02-25-2007, 04:04 PM
I wanted to say a few words about how the Christians of this forum are united on what we might call the "Inclusive Principle," and how I think that's a good thing.
There are two main groups of Christians in this world, and they are not Catholics and Protestants. That's an old dichotomy that seems to have been overtaken by a new one. Now the Christian congregation is divided between Exclusive and Inclusive Christians (sometimes referred to as Conservative and Liberal).
All of us have come from a religious group that operated on the exclusive principle, and yet now we all are embracing the inclusive principle. This we all hold in common.
The inclusive system embraces a diversity of opinion within the Christian brother/sisterhood and sees no threat to the cause of unity in this.
The exclusive system operates so as to deny Christian fellowship, the Christian name, and all Christian privileges to anybody who differs from the group beyond a certain point, and this is a point that the authority figures of the group assume the right to fix for themselves and alter at their convenience.
This is the way JW's operate, but it would be wrong to charge this system on any one denomination. Christians of several denominations, agreeing together in what are termed "fundamentals," have come into this system.
Christians have always been eager to have every person think as he pleases, as long as he pleases to think the same as they do. And this, especially when the clergy have been called in to decide the question, has commonly been the extent of their ideas of religious liberty. Ha!
Every denomination has preached up just enough liberality to answer its own purposes--in other words, just enough to indulge its own deviations from the traditional faith. But any further than this, almost every denomination has agreed, no one should go. How consistent is this? All have allowed a certain latitude of thinking, but if anyone should go beyond this, even though it's in the exercise of the same principle of freedom, he is to be regarded and treated as an apostate from the religion.
Acting on this principle, the Catholics began the exclusive system among Christians. They allowed a certain latitude of thinking to the members of their church, but fixed a mark, beyond which if any one went, he was to be regarded and treated as an apostate from Christianity.
The Protestants complained that this was unfair while they were suffering under it, but no sooner had they become established as an independent church, than they adopted the same principles themselves! And each Protestant denomination, as it fell away from the main body, received precisely the same treatment from other Protestants as they got from the Catholics.
The Bible students, for example, when they began, insisted on freedom of thought, so that they could differ from other denominations. But then, as they became JW's, they denied that freedom to their own members. Even today, JW's argue that it is good and right to take issue with the beliefs of the mainstream church, but not to take issue with their own beliefs!
Now how is the exclusive system defended?
It is agreed on all sides that a certain latitude of thinking must be expected and allowed among Christians, but the exclusionists say that limits are to be set, and we are not to be permitted to cross them. Furthermore, the leaders are vested with authority to set these limits and alter them at pleasure.
Their whole defense actually hinges on the question of their possessing the authority to do this.
To be sure, a Catholic may deny that I am a Catholic, a Baptist may deny that I am a Baptist, a Methodist may deny that I am a Methodist, a JW may deny that I am a JW, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I want to be part of a denomination, they have every right to set their own rules. But if any denomination or any number of denominations presume to deny that I am a Christian, this is doing what they have no right to do.
And the reason is obvious. The fact whether I am a Christian or not does not depend on my following the commonly received standards of any denomination, but on my following the ways of Jesus. And when we come to applying the Bible as a standard, the case is different, because this is a standard that was not framed by any of the contending denominations. It was framed by someone else, and none of them can set up any claim to authority in interpreting and applying it.
You (a hypothetical person), as belonging to one denomination, may say of me, as belonging to another, that I differ greatly from you in the interpretation of the Bible. But you cannot say that my interpretation is false, because this is a point that you are not competent to decide. You may say that I preach a different gospel from that which you preach, but you cannot say that I preach another gospel from that which Christ and his apostles preached, because this involves a question that you are not competent to decide. I differ from you, it is true, but not more than you differ from me.
Now someone could argue that there must be some doctrines essential to Christianity, necessary to make it what it is, and without which it would not be what it is, but something else, not Christianity. Omit any of these doctrines, it might be said, and what remains will not be Christianity, and those who embrace it will not be Christians.
