Can one be a part of a church, but not *believe* all the pieces?

[misseks]

As an example: America

One can be a citizen, and believe the message of America such as, Land of the Free, Land of Opportunity etc, but take issue with the policies: foreign, domestic, health care etc.

My opinion is that YES! one can. Change comes from within (without pre-emptive war, or hostile take over) so only American: American citizens can affect change in policy, while still loving the country and the message, and trying to live fully in it and by it - the philosophy, if you will. The message, which is flubbed up in politics and human interest and error for centuries will carry on, and as humans evolve, as will the policy.

As a parallel...I believe the same is true for religion. Any religion. Any creed. Change comes from within. Doctrine is subject to change, but the message is not.

Does anyone have references that show this is true, and is supported in Church doctrine?

[lilyka]

i think it would depend on the church.

change does not come from within my church. heritics get asked to leave. in oprder to prevent change in doctrine or belief or worship. One of the reasons people are a member of this particular church is that there have been no doctrinal changes in over a thousand years. because it is soloid and right and does not change. a few small things have changed in terms of practice but noting doctrinal. Also it is important to be in agreement with this church if you wish to be a member. to submit to its athourity. the church is here to change you not the other way around.

of course this is different in other denominations. in some denominations the leadership, doctrine, theology isn't really set in stone and is man made, self interpreted or whatever and thus much more fluid.

[Tuesday]

"Can one be a part of a church, but not *believe* all the pieces?"

In answer to this statement, I whole heartedly cry "YES!". No one can get into my head and tell me what to think. I'll believe what I believe, thank you very much.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by misseks

As a parallel...I believe the same is true for religion. Any religion. Any creed. Change comes from within. Doctrine is subject to change, but the message is not.

Does anyone have references that show this is true, and is supported in Church doctrine?

It is an interesting idea - a church doctrine which states that church doctrine might be wrong and is subject to change. So, the doctrine which says doctrine is subject to change might also be wrong, and have to be changed. :

Actually, I think Illyka is right - it would depend on the church, and on their beliefs about ultimate truth. I understand there are Christian denominations, such as the Quakers, which have an expectation that their doctrines will continually change written into their constitution (if that is the right word).

In my church, like Illyka's, doctrine does not change unless it can be shown to have wandered away from the original truth; and there is no "message" which remains constant because the point of the church is not seen as sending a message. In a church like this, the comparison to America would not be very apt, because nobody believes (well, almost nobody) that American policies come from a divine source.

[honey-lilac]

In my personal case, I think not. I would love to be Catholic. I love the ritual, I love the general people, the prayers, the regular meetings, and the bulk of the teachings and sacraments. However, I do not believe in some parts of the doctrine, even after talking to priests and such. I just do not believe in it all. I'd like to, but I can't. So I don't identify as Catholic and I don't attend Mass and etc. I went to a Catholic university where the bulk of the students identified as Catholic and took Communion but they didn't really know about it very much, or blatantly went against the teachings, or just basically were "culturally Catholic" but not spiritually.

I considered converting to Judaism too, and Islam, but again both I could agree with about 75% but I had other parts I couldn't agree to in good conscience. So, for me, it's all or nothing. I have no desire to change any religion to suit me. I want to change myself to suit a religion, but that's pretty difficult.

[MrsSurplus]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

In my church, like Illyka's, doctrine does not change unless it can be shown to have wandered away from the original truth; and there is no "message" which remains constant because the point of the church is not seen as sending a message. In a church like this, the comparison to America would not be very apt, because nobody believes (well, almost nobody) that American policies come from a divine source.

I agree. On issues of doctrine, I wouldn't actually want to be part of a church who was willing to change based on anything but a conviction that the group had strayed from "original truth."

I'm not sure I understand, "Doctrine is subject to change, but the message is not." What would be an example?

The OP asked for doctrinal support (for doctrinal change) and I would actually offer Scripture to the contrary:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

This would be my biggest concern about the possibility of some types of "change" coming from within:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

It seems to say that there is a very real danger that when we want to change (usually based on current cultural beliefs) doctrine that has stood for thousands of years that we sometimes find ourselves on one side and God on the other.

Anyway, I DO believe that sometimes churches stray from the truth (they must - or there wouldn't be thousands of denominations), but my approach is finding a church that teaches the truth, rather than trying to change one that does not teach the truth.

[BarefootScientist]

Yes, absolutely, I think you can belong to a church without agreeing with everything. If I waited for a church that I agreed completely with...well...I wouldn't belong to a church. And believe me, I've tried pretty much every church in this city.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by misseks

As an example: America

One can be a citizen, and believe the message of America such as, Land of the Free, Land of Opportunity etc, but take issue with the policies: foreign, domestic, health care etc.

My opinion is that YES! one can. Change comes from within (without pre-emptive war, or hostile take over) so only American: American citizens can affect change in policy, while still loving the country and the message, and trying to live fully in it and by it - the philosophy, if you will. The message, which is flubbed up in politics and human interest and error for centuries will carry on, and as humans evolve, as will the policy.

