 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Distinctions in the Confession of Faith |
Posted Jul 26, 2006; 9:34 am |
|
In reading through the Confession of Faith and these forums, I notice that there are a number of "MB distinctives" that are not, shall we say, enforced in the denomination. For instance, a number of posters have mentioned that they are not pacifists, though the CoF clearly calls violence "evil and inhumane," with no distinctions in the nature or motive of that violence mentioned.
So my question is, are there some doctrines that are absolute (e.g., belief in the Trinity--though even there I notice that the Holy Spirit's personhood is only indirectly suggested, which disturbs me), while others are merely encouraged?
Another way to say it, what is the sine qua non for membership/eldership in an MB church? |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: Distinctions in the Confession of Faith |
Posted Jul 26, 2006; 11:17 am |
|
| Kipp wrote: | In reading through the Confession of Faith and these forums, I notice that there are a number of "MB distinctives" that are not, shall we say, enforced in the denomination. For instance, a number of posters have mentioned that they are not pacifists, though the CoF clearly calls violence "evil and inhumane," with no distinctions in the nature or motive of that violence mentioned.
So my question is, are there some doctrines that are absolute (e.g., belief in the Trinity--though even there I notice that the Holy Spirit's personhood is only indirectly suggested, which disturbs me), while others are merely encouraged?
Another way to say it, what is the sine qua non for membership/eldership in an MB church? |
Good questions. I'm one MBer who does not agree with the confession of faith in its entirety. I think in general, I'm in agreement with the MB confession of faith, and I feel relatively more comfortable with the MB confession, than other evangelical denominations. On the Christian peacemaking paragraph, I agree that Christians are to be peacekeepers, but I do think violence and war may at times be the best solution. For example, I think defending Kuwait from Iraq's occupation was a good thing, and I think the UN's presence helped bring peace to the people of Kuwait. I don't glorify war as killing people should never be our objective. (I'll move on, as I recognize this thread isn't about pacifism).
As for membership requirements, I think it is somewhat up to the local churches to discern whom to accept. I've asked my senior pastor whether there would be concerns with some disagreement with the confession of faith, and I was assured that he was not concerned. I'm quite certain there are numerous MB pastors, elders, church council members, and deacons (me being one) who would stop short of the pacifism taught in the confession of faith. In many congregations, you will find that pacfism is never taught. A few years ago, I taught Sunday School for high school students, and sometimes I would bring up issues and present various ways of thinking through them, some of them contradictory to the confession of faith. I always made it a personal policy, that if I were to ever give an opinion (in contrast to "teach") contrary to the confession of faith, I would make it clear to the students what the MB confession teaches.
Now, you also ask if there are elements of the Confession of Faith that are more absolute than others. I think so, but I don't think these things are spelled out. I remember my associate pastor telling me how the MB ordination process differed from the Alliance ordination process. The Alliance were much more concerned with having correct doctrine, while the MBs would ask a lot more questions about their personal walk with God, the health of their relationships with family and others. I don't think this is to say that MBers don't value doctrine, but they may not value it as strongly as other conservative evangelical denominations.
Regarding the Spirit's personhood, it comes through rather clearly for me under the "God the Holy Spirit" paragraph.
In conclusion, I personally appreciate that the MB Conference doesn't require strict acceptance of their Confession of Faith. I consider myself primarily to be a member of the Body of Christ at large, an secondarily as an evangelical and a Mennonite Brethren. MBs are very diverse, and sometimes uncomfortably so. Fundamentalists and post-modern Christians (forgive the labels) both exist in large numbers in our conference, and the gulf between these two camps can be rather large. My thinking in theology has changed a lot in recent years. I'm thankful that I can be at home in the MB Conference both before and after these changes. |
|
|
|
| Bro Member Joined May 4, 2004 912 posts Location: Richmond B.C. |
| |
Posted Jul 26, 2006; 10:47 pm |
|
| Quote: | | In conclusion, I personally appreciate that the MB Conference doesn't require strict acceptance of their Confession of Faith. I consider myself primarily to be a member of the Body of Christ at large, an secondarily as an evangelical and a Mennonite Brethren. MBs are very diverse, and sometimes uncomfortably so. Fundamentalists and post-modern Christians (forgive the labels) both exist in large numbers in our conference, and the gulf between these two camps can be rather large. My thinking in theology has changed a lot in recent years. I'm thankful that I can be at home in the MB Conference both before and after these changes. |
Well put Todd.I am glad our church conference is one that can tolerate and appreciate differences in opinion,be it women in ministry,pacifism,etc. |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| |
Posted Jul 27, 2006; 2:00 pm |
|
Oh, believe me I wasn't looking for tighter standards. When the Confession of Faith is a 13-page PDF, one can only hope that not every point is an absolute dividing line. It was more a concern for me wanting to respect the views of the Conference. I am a member and elder of a church who is part of a team planting another church. I wanted to make sure I excused myself from leadership if this was going to be an issue.
