As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.
Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.
Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.
However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).
Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):
Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.
Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.
Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.
Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.
So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church?
There are many reasons, but I want to highlight the three most important and then attempt to help you gain perspective in choosing a church.
1. Crossings teaches the Gospel and focuses on it.
“But, but, but . . . I thought you said they were Arminian . . . Oh, I get it. You really don’t care that much about Calvinism and egalitarianism.” No, this is not the case. I care deeply about the doctrines of grace. A little less so about complementarianism, but don’t mistake this for any sort of apathy. It just demonstrates how much I prioritize my Calvinism. However, there are many things that I prioritize even more than Calvinism . . . much more. These include the centrality of Christ, the proclamation of the Gospel, and the authority of Scripture. But there is one more thing. One more thing that I have come to value more and more over the years . . .
2. Crossings teaches grace and does not divide over non-cardinal issues.
Crossings does not just preach grace, you can feel it when you walk through the doors. I have been to dozens of churches where right as you walk through the doors, it as if a heavy burden has been placed upon your back. Smug looks of suspicion along with demeaning conversation are the most readily expected experience. I am sad to say but this is especially true of many churches in my Calvinistic tradition. All they are concerned with is making you a Calvinist. Sigh . . . I would that all men (and women) were Calvinists like me, but my goal is not necessarily to make them such. But Crossings is not about making you an Arminian, either – obviously since they have me teach! They are gracious in non-cardinal issues, allowing for diversity. They understand that diversity actually teaches more and illustrates God’s grace more than digging your heels in on every doctrinal matter. I love grace so much. When I go there, it does feel as if the burden is removed and you are joining a place with many broken people seeking help together.
Friends, this is the heart of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism 101.
3. I am needed and used there.
Who am I to obscure the call of God based upon my particular doctrinal favoritism? These are God’s people and I will love God’s people wherever they are. If I can be used in a church that does not line up perfectly with my theology, that is great. Why would I ever turn down an opportunity to teach a group of people just because they don’t already agree with me? That is just plain silly and lacks perspective. Would I rather teach and serve somewhere that the people already would be in agreement with me? Would you? Where is the fun in that?
(Just to make it plain, I always teach in accordance with the umbrella that Crossings provides. I do make it known, when relevant, where I stand on certain issues, but I also go out of my way to help the members understand where Crossings stands and why. I respect them very much in this. But, these issues don’t really come up that much since there is so much that Calvinists and Arminians do agree upon. We just often forget how much.)
Would it be better if they were Calvinists? Would it be better if they were Complementarians? Sure, as long as they kept the grace. But, if I have the choice, I will never trade perfect theology (or nearly so) for grace. Grace is the Gospel. When you lose that, where do you go? Stay in bed.
You will never find the perfect church . . . never! There is no perfect denomination. There is no perfect tradition. There is no perfect church and there never has been. Although Stonebriar was close, it was not that close.
I don’t believe in trying to find a church based upon non-cardinal doctrinal issues. But, unfortunately, many churches don’t share my perspective, which makes it hard for people like me. If you go to a church and they have different convictions about certain issues and all they are doing is trying to convert you, this is a troubling experience. This leaves the Christian with the only option of attempting to find a church that agrees with them on everything. What a detriment to the diversity of the body of Christ. Doctrinal statements are fine. Crossings has one. Stonebriar has one. But when every detail of the doctrinal statement is prioritized to the point where every member has to sign off on everything, this is unfortunate in my opinion.
I go to a church that is full of grace and truth. That is why I go to an Arminian church. If there were a Calvinistic church like Stonebriar that was full of grace and truth (and there are some), I might go there. But right now I feel as if I am where God wants me to be.
However, this is my opinion and I am curious as to your thoughts.
146 replies to "Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?"
Michael,
I am afraid that this conversation may have sidetracked the original intent of the thread. It still fits somewhat in that it helps us clarify how free we are to worship in other types of churches. Should we placing a hold on the egalitarianism versus complimentarianism debate?
