Someone in your denomination who believes differently?

[Lamb]

Let's say you have a friend within your denomination who doesn't believe what your denomination declares as being biblical. What do you do?

 

[Albion]

Generally speaking, nothing. There are people in every church who don't understand the church's teachings or else think it's fine to impose their own thinking on a few doctrines. Generally speaking also, they usually aren't open to changing their minds about it and may point to doctrines that many churches actually have changed over the years.

But you asked about a "friend," so in that case there might be an occasion for politely addressing the subject and suggesting why the church's teaching is right.

 

[Josiah]

Let's say you have a friend within your denomination who doesn't believe what your denomination declares as being biblical. What do you do?

Generally speaking, nothing.

As an LCMS Lutheran, laity are required to agree with Luther's Small Catechism (which is perhaps less than 10 pages long - and most of that not teachings). Clergy, however, are to teach according to all the Lutheran Confessions, as the LCMS understands them. So, if it's something outside of that, they are permitted to disagree.

HOWEVER, you said "friend." And as a friend, I'd be concerned if they are holding to a false idea. As a brother or sister in Christ, I'd likely do my best to LOVINGLY share the truth with them, in hopes of bringing them around. I might succeed... I might not. But I'd try.



.

 

[Lamb]

So what if that person was teaching against what your denomination believes in a church meeting? Then what?

 

[Albion]

So what if that person was teaching against what your denomination believes in a church meeting? Then what?

Doing that would most likely provoke a confrontation and involve more people than just oneself.

That would bring about a different situation than we had been talking about (a personal friend who doesn't believe some of the church's doctrines but presumably hasn't broadcast the disagreement to the rest of the congregation).

 

[tango]

Let's say you have a friend within your denomination who doesn't believe what your denomination declares as being biblical. What do you do?

It's hard to say without a specific example of the belief mismatch and situation.

If someone disagrees with something that is peculiar to a particular denomination I'd have to ask if it really matters. For example I don't think it's hugely important that we all agree on whether baptism should be done by sprinkling infants, sprinkling adults or full immersion of adults. Personally I lean towards full immersion of adults but wouldn't reject someone else's thoughts whatever the teaching of my particular church might say. If someone disagrees with large numbers of denominational beliefs I might wonder why they attend that church at all, but maybe they have their reasons.

Sometimes I think denominations can get a bit caught up in what makes us different, in ways that aren't necessarily helpful.

On the other hand of someone disagrees with something that is common across denominations it might be a bigger issue. If someone doesn't believe in Christ's death and resurrection it's hard to see how they could consider themselves a Christian at all. There's still no reason they shouldn't come to church - maybe they want to learn more or figure out why we believe what we believe. I'd be concerned if someone who didn't believe in Christ's death and resurrection were allowed to lead at church.

 

[Lamb]

Doing that would most likely provoke a confrontation and involve more people than just oneself.

That would bring about a different situation than we had been talking about (a personal friend who doesn't believe some of the church's doctrines but presumably hasn't broadcast the disagreement to the rest of the congregation).

Well, the person is still a friend, even in a meeting.

It's hard to say without a specific example of the belief mismatch and situation.

If someone disagrees with something that is peculiar to a particular denomination I'd have to ask if it really matters. For example I don't think it's hugely important that we all agree on whether baptism should be done by sprinkling infants, sprinkling adults or full immersion of adults. Personally I lean towards full immersion of adults but wouldn't reject someone else's thoughts whatever the teaching of my particular church might say. If someone disagrees with large numbers of denominational beliefs I might wonder why they attend that church at all, but maybe they have their reasons.

Sometimes I think denominations can get a bit caught up in what makes us different, in ways that aren't necessarily helpful.

On the other hand of someone disagrees with something that is common across denominations it might be a bigger issue. If someone doesn't believe in Christ's death and resurrection it's hard to see how they could consider themselves a Christian at all. There's still no reason they shouldn't come to church - maybe they want to learn more or figure out why we believe what we believe. I'd be concerned if someone who didn't believe in Christ's death and resurrection were allowed to lead at church.

If it's part of the official beliefs of the denomination, then yes, it's important, otherwise they wouldn't state that this is their beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Well, the person is still a friend, even in a meeting.

I'd expect that, but what I meant there was just that most of us would be more likely to bring up the issue of a doctrinal disagreement if it was the view of a friend, as opposed to some other member of the congregation.

 

[Lamb]

I'd expect that, but what I meant there was just that most of us would be more likely to bring up the issue of a doctrinal disagreement if it was the view of a friend, as opposed to some other member of the congregation.

How would you handle it in a meeting if it happened?

 

[Josiah]

Some thoughts....

1. It depends on the viewpoint. Not everything said or believed is dogma that is required in a given church and/or denomination.

2. It depends on the status given to it. Is it expressed as opinion or as a dogmatic fact? I give my personal fallible opinion on lots of things... ain't saying it's true, just how I see it.

