Conefssional, Fundy, & Other: In Answer to MechAg94

[roo_ster]

This thread is a continuation of a thread drift in Politics Place:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=19753.0

Specifically, it is in answer to MechAg94's post:

Looking at the 2nd definition of "fundy" above, those things fit pretty close with the non-denominational church I grew up with.  It was and still is likely the exact opposite of what a charismatic church would be.  You show up, sit down, shut up, and listen to the pretty technical sermon for 45 minutes.  Sing a few songs on Sundays.  Smiley

What do y'all mean when you call your Lutheran Church "confessional"?  Does that mean you confess to priests or just that you believe in confessing sins to God?  Just curious.

In a nutshell:
A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine.  The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it. Think some of the old-school, basic statements of orthodoxy like the Apostles & Nicene Creeds.  It is much more binding and rigorous than a "What We Believe" tab on a church's web page.

To drive the point home, it is confessional not in the "I regret what I did and I ask forgiveness" sense, but in the "I confess that this is true to the Bible and what I believe" sense.  Confession as in having remorse and asking forgiveness for sin is a different topic...one addressed in the digest (See Book of Concord below).

An example of a non-confessional denomination would be Southern Baptists.  There is some general agreement as to doctrine, but it is much more fluid.  I recall that the SBs tried to write down a set of core beliefs at one convention and there was a big hullabaloo by the theological liberals.  An even more non-confessional denomination would be some of the charismatic churches, where some sermons look more like debates between two ministers who are trying to get at what they believe or advocate their particular view.

And, of course, some outwardly confessional denominations are so in name only, after having gutted their confessions of faith of any meaning.

The Lutheran compilation of all these confessions is known as the Book of Concord.  Other confessional denominations will have their own digests.
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/TrigBOC.pdf
http://www.bookofconcord.org/intro.php
Here is the latest published version, with additional resources like maps, timelines, context, etc (50% off for the month of June!):
http://cph.org/cphstore/Category.asp?find%5Fcategory=97615&find%5Fdescription=June+Sale+%96+50%25+off+Concordia%3A+The+Lutheran+Confessions&find%5Fpart%5Fdesc=lutheran+confessions

There are also several other English translations freely downloadable from the web, but the linked one on sale is probably the most accessible due to the contextual materials.

The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. It includes, first, the three creeds which originated in the ancient church, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. It contains, secondly, the Reformation writings known as the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther's Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord.

The Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles came from the pen of Martin Luther; the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Treatise were written by Luther's co-worker, the scholarly Phillip Melanchthon; the Formula of Concord was given its final form chiefly by Jacob Andreae, Martin Chemnitz, and Nickolaus Selnecker.

A couple of confessional Lutheran-oriented websites:
http://www.confessionallutherans.org/
http://www.steadfastlutherans.org/


One last note:
I think the most diametrically-opposed sort of church/denomination would be the "emerging" or "emergent" church movement, which seems to be very much defined most by what they are not, rather than what they are.  A DFW example of this would be http://www.journeydallas.com/.  Their "Core Values" page seems all "how" and no "what." (http://www.journeydallas.com/core-values.html)  "How" can be very significant, but "how" without a "what" is not worth a hoot.  FTR, I went there for a while, but I was definitely the odd an out in just about every way imaginable.  Nice folks, though.

[Perd Hapley]

One thing that puzzles me is the difference the Lutherans draw between confessing and professing.  What's the deal there? 

[MechAg94]

Thanks jfruser.  I figured I was out of luck after getting the other thread locked.  :) 

The church I grew up with is most definitely not liberal.  The current pastor doesn't include as much fire and brimstone stuff, but he is still pretty conservative and sticks to the scripture pretty good.  Here is the link.  I am never very good at describing my own faith. http://www.berachah.org/Doctrinal%20Statement.htm   

[MechAg94]

To add to this, most of my relatives I grew up with were Baptist.  My grandfather was the deacon in the local First Baptist Church and taught the adult Bible study.  He wasn't liberal at all and believed in daily study of the scripture.  However, most of the pastors that came through were liberal so I can certainly understand a bit about what you are talking about. 

[makattak]

To add to this, most of my relatives I grew up with were Baptist.  My grandfather was the deacon in the local First Baptist Church and taught the adult Bible study.  He wasn't liberal at all and believed in daily study of the scripture.  However, most of the pastors that came through were liberal so I can certainly understand a bit about what you are talking about. 

Ahhh... you've discovered the problem with calling someone "Baptist".

jfruser was specifically talking about the Southern Baptists. Within the Southern Baptist denomination, there are a few liberal pastors and theologians, but the majority of the denomination is more fundamental.

However, there are MANY different Baptist denominations, such that simply calling someone "Baptist" does not give you a good idea of their theology.