I think you just answered my question! 🙂
Michael, reading this tells me why I have found YOU so READABLE. If I were such a gifted writer of theology as you are (which I’m not), and if I were a teacher of such (which I’m not)…..I could have written this blog. Or, at least I will say that what you have written expresses my heart as well. Fortunately, we attend a church which is more in keeping with Stonebriar, as you have described it. There has been one shortcoming however, a shortcoming which has greatly concerned me. A shortcoming which I have prayed about, and been somewhat vocal about: A lack of evangelism. It wasn’t always this way. I attended the church since I was a child, we used to have an evangelism pastor years ago, and a senior pastor who really had a heart for evangelism.
I have seen signs of hope from the pulpit on the issue of evangelism over the past year. Our pastor is now returning to a series in Matthew which he began last year, which he promised would culminate in the Great Commission (as it does!). We had gone in a rather social- gospel direction for a few years…. but I think that the rudder is turning… s l o w l y but surely.
It’s great that your pastor allows you to teach… it would be a crime if he didn’t!
Michael,
Didn’t you once hold to a KJV-Only position? That would be an example of the kind of narrowminded fundamentalism and bigotry in your past that I was referencing in post #34 and #41 above. That, to my mind, would constitute an involvement in, and not merely exposure to, rigid fundamentalism.
Grace to you,
Tony
In regards to teaching in the church. I am currently not a member of my Baptist church, and cannot be because my wife was not baptized by immersion. Having said that, I have been given permission to teach, as long as I agree to not teach contrary to the statement of faith. As a result there are certain things that I will not likely teach on, one of which is Baptism. (Unless expressly asked by the Elders to do so.)
Although our church leans to an Arminian viewpoint, their is nothing in the statement of faith which would prevent a Calvinist from putting forward a Calvinist position. Although it is Egalitarian, there is nothing that would prevent a Complementarian from putting forward a Complementarian position. People might not like it, but if it is not codified in the statement of faith, there would not be much they could do about it.
If something is in a statement of faith, I would be very hesitant to even lay out what I believe if what I believe is contrary to it. I say this even if I was to present the churches position.
Going to a church that has a statement of faith that you cannot agree with means that you just have to shut up about certain things.
Sure. But this raises a good general question relevent to the matter of changing churches, dogma … and our changing what we once proclaimed as the word of God. We should be very careful about announcing our own opinions, as the expression of God’s sovereign will. Isn’t there a danger here? Hubris for example?
God could change anything … but how often does he? And how do we know, what evidence do you have, he has changed it in a way that coincidentally alligns with your own opinions? So that you are now in effect, the sovereign voice of God?
Shouldn’t there be some kind of … coronation first, or something?
Well stated explanation for where you have landed in your move from TX. I would describe myself as holding to Reformed doctrines, but when we moved to a (really) small town, the only church that exhibited the grace you describe was the United Methodist Church. Would have guessed even 6 months after we moved here that I would have never wound up worshiping at the UMC. But it has been a great result, and like you, I get to teach and even preach about 4 times per year.
Another point I have discovered is that apart from the Pastor and a handful of others (it is a small church, without a huge staff), I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of those who worship there cannot cite the distinctives of Weslyan-Arminianism, OR Calvinism. They too are drawn by the grace that is present in the body.
Post 56 referring to post # 49.
Here and now? I guess to be sure, Grace helps a lot of things.
Chuck, what a gracious way to put it. I would describe Crossings the same way.
Dr. G.
Great line there Dr. G. about the coronation. 🙂
I wasn’t trying to say that God was changing anything. I think what I was trying to say is that God throughout history has given exceptions to the general pattern. To try to say that he can no longer do so is to usurp his voice.
To get us back on track, it is when we prescribe on secondary issues that things must be a certain way that we make it difficult to fellowship with each other.
I worked for a KJV organization. This was before I even knew what all that stuff was about. But I would certianly not say I was a fundamentalist. Never have been. Always have been too big of a sinner! The sins you can’t hide too easily. I sin “boldly!”
Thanks Susan!
Michael,
I visited Stonebriar’s website.
Here are some interesting observations.
Generally, I don’t have a problem with the 7 core beliefs. I have to do mental gymnastics in order to affirm inerrancy, but I have that problem with most Evangelical churches. The 20 section statement of faith is another matter.
What is interesting to note that as a egalitarian, I do not have a problem with the core beliefs or statement of faith. The church also seems to be what I would call “functional egalitarian”. That is, women are serving in leadership and pastoral positions without receiving the title.