As a parallel...I believe the same is true for religion. Any religion. Any creed. Change comes from within. Doctrine is subject to change, but the message is not.

Does anyone have references that show this is true, and is supported in Church doctrine?

It depends rather on what you mean. And there is an isue of hionestly in intent too.

In your example of America, the person seems to believe the basic premisis of the nation's philosophy, but that perhaps they are not always following them, or maybe could do so more effectivly, or even just explain them better.

And the history of the Church, even if we just look at the first, say, seven centuries of Christianity, it is clear that there is a similar kind of situation. Especially at the beginning, some doctrines were unclear or had never been explained fully, and many people worked to do this. Also, at times the Church fell into practices that were not always consistent with her belief, and the actions of individuals and groups within the Church worked to rectify this.

And even as time has gone on, there are times when an idea can be better explained, or explained in a way that is more accessible to the "modern" mind, or times when there are problems with the way the Church is practicing it's faith, or the need to figure out how doctrine relates to new problems. (Like, what does the church think about globalization? Is cloning a moral technology? Does our better understanding of mental illness change how the church should deal with it?)

But if your understanding of the basic premises of your church are different, then perhaps it is better to move to a different church. If your church claims that scripture alone is their guide, and you don't believe that, it is a serious difference.

I always think of Bishop Spong in this regard - a man who claimed to be Anglican, participated in the Anglican liturgy and said the creeds, and got paid to do it, but who personally and publicly rejected all of the main core beliefs of Anglicanism. One wonders about his reasoning and purpose - there seems rather a lot of hubris in such a stand.

And hubris is the last thing to speak about on this question. Part of belonging to a community, especially a church community, involves seeing yourself as a part of a group, and at times laying yourself down before the needs and judgments of the community. Much like in a democracy like America, even if there are practices you have problems with or laws you don't like, you recognize that your view is not the only one that counts, and that law and order have a place and purpose in human life. Church leaders also, one hopes, have experience, training, and insights into faith that give them authority even above that granted by the community. In a Christian Church in particular, truth and order do not come from the individual, but from God, however your church says he transmitted that truth, and all human ideas are just shadows of God's truth.

Part of the purpose of religion in general is to learn to overcome the ego, and that won't happen without learning to accept an authority above the self. In fact, all religions and philosophical worldviews are things that it is difficult to really understand unless you become a student or disciple first.

[Keria]

Well I'm a pro-choice, pro-birthcontrol, against chastity of priests and nuns, evotultion believer, pro-gay rights Catholic, so in my book yes you can.

[boigrrrlwonder]

I do think it depends on the church. I will say for me, though, belief is only an aspect of religion. Tradition, ritual, etc... are just as important. I think if you're looking for a church that is 100% what you believe, you may have a very difficult time finding a religious home. If participating in a religious community is important to you, you might want to think about attending churches that mostly reflect where you are religiously.

[misseks]

Originally Posted by MrsSurplus

I agree. On issues of doctrine, I wouldn't actually want to be part of a church who was willing to change based on anything but a conviction that the group had strayed from "original truth."

I'm not sure I understand, "Doctrine is subject to change, but the message is not." What would be an example?

The message of Christianity, as I understand it, is love.

Matthew 22: 37-39

(sorry, baby awake, nak, to paraphrase

love God with all your soul
love your neighbour as I have loved you

or John 13:34

love one another as I have loved you

The doctrine allows for human interpretation and error

From the Vatican II documents: (my bolding)

...This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...verbum_en.html


Not to spark debate, just trying to understand. I am seeking clarity! I am praying for faith! I am not having any luck. :

My other misunderstanding is the issue of heresy, and heretics (those speaking against the teachings...) and for example Joan of Arc. Wasn't she put to death under charges of heresy? And then made a Saint later? Sounds like "the Church constantly moves forward" to me. Sounds like human error/interpretation put her to death, and the the fullness of divine truth reached some kind of fulfillment.

from: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=aa41

...On 30 May 1431 she is burnt at the stake as a relapsed heretic.

The death of the saint in Rouen (Joan is finally canonized in 1920) comes less than thirty months after the departure of the 16-year-old girl from her village home in Domrémy...

Help!

[umsami]

Whether or not officially this happens, I think it's true of all religions. Very rarely do people accept/support all of their church's/religion's teachings... be they current or past. Often times, especially with the benefit of hindsight, if one looks at past policies/doctrines, one has to wonder about the possibility of error on the part of one's religious leaders.

Even today, very few Christians would follow the Bible exclusively--and I'm sure there are a few MDC Mamas who would bristle at the thought of having to be silent in church, cover their heads, or even submit to their husbands. Knowing that Jesus was circ'd, and following that commandment from the OT, would bother a few more. Eating pork... usury/interest... marrying one's rapist... the list goes on and on. Even the Church's opinions on who/what Jesus is/was, wasn't settled in the few hundred years after his death.

[MrsSurplus]

Originally Posted by misseks

Help!

I'm sorry for your crisis of faith...although I think those are rather productive, if not comfortable!