I am currently attending a Southern Baptist church (VERY conservative) and I grew up in a Regular Baptist Church (seriously, the denomination was General Association of Regular Baptist Churches GARBC) which is a conservative denomination.

However, American Baptist (for example) is a very liberal denomination.

As an illustration of the problem defining "Baptist", below is Wiki's list of Baptist denominations ONLY in the United States (there are many more across the world):

Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southern Baptist Convention
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions

[zahc]

A confessional denomination/church/synod/whatever adheres to a written digest of basic doctrine.  The digest ("confession") does not supersede scripture, but is in accord with it and faithful to it. Think some of the old-school, basic statements of orthodoxy like the Apostles & Nicene Creeds.  It is much more binding and rigorous than a "What We Believe" tab on a church's web page.

Sounds similar to the 7th day adventists, who have a sub-book of principles and doctrines written by a church founder that they maintain is not authoritative or part of the Word but is profitable for instruction all the same.

[One of Many]

Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.

All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.

[zahc]

One of Many, I see the truth in your post. But I'm not sure what can be done about it.

I can choose a church organization that agrees with you/us, but we can see the inconsistency there.

I could abstain from affiliations with church organizations altogether (which I did do until recently), but then there is the bit about our being called to commune with each other.

Another option would be to start my own church, an option which I have actually considered at least somewhat.

[RaspberrySurprise]

Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message.

Because we are human and have free will. Besides even if man followed the Bible perfectly, it was written by men and therefore is as flawed as man is. Unless of course you would content that God was working directly through the men that wrote it and negating their free will.

Perhaps it would be better to stick to the core principle of being good to others and doing good in the world rather than arguing over the details?

[Stand_watie]

Ahhh... you've discovered the problem with calling someone "Baptist".

jfruser was specifically talking about the Southern Baptists. Within the Southern Baptist denomination, there are a few liberal pastors and theologians, but the majority of the denomination is more fundamental.

However, there are MANY different Baptist denominations, such that simply calling someone "Baptist" does not give you a good idea of their theology.

I am currently attending a Southern Baptist church (VERY conservative) and I grew up in a Regular Baptist Church (seriously, the denomination was General Association of Regular Baptist Churches GARBC) which is a conservative denomination....

I spent my teen years at a G.A.R.B. church in Western Michigan.

[Stand_watie]

Because we are human and have free will. Besides even if man followed the Bible perfectly, it was written by men and therefore is as flawed as man is. Unless of course you would content that God was working directly through the men that wrote it and negating their free will.

Perhaps it would be better to stick to the core principle of being good to others and doing good in the world rather than arguing over the details?

    Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?

[RaspberrySurprise]

    Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?

Ok I'm admittedly a tad rusty there maybe it would have been better to say "the core principle of Jesus teachings" Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.

[zahc]

Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.

OT, I think it's really annoying when people use archaic language for no particular reason.

[makattak]

OT, I think it's really annoying when people use archaic language for no particular reason.

Zounds! Thou dost vex me with a great tribulation as thou complaineth!

[Stand_watie]

Ok I'm admittedly a tad rusty there maybe it would have been better to say "the core principle of Jesus teachings" Which I believe was to love God and thy neighbor as you would yourself.

     O.K.  That will work for my interperetation (one of 6 billion varying opinions I'm sure), even extending it as far as to believe that Jesus' teachings were in conformance with the rest of what modern Christians call "The Bible" with the caveat that Jesus didn't stop with those two points, but made them into a rather large umbrella regarding personal behavior..."On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”  -continued thought in 1 John 5 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands."

And yes, "fundamentalists" believe that God worked directly through the physical authors of the Bible.

[Uncle Bubba]

    Is that really the "core principle" of the Bible?

Once you strip away all the frippery, this is what's left: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."

IMNSHO, that pretty much covers it.

[charby]

And yes, "fundamentalists" believe that God worked directly through the physical authors of the Bible.

Catholics believe that they (Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were inspired by God.

[Stand_watie]

Once you strip away all the frippery, this is what's left: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."

IMNSHO, that pretty much covers it.

Is the "loving God and keeping his commandments" part "frippery" to your NSHO?

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Confessions and such help nail things down and put them in order. They clarify/summarize some things. I think the Westminster Catechism cites verses for pretty much every thing mentioned. Otherwise, you have major issues with old vs. new testament vs present society (among other things). Must all men wear beards? Women wear head coverings and avoid makeup?

My folks leave churches very soon after or just before a preacher leaves. In every case. No preachers in my family, but the folks do like to teach classes... I've been members of three Southern Baptist churches and two 'reformed' churches. One of the reformed churches split from the other. The original church is pretty good and solid. The other is... weird. If you're familiar with some of the shenanigans of the CREC, you've got a good idea of the weird church. Back to Southern Baptist once again, for the simple reason that they'll leave you alone. When they feel like making insults, they have the courtesy to do it behind your back. 

