Orthodoxy: Definitions and Exclusionary Clauses. Oh, and gra

[Gene Scarborough]

Most of "being Baptist" in the early days was protesting against the Roman Catholic and Church of England intrusion into government and private life.

Even in my days, starting in 1946, the typical Baptist could tell you more about what he was against over what he was for! We are a protesting minority in the beginning and it caught on because of the openess and lack of hair-splitting theology.

That has changed as we now have BF&M 2000 being used as a hurdle to missionaries and professors as seminaries.

Time will tell, but I think we were far better off when Autonomy allows for cooperation within differences---to a degree. By saying "the Bible and Christ is our creed" it meant if it's biblical, it's Baptist. We well know there are things in the Bible more Jewish than Baptist. We chose to forget the Jewish food laws. Now we are wondering if the stoning of homosexuals should be ignored as well since Jesus said nothing about that particular issue.

[Haruo]

Most of "being Baptist" in the early days was protesting against the Roman Catholic and Church of England intrusion into government and private life.

And UCC. After all, it was the Congregationalists that tried to arrest and deport Roger Williams.

[Timothy Bonney]

It may be a nice little summary of many beliefs held by many Christians, but allegiance to the Apostles Creed is not a requirement to be a follower of Christ. Would you agree?

No allegience to the Apostle's Creed speficially isn't required to be a Christian. But the list of beliefs contained in the Creed are part of the basic foundation of Christian belief. If you don't think so Bruce could you please list a phrase in the Apostle's Creed that isn't foundational Christian doctrine? Or if you disagree with one of the phrases in the Creed or think most Baptists do I'd like you or someone to point that out.

Bruce I certainly believe a believer can be wrong about some things and still be a Christian. I also believe that who God redeems is up to God and not me or the Church. However that doesn't free us from the obligation to seek out the truth and also to teach the truth as given us by the scriptures, the scriptures that were given to us by the Church.

[Timothy Bonney]

This is an old old debate and it is both fascinating and important.

As an outsider, I see Bruce saying that a person can believe anything at all and still be considered a true and orthodox Baptist.

Jude spaeks of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. I think there is a content to that faith. But that is me. I will continue to watch this thread with interest.

John we probably don't agree on many things. But we do agree that there is content to the faith. If there are no beliefs that are necessary to be a Christian than what on earth is Christianity? I could just be a Rotarian if I just wanted to do nice things for people.

[Timothy Bonney]

No other denomination back then (to my knowledge) openly allowed both Arminians and Calvinists.

But note Bruce that Arminianism, Calvinism, views on abortion, homosexuality, politics, etc. are not found in the ecumenical creeds. Most of what fundamentalism wants to hold moderate and liberal Christians feet to the fire on are teaching that are outside of the basic foundational beliefs of the Church. And that is one of the reasons why a foundation is valuable.

[Bruce Gourley]

It may be a nice little summary of many beliefs held by many Christians, but allegiance to the Apostles Creed is not a requirement to be a follower of Christ. Would you agree?

No allegience to the Apostle's Creed speficially isn't required to be a Christian. But the list of beliefs contained in the Creed are part of the basic foundation of Christian belief. If you don't think so Bruce could you please list a phrase in the Apostle's Creed that isn't foundational Christian doctrine? Or if you disagree with one of the phrases in the Creed or think most Baptists do I'd like you or someone to point that out.

Bruce I certainly believe a believer can be wrong about some things and still be a Christian. I also believe that who God redeems is up to God and not me or the Church. However that doesn't free us from the obligation to seek out the truth and also to teach the truth as given us by the scriptures, the scriptures that were given to us by the Church.

Does your congregation require members to explicitly affirm belief in the entirety of the Apostles Creed?

[Timothy Bonney]

Does your congregation require members to explicitly affirm belief in the entirety of the Apostles Creed?

Basically, yes. But our membership requirements aren't decided by the congregation. They are set by the United Methodist Church as a whole. Here is the ceremony for taking membership vows for joining a United Methodist Church. Not all of this is necessarily used for a transfer of membership where a person has already professed their faith in Christ in another Church. So, for example, the creed might not be used for persons transfering from another church because the assumption would be that you already made these promises at your confirmation. Or if you were baptized as an adult, at your baptism.