I agree with you that the central message of the Bible is love and I also agree that doctrine allows for human interpretation and error. HOWEVER, much doctrine is pretty evident in Scripture. For instance, using the example you gave, when was death EVER an answer to "heresy" in the New Testament church? It never was. Excommunication, yes...death, no. (And only excommunication only after attempts were made to "teach the way more accurately" - as with Apollos and the incident found in Acts 18.) This kind of stuff - killing heretics - is not of God, and never was - it was of men. (Especially when the Catholic church's backtrack is evidence that their determination of heresy was faulty to begin with...so that couldn't have been of God either.) So...while I agree that men's opinions on some things "evolve" (for lack of a better word), God's do not...and I think He lays things out quite clearly in Scripture for the most part.

Churches are comprised of humans and are, therefore, fallible. However, Scripture is infallible and I think a lot of the time it's pretty clear - if we don't let our human wishes and prejudices impair our vision. Jude (1:3) says that God handed down His will "once and for all" - I think that makes it clear that God's will doesn't evolve and we know He doesn't change his mind (about the treatment of heretics or what it means to love, etc... " (1 Sam. 15:29)

I don't know that I'm helping...and I'm sorry if I'm not. Here's what I know: men are fallible, the Word of God is not. God gave me a brain to discern His will...and to do so by reading His word (nowhere in Scripture does it say that men are allowed to add on with their own traditions...in fact, there are very clear warnings about NOT adding to God's word...and Jesus warned about men "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7))...so I really don't care what supposed leaders of the church say. I read my Bible and discern what it means...and I find a church that teaches as closely as possible to that. On the one hand, I don't think there is a wrong answer to your original question - yes, if you want, you can choose to worship with people with whom you disagree on doctrine and hope to change them over time. I think it's equally appropriate to find a group that you think more closely aligns with the Truth. As others have said, you'll never agree 100% with everything a group teaches, but we are called to "worship in Spirit and in Truth" (John 4:23-24) - and only you can decide if you can do that in any given situation.

Good luck in your quest for clarity and deeper faith..."So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Luke 11:9-10

[hrsmom]

I attended a church unil recently and for the past four years at least I didn't believe a lot of what is taught there. The message used to focus on God's love and more recently it has been more focused on the doctrines that I don't agree with. It probably depends on the person, as well. I was fine there. On occasion, I would say something like, "I'm not sold yet on such a such concept" to see if anyone wanted to talk about it, and no one did. No biggie. After my daughter was born, though, I realized I didn't want her to go to Sunday school there so I guess you could say we're "between churches" at the moment. I wouldn't hesitate to join another church where I didn't agree 100%.

[fresh_veggie]

As a recently converted, and now questioning Latter-day Saint, the message I mostly get from my own church is that it's all or nothing. Blind faith in the prophet. Which is great because he's a wonderful man, I just have a hard time coming to terms with the things that the church has done in the past - such as special privileges denied to black men, or "fixing" homosexuals with experimental electro-shock therapy at BYU. The same is true for any religions past -

I like the Hindu approach, you can take what you want that helps you in your personal path out of their religion, and still consider yourself Hindu - whether you worship one God, no Gods, or many gods. (Sometimes I attend the Hare Krishna temple ).

[hrsmom]

I wanted to add, but my computer froze up, that in the very first church I attended as an adult Christian, their motto was something like "in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, freedom" or something like that. So thats pretty influenced how I've felt. Like others have said, depends on the church.

[greenmamato2]

I think that realistically speaking, MOST people who are a member of a certain church have their own differing opinions on at least one or more topics. An example would be a Baptist church and the "loose rule" not to dance. Its not written in stone, but it is a very commonly held idea, to the point that when I got married we weren't allowed to dance in the reception hall of our Baptist church. I didn't agree with that when I was younger, and I don't now, though for 25 years I was a very devout baptist in many many other ways. That's a small example, but the short and long of it is that yes, I think you can be a member of a church and not agree with everything. If only you had been in on the committee meetings! Definitely not all agreement there!

[MrsSurplus]

Originally Posted by hrsmom

I wanted to add, but my computer froze up, that in the very first church I attended as an adult Christian, their motto was something like "in the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, freedom" or something like that. So thats pretty influenced how I've felt. Like others have said, depends on the church.

I love that saying: "In the essentials, Unity. In the non-essentials, Liberty. In all things, Charity." (I think it was said, first, by Augustine.)

[MrsSurplus]

For the OP - don't know if this is helpful or not...but when I was looking up the specific quote that hrsmom referenced, I came across a blog that linked to this page. It's really mostly a compilation of Scriptures referencing the importance of Doctrine. I don't know that it really answers your question, but perhaps an interesting read.

[AngelBee]

Originally Posted by TropicalGirl

Well I'm a pro-choice, pro-birthcontrol, against chastity of priests and nuns, evotultion believer, pro-gay rights Catholic, so in my book yes you can.

Not to pry, but I truly do not understand how that is possible.

Why would you identify yourself with an organization that vocally opposes most of your beliefs? Why would you want to be Catholic even? I honestly can't wrap my head around it. :