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.
