Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Fellowship and doctrinal agreement Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 91 09:05:15 GMT Sender: hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 78 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gibson@b11.ingr.com (Stanley) writes: >Someone recently made the comment that they were not in a "church" >because they were not in agreement with any group. >But the concept of agreement on all principles is not found in the Bible. >For example the church at Corinth contained some who thought it wrong to >eat meat sacrificed to idols. Others saw nothing wrong with that. Paul >refers to both as brethern and did not urge a break in fellowship. Rather >he encouraged the one to bear the infirmities of the other. The head >covering would be another example of this. I think I would draw more precise guidelines than Stanley, although I appreciate much of what he said. A prequisite for fellowship is agreement on doctrine, i.e., the things that are clearly taught in Scripture. Practices which are neither forbidden not commanded by God -- adiaphora -- must not be an obstacle to fellowship. Clearly we will not refuse fellowship to those who do not understand all of christian doctrine, either because they are new to the faith, or are still immature in their faith, or who are mentally impaired. The church does have a responsibility to intruct these in the basics of the faith. Those, however, who oppose the doctrines of Scripture, we must not practice fellowship with. The clearest passage on this is Romans 16:17-18: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." Their are other relevant passages: 2 Cor 6:14-18, Amos 3:3: "Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to do so?", and, ultimately, the commandment: "You shall have no other gods before me." --Ex 20:3. I think it is apparent that few people who join a church understand all of its doctrine. Most Lutherans, regrettably, have not read the Lutheran confessions. However, I would prefer that first they read the Bible. Some people join a church, perhaps holding some reservations about doctrine. The main thing here is that their conscience must be clear. I would advise against joining a church that teaches something clearly contrary to scripture. The place where 'full agreement in doctrine' has its most important application is in fellowship or merger between two or more church bodies. In this century, unfortunately, many churches have merged without prior agreement in doctrine. The end result is that the church's confession of faith is watered down; or internal strife results when the members of the the resulting church realize they are not in agreement. I think this is particularly true of the ELCA. We are starting to see a call for orthodoxy from some in the ELCA; in some cases it comes from men such as Braaten who have taught a great deal that is unorthodox. Perhaps this reflects a change of heart; I certainly hope so. But the time to call for orthodoxy is before the papers are signed! David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [The most extreme venture in this direction is the Consultation on Church Union. Many people thought it had died, but I can testify that it's still going on its way. The latest proposal is for 9 denominations (in the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Episcopalean traditions, if I recall) should "covenant" with other, rather than completely merge. This involves recognizing each other sacraments, ordination, etc. Most of the other groups have at least titular bishops. It's going to be interesting to see Episcopaleans recognizing Methodist bishops as equivalent, and even more interesting to see what the Presbyterians present as an equivalent. (We figure it will be a commission consisting of half Ministers of the Word and Sacraments and half Ruling Elders.) --clh]