As for the Holy Spirit's personhood, I was just surprised by the first sentence. Calling the Holy Spirit the "creative power, presence and wisdom of God" rather than the "third person of the Trinity" threw me (BTW, it is worth noting that in the section on "God" the doctrine of the Trinity is by no means clear either). I am a little uncomfortable with the fact that a Jehovah's Witness could read the Confession and sign it with only a little creative license in interpretation. But I suppose that speaks more to my experience with people who insist on "creative license" in interpretation than to any inherent flaw in the doctrinal statement.
Next question: Can an MB church have a different doctrinal statement (one that is shorter or longer, but does not contradict the CoF)? As I said, we are planting and need to figure out if we have any license to tailor the CoF in any way. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jul 27, 2006; 3:00 pm |
|
| Kipp wrote: | Oh, believe me I wasn't looking for tighter standards. When the Confession of Faith is a 13-page PDF, one can only hope that not every point is an absolute dividing line. It was more a concern for me wanting to respect the views of the Conference. I am a member and elder of a church who is part of a team planting another church. I wanted to make sure I excused myself from leadership if this was going to be an issue.
As for the Holy Spirit's personhood, I was just surprised by the first sentence. Calling the Holy Spirit the "creative power, presence and wisdom of God" rather than the "third person of the Trinity" threw me (BTW, it is worth noting that in the section on "God" the doctrine of the Trinity is by no means clear either). I am a little uncomfortable with the fact that a Jehovah's Witness could read the Confession and sign it with only a little creative license in interpretation. But I suppose that speaks more to my experience with people who insist on "creative license" in interpretation than to any inherent flaw in the doctrinal statement.
Next question: Can an MB church have a different doctrinal statement (one that is shorter or longer, but does not contradict the CoF)? As I said, we are planting and need to figure out if we have any license to tailor the CoF in any way. |
I don't think I can answer your question. My hunch is that you would be allowed to, but I'm no authority. |
|
|
|
| McDLT Moderator Joined May 14, 2004 1451 posts Location: Toronto |
| |
Posted Jul 28, 2006; 8:33 am |
|
| Kipp wrote: | | Next question: Can an MB church have a different doctrinal statement (one that is shorter or longer, but does not contradict the CoF)? As I said, we are planting and need to figure out if we have any license to tailor the CoF in any way. |
Have you talked to the Board of Church Extension (church planting) rep/director for your province? They would be able to give you a clear answer. |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| |
Posted Jul 28, 2006; 9:53 pm |
|
| McDLT wrote: |
Have you talked to the Board of Church Extension (church planting) rep/director for your province? They would be able to give you a clear answer. |
Not yet. All of this is in the early stages. I just wanted the input of the community. |
|
|
|
| MikeS Member Joined Sep 21, 2005 59 posts |
| |
Posted Aug 17, 2006; 3:51 pm |
|
Hey, glad to have 5 minutes to come and visit again! I think all this goes back to the bible. There are grey areas in the bible and we should know what it is that we believe. New C's should spend time in the word, if for no other reason than to know what it says. I'm not saying it should all be memorised, but some is good with a general knowledge in many areas. It helps to ground us, so we don't falter every time we're questioned. So as far as the Trinity is concerned if you can find where Jesus is baptised,all 3 are present(for one example). You don't have to know every instance in the book. I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myself so I'll stop here.