3. It depends on who is saying it. Clergy are often held to a higher standard than laity.

4. It depends on the setting. Is it a view expressed in a sermon or simply in an informal, private conservation? I'm a Sunday School teacher and Bible Study leader; in both capacities I'm representing my church and I need to be careful what I say and teach in that setting. It's a bit different here at CH for example, where I'm only representing me and in an unofficial, informal setting.



.

 

[tango]

If it's part of the official beliefs of the denomination, then yes, it's important, otherwise they wouldn't state that this is their beliefs.

This is where I sometimes wonder if denominations get too caught up in exclusionary clauses in their statements of faith.

I remember one church I visited when I was looking for a church in a new area, that listed a bunch of the expected stuff on their statement of faith (we believe in God, we believe in Jesus Christ etc) but then where the second coming of Christ was concerned they explicitly stated they believed in a pre-tribulation rapture. I asked the minister if such a belief was necessary for membership and he fudged the issue and wouldn't give a straight answer at all. In contrast my church believes in non-violence but despite me not believing anywhere near as strongly but doesn't specifically require members or even leaders to follow that.

As Josiah said, if you're teaching it's good to avoid contradicting the church's stance on things. That said if I'm teaching I look to encourage people to consider the subject matter and how it applies to their lives rather than necessarily laying out "this is how it is", so if the reality is that my denomination has a stance on something that people don't agree with the chances are they'll draw that conclusion themselves. For what it's worth I regard it as far more useful to lay out what Scripture says and guide people to figure how it applies to their life, than to spoon feed them what a particular denomination teaches on something. Maybe my denomination is wrong on something, and it's better for people to consider things to draw their conclusions than to simply accumulate things they've been told are true without ever thinking about it for themselves.

Where children are concerned, the scenario I'm very conscious of is the possibility that they'll head out to college with lots of "beliefs" but no sense of why they believe them, only to get eaten alive by people of other faiths who have more to work with than "this is what the church says". If the kids grow into adults without ever thinking about why they believe what they believe I'd say the adults in their lives have failed them spectacularly.

 

[Albion]

How would you handle it in a meeting if it happened?

First, I'm not certain that I would handle it. And if I did, a lot would depend on what kind of "meeting" it was. If we're talking about something like a small Bible Study group, I'd probably be more inclined to speak up than if it were in a congregational meeting. And in any case, I would take care not to be outraged or on the attack. Rather, I'd describe it as a difficult or frequently misunderstood matter, referring to Scripture (and the Church's POV), and make sure to focus on the issue rather than the speaker.

 

[tango]

First, I'm not certain that I would handle it. And if I did, a lot would depend on what kind of "meeting" it was. If we're talking about something like a small Bible Study group, I'd probably be more inclined to speak up than if it were in a congregational meeting. And in any case, I would take care not to be outraged or on the attack. Rather, I'd describe it as a difficult or frequently misunderstood matter, referring to Scripture (and the Church's POV), and make sure to focus on the issue rather than the speaker.

Seems like a good approach. Since multiple denominations draw different beliefs from the same Scriptures they can't all be right, and if someone can argue with Scripture why they believe something that differs from the denomination it's possible they are right and the denomination is wrong.

I'm more interested in what Scripture says than in what my denomination says Scripture says.

 

[atpollard]

Stone the heretic. It was all this “everyone has their own truth” that led to Priestess performing ceremonies for same-sex unions and calling it a Christian Church.​

(Actually, I wouldn’t do anything either … Baptists have this “distinctive” called Individual Soul Liberty. I just found all the posts saying the same thing … BORING.)

 

[Albion]

Seems like a good approach. Since multiple denominations draw different beliefs from the same Scriptures they can't all be right, and if someone can argue with Scripture why they believe something that differs from the denomination it's possible they are right and the denomination is wrong.

I'm more interested in what Scripture says than in what my denomination says Scripture says.

I wonder if the issue is being changed somewhat now. I said that I would be cautious about speaking up if someone else in the congregation voiced his opposition to the church's doctrines, but that wasn't because we should adopt a 'to each his own' attitude about it.

Patience and charity in such situations is desirable, I think, and maybe the opportunity to challenge what someone else in the congregation has voiced should just be let to pass without comment on a particular occasion, but that doesn't mean that it's fine and dandy if every congregant believes whatever he chooses.

That attitude -- if it's about an essential doctrine and not something that doesn't rise to that level -- works against one of the primary reasons for there to be local churches in the first place, no?

 

[tango]

I wonder if the issue is being changed somewhat now. I said that I would be cautious about speaking up if someone else in the congregation voiced his opposition to the church's doctrines, but that wasn't because we should adopt a 'to each his own' attitude about it.

I'm not sure how you got "to each his own" from what I posted. If someone has a belief drawn from Scripture that's not really "to each his own", and accepting that someone else's interpretation of Scripture might be the correct one even if my denomination teaches something else isn't "to each his own". It's about going to Scripture and seeking truth, which seems to be pretty important if we want to find the truth.