Fine. Nobody denies that Christianity, as a system of religious instruction, has its essential and fundamental doctrines, which are necessary to make it what it is. But the question arises, who is to determine what these essential doctrines are? The Bible talks of many subjects and teaches many things, some hard to understand. Does the Bible separate the essentials from the non-essentials? Not that I can see.
But, it may be said, the doctrines that all the denominations pronounce fundamental must be so.
All what denominations? If by "all the denominations" are meant all the denominations in the world, and all Christians in the world, then fine. But then how could anyone be an exclusionist? There would be no ground for exclusion, so far as everyone agrees.
But if one means that only a certain number of denominations should be able to determine the fundamentals, I would ask on what ground these denominations arrogate to themselves the authority to decide, leaving out all the others? Just because several denominations have combined their authority doesn't remove the problem. Where did they get their authority from?
People make mistakes, even religious authorities. And the obvious fact seems to be strangely overlooked that human imperfection and error applies not only to judgment concerning non-fundamentals, but to fundamentals too.
It is up to each person to determine what are the essentials or fundamentals for himself. I cannot in good conscience reject what I myself regard as essential and fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and I cannot embrace as fundamental what I regard as not. And we may disagree on this. Well then, what should be done? Well, you must convince me that I am wrong, if you can, but, pending this controversy, you must remember that you are only one party in the disagreement, and not a party and umpire too. Until you convince me that I am wrong, you cannot take it for granted in your conduct toward me that I am wrong, because God has not decided the case yet, and judgment is still pending.
The exclusionist might say that he does not assume the right of deciding this point on authority, but merely as a matter of opinion and sincere conviction. He will say that, in his opinion, I have renounced essentials of Christianity and therefore am no Christian. To deny him the right to express his opinion in that matter would be to destroy his own religious freedom. Isn't this a free country? Can't a person hold and avow his honest convictions?
Certainly he may, but that doesn’t automatically make it right or good. When people engage in hate speech, they have every right to do so under law. But is it morally or ethically right for them to do it?
But waiving this point, I deny the fact itself, on which the whole argument is based. It is not true that the supporters of the exclusive principle avow and advocate what they term fundamentals, as mere matters of opinion. Doctrines of minor importance they will allow to be regarded in this light and therefore make them open to discussion. But when they come to speak of doctrines they think are essential and fundamental, their tone and manner are different, and they speak of them, not as mere matters of opinion, but as established truths, which no one is at liberty to reject, or even to doubt. They not only advance what they consider fundamental doctrines as established truths, but proceed immediately to act on them as if established truths.
The charge against exclusionists is not that they hold certain opinions, but that they take up these opinions and advance them as established truths, and act on them as such. And they do this when they know that the feelings, reputation, and substantial interests of others are endangered or seriously injured thereby. The charge is that, forgetting their human imperfection, they act towards others precisely as if they thought themselves infallible.
I may think that my neighbor is wrong about something, and on the strength of my personal opinion I may deny him anything that I have the right to deny him (things under my authority or at my disposal). But it will hardly be pretended that the Christian name and privileges are my own and at my disposal. I thus have no right to deny him these things.
Similarly, I may think my neighbor has committed a crime and is a dangerous member of the community, and on the strength of this opinion I may take him to court. But until the judge passes sentence, I cannot denounce this person publicly as if he has truly committed the crime. He is innocent until proven guilty. I myself commit a crime and may be sued if I slander him before the court reaches a verdict. Similarly, until God shows me to be right in the matter of Christian doctrine, I cannot slander my fellow.
"Who are you that judges another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom. 14:4).
In our dreams of a perfect Christian, we always make this person strict towards himself and tolerant toward others. This is Liberal/Inclusive Christianity. The love that the gospel tells us to have "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7). "And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, if I don't have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2). Now that's the way to be. And I am happy to say that this forum provides a good example of this sort of Christianity.