United Methodist Membership Vows and Profession of Faith

On behalf of the whole church, I ask you:
Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness,
reject the evil powers of this world,
and repent of your sins?

Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you
to resist evil, injustice, and oppression
in whatever forms they present themselves?

Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior,
put your whole trust in his grace,
and promise to serve him as your Lord,
in union with the church which Christ has opened
to people of all ages, nations, and races?

According to the grace given to you,
will you remain faithful members of Christ's holy church
and serve as Christ's representatives in the world?

Let us join together in professing the Christian faith
as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

Do you believe in God the Father?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Reception into the United Methodist Church (from other denomination)

As members of Christ's universal church,
will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church,
and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?

Reception into the Local Congregation (from other United Methodist Church)

As members of this congregation,
will you faithfully participate in its ministries
by your prayers, your presence,
your gifts, your service, and your witness?

So as you can see the liturgy assumes that you are going to profess belief in the doctrines taught in the Apostle's Creed.

[John Sneed]

Yes Bruce, even I can be a Baptist. That brought a smile to my lips.

I am not sure if the Baptists were the first to have Arminians and Calvinists under the same umbrella so I will defer to you on that one. Usually Arminian Baptists and Particular Baptists worship in different settings. Maybe the Triennial Convention (precursor to the SBC) brought them together under one roof. No doubt Baptists are a diverse group. But I believe the question at hand is this ... are there essential beliefs to being a Baptist? Are there certain things one has to believe in order to be in the Baptist fold? I believe, so far, you are answering in the negative.

I will continue to follow the discussion.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

John,

I think that there is a different and better way to look at this. Instead of asking what MUST one believe to be Baptist, why not look at the historical record? What not ask: What HAVE Baptists believed over the last 400 years? Are there any beliefs and theological/ethical principles that have characterized Baptists over this period?

Also, Timothy presents the Apostles Creed as a foundational statement of Christian beliefs. The suggestion is that the Apostles Creed is some clear document.

But history shows us that mainline Protestant theologians - including Methodist theologians - have different understandings of the theological ideas and concepts contained within the Apostles Creed. For example,

"Born of the Virgin Mary"

"the third day he rose from the dead"

"Forgiveness of sins"

We all know that different theologians have different understandings of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ and the definition of "sin"

I'm sure there are a number of additional examples to offer. But these are the three that came immediately to mind.

Also, "God the Father" - my feminist friends even the very moderate ones here in Central Texas aren't comfortable with that language as they cringe when God is depicted in masculine terms.

[Blake]

Intense discussion. I find myself thinking and questioning more along Timothy's lines (and I'm still Ana/Baptist!). I'd like to commend one book to everyone that I've found particularly helpful in thinking about the relationship between the authority of scripture and the Church: Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch by John Webster.

Unless I'm mistaken I thought I remembered reading about plenty of Baptists before the Landmarkists that presented themselves as "the True Church". I think Freedom and Orthodoxy are a false binary.

With regard to whether or not Baptists were the first denomination to hold together both Calvinists and Arminians I'd be interested in some clarification. What is a denomination? How Calvinist do you have to be to be Calvinist? How Armininian do you have to be to be Arminian? Therefore, in what sense did a Baptist denomination hold together "Calvinists" and "Arminians" in Christian fellowship at the same time and for how long?

On a tangentially related note, Hans de Ries was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church before he went over to the Waterlander Mennonites. His bringing in of Reformed practices to the Waterlander Mennonite churches is one part of the many reasons the Waterlanders got a bad reputation among other "more conservative" Mennonites in the 16th and 17th centuries. Bruce, how many Baptist historians are you aware of that are literate in early modern Dutch?

[Bruce Gourley]

Does your congregation require members to explicitly affirm belief in the entirety of the Apostles Creed?

