Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!hsdndev!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: doctrinal standards Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 06:54:44 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 55 Approved: christian@geneva.rutgers.edu This is a postscript to my discussion with David Wagner. I though it was better to do this as myself than as a moderatorial comment. I try to avoid foaming at the mouth when I'm moderating. I'm not sure I can do so here. I would not want people to think that I don't care about doctrine, or that I believe churches should not care what their leaders teach. However I am somewhat more willing to tolerate disagreement than David is. First, as I read the NT passages about false teaching, they are directed primarily against teachers, not normal members. I certainly support churches watching what pastors and other teachers teach. I understand that the Lutheran Church is traditionally a confessional church, and I have no problem at all with it requiring pastors and teachers to subscribe to the Augsburg Confession or something similar. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is not quite as confessional, and allows somewhat more latitude in doctrine. We don't require subscription to any specific creed, so things are up to the presbyteries. But I attend one of the most liberal presbyteries, and even in ours, pastors accept roughly the Apostles or Nicene creeds, understand Christ as truly God and man (i.e roughly Chalcedon), and show some signs of a Reformed perspective. (I say roughly because now and then someone will have qualms about a specific clause. The Virgin Birth is a typical one; Christ's descent into hell another.) I'm not sure we are as careful in reviewing the beliefs of Sunday School teachers, but I would certainly support doing so. Our church has avoided teachers whose views appear to be non-standard (at least for work with children and youth -- our adult class sometimes has controversial presentations). Where I have problems with doctrinal standards is in ordinary worship. My basic perspective is that the Church is Christ's body, not ours. Doctrine is important, and we should do everything that we can to encourage competent doctrine. But anyone who has accepted Christ as Lord and savior is my brother or sister in Christ, and I cannot conceive of refusing to worship with them because I think they've gotten something wrong. The PC(USA) accepts just about any Christian as a member. Our primary doctrinal standard for members is that they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We exercise doctrinal controls where I think it matters (and is called for in the NT), which is on teaching. What particularly angers me (as most readers surely know by now) is closed communion. (I'm speaking of closing communion for doctrinal reasons. I don't want to get into church discipline here.) Communion is the symbol of our unity in Christ. It is *his* table. It is the last place we should be trying to do doctrinal quality control. I do understand about "discerning the body". Certainly anyone who participates in communion should understand that they are participating in an act where Christ is expected to be present. But I can't accept requiring a specific theory of Christ's presence. Fortunately God is presumably willing to forgive offenses here. But it's hard for me to conceive of a more offensive action than trying to keep a fellow Christian from Christ's table.