There are two main groups of Christians in this world, and they are not Catholics and Protestants. That's an old dichotomy that seems to have been overtaken by a new one. Now the Christian congregation is divided between Exclusive and Inclusive Christians (sometimes referred to as Conservative and Liberal).
All of us have come from a religious group that operated on the exclusive principle, and yet now we all are embracing the inclusive principle. This we all hold in common.
The inclusive system embraces a diversity of opinion within the Christian brother/sisterhood and sees no threat to the cause of unity in this.
The exclusive system operates so as to deny Christian fellowship, the Christian name, and all Christian privileges to anybody who differs from the group beyond a certain point, and this is a point that the authority figures of the group assume the right to fix for themselves and alter at their convenience.
This is the way JW's operate, but it would be wrong to charge this system on any one denomination. Christians of several denominations, agreeing together in what are termed "fundamentals," have come into this system.
Christians have always been eager to have every person think as he pleases, as long as he pleases to think the same as they do. And this, especially when the clergy have been called in to decide the question, has commonly been the extent of their ideas of religious liberty. Ha!
Every denomination has preached up just enough liberality to answer its own purposes--in other words, just enough to indulge its own deviations from the traditional faith. But any further than this, almost every denomination has agreed, no one should go. How consistent is this? All have allowed a certain latitude of thinking, but if anyone should go beyond this, even though it's in the exercise of the same principle of freedom, he is to be regarded and treated as an apostate from the religion.
Acting on this principle, the Catholics began the exclusive system among Christians. They allowed a certain latitude of thinking to the members of their church, but fixed a mark, beyond which if any one went, he was to be regarded and treated as an apostate from Christianity.
The Protestants complained that this was unfair while they were suffering under it, but no sooner had they become established as an independent church, than they adopted the same principles themselves! And each Protestant denomination, as it fell away from the main body, received precisely the same treatment from other Protestants as they got from the Catholics.
The Bible students, for example, when they began, insisted on freedom of thought, so that they could differ from other denominations. But then, as they became JW's, they denied that freedom to their own members. Even today, JW's argue that it is good and right to take issue with the beliefs of the mainstream church, but not to take issue with their own beliefs!
Now how is the exclusive system defended?
It is agreed on all sides that a certain latitude of thinking must be expected and allowed among Christians, but the exclusionists say that limits are to be set, and we are not to be permitted to cross them. Furthermore, the leaders are vested with authority to set these limits and alter them at pleasure.
Their whole defense actually hinges on the question of their possessing the authority to do this.
To be sure, a Catholic may deny that I am a Catholic, a Baptist may deny that I am a Baptist, a Methodist may deny that I am a Methodist, a JW may deny that I am a JW, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I want to be part of a denomination, they have every right to set their own rules. But if any denomination or any number of denominations presume to deny that I am a Christian, this is doing what they have no right to do.
And the reason is obvious. The fact whether I am a Christian or not does not depend on my following the commonly received standards of any denomination, but on my following the ways of Jesus. And when we come to applying the Bible as a standard, the case is different, because this is a standard that was not framed by any of the contending denominations. It was framed by someone else, and none of them can set up any claim to authority in interpreting and applying it.
You (a hypothetical person), as belonging to one denomination, may say of me, as belonging to another, that I differ greatly from you in the interpretation of the Bible. But you cannot say that my interpretation is false, because this is a point that you are not competent to decide. You may say that I preach a different gospel from that which you preach, but you cannot say that I preach another gospel from that which Christ and his apostles preached, because this involves a question that you are not competent to decide. I differ from you, it is true, but not more than you differ from me.
Now someone could argue that there must be some doctrines essential to Christianity, necessary to make it what it is, and without which it would not be what it is, but something else, not Christianity. Omit any of these doctrines, it might be said, and what remains will not be Christianity, and those who embrace it will not be Christians.