Basically, yes. But our membership requirements aren't decided by the congregation. They are set by the United Methodist Church as a whole. Here is the ceremony for taking membership vows for joining a United Methodist Church. Not all of this is necessarily used for a transfer of membership where a person has already professed their faith in Christ in another Church. So, for example, the creed might not be used for persons transfering from another church because the assumption would be that you already made these promises at your confirmation. Or if you were baptized as an adult, at your baptism.

United Methodist Membership Vows and Profession of Faith

On behalf of the whole church, I ask you:
Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness,
reject the evil powers of this world,
and repent of your sins?

Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you
to resist evil, injustice, and oppression
in whatever forms they present themselves?

Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior,
put your whole trust in his grace,
and promise to serve him as your Lord,
in union with the church which Christ has opened
to people of all ages, nations, and races?

According to the grace given to you,
will you remain faithful members of Christ's holy church
and serve as Christ's representatives in the world?

Let us join together in professing the Christian faith
as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

Do you believe in God the Father?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Reception into the United Methodist Church (from other denomination)

As members of Christ's universal church,
will you be loyal to The United Methodist Church,
and do all in your power to strengthen its ministries?

Reception into the Local Congregation (from other United Methodist Church)

As members of this congregation,
will you faithfully participate in its ministries
by your prayers, your presence,
your gifts, your service, and your witness?

So as you can see the liturgy assumes that you are going to profess belief in the doctrines taught in the Apostle's Creed.

"Assumes"?

[Bruce Gourley]

Yes Bruce, even I can be a Baptist. That brought a smile to my lips.

I am not sure if the Baptists were the first to have Arminians and Calvinists under the same umbrella so I will defer to you on that one. Usually Arminian Baptists and Particular Baptists worship in different settings. Maybe the Triennial Convention (precursor to the SBC) brought them together under one roof. No doubt Baptists are a diverse group. But I believe the question at hand is this ... are there essential beliefs to being a Baptist? Are there certain things one has to believe in order to be in the Baptist fold? I believe, so far, you are answering in the negative.

I will continue to follow the discussion.

John Clarke's church (Newport, RI) in the 1650s was comprised of both Calvinists and Arminians.

As to what Baptists must believe to be Baptists, the historic Baptist answer is that each local congregation answers this question for themselves as a community, while anyone who is a member of any Baptist community is a Baptist.

[Bruce Gourley]

Intense discussion. I find myself thinking and questioning more along Timothy's lines (and I'm still Ana/Baptist!). I'd like to commend one book to everyone that I've found particularly helpful in thinking about the relationship between the authority of scripture and the Church: Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch by John Webster.

Unless I'm mistaken I thought I remembered reading about plenty of Baptists before the Landmarkists that presented themselves as "the True Church". I think Freedom and Orthodoxy are a false binary.

With regard to whether or not Baptists were the first denomination to hold together both Calvinists and Arminians I'd be interested in some clarification. What is a denomination? How Calvinist do you have to be to be Calvinist? How Armininian do you have to be to be Arminian? Therefore, in what sense did a Baptist denomination hold together "Calvinists" and "Arminians" in Christian fellowship at the same time and for how long?

On a tangentially related note, Hans de Ries was a minister in the Dutch Reformed Church before he went over to the Waterlander Mennonites. His bringing in of Reformed practices to the Waterlander Mennonite churches is one part of the many reasons the Waterlanders got a bad reputation among other "more conservative" Mennonites in the 16th and 17th centuries. Bruce, how many Baptist historians are you aware of that are literate in early modern Dutch?

From the beginning, many Baptists claimed they were the "true Church," but not the only church. Landmarkists took it one step further by claiming Baptists were the only church.

From the 1640s onward, the Baptist denomination was elastic enough to hold both Arminians and Calvinists. In some local congregations in the mid-17th century, such as John Clarke's (Newport, RI), both existed together. From the 17th century forward, some Baptists fell in between, while some blatantly refused to side with either (John Leland being a prominent example).

As to prominent Baptist historians who are able to read early modern Dutch, I don't know. There is, however, a (Dutch) Baptist seminary in the Netherlands.