As a charismatic I would not have an issue either. The “sign gifts” are neither mentioned nor denied.
As an Arminian I would not be able to sign the statement of faith
as there are too many things in it that I cannot affirm.
As someone who is not dispensationalist, I would not be able to sign either. (Primarily the pre-trib rapture part.)
Typically if I can’t sign a statement of faith, I can’t be a member, deacon or elder. (I imagine that is the case at Stonebriar.) As I would not be able to fully exercise my spiritual gifts at Stonebriar, it is very unlikely that I would attend there as my church.
Now some churches have only that you only have to uphold the statement of faith to be a member, not necessarily agree to it. In that case attendance becomes more likely, especially if we hold the same core beliefs.
Greg, (#7)
That is a great question. There are so many intangibles to grace. It is hard to mimic or describe, but you know when it is there. It comes when people see them selves as in just as much need as you. They are not there to “fix” everyone, but to try to be fixed together. They don’t look down on you, but, at the same time, are not without commitment. They hope for righteousness, yet are continually broken by sin, their own and yours. It is a smile, a hug, a gift, and a presence.
It is the opposite of those who would judge you for not conforming to everything that they do or think. It is the opposite of legalism.
I am a Gideon (the Bible in the hotel folks) and I speak in about a dozen churches a year as part of this ministry. A handful of pastors actually take the opportunity to go on vacation, knowing their pulpit is in good hands with the Gideons, and I preach the sermon. This is tricky business since I have to review what their basic positions are so as not to cross any boundaries. The Gideons have a strong policy of NOT engaging in any sectarian discussion since we are made up of nearly every protestant denomination, and want to keep it that way.
What I have found is that there are some solid common grounds that I can preach anywhere, mostly focusing on the place of Scripture in our personal lives (being a Gideon and all). And, I teach sunday school at a fundamentalist church (family history) and I manage to steer clear of areas in which I (strongly) disagree with ease.
I think we share much more in common than those of us who engage in the various theological debates seem to remember. And, even where we do differ, the Joe in the Pew would likely not even know what we are talking about.
But the “church full of grace” point is very well said, Michael. I have been in pentecostal and Lutheran and everything in between. No denomination has a corner on the market on this and they have it, or don’t have it, in a very evenly dispersed manner. So, the formal theology of the church has little, or nothing at all, to do with whether they are likely to have that grace.
In fact, the general idea of this blog is true. In fact, given so many different churches with different doctrines, it’s hard to get a good match between pastor and church. But maybe an exact match probably isn’t necessary; especially on minor, non-“cardinal” issues.
For myself, I spent many years as an Army brat, on bases where there was only one minister for all Protestants; so that the minister had to avoid secondary issues, and concentrate only on … core issues that everyone agreed on. Which actuallywas perfect. So that I avoided sectarian disputes.
In fact though, in the Army I avoided sectarianism to the point that … it irritates me to hear the lesser doctrinal squabbles today; and to take them seriously. Much less, teach them or argue for them. I’m all for … forgetting the little stuff. And not letting it get in the way of larger fellowship.
Still therefore, I worry about a theology of big words, if it happens to focus on the very Big Words that describe doctrinal differences …. Maybe it is useful to mention them once … just long enough for us to see their relative unimportance. And to clear the way, so that we can move on to other, core issues?
And feel fellowship – not sectarian difference – with all Christians? Even “all” men and women?
Mike, good observations.
Stonebriar’s doctrinal statement is a really a cut and paste from DTS (like so many others). But one is not required to believe all of these things before they can be a member or serve there.
In fact, during my ordination, Chuck asked me if I was a five point Calvinist. He asked all five us us being ordained this questions. All but one answered “yes.” But we were ordained nontheless. Two of us went on staff there. Chuck is very passionate about his belief in unlimited atonement. What he did that day illustrated something I will never forget: you can be very passionate about certian doctrinal issues, but that does not mean you either divide, or, more importantly, refrain from laying hands of approval on. Wow. Just retelling that story invigorates me!!!
Who’s Wayne?
If I misunderstood, I apologize. Sounded like you were responding to Wayne’s concern.
Entry # 10.
Kara Kittle on 28 Apr 2009 at 8:24 am #
Wayne in Frisco,
Oh,
Wayne in Frisco…let me see what I said to him way up there….