Fine. Nobody denies that Christianity, as a system of religious instruction, has its essential and fundamental doctrines, which are necessary to make it what it is. But the question arises, who is to determine what these essential doctrines are? The Bible talks of many subjects and teaches many things, some hard to understand. Does the Bible separate the essentials from the non-essentials? Not that I can see.
But, it may be said, the doctrines that all the denominations pronounce fundamental must be so.
All what denominations? If by "all the denominations" are meant all the denominations in the world, and all Christians in the world, then fine. But then how could anyone be an exclusionist? There would be no ground for exclusion, so far as everyone agrees.
But if one means that only a certain number of denominations should be able to determine the fundamentals, I would ask on what ground these denominations arrogate to themselves the authority to decide, leaving out all the others? Just because several denominations have combined their authority doesn't remove the problem. Where did they get their authority from?
People make mistakes, even religious authorities. And the obvious fact seems to be strangely overlooked that human imperfection and error applies not only to judgment concerning non-fundamentals, but to fundamentals too.
It is up to each person to determine what are the essentials or fundamentals for himself. I cannot in good conscience reject what I myself regard as essential and fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and I cannot embrace as fundamental what I regard as not. And we may disagree on this. Well then, what should be done? Well, you must convince me that I am wrong, if you can, but, pending this controversy, you must remember that you are only one party in the disagreement, and not a party and umpire too. Until you convince me that I am wrong, you cannot take it for granted in your conduct toward me that I am wrong, because God has not decided the case yet, and judgment is still pending.
The exclusionist might say that he does not assume the right of deciding this point on authority, but merely as a matter of opinion and sincere conviction. He will say that, in his opinion, I have renounced essentials of Christianity and therefore am no Christian. To deny him the right to express his opinion in that matter would be to destroy his own religious freedom. Isn't this a free country? Can't a person hold and avow his honest convictions?
Certainly he may, but that doesn’t automatically make it right or good. When people engage in hate speech, they have every right to do so under law. But is it morally or ethically right for them to do it?
But waiving this point, I deny the fact itself, on which the whole argument is based. It is not true that the supporters of the exclusive principle avow and advocate what they term fundamentals, as mere matters of opinion. Doctrines of minor importance they will allow to be regarded in this light and therefore make them open to discussion. But when they come to speak of doctrines they think are essential and fundamental, their tone and manner are different, and they speak of them, not as mere matters of opinion, but as established truths, which no one is at liberty to reject, or even to doubt. They not only advance what they consider fundamental doctrines as established truths, but proceed immediately to act on them as if established truths.
The charge against exclusionists is not that they hold certain opinions, but that they take up these opinions and advance them as established truths, and act on them as such. And they do this when they know that the feelings, reputation, and substantial interests of others are endangered or seriously injured thereby. The charge is that, forgetting their human imperfection, they act towards others precisely as if they thought themselves infallible.
I may think that my neighbor is wrong about something, and on the strength of my personal opinion I may deny him anything that I have the right to deny him (things under my authority or at my disposal). But it will hardly be pretended that the Christian name and privileges are my own and at my disposal. I thus have no right to deny him these things.
Similarly, I may think my neighbor has committed a crime and is a dangerous member of the community, and on the strength of this opinion I may take him to court. But until the judge passes sentence, I cannot denounce this person publicly as if he has truly committed the crime. He is innocent until proven guilty. I myself commit a crime and may be sued if I slander him before the court reaches a verdict. Similarly, until God shows me to be right in the matter of Christian doctrine, I cannot slander my fellow.
"Who are you that judges another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom. 14:4).
In our dreams of a perfect Christian, we always make this person strict towards himself and tolerant toward others. This is Liberal/Inclusive Christianity. The love that the gospel tells us to have "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor. 13:7). "And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, if I don't have love, I am nothing" (1 Cor. 13:2). Now that's the way to be. And I am happy to say that this forum provides a good example of this sort of Christianity.