Patience and charity in such situations is desirable, I think, and maybe the opportunity to challenge what someone else in the congregation has voiced should just be let to pass without comment on a particular occasion, but that doesn't mean that it's fine and dandy if every congregant believes whatever he chooses.

Somewhere my references to what Scripture says seem to have been lost here.

That attitude -- if it's about an essential doctrine and not something that doesn't rise to that level -- works against one of the primary reasons for there to be local churches in the first place, no?

If things aren't essential doctrines but churches split over them anyway one might almost be forgiven for wondering why there are so many churches in the first place, no?

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure how you got "to each his own" from what I posted.

It came from this--

if someone can argue with Scripture why they believe something that differs from the denomination it's possible they are right and the denomination is wrong.

............................................................................................................................................................

If someone has a belief drawn from Scripture that's not really "to each his own", and accepting that someone else's interpretation of Scripture might be the correct one

Well, almost anything can be "drawn" from Scripture, you know. The most ridiculous interpretations are derived from somebody's personal reading of, and selection of, verses taken by them from the Bible. We often see that here on this forum.

However, if it's the particular phrase I used ("to each his own") that you object to, I would guess that there are a number of other expressions that say approximately the same thing.

If things aren't essential doctrines but churches split over them anyway one might almost be forgiven for wondering why there are so many churches in the first place, no?

But the issue concerns you or me or someone else speaking up when another person expresses their belief in a doctrine that's contrary to their own church's teaching.

Part of my reply differentiated between essential doctrines and other ideas that might be commonly heard in that church but which aren't critical--how often to have Holy Communion, for example, or what Jesus meant when saying to the good thief that they'd both be in "paradise" that day.

 

[Castle Church]

Messianic beliefs are notorious for being broad and varied, many people in the denomination don't agree on even some basic things, let alone the more esoteric parts.

 

[tango]

It came from this--


............................................................................................................................................................

I'm not sure how you got from that to "to each his own", given I noted that the person with a different view might be right (as opposed to saying they are right). There are so many denominations it's reasonable to conclude at least some of them must be wrong on something, so it's not a huge leap of faith to figure that someone might attend a denomination while not agreeing with everything they believe.

Well, almost anything can be "drawn" from Scripture, you know. The most ridiculous interpretations are derived from somebody's personal reading of, and selection of, verses taken by them from the Bible. We often see that here on this forum.

I certainly won't argue with that. There are some truly whacky conclusions notionally drawn from Scripture, usually by ripping things out of context. But my point was that if someone has a disagreement it doesn't hurt to hear them out to see if their point has any merit.

However, if it's the particular phrase I used ("to each his own") that you object to, I would guess that there are a number of other expressions that say approximately the same thing.

I'm sure there are several, although I think there's a big difference between a total free-for-all and considering arguments that might indicate a denomination is wrong about something. As I also mentioned, I'm more interested in what Scripture says than in what my denomination says Scripture says. But then I've never been one to closely identify with one denomination over another.

But the issue concerns you or me or someone else speaking up when another person expresses their belief in a doctrine that's contrary to their own church's teaching.

It certainly does, which is why I'm inclined to think if someone disagrees with what my church teaches I'd be interested to know why and to consider what merits their argument may have. It's not particularly useful to simply say that my denomination disagrees as if that were the end of the matter, unless it were some essential doctrine.

Part of my reply differentiated between essential doctrines and other ideas that might be commonly heard in that church but which aren't critical--how often to have Holy Communion, for example, or what Jesus meant when saying to the good thief that they'd both be in "paradise" that day.

There is certainly a difference between "I tell you the truth, this day you will be with me in paradise" and "I tell you the truth this day, you will be with me in paradise". Hence the point about considering what someone has to say, whether their points have merit, and whether to change my own beliefs based on their points.

I'm not one to join a denomination and assume that denomination has everything perfectly correct.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure how you got from that to "to each his own", given I noted that the person with a different view might be right (as opposed to saying they are right).

Well, the point there was that saying "to each his own" is saying there's nothing wrong with the members of a church that has a particular view concerning divine revelation holding all sorts of different beliefs about it.

Naturally, not everyone can be correct when contrasting and mutually exclusive views are being voiced, but this is beside the point.

Some kinds of organizations are open to members holding a range of views about something the association stands for. But traditional Christianity isn't like that--at least not when it comes to the churches most people here belong to, myself included.

So that has to frame the reply I gave about what I would do if the situation we were presented with arose in my own life.

I certainly won't argue with that. There are some truly whacky conclusions notionally drawn from Scripture, usually by ripping things out of context. But my point was that if someone has a disagreement it doesn't hurt to hear them out to see if their point has any merit.

I said in my reply that I would be cautious about speaking up if somebody disagreed with an official doctrine held by the church that both of us belonged to.