Ok, no I wasn’t arguing with him, I was making a personal observation from my Pentecostal perspective. That’s all.
Sorry Wayne, I forgot I responded to you this morning.
There are two different words here… “Doctrine” and “dogma”. Doctrine is “that which is taught”. Dogma is that which one may only reject in peril of their salvation.
Failing to teach doctrine seems to be a failure to be a teaching institution :-). It’s not saying that what we teach is inviolable; it’s merely teaching that we teach _something_ and not _nothing_.
Teaching dogma is a more serious commitment, and one should do so both carefully and reverently. Many churches teach an aversion to it, and I admit that I don’t like it as some people define it … But it seems to me that there are some essentials, and without those you’re simply not a Christian, and anyone who sees you claiming to be one has a right and perhaps obligation to point that out.
-Wm
Are the people often clear about the distinction? Most people hear doctrine … and act like, think, it’s dogma. From God.
In actual practice, its probably all but impossible to really make the distinction clear in church; both tend inevitably to get presented as the word of God in sermons.
The only way to avoid it? Avoid doctrine alogether? Concentrate on core issues?
Stipulating explicitly in sermons that it is “doctrine” and not “dogma” … takes time; and is rarely understood by the public. Especially if and when the pastor inevitably wants to present his doctrinal positions in such a way as to deliberately obscure the difference; as if they were absolutely binding; as if they were the firm word of the Almighty.
Thank you for posting this!
Very ironic and serendipitous: I just got a call from a pastor after posting #65 above, asking my to cover his service this Sunday, since he had a family emergency (had been planned to go in about a month, anyway). We really are like the “substitute teachers” for pastors! :0)
It is an Assembly of God church, I think I will preach on TULIP. :0)
Vance,
Then wouldn’t you be preaching with an agenda? Sounds a little subversive to me…lol.
Do they know you lean that way? Of course I am just being silly…but no, do they know?
Kara, actually, I lean the other way, I am Arminian, but I could definitely give a full and fairly convincing sermon on TULIP, then turn around and give a sermon the opposite way. Since I believe that the truth lies very much beyond our limited ability to understand “God things”, and I think both positions must necessarily have it wrong to some degree, I think a presentation of both would be most honest! :0)
But, seriously, no, usually the churches we speak at have no clue what our particular theological leanings are, and we try to keep it that way. We try to respect each church and act as a person would as a guest in another country.
What is most difficult is when a pastor has a particular agenda of his own he is working on and asks me, as a guest speaker, to work that argument/position into my talk! That has happened a couple of times.
I don’t know if that’s true!
Many people hear doctrine and act like it’s random opinion. Some people hear doctrine and act like it’s a buffet. It just doesn’t feel to me like “most people” are dogmatic in the sense you’re claiming.
A lack of doctrine also leads to a serious weakness. Knowing God with our whole being is a good thing, and it involves knowing God with our mind. My attempts to think about God should be backed and supported by others; that will help me go further than I could on my own, and it may correct me where I go astray.
The same applies to the commands of Christ. We are to teach the nations to do as He has commanded (the Great Commission), which involves a lot of doctrinal commitment.
The rest of your post I like and agree entirely with.
But this:
Are you being more Christlike than Christ? We are Sons of God in a way that the world — and the people in it — cannot understand. We are their fellow creations, but we are not brethren.
-Wm
Thank you for this discussion, Michael, and I admire you for your approach, as many here have done and particularly Kara #1. It shows me that our doctrinal beliefs are not as important as our ministry, and in fact the two are somewhat separate.
Your emphasis was on Calvinism vs Arminianism. Jesus was neither one. Largely, Jesus was not teaching doctrine; He was teaching people to live right with God and right with their neighbors. We can do that in many churches, of course, and doctrine has little to do with it.
I realize that an underlying goal of this website is to ‘reclaim the mind.’ That seems to mean examine doctrine. To the extent that it brings out harsh differences among us it is a disservice. However, you have shown here, and in fact in most of your writing, that grace and truth with love are the overriding principles of the Gospel of Christ.
Hi CMP, Looks like you and Peter Enns have something in common! 😉
BTW, as an Arminian I really appreciate your attitude, and also appreciate that you’re willing and able to articulate the Arminian view in such a way that Arminians can agree.