[Uncle Bubba]

Is the "loving God and keeping his commandments" part "frippery" to your NSHO?

After being raised a Southern Baptist and then getting out in the world and seeing how humans act toward each other I consider the Golden Rule to be the paramount Commandment and the best way for people to get along in the world. The Book in its entirety boils down to that. The rest is window dressing. If anyone gets more than that out of it, fine. Personal beliefs are just that and all are welcome to their own.

[Uncle Bubba]

Back to Southern Baptist once again, for the simple reason that they'll leave you alone. When they feel like making insults, they have the courtesy to do it behind your back. 

If that ain't the damn truth...

[Stand_watie]

d The rest is window dressing.

O.k. I'll take that as a "yes"

[MechAg94]

I have little experience with those religious organizations since I grew up with a non-denominational Church.  I simply didn't care about what those other groups thought.  My pastor always said that Christians do themselves a great service by simply staying quiet and focusing on learning doctrine.  Put your focus on God and not on other people.  When you focus on other people, it is difficult to avoid comparing yourself to them and developing arrogant standards of relative righteousness rather than sticking with God's standards. 

I have no problem with the Golden Rule and think it is a good way to live, but IMO, that is a result of the Christian way of life as much or more than a goal.  I don't think you can dismiss any one part of the Bible without losing lessons that will help you at some point.  Basic humility in your thinking and approach to others is almost a prerequisite to actually practicing the Golden Rule in your life. 

[roo_ster]

Baptists
As makattak showed, there are quite a few different associations out there...and he didn't even go into the few groups descended from the anabaptists.

Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.

All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.

Any single believer with the cognitive ability to organize their thoughts will have developed some sort of systematized doctrine after reading the Bible as more than a historical document.  Any group of like-minded believers with cognitive ability will also develop some sort of doctrine they find mutually agreeable.  Some of these groups will go so far as to record their thoughts.  This is not some sort of evil process that separates us from each other & God, it is just the way humans wrap their minds around complex concepts. It is the use of one's reason and one's faith.

Even "non-confessional" churches practice this:
Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/default.asp
American Baptist Association: http://www.abaptist.org/general.html
Interdenominational or "Nondenominational" Churches: http://amazingloveministries.net/ , http://www.cintlc.org/

I am at a loss to understand the hostility to collecting the concepts of the Bible and writing them down. Creed, confession, doctrine, affirmation of faith, witness...whether it stays silent in one's mind, is spoken in public, or written down, the concepts still exist.  Wishing them away or calling them by another name does not change their nature. 

Frankly, it seems to be a rejection of the reason portion of "faith & reason" to take issue with the systematic study and documentation of the concepts found in the Bible.

My pastor always said that Christians do themselves a great service by simply staying quiet and focusing on learning doctrine.  Put your focus on God and not on other people.  When you focus on other people, it is difficult to avoid comparing yourself to them and developing arrogant standards of relative righteousness rather than sticking with God's standards. 

Wise pastor.

I have no problem with the Golden Rule and think it is a good way to live, but IMO, that is a result of the Christian way of life as much or more than a goal.  I don't think you can dismiss any one part of the Bible without losing lessons that will help you at some point.  Basic humility in your thinking and approach to others is almost a prerequisite to actually practicing the Golden Rule in your life. 

Yup.

[lupinus]

Sounds similar to the 7th day adventists, who have a sub-book of principles and doctrines written by a church founder that they maintain is not authoritative or part of the Word but is profitable for instruction all the same.

Very different views on things.  But, I suppose yes.

The Lutheran confessions can be found in the book of concord.

Creed, Confession, or Catechism. These are all just the traditions of men that are bound on the followers of those men. What did Jesus say about following the traditions of men, when he denounced the Jewish High Priests and their disciples? It was not a favorable pronouncement he made regarding them. Likewise when Paul the Apostle denounced some of the members of the church for following after specific ministers, and denominating themselves on the basis of which preacher they followed.

All of these doctrines (traditions) of men separate one denomination from another, when Jesus and the Apostles called for unity in following the teachings of God. Why is it that men can not just follow the Bible without adding to or taking away from what it teaches, or in some other way perverting the message. The practice of perverting the word, adding to it, or taking away from it is condemned. Emphasizing particular aspects while minimizing others is just a way of achieving what is soundly condemned, and incurring the wrath of God at judgment.

Traditions are fine, so long as they are in line with scripture and neither contradict it nor add things as necessary that are not found in scripture.  Needing a Priest to talk to God or make intercession, alcohol in any way is evil, needing to worship on Sunday, this contradicts and/or adds to scripture.  The confessions found in the Book of Concord do not add to or go against scripture in any way.  Neither does our Catechism.  They explain how we view scripture and our faith, which is all strait from scripture.

Scripture interprets scripture is the traditional Lutheran view, and conservative/confessional Lutherans still agree with it.