Addressing denominational error

[tango]

It's inevitable that there are going to be discussions over whether one denomination or another is accurate in its theology. It's a good thing that we've got a place where we can say "hey, Denomination X teaches this and it doesn't align with Scripture very well".

When it comes to addressing points like that let's stick to the points under discussion rather than bringing the poster's own denominational issues into it. So if, as a member of Denomination A, I write a post pointing out errors in the teachings of Denomination B, the best thing to do is to either post to indicate why my comments on Denomination B are accurate, or to show that Denomination B doesn't teach/practice the things I've attributed to them, or to post a Scriptural rebuttal to show how Denomination B's practices do align with Scripture and my post is inaccurate. To point out issues with the teachings of my denomination doesn't address the points I've raised with another.

By all means start a new thread to point out errors in what my denomination teaches, in which case my response should be to either accept them or address them as above.

If we can do this then hopefully we can maintain a Scriptural discussion on the relative merits of different teachings without reverting to "but your lot have their own problems". By all means address errors in the teachings of my denomination but please don't act as if they diminish the significance of errors in other denominations.

 

[Josiah]

The Lutheran Church was born of theological disagreement.... INSTITUTIONS tend to be highly, highly protective of SELF and (sadly) INSTITUTIONS are apt to consider self to be self-preserving, self-serving and perhaps even exempted by self for accountability (at least conditionally). That's NOT a condemnation of institutions per se ONLY a recognition that human institutions tend to have the marks of humans.

IMO, they can err. Thus humility, community and accountability are ESSENTIAL. These were themes in the Reformation.... and the Roman Catholic Church of the day excommunicated the Reformers and divided itself in order to reject these. But sadly, the institutions formed by those kicked out of the RCC tend to have the same issues (we can debate if such is to the same degree - but that's irrelevant to my point here).

As a Lutheran, what I so much lament is the destruction of Ecumenical Councils (the last held about 1200 years ago), where there was at least SOME (not much but SOME) sense of humility/community/accountability as WE worked out our divisions TOGETHER. But the supreme, unmitigated, institutional EGOISM destroyed this (I "blame" the west - what became the RCC for this, primarily but not exclusively).... leaving us with nothing but a growing plethora of self-centered, self-serving denominations (institutions) with no practical way to resolve anything (beyond self).... leaving the sad situation that the only option is for INDIVIDUALS to take it upon SELF to leave or stay (which, in and of itself, perpetuates the rejection of community). I "feel" that strongly as one who sadly left one institution (the RCC) eventually for another (the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod). A LOT of that goes on..... we "vote" with our feet (I'm one of THIRTY MILLION former Catholics just currently, just in the USA alone) but this is a poor, poor way to deal with things and ultimately "solves" nothing and ultimately leads to MORE division and conflict, not less.

I'm associated with the LCMS. While I'm increasingly comfortable with its DOCTRINES, there are things common in this institution which I'm not in full agreement with: SOME HISTORIC things about the RCC and especially the pope (affirmed as last as 1932 in the LCMS) this single point kept me from Lutheran Confirmation for some years, I just completely disagree with it (only as I became convinced that it's not DOGMA and that I can join with nearly all LCMS folks in rejecting it did I agree to Confirmation). I'm also not-so-convinced about some "fellowship" issues (especially vis-a-vis the eucharist).... There are a few other lesser things, too. But here's the deal: we are family! And we are NOT perfect! I see churches (and denominations of them - like the RCC or LCMS) like families.... families of SINNERS..... families of people who aren't as smart as they think they are.... I'm one of them! I approach my brothers and sisters as I want them to approach me: with love, humility, community.

I've been WAY too active at interdenominational discussion forums since I was 12 years old. And since I made my "transition" from Catholic to Lutheran during this time, I've tended to discuss primarily with Catholics (with whom I still feel closest - after now Lutheran, of course)... and focused primarily on the RCC things I most "struggled" with. At times, I know, I've been pretty "hard core" and debative on these few issues..... I've made some "enemies" ironically among some I actually feel are my close brothers and sisters. I lament that.... I never intended that..... I was ONLY discussing DOCTRINE, while always embracing THEM as my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters in Christ. In time, I've grown and become more effective in discussing, of course.

Now I think my biggest lament is that I find myself in a milieu SO relativistic that none of this matters. Truth doesn't matter. The Dogmas that SEPARATE our institutions don't matter. Nothing matters.... except personal feelings, how I'M feeling. Frankly, I fear what this will do to Christianity far more than the institutionalism that pledged us for 1200 years. The reality that no one gives a rip about the Dogmas that separate our institutions reveals itself in forums where what gets discussed is .... EVERYTHING BUT that. Indeed, some (once huge, some significant) forums have become milk-toast, irrelevant, relativistic, emotional, "Mr Roger's Neighborhoods" that make one clear statement: Truth doesn't matter..... churches don't matter..... community doesn't matter..... all that matters is ME and MY feelings. We've turned a corner in Christianity - and it's not a good one. It's PART of why people are leaving churches in droves..... why so much preaching and so many contemporary songs are void of teaching and filled with personal feelings.

So I disagree with the opening post.... There are very, very few discussions of whether one denomination or another is accurate in its binding Dogma. Few give a rip.... having abandoned truth for relativism and emotionalism. And IMO, THIS may be the destruction of Christianity. "Let's just all sing Kumbyah.... and agree to disagree: after all, there is no truth, there is no error and it wouldn't matter if there was." THAT, it seems to me, is a very poor foundation for Christianity. There's a reason the church is bleeding buckets..... a reason for the growing appeal of Islam.... and yes, you can see it revealed on the 'net at so many websites. And in SO many churches.


End of rant. onder:



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

I read the OP thinking that he was saying go ahead and point out denominational errors but don't just immediately bash another poster because of his affiliation, bringing up things that he may or may not believe in for the sake of argument when it doesn't even fit the thread.

 

[tango]

I read the OP thinking that he was saying go ahead and point out denominational errors but don't just immediately bash another poster because of his affiliation, bringing up things that he may or may not believe in for the sake of argument when it doesn't even fit the thread.

That was my intention - if (as a kinda-sorta-charismatic-Baptist type) I'm pointing out problems with Lutheran theology it's entirely appropriate for you (as a declared Lutheran, based on your profile) to explain why you don't think the issues I'm raising are important, or acknowledging that maybe that are an area where Lutherans need to change their thinking. It would be entirely appropriate for you to start a thread pointing out errors in Baptist theology, or charismatic theology, in which case I could do the same. If you addressed my concerns with "but Baptists are just as bad" that would simply avoid the discussions.

Josiah makes some good points, and I think he's largely saying much the same as I am although maybe from a different perspective. Where my point was that we need to focus on issues at hand rather than muddying the waters with counterclaims that don't address the original claim, I get the impression Josiah is complaining about the people who would avoid the discussion completely because things "feel right" to them, or they "feel uncomfortable" discussing things, or whatever other reason avoids actually thinking too hard about things. I had a church minister invite me to return to his church, which seemed odd given I'd told him why I believed God was withholding blessings from the church and that I believed the teachers they were following were building the kingdom of the antichrist. Had he changed anything in the meantime I'd have been open to listen but his appeal was little more than "can't we all get along?". I wish I could have said yes, but the brutal reality was that I can't be a part of a church where the only advice I could give in good conscience would be to steer clear of a lot of their events because I believe them to be unhelpful at best and toxic at worst.