[Timothy Bonney]

So as you can see the liturgy assumes that you are going to profess belief in the doctrines taught in the Apostle's Creed.

"Assumes"?

Yes, because the assumption is that the Pastor has already talk to prospective members about the beliefs of the church. The Pastor is the one responsible for explaining UMC doctrine to new members. The Apostle's Creed isn't part of the UMC doctrinal standards but it is recognized by the UMC as being descriptive of the faith of the Church (as well as the Nicene Creed). The doctrinal standards of the UMC are the "Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church" the "Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren" John Wesley's standard sermons and John Wesley commentary on the New Testament. I can look up specific verbage about the creeds if you like in the book of Disicpline.

Frankly some of this is hard to discuss in a Baptist context because the approaches to doctrine and the approaches to polity are very different. So when you asked me what my congregation expects from people joining the church you were talking like a Baptist. A Methodist would ask what the Conference or the UMC expects of persons joining the UMC. All the local churches are connected and are really viewed as arms of a single entity. The basic unit of the church is the Annual Conference rather than the local church.

[Timothy Bonney]

Also, Timothy presents the Apostles Creed as a foundational statement of Christian beliefs. The suggestion is that the Apostles Creed is some clear document.

But history shows us that mainline Protestant theologians - including Methodist theologians - have different understandings of the theological ideas and concepts contained within the Apostles Creed.

Yes that is true. But those different understandings are individual opinions. Any time we read any statement we do some of our own interpretation. But any official interpretation of the meaning of the statement comes from the General Conference and not the individual. We are connectional and not congregational. United Methodists believe that theology is decided together not individually. So people with different views come together and theology is decided by the whole body and not by little subgroups of the body.

[Bruce Gourley]

Also, Timothy presents the Apostles Creed as a foundational statement of Christian beliefs. The suggestion is that the Apostles Creed is some clear document.

But history shows us that mainline Protestant theologians - including Methodist theologians - have different understandings of the theological ideas and concepts contained within the Apostles Creed.

Yes that is true. But those different understandings are individual opinions. Any time we read any statement we do some of our own interpretation. But any official interpretation of the meaning of the statement comes from the General Conference and not the individual. We are connectional and not congregational. United Methodists believe that theology is decided together not individually. So people with different views come together and theology is decided by the whole body and not by little subgroups of the body.

The way you are describing Methodist life, a relative handful of select persons attending an (annual?) conference decide what everyone else must believe doctrinally.

[Timothy Bonney]

The way you are describing Methodist life, a relative handful of select persons attending an (annual?) conference decide what everyone else must believe doctrinally.

Absolutely not. Obviously I wasn't clear. The official doctrinal stances of the UMC don't change other than by extrodinary means. They are restricted from change except by a means by which each member of each annual conference in the world must support the change by a super majority. All clergy are a member of the annual conference and get a vote. An equal number of lay people get a vote. Just here in Iowa there were over 1,600 conference members voting at our last meeting. So far the restricted section of the Discipline with the doctrines of the church has not been changed since the founding of the UMC.

Other matters of church law found in the book of Discipline are decided at General Conference by delegates who are elected by each Annual Conference. It is a representive system. Each Annual Conference is represented based on the total church membership in that conference. There is a representative formula.

It is much more representative than an Annual Convention where churches are more represented based on who shows up and which church can afford to send delegates/messengers.

Also, just to be clear as I can be, there are levels of doctrine. The official doctrinal standards usually don't change and aren't intended to be changed. Then there is other rules in the Discipline that may change as often as every four years and are binding on the Church. Then there is the book of resolutions that describes the official opinion of the UMC through the General Conference that is not binding the way the Discipline is.

[Timothy Bonney]

Does anyone else notice that we have gone on for two pages and most folks on this forum are unwilling to list any belief at all as necessary to being a Christian? Come on now. I really don't think that is what most Baptist believe. Bruce and I are getting into a discussion about the UMC but I see that as side issue to this discussion. This started out as a conversation about what is and isn't Christian. Are there limits, are there essentials, can some core foundation of belief be defined? Isn't there anything that holds Christians together other than some nebulous undefined beliefs about a guy named Jesus?

