheran groups (ELC?), and others also tend to be relatively "liberal", but I don't know their official positions on this subject. Of course being at Swarthmore you surely have run into the Quakers. They do not accept inerrancy. This issue complicated because there are often differences between leaders and the people in the pews. It's pretty common for seminaries to teach views of the Bible that reject inerrancy, and for pastors and other leaders to accept them, while the average church member in the denomination believes in inerrancy or something very close. There were a number of big battles earlier in the Century that resulted in denominations splitting. However the fact that "liberals" were left in control of the seminaries didn't mean that all the people who believe in inerrancy left. Once the battles over institutional control were over, the issue sort of vanished under the carpet. To bring the people and their leaders into agreement would involve a massive educational campaign. Which direction the education would go is of course an open question. It may be that if leaders were more open about their beliefs, there would be a revolt in the pews. This may be one reason the battle was never fought to a conclusion. But certainly in my church (Presbyterian (USA)), Sunday school material and other official publications are based on scholarship that rejects inerrancy. One reasonable test is whether a denomination ordains women. Strict believers in inerrancy generally do not accept that. In principle one could accept inerrancy, but still come up with arguments for ordination of women, based on differences in the social environment now and in the 1st Cent. But I don't know anyone who believes in inerrancy and accepts such arguments. So in practice ordination of women is a fairly good quick test. (However this test has one drastic failure. The largest group that does not accept inerrancy is the Catholic Church. They do not ordain women.) --clh]