Thursday, October 22, 2009
Doctrinal Statements
A doctrinal statement should be limited to doctrine. When practices are included in the list as doctrines, they become a tool used to force the churches in line with the practice in the doctrinal statement or be out of fellowship or thrown out of fellowship of the association. When either occurs, the association infringes upon the sovereignty of the local church. What are the weirdest things you have ever seen in a doctrinal statement of ABA churches in a local association or state association?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Offhand, I can't think of anything I would describe as "weird".
ReplyDeleteCould you give an example of something you consider a practice in a doctrinal statement? Thanks.
I've not seen much, so... let me just comment on the issue. How can a doctrinal statement infringe on a local church? The association is a group of messengers who may allow anyone or disallow anyone into their presence. This has NOTHING to do with church authority, since the church was not given authority to go out and have associational meetings. Nor was the great commission to help missionaries with other churches.
ReplyDeleteChurch authority is authority to teach salvation, baptize the saved, and teach the all things. If a body of messengers wants to choose who may or may not attend its body meetings, it no more infringes on church authority than a country who decides which people (church members or not) may or may not come into its country, or a local government which decides who may or may not vote in its city council. An entire church can vote that the members should attend and try to join the city council, but if the city council accepts one church or rejects another, it does not infringe on church authority.
While the body of messengers deals with helping God's people, it is not in and of itself fulfilling the great commission, and therefore does not at all cross the boundary of church authority, even if it tells a church she cannot have a vote amongst her.
The messenger body is not saying "you are not a church" or "you must change to become a true church." If a body states you cannot attend unless you agree or practice a certain way, they are simply saying "you cannot vote among us". How does this violate church authority to govern itself or carry out the great commission?
If the practice is...segregation? And you cannot be a part of the association if you are not abiding by that practice (listed in the doictrinal statement)
ReplyDeleteI have read some with strangely worded doctrines, but I don't have the local association book to print it - you know, as if they said something they didn't mean to say that way.
I just believe that it isn't infringing on church authority or affecting church authority, because meeting in association is not part of the Great Commission (the authority given to the church). It is a voluntary gathering by groups of people which sets certain rules according to its beliefs, and allows or disallows people to take part based upon those rules (much like governmental law). None of this goes against church authority.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the question of whether or not an associational should include practice in its doctrinal statement, I would probably say no. I just wanted it to be known that I don't say "no" on the grounds of church authority, but rather on the grounds of it being an unwise practice.
Bro. Merritt, thanks for giving an example of what you mean. I was not aware that any association actually included segregation in its doctrinal statement.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I don't think that something like this is of necessity any more of a tool used to force the churches in line with the practice in the doctrinal statement or be out of fellowship or thrown out of fellowship of the association. Doctrines such as baptism, closed communion, premillennialism, etc. can be used for the same end just as easily. It's just a matter of how broadly or narrowly an association wants to draw its lines.
What is the difference from "practice" and "doctrine"? If a church preaches against a certain doctrine in the doctrinal statement, are they excluded now? For example, the ABA churches who are for open-communion. This is against our statement #18.
ReplyDeleteHow do you define "for open-communion"?
ReplyDeleteIs it a church that practices open communion only, or does it include a "closed communion" church that accepts letters and baptisms from a church that is open or close communion?
When travelling around the south, i was shocked that churches are ok with accepting members from open or close communion churches. I will say that so far as a region, California has the most churches that are doctrinally conservative in their practices and belief.
You didn't visit many churches in the First Springhill Association in Louisiana, or those in central Louisiana, did you?
ReplyDeleteI have a topic that I would like to bring before you and get your thoughts if you do not mind.
ReplyDeleteThe situation I am facing is the fact that I have reached 45 years of age and am now looking back with much regret of not having a wife or family. Modern culture now deems those in this category as outcasts. I must make up for this some way. Time is not on my side as I know full well that the clock is ticking.
All I have ever done pretty much is work. I just cannot understand how there cannot be an average, half-way normal Christian lady that would not enter into friendship first, and then if it be God's will... matrimony.
I am always so embarrassed when someone will ask about the wife and kids, and I cannot tell them anything. As I stated earlier, there is no other option. It must happen one way or the other. I believe I have defiled the temple of God all of these years by not being able to partake of one of the institutions which God has ordained. The family is one of the foundations of the Bible. I would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions on this matter. God bless.
I see that you have not responded to the post I left. Was it just something you did not feel comfortable in addressing? There are others who have taken the same position, and that is your right.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my position remains unchanged. I am in accordance with what President Bush said after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 regarding this personal matter. " We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail."
I would like to add something for clarification purposes I failed to mention in the last post.
ReplyDeleteLet me state that the whole issue is not about myself. Not so in the least. Rather, it is about others. I would treasure the opportunity to come into the life of another, who may have children to which I could be a positive influence. I would also welcome the opportunity to be joined together with another who may still be at the age where the chance of having natural children is possible. Finally, I would be honored to be destined to be with one that has no children, nor is no longer able. So you see, my thoughts are with the other person and not this individual.
Hopefully, though not much activity is going on, many are still reading. I have a question regarding doctrinal statements in general: why did our Baptist forefathers shy away from setting down doctrinal statements? I understand that they did not want our religion to become a "creedal" one. What does that mean? What is the difference between a doctrinal statement or a statement of faith and a creed?
ReplyDeleteHi, Bro. clinch64,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that you have not had the privilege of a wife and family. I have known how that feels, although in May I myself will be getting married. If you are still reading this blog and would like, I would like to further discuss your situation. My e-mail is jmelton75935@yahoo.com. Looking forward to hearing from you, brother. God bless.