M. |
|
|
|
| vanislandwoman |
| confession of faith |
Posted Aug 27, 2006; 2:12 am |
|
| Quote: | | a confessional document--a writing that expresses what the writers believe, rather than a creed that attempts to state what ought to be believed. |
from a website.
I actually believe the confession of faith on the matters of non-violence, 'pacifism', etc. I have trouble finding other MB's who actually stand up and say they believe it as well, and that those who do not should be the ones having to defend their aberration from the confession of faith. Many of those people do state their case very well, but the fact is that they are the ones with the differing point of view from the general statement of belief. Yet according to the definitioin above, I guess I would be trying to press a 'creed' upon them, if I say it is what they 'ought to believe'.
I was drawn to Anabaptism because of the non-violent Christian values. I consider myself to be a very young disciple in terms of this particular confessional issue. I want to hear the voice of experienced MB's who truly believe and follow this article of the confession of faith.
As I ask Jesus to transform me in this matter, I look forward to walking more and more in the way of peace. I want to join others who are already walking this way.
I do not think I am far enough on the path to fully respond to those who do not hold to this article of the stated faith of the Mennonite Brethren. I put my opinion forward from time to time. |
|
|
|
| rudyhiebert Member Joined Oct 2, 2003 481 posts Location: Abbotsford BC |
| "Church Planter.... " |
Posted Aug 28, 2006; 11:08 pm |
|
| Kipp wrote: | | Next question: Can an MB church have a different doctrinal statement (one that is shorter or longer, but does not contradict the CoF)? As I said, we are planting and need to figure out if we have any license to tailor the CoF in any way. |
For the sake of brevity, isn't a planter aware of and signed his name to the C.O.F. document when he was registered as an M.B. Rev. etc? If you hear Hank Hanagraff you'll hear him talk about the five key principles, the rest are debatable and not to cause devision. Mr. Hanagraff isn' t an M.B. but I believe he is accurate and applicable with this topic.
In another forum in another palce, a poster writes about the 27 Fundamentals of his "churches" beliefs but when I googled it, there are 28 because one was recently added. Aren't you grateful that you're not part of that group, you'd have a hard time there. |
|
|
|
| Christopher J. Member Joined Nov 16, 2008 13 posts Location: Ab |
| While we're on the topic |
Posted Nov 16, 2008; 11:56 pm |
|
It seems that the MB church must have distinctives, lest is cease to be MB and become another denomination. Clearly though, it seems to me that most pastors are apathetic when it comes to denominational distinctiveness, as are most of the congregates. I recently began attending an MB church a month ago for the first time and I was told by the pastor the first day "we're more of a community church". I have no issue with this statement or the church itself, but I wonder in this statement that the pastor meant to imply that "we no longer maintain any denominational distinctiveness." It just seems to me (as someone who knows very little about the MB church) that if a church is going to call itself something, it ought to act that way. It owes itself to the congregation to be honest with what it stands for and it gives direction to the church at large how it is to act in contrast to the community.
I recently read the confession of faith and I noticed a few things, mainly pacifism, a counter-cultural attitude, and a naturally following that, an attitude of allegiance to God alone, and not the state. (Which seems somewhat ironic to me given the paragraph describing God's soveriegnty over the state, and even explicit command for the state to defend itself ie. the book of Joshua).
In anycase, I am saddened by churches that don't maintain their distinctiveness because it is part of the church's historical development. It explains the churches existence as it stands, and gives direction to where the church is going. It gives a historical-theological motivation behind everything the church does and supports. When churches stop knowing what they exist for (as a denomination, in a sea of other denominations) they seem to me, to lose their unique flavour of exegesis and interpretation.
If I was to pastor a church I would try to insure that I understood the churches doctrine and confession of faith before I stepped in to a role where I (should be) am obligation to follow and teach those distinctives.
I am 24 and I am a 'young person' comparitively. Someone my age has a hard time picking a church out when it seems to stand for pretty much the same thing as everyone else. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 17, 2008; 11:41 am |
|
Question - are denominations a creation of God or man ? My belief is that they are of man and various differences of secondary beliefs are just a reflection that no one denomination has it all figured out. IMO, sometimes these distinct elements can be a source of spiritual pride that interferes with our oneness as a community of believers in the family of God. I know I wouldn't be able to find any denomination with a creed or statement of faith that suited all my beliefs but I am glad that our local MB group will allow participation trusting that we will keep the peace within that group regarding the confession of faith.