Well said, Michael. We have to focus on the main things, as Christians, and I think you’ve said well what they are.
Only one small quibble. You said “right now I feel as if I am where God wants me to be.”
Surely, as a good Calvinist, you *are* where the Sovereign God wants you to be, as you can be nowhere else? 🙂
Always enjoy reading your clear thinking.
Rayner,
One time a long time ago I took an online quiz that asked if I were Calvinist or Arminian…and it came back I was Arminian…but I never heard the word preached in my church. Then last year I took another online quiz…what religion are you…the result was I apparently am Orthodox Quaker….LOL.
I am a Trinity Pentecostal and make the clear distinction that I am not under the umbrella term of Charismatic…to this day I do not know what an Orthodox Quaker is, but am thinking about finding one of their churches to see what it is like.
I do have a policy that on Good Friday I will attend a church different than mine because it is one defining tradition we all share. I find nothing wrong with that because we are supposed to be united under this one thing. And that one thing for one day transcends all our little squabbling over doctrines. Most Pentecostals don’t have Good Friday services but one of the most interesting was in the Anglican Church. It was the same message, the same Savior, the same crucifixion. I have spent Easter services with my friend in the Church of Christ…the one that used to be German Reform.
Michael,
thanks for defining this “grace” you are talking about. I thought maybe you were saying “grace” and meaning “love.
MP wrote:
That is a great question. There are so many intangibles to grace. It is hard to mimic or describe, but you know when it is there. It comes when people see them selves as in just as much need as you. They are not there to “fix” everyone, but to try to be fixed together. They don’t look down on you, but, at the same time, are not without commitment. They hope for righteousness, yet are continually broken by sin, their own and yours. It is a smile, a hug, a gift, and a presence.
It is the opposite of those who would judge you for not conforming to everything that they do or think. It is the opposite of legalism.
I have a question for you. Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
I too once went to a works based church. The reason was I was married to a “Church of Christ”. They believe that they alone can be saved. Water baptism saves you. Works save you. Taking the Lord’s supper saves you. Attending church saves you. Having a piano in the church condemns you, ect.
Why would anyone choose to take a yoke upon themselves that neither they nor their ancestors have been able to bear?
How on earth does a man go from listening to Swindoll to that?
I guess I don’t get it. But I love you brother, I hope the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus washes over you.
[…] Mike Patton, a stark-raving out-of-the-closet Calvinist, has some incredibly good insights here. […]
Michael,
I never did read a reply to the question earlier about the reverse of what you are doing. What would you think of an Arminian being allowed to teach in a Calvinistic church?
I’ll second Ken. I’ve seen a lot of Calvinist guest speakers in Arminian churches but never the other way around…
Ken, it all depends on how the church is set up. If it is explicitly Calvinistic and seeks to push this making sure all its memebers are Calvinists, then it obviously would not work. But if it is more Evangelical then it would work.
I guess the follow-up question would be whether an Arminian church would be more likely to allow a Calvinist teacher/evangelist in their pulpit than the other way around. And if so, why so?
I think Calvinists tend to be more focused on those doctrines that make them, well, Calvinist. They can tick off the points like a mantra and, very often, it becomes the most important feature of their Christian self-identification. Whereas Arminians tend to much less concerned about those theological nitty-grittys and focus on the big ticket items which are the essentials of salvation. As mentioned above, most folks who ARE Arminian in their belief structure have never even heard the word Arminian.
Now, what this does is allow the Arminian to often become open to very loose and occasionally dangerous doctrinal swings. So, I see a problem both ways, even setting aside the idea of who is right or wrong on the “points”.
Stan, what are you talking about?? Your post makes no sense. I don’t go to a church that promotes such things at all.
As a pastor and one who affirms the doctrines of grace, I have adopted a policy that genuinely helps promote and maintain understanding, purity, and harmony within the church. While there may be other ways, I have adopted this policy because it promotes unity that a church needs to have. I would handle the oversite of teachers with different persuasions (things that are not essential for salvation and orthodoxy) differently that those with different or contrary “convictions” (beliefs that are essential for salvation and orthodoxy).
