Freedom of beliefs vs. uniformity of beliefs
On Monday of this week I talked to a pastor of a Fundamentalist Baptist church my husband has been going to. It turns out that I would be ineligible for membership unless I changed one of my beliefs – I believe that the gift of tongues is for today. This church also strongly disagreed with contemporary Christian music, which I listen to a lot.
I myself am a Baptist, although definately not Fundamentalist, and I do not believe that everyone who is spirit filled is going to speak in tongues. So the way I believe in the gift actually lines up with the way that a lot of non-Pentecostals who believe in tongues believe. But that pastor that I spoke to, he and his church takes a cessationist viewpoint in regards to tongues and the other “sign” gifts – that they ceased as the New Testament was finished.
So that brings me to the question – how much uniformity of beliefs is too much to expect? Is it wrong to expect that everybody in a church is going to believe the same thing? On the opposite side of the coin – how much freedom of beliefs is too much? Would it cause anarchy if people didn’t believe the same thing? And what are “essential points” to require people in the church to agree on? What are non-essentials to allow more freedom and liberty on?
I think that I can write a hundred pages on the answers to these questions, because I don’t really think there are any hard and fast answers. I don’t think it’s wrong for a church to require people to believe the same thing on all essential and even many minor points, such as tongues, music, dancing. Also, what some groups might think are minor, others view as major. Nor do I think it is wrong for a church to say “Okay, as long as you agree with us on essentials, such as salvation, you can disagree on points such as tongues, dancing, music, etc.” Both stances have their advantages and disadvantages.
A church that requires strong uniformity of beliefs has the advantage of being able to say “This is what we believe on this, this, this, this.” People know what stance to take on everything. Some people find that very comforting, and can really grow in Christ, when they don’t have to try to come up with very many answers on their own. This type of church has a purity of doctrine. That is the upside of that. The downside is a church like that appeals to a very limited group of people. If a person doesn’t agree with them, they can’t be part of them. Also, if a person who is a member and finds their beliefs start to change, they might find themselves excluded or even abused. Arguments can break out and quickly become very heated if someone believes differently than the “accepted belief” on anything.
A church with more freedom of beliefs appeals to a wider variety of people. Also, people are allowed to come up with more answers on their own in their Bible Studies. This results in intellectual and faith exercises which really encourage people to grow in their walk with Christ. They do not have to worry about coming up with something that would result in their being excluded from their church or people in their church getting mad at them. That is the upside. The downside is, with too much freedom, some people feel like fish out of water, and would have a hard time growing. Also, sometimes what happens is something that is against an essential doctrine gets taught. Sometimes, also, the doctrine the church teaches gets weak.
So which is better? Insist on uniformity of beliefs, to keep doctrines pure, even though you will exclude many people, or allow more freedom and take the chance of doctrines getting watered down? I don’t think there’s any real answer to that. I myself prefer the freedom approach, and just make sure that the essentials of doctrine, such as salvation, do not get watered down. But that’s my own preference.
When will this all end?
My father passed away in June of 2004. My mother had end-stage multiple sclerosis, and was completely paralyzed. Two months after my father’s death we found out that my mother also had uterine cancer. She wasn’t a good candidate for surgery or radiation because of her already weaked state. Either anethesia or radiation could kill her. Fortunately, the cancer was very slow growing.
In March 2007 my mother passed away from pneumonia; her weakened state from MS had made her vulnerable to it. It was only about a month after that we found out that the reason why my husband occasionally coughs up blood is a previously undiagnosed birth defect; an abnormal artery from his heart to his lung. He had surgery in July, but the surgery did not do everything that the doctors were hoping. In December he got pneumonia, and also started coughing up blood again. He went to the doctor again yesterday, and it was discovered that his blood pressure was dangerously high. His doctor wants him to go to a heart surgeon again.
And me? I feel more alone now then I have in my whole life. I know with dealing with my mother all these years, that if someone you love has chronic illness, you really need someone else to lean on, too. When Mom was so sick, I always had Arnold to lean on. But who do I have to lean on now?
Taking God’s grace and mercy seriously
I have been thinking about this. Which is easier to take more seriously? Is it easier to take sin is bad and there are things that we as Christians should do seriously, or is it easier to take God’s grace and mercy seriously? I don’t think that the answer is as plain as it seems to be at first glace.
We all love to know that we are loved. We all love to know that God’s grace and mercy covers our sins, right? But, even so, I do not think that today’s church in general always takes God’s grace and mercy seriously.
We know what’s wrong, what’s a sin – and we do it anyway. And we beat ourselves up for it. We also know that, as Christians, there are things we should do for good. And we beat ourselves up when we fail to do that, too. All too often, also, the church helps us in beating ourselves up when we do what we shouldn’t and don’t do what we should. But should we not also turn to God’s grace and mercy?
I’m not saying that we should ignore it when we do wrong, or when we neglect to do right. Far from it. I am also not saying we should let sin reign in our churches. What I am saying is that God is full of grace and mercy, and Christ’s blood covers our sins. God doesn’t expect our own blood, and He doesn’t expect us to do blood letting on some poor guy or girl that has been caught in sin. No, the Holy Spirit guides us into all truths, and He convicts us of our sin in a way that is beneficial to draw us back to God. We don’t need to heap guilt upon ourselves or others; indeed, that is counterproductive.
Galatians 5:1 says it is for freedom Christ has set us free. We can only see and enjoy that freedom when we take God’s grace and mercy seriously. If we spend all of our time worried we are going to mess up, then we do not have that freedom. Likewise, Christ said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. But how easy is the yoke or light the burden when we are so weighed down trying to be absolutely perfect?
