How far can one deviate from doctrine and still be considered a member of a Church?

Dave!

Hey folks,

Just something that often crosses my mind, and I think it crosses alot of people's minds (certainly atheists !)

I'm wondering how far you can stretch the 'rules' within a particular denomination, and still be considered a part of it? I know it would take alot to actually be excommunicated, but before crossing that line there are dozens of different doctrines, beliefs and rules within the various denominations, and I don't think that alot of people nowadays believe in them.

The obvious Church to look at is Roman Catholicism, as it's the dominant Church in Ireland.

If you didn't know any better, you would think that all Catholics believe (a) Jesus was the son of god, (b) he rose from the dead, (c) he's part of a trinity of God, son and spirit, (d) Mary was immaculately concieved, (e) wine and bread literally changes into blood and flesh, (f) Jesus carried out various miracles, etc etc etc

There's no shortage of doctrines -- but in my experience (I may be mistaken) most Catholics if asked about various things like this will say that they're silly, no obviously it doesn't literally change, it's supposed to be a metaphore, asexual reproduction is impossible for humans, etc.

Once you pare it down you're usually left with them believing Jesus existed and was a very nice guy !

So what I'm asking is, at what point do you 'cross the line' in your (Christians') opinion?

Is there some threshold?

Presumably you think that once someone says Jesus wasn't the son of God, that's pretty much their Christian credentials torn to shreds ! Is there a point before that?

It's kind of a bad analogy since atheism isn't a creed or church (;)), but if an atheist started to believe in a god, then that's pretty much them out of the club ! They'd be laughed at (by me) if they said they didn't believe in god, but they do believe in fairies and spirits -- but they'd still be atheists, right?

Anyways that's enough gibbering from me -- what are your own thoughts?

Nodin

A good question. Though theres meant to be some "freedom of conscience" within Protestantism, I've never worked out what it referred to or if it applied to all branches....certainly there doesnt seem to be too much room for manovere within some of the more 'fire and brimstone' denominations....

Soul Winner

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

Just something that often crosses my mind, and I think it crosses alot of people's minds (certainly atheists !)

I'm wondering how far you can stretch the 'rules' within a particular denomination, and still be considered a part of it? I know it would take alot to actually be excommunicated, but before crossing that line there are dozens of different doctrines, beliefs and rules within the various denominations, and I don't think that alot of people nowadays believe in them.

The obvious Church to look at is Roman Catholicism, as it's the dominant Church in Ireland.

If you didn't know any better, you would think that all Catholics believe (a) Jesus was the son of god, (b) he rose from the dead, (c) he's part of a trinity of God, son and spirit, (d) Mary was immaculately concieved, (e) wine and bread literally changes into blood and flesh, (f) Jesus carried out various miracles, etc etc etc

There's no shortage of doctrines -- but in my experience (I may be mistaken) most Catholics if asked about various things like this will say that they're silly, no obviously it doesn't literally change, it's supposed to be a metaphore, asexual reproduction is impossible for humans, etc.

Once you pare it down you're usually left with them believing Jesus existed and was a very nice guy !

So what I'm asking is, at what point do you 'cross the line' in your (Christians') opinion?

Is there some threshold?

Presumably you think that once someone says Jesus wasn't the son of God, that's pretty much their Christian credentials torn to shreds ! Is there a point before that?

It's kind of a bad analogy since atheism isn't a creed or church (;)), but if an atheist started to believe in a god, then that's pretty much them out of the club ! They'd be laughed at (by me) if they said they didn't believe in god, but they do believe in fairies and spirits -- but they'd still be atheists, right?

Anyways that's enough gibbering from me -- what are your own thoughts?

Thank you for you well thought out and nicely put post Dave.

The resurrection is the main hurdle that everyone must get over. If you can believe that, then the rest is easy. If that happened, then what better starting point for a definition of God can you get? Basically if someone doesn't believe that Christ actually rose from the dead as an actual fact of history then he/she is not a Christian. I mean what is the point in doing and believing all the things Jesus talked about if He wasn't who He claimed Himself to be? "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain?" 1 Corinthians 15:14

If Christ is not seated at the right hand of God right now in power and glory, then what is the point in just going around and saying He was a great man because He said so many great things, and sure even if He wasn't who He claimed to be then that's no big deal because look at all the great things He said and did. I don't need a Jesus like that. I can live a perfectly good life without such a Jesus. The reason most Christian give their entire selves over to Jesus is because they actually believe that He actually rose from the and will come again to judge the quick and the dead. But if the resurrection did not happen as reported, then what's the point in doing all the other stuff? What meaning has communion if Jesus didn't rise from the dead? What meaning has the immaculate conception (assuming you subscribe to that doctrine) if Christ didn't raise from the dead? Without the resurrection our faith is vain, so if you're gonna be a Christian then this is the hurdle that you must get over.

The only way to conclude whether He rose from the dead or not is to study the evidence. Are the stories about the resurrection fabrications in order to set up a new religion in the world? Or are they reports from deluded fools who wanted it to be true? Or are the reports of honest men who simply reported what they saw and experienced? That is a decision that everyone who faces these questions has to deal with. But the only way to resolve these question is to study the texts they wrote.

Anyway those are questions for another thread., the point of this post is to show that without the resurrection being a fact of history then the whole gamut of Christian doctrine crashes down regardless of who holds to what and for why.

PDN

Just to clarify, what do you mean by 'the Church'? The local congregation / denomination? Or the Church of Jesus Christ in general? This is not just a matter of semantics, but will greatly influence the reply you get.

In Roman Catholicism the two have generally been treated as the same - so to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church was considered the same as being cast out of Christianity altogether.

However, Protestant churches have a very different ecclesiology. They generally believe that their particular congregations or denominations are simply branches of the Church Universal - composed of believers worldwide who belong to many different groupings.

In this Protestant ecclesiology, losing one's membership of a particular congregation or denomination does not stop one from being a Christian.

So, for example, to be a member of my own church, it is necessary to subscribe to a fairly general evangelical/pentecostal statement of faith. Having doubts over one or two minor issues would not compromise someone's membership, but if they began openly contradicting the statement of faith then they would be asked to resign their membership. This would not be a reflection on their Christianity, simply an acknowledgement that they don't hold the common beliefs that are our distinctives as a church.

However, if someone contradicted one of the core doctrines of the Christian faith, rather than something that we merely see as a denominational distinctive, then that would, in our opinion, put them outside the Church universal.

So, for example, if someone denied that charismatic gifts (speaking in tongues, prophecy etc) were for the Church today - then they could not be a member of our particular church, but we would still embrace them as a Christian brother or sister. They could still attend our church, could still partake of communion, but could not hold membership.

But if that same person denied the deity of Christ, then we would consider that they had gone beyond the boundary of what defines a Christian. They would still be welcome to attend services (like any other unbeliever) but would not be invited to partake in communion.

Sorry if that seems complicated.