Adapted from: How We Use Our Statement of Faith
Copyright © 2003 Christ Fellowship Elders
Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
http://www.ccwtoday.org/article_view.asp?article_id=91
Churches have historically used confessions or statements of faith in order to summarize and clearly identify what they believe. Many historical confessions have been preserved, and are used by churches to this day. Instead of adopting an historical confession, we have chosen to use the following summary of biblical doctrine, entitled “G3C Statement of Faith,” as our statement of beliefs. Listed below are several important things you should understand about the purpose of our statement of faith, and about the way it will be used.
1. Our statement of faith will be a helpful introduction to the doctrines we will teach, giving you assurance that we will remain solidly biblical in our convictions. While we strongly believe that the doctrines set forth in our statement are an accurate summary of biblical truth, we do not require everyone joining our church to understand and affirm the statement at every point.
2 We may invite guest speakers who do not agree with every point of doctrine in our statement of faith. There are many faithful ministers of the Word who do not hold to the exact expression of our convictions. Though our statement will guide us in selecting those we choose for guest speaking, it will not preclude those who are in complete agreement in the most basic areas, while differing somewhat on secondary issues.
3. We do expect conformity to the statement of faith for our pastors, interns, and teachers–those most associated with the pastoral duty of teaching the truth. This does not imply that every teacher must have a thoroughly formulated understanding of every aspect of the statement. It does mean, however, that they are willing not to knowingly teach contrary to the established doctrine of the church while working out the finer points. Certain doctrines are so clear and so necessary that a teacher or potential leader would have no reason to be in confusion over them (e.g. the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the nature of saving faith, the sovereignty of God, etc.). However, certain difficult points of doctrine may take even good students some time to work out (e.g. the extent of the atonement, the precise relationship between the covenants, etc.). Since any teaching is a pastoral extension, the pastor(s) will decide which points of theology, on a case by case basis, may remain suspended in the mind of a teacher or potential leader. Pains should be taken, however, to remove the confusion and to come to a solid conviction and doctrinal unity.
4. If a teacher comes to a conclusion contrary to the statement of faith, he is required to inform the pastor(s) about his conflicting belief. The pastor(s) will work with his concerns until there is unity in understanding. If an issue in the statement is found to be in error when compared with the Word of God, a correction will be made to the statement. If unity is unattainable, then the pastor(s) and the individual must fall back on the statement of faith as correct, until proven otherwise. In this case, the teacher will be asked to discontinue teaching until there is a better resolve. It is possible that at some point, a pastor or teacher may completely apostatize (i.e. disbelieve certain essential doctrines once held true). In that special case, church discipline is in order and all teaching responsibilities will be terminated.
5. Our statement of faith is subservient to the Scriptures. It should never be viewed as having an authority equal to that of the Bible. It is authoritative only in a limited sense, as far as it accurately reflects the meaning of Scripture. We view it and use it as a tool to promote, achieve, and maintain doctrinal understanding, purity, and harmony.
Vance,
I would rather the church be stiff and doctrinally sound as Calvinists are than being found inconsistent and focused on just the “big ticket” as is the case where lose-your-salvation-every-other-week happens.
Ken, I agree regarding the dangers found in many modern evangelical Arminian churches. But my point was that, right or wrong on the doctrine (keep in mind that I don’t necessarily agree that Calvinism IS doctrinally sound, but setting that aside for this discussion), it is question where you “major” and where you “minor”.
I think Calvinists too often Major in the Minors, meaning they spend way too much of their time and energy on matters that are not “salvation” issues, or the primary focus of Jesus’ commands for us here on earth: loving God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself.
Yes, the “loose” Arminians often get distracted away from these core principals and “salvation issues” with their various extremes and idiosyncratic ways, but a distraction is a distraction, whether it be an inordinate focus on a TULIP point or speaking in tongues.
But there are many reasons not to get too firm about doctrines.
1) First: as a practical matter, countless bloody wars were fought between Christians on matters of doctrine – like the Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, between Protestants and Catholics. Over often precisely issues like … the Eucharist, and transubstantiation; being discussed on this blog. Given that, should we really … get all that firm and dogmatic about our doctrines?
2) To this day, in fact, though this blog promotes this level of theology – Dogmatics – it is easy to see that it often causes conflicts, fights.
3) