Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!shelby!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!christian From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Fellowship and doctrinal agreement Message-ID: Date: 16 Jan 91 08:55:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 68 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. That was me. >I find that most people have the idea that a local church is made up of >people who all think alike, who are in agreement on every principle. >Certainly unity is required on some points. The fact of Christ's diety, >the plan of salvation, these and others are examples of things that must >be agreed upon for the group to worship together. Agreed... as far as you go. But the fact that there _are_ different churches (as opposed to the one Church, of which I am a member and presume you are also), shows that these various temporal organizations are indeed very doctrinally based. The only one I can think of offhand that _isn't_ is the Unitarian Universalist church, and since I'm a trinitarian, I can't exactly feel comfortable there. >Fellowship with God is based on Faith in God, not in flawless knowledge >or performance. If God does not demand perfect knowledge of us how can we >demand it of each other? To know God is, and has alway been, to pay >attention to lovingkindness, justice, and righteouness. There is a difference between fellowship and membership in a temporal organization called a "church." I am practicing fellowship by participating in this forum, n'est-ce pas? As a devoted reader of C.S. Lewis, I _do_ understand your point; and I recall his observation that the variety of churches is like a long hall with lots of doors, and that what matters is that you get into some room and not remain in the hall. But I have this in reply: I find that (because of who I am) I become irritable and rebellious during most church services. Now, first of all, if I become enough so that I spoil someone else's experience of the service, I am clearly doing more harm than good by being there. And, second, I remember Jesus' telling us that we should make ourselves right with our brothers before we come to offer sacrifice. While I am a bit concerned that an unwilling soul (such as mine may be) may use this as an excuse to avoid churchgoing when I know perfectly well I should, I feel that, in combination with the above, I would do more harm than good by attending church. Catholics -- with whom I am in a great deal of doctrinal harmony -- and other sects would point out to me here that I am cutting myself off from the Lord's Supper. All I can say is that, in my opinion, this is not so, but to explain it would involve a doctrinal discussion even more out of place on this forum than I suspect this excess of personal effusion is. Praise God and pass the A-1 sauce, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes [The degree of doctrinal commitment for a number of churches is quite limited. Baptists specifically deny that they hold members to a creed. Presbyterians -- although we have standards that officers pledge to be guided by in some general sense -- require nothing of members other than the pledge that they have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I believe Methodists are similar. A lot of differences have to do with church government, liturgy, etc., though I admit that there are some general differences in belief. --clh]