Personally what is most important, IMO, is to find a church that preaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and then what this local church emphasizes. For me, good, practical Christian teaching that is not dogmatic on secondary beliefs and a main concern to reach the lost are very important. It really doesn't matter to me how distinct a local church remains in being true to it's historical development. Almost every denomination I know of has altered it's secondary beliefs from it's original founder and MBs are included.
Our new MB pastor comes from an Alliance background and had to come to some form of agreement regarding the MB statement of faith. I believe this would be a common practise but some local groups probably are more specific than others on how one must conform and promote these beliefs. Sounds like you would have a pretty rigid interpretation and would require supportive teaching in all areas of the statement of faith and there are probably many like yourself that see it this way. |
|
|
|
| Christopher J. Member Joined Nov 16, 2008 13 posts Location: Ab |
| RE: |
Posted Nov 17, 2008; 12:31 pm |
|
It goes without saying that denominations are created by man. And denominational distinctiveness is something that is obviously a product of this fallen world. I have no doubt that at the return of Christ we will all have our doctrine corrected in varying areas. Does that mean that we can not claim authoritative distinctives in our congregation? My issue is not with the distinctives, but with our/others failure to see them as important. They were important to someone at some point in time. Besides this, the confession of Faith doesn't say what is primary, secondary, teritiary, they are all primary, thus they are in the confession. If MBers don't like it, they should say "I'm not MB, I just attend the church" (like me). If a pastor is going to teach and receieve denominational benefits (if he's lucky enough to), he should uphold the denomination, or make his issues with the confession and doctrine well known to the denomination at large as well as the congregation. Obviously this doesn't happen because there are those in the congregation that will have issues with this, and rightly so.
These distinctions are obviously sources of spiritual pride for others, and this shouldn't be the case. This kind of pride is destructive and has no place within Christianity, not simply the MB conference. My issue is not with the pride, its consistency. The issue of someone's pride doesn't remove the doctrinal and confessional distinctiveness, it just complicates things a bit more because now you're both mediating and debating at the same time. If these distinctions are not important and they are issues that should be compromised, maybe the denomination at large should consider changing its confession... again, or joining a denomination they can get some more money out of, (just kidding).
The distinctions within the denomination are not a necessarily evil. Simply because man upholds certian beliefs about God in contrast to others does not mean that he has failed because other believers disagree. This world is fallen, and we can't simply draw a conclusion based on popular opinion. I personally don't require a rigid holding to the confession because I am not MB, I just started attending. Some in the congregation do however and I don't see why they would be wrong in asking that the church maintains its direction, since the church maintains its denominational status. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 17, 2008; 1:40 pm |
|
By the way, welcome to the forum. I enjoy reading new member's input. I also regularly attend and support an MB church but am not a member as I don't believe in formal church membership as presented with the signing of a covenant and some other relate beliefs to be scriptural. I do believe, though, that we should be active participants within a local community of believers whether this has a denomination attached to it or not.
It seems to me that there is some autonomy allowed within the MB conference that allows a local MB church to decide just how rigid or relaxed they will be in receiving members and in how they promote certain distinctives. Some have stated in this forum that they don't care for a more creedal approach.
Perhaps we can get some input from MB members on their views on what you are saying. |
|
|
|
| AsstEd Member Joined Aug 8, 2008 31 posts Location: Winnipeg, MB |
| Denominational distinctives |
Posted Nov 17, 2008; 2:26 pm |
|
Perhaps it's a coincidence that you are discussing denominational distinctives just after we've published an issue of the MB Herald on that very subject, but in any case, I'm glad to hear people considering it. If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to check out the perspectives on denominations in the October 2008 issue of the Herald, and the letters of response in November (and, no doubt the next number of issues to go to press).
Naturally, the perspectives we present are somewhat biased toward the opinion that denominations are good--when done right. Ultimately, though, we want to get people talking about denominations, not wanting to tell people what to think on this topic, but to encourage people to think about this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