If I had really thought all this time that no one here actually thought you had to believe in anything in particular to be a Christian I think I'd have stopped being a Baptist a whole lot sooner! But the truth is, I do not at all think this is representive of Baptists. I heard a lot of doctrinal sermons growing up. I had theology classes at SBTS and MBTS in which we talked about doctrines of the church. Much of it was one brand or another of reformed theology which I might not fully agree with now. But there was theological content to my seminary education and my Baptist college education.

Baptists for hundreds of years wrote confessions of faith saying what they believed to be the truth. Sure there are differences in those confessions but there are huge commonalities as well.

Take a look at this blog article: http://ecclesialtheology.blogspot.com/2 ... eedom.html It hink it might inform our discussion. The author claims that early Baptists were interested in protecting the soverign rights and freedom of the Creator not the creature.

[Bruce Gourley]

The way you are describing Methodist life, a relative handful of select persons attending an (annual?) conference decide what everyone else must believe doctrinally.

Absolutely not. Obviously I wasn't clear. The official doctrinal stances of the UMC don't change other than by extrodinary means. They are restricted from change except by a means by which each member of each annual conference in the world must support the change by a super majority. All clergy are a member of the annual conference and get a vote. An equal number of lay people get a vote. Just here in Iowa there were over 1,600 conference members voting at our last meeting. So far the restricted section of the Discipline with the doctrines of the church has not been changed since the founding of the UMC.

Other matters of church law found in the book of Discipline are decided at General Conference by delegates who are elected by each Annual Conference. It is a representive system. Each Annual Conference is represented based on the total church membership in that conference. There is a representative formula.

It is much more representative than an Annual Convention where churches are more represented based on who shows up and which church can afford to send delegates/messengers.

Also, just to be clear as I can be, there are levels of doctrine. The official doctrinal standards usually don't change and aren't intended to be changed. Then there is other rules in the Discipline that may change as often as every four years and are binding on the Church. Then there is the book of resolutions that describes the official opinion of the UMC through the General Conference that is not binding the way the Discipline is.

OK. So "official doctrinal standards" are immutable. Other doctrines are determined by a vote of a small percentage (1%? 5%) of UMC collective church members? (What I'm trying to understand is who really decides what Methodists believe. My guess is that less than 5% of UMC membership decides for the rest of the membership, but you may tell me this is a low number.)

[Timothy Bonney]

OK. So "official doctrinal standards" are immutable. Other doctrines are determined by a vote of a small percentage (1%? 5%) of UMC collective church members? (What I'm trying to understand is who really decides what Methodists believe. My guess is that less than 5% of UMC membership decides for the rest of the membership, but you may tell me this is a low number.)

The General Conference decides. I'd have to look up membership numbers to get percentages. But the General Conference membership is capped at 1,000 delegates. As I said before, it is a representive process 50% lay and 50% clergy.

And yes Bruce, this is an Episcopal system and not a congregational system. So decisions are made by representative groups.

My experience of congregational (Baptist) polity is that everything is decided by who shows up at the business meeting, often as low as 10% to 15% of the congregation by majority vote. So half of the 10% - 15% get to decide the doctrines of the church. And it isn't a representative decision. That doesn't take into account the two churches I pastored where people voted how they voted based on how a handful of leading individuals basically told them to vote or misled them into voting.

Also, outside of Disciplinary issues in the UMC churches do largely run their own business and make their own decisions through an elected Church Council. The Discipline lays out major rules and organizational structures. It doesn't generally dictate individual church decisions about the church's operations.

[Bruce Gourley]

Does anyone else notice that we have gone on for two pages and most folks on this forum are unwilling to list any belief at all as necessary to being a Christian? Come on now. I really don't think that is what most Baptist believe. Bruce and I are getting into a discussion about the UMC but I see that as side issue to this discussion. This started out as a conversation about what is and isn't Christian. Are there limits, are there essentials, can some core foundation of belief be defined? Isn't there anything that holds Christians together other than some nebulous undefined beliefs about a guy named Jesus?

If I had really thought all this time that no one here actually thought you had to believe in anything in particular to be a Christian I think I'd have stopped being a Baptist a whole lot sooner! But the truth is, I do not at all think this is representive of Baptists. I heard a lot of doctrinal sermons growing up. I had theology classes at SBTS and MBTS in which we talked about doctrines of the church. Much of it was one brand or another of reformed theology which I might not fully agree with now. But there was theological content to my seminary education and my Baptist college education.

Baptists for hundreds of years wrote confessions of faith saying what they believed to be the truth. Sure there are differences in those confessions but there are huge commonalities as well.

Take a look at this blog article: http://ecclesialtheology.blogspot.com/2 ... eedom.html It hink it might inform our discussion. The author claims that early Baptists were interested in protecting the soverign rights and freedom of the Creator not the creature.

Steve Harmon misreads Baptist history in an attempt to reject what Roger Williams called "soul liberty." The Bapto-Catholic argument is that soul liberty is a post-early Baptist, enlightenment concept. Quite to the contrary, Baptists advocated soul liberty before John Locke; indeed, Roger Williams influenced Locke, but Locke did not dare go as far down the road of individual liberty as did Williams!

Thomas Helwys in 16th century England declared that "men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves" and argued for liberty of individual conscience. From Helwys on, Baptists argued for the freedom of individual conscience as the foundation of true religion - that is, true religion is voluntary religion, and freedom of the individual's conscience is a must for true faith.

You note that you heard a "lot of doctrinal sermons growing up." So did I. And no two preachers taught doctrine the same (some preachers even contradicted themselves at points). If you're looking for the commonalties among Baptists, they boil down to this: faith in Christ is what Christianity is about. And yet individuals across various denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) define faith in Christ in different ways. Not to mention that Christ himself taught that merely voicing faith in Christ (Matthew 25) or believing proper doctrine (see his criticisms of the religious leaders of his day) is not a prescription for salvation.

[Bruce Gourley]

OK. So "official doctrinal standards" are immutable. Other doctrines are determined by a vote of a small percentage (1%? 5%) of UMC collective church members? (What I'm trying to understand is who really decides what Methodists believe. My guess is that less than 5% of UMC membership decides for the rest of the membership, but you may tell me this is a low number.)

The General Conference decides. I'd have to look up membership numbers to get percentages. But the General Conference membership is capped at 1,000 delegates. As I said before, it is a representive process 50% lay and 50% clergy.

And yes Bruce, this is an Episcopal system and not a congregational system. So decisions are made by representative groups.

My experience of congregational (Baptist) polity is that everything is decided by who shows up at the business meeting, often as low as 10% to 15% of the congregation by majority vote. So half of the 10% - 15% get to decide the doctrines of the church. And it isn't a representative decision. That doesn't take into account the two churches I pastored where people voted how they voted based on how a handful of leading individuals basically told them to vote or misled them into voting.

Also, outside of Disciplinary issues in the UMC churches do largely run their own business and make their own decisions through an elected Church Council. The Discipline lays out major rules and organizational structures. It doesn't generally dictate individual church decisions about the church's operations.

I almost hear you saying you traded one system whereby a small percentage of individuals make decisions for the whole, for a system whereby an even smaller percentage of individuals make decisions for the whole.

Democracy is messy; always has been. The earliest Baptists recognized this, yet realized it was the best way to honor the foundational principles of freedom of conscience and voluntary faith. An individual congregation making decisions democratically (whereby all are given the freedom to voice their convictions, even if only a small percentage chooses to "vote"; the numbers you throw out are low in my experience) seems to be on a entirely different scale than a situation whereby a capped, tiny percentage of persons decides what everyone in the entire denomination must believe.

I'm not saying the Episcopal system itself is bad. I'm just saying that I'm hanging with the early Baptists in acknowledging that democracy is messy, but the messiness is worth it to honor the relationship that Christ establishes with all his followers, not just a select few.

[Timothy Bonney]

faith in Christ is what Christianity is about. And yet individuals across various denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) define faith in Christ in different ways. Not to mention that Christ himself taught that merely voicing faith in Christ (Matthew 25) or believing proper doctrine (see his criticisms of the religious leaders of his day) is not a prescription for salvation.

I agree that just depending on proper doctrine won't save you. John Wesley tried the route of doing and believing all the right things and then had an experience of grace at Aldersdate that changed his life. However, that doesn't mean that he ever abandoned trying to know what the truth was or that he ever abandoned the doctrines of the faith he'd been taught. Methodism was less a break over doctrine than a break over the need for holiness of heart and life.

Jesus did a lot of teaching that didn't just boil down to "voicing faith in Christ." He also said a lot of people would say "Lord, Lord" and not enter the kingdom. He said we had to make disciples of all nation, we had to love one another, and that we had to help the least of these. You can't just boil Jesus teaching down to an undefined belief in Jesus. He said that those who loved him would keep his commandments. Its the whole package.

[Timothy Bonney]

I almost hear you saying you traded one system whereby a small percentage of individuals make decisions for the whole, for a system whereby an even smaller percentage of individuals make decisions for the whole.

My experience of Baptist polity in the local church was that it isn't just messy. In some cases it is unworkable, unhelpful, and unredeemable. I'm not saying that is true for for all Baptist churches. But I have seen huge abuses of congregational polity in my life at every level. Some behaviors were so bad that it is only by the grace of God in my life that I didn't abandon the faith over the behaviors of some people.

What I traded was a highly representative process from a largely unrepresentative process. How many Baptists churches run their business sounds like democracy but it really often isn't. In Methodist polity the people are largely selected by the whole for their qualifications and abilities make the decisions. In congregational polity often the guy with the loudest mouth who shows up at the monthly meeting often gets his way. I could name names, I could tell stories, and it would be from more than one church. And again, at the national level for many Baptist groups decisions are made by those who can afford to attend. It is only vaguely representative.

I found American Baptists to be more representative because of the General Board than the SBC and its annual Convention. But that didn't fix the local church problems I saw.

I'm more interested in how good the decisions are than in how many people make them.

And by the way, I think the ABC/USA is a great denomination if you are a Baptist. I just came to realize that I'm not one and don't want to be one.

[Bruce Gourley]

faith in Christ is what Christianity is about. And yet individuals across various denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) define faith in Christ in different ways. Not to mention that Christ himself taught that merely voicing faith in Christ (Matthew 25) or believing proper doctrine (see his criticisms of the religious leaders of his day) is not a prescription for salvation.

I agree that just depending on proper doctrine won't save you. John Wesley tried the route of doing and believing all the right things and then had an experience of grace at Aldersdate that changed his life. However, that doesn't mean that he ever abandoned trying to know what the truth was or that he ever abandoned the doctrines of the faith he'd been taught. Methodism was less a break over doctrine than a break over the need for holiness of heart and life.

Jesus did a lot of teaching that didn't just boil down to "voicing faith in Christ." He also said a lot of people would say "Lord, Lord" and not enter the kingdom. He said we had to make disciples of all nation, we had to love one another, and that we had to help the least of these. You can't just boil Jesus teaching down to an undefined belief in Jesus. He said that those who loved him would keep his commandments. Its the whole package.

Well said, Tim. We're talking faith without going creedal.

I would add that many (probably most) Christians don't hold entirely to the "doctrines of the faith" they were initially taught; we grow in the faith, we grasp for greater truth, we reach new understandings, we nuance our faith; it is part of the process of Christian growth.

I'd also venture to say (speaking of the "whole package" of Jesus) that no one of us dares to actually follow Jesus in everything that he taught. He is far too radical.

The pursuit of Truth is dynamic; it cannot be contained by human creeds, and no matter how hard we strive to understand and/or live it, we never fully arrive -- so I would personally contend. There is a humility in recognizing our limited place and understanding in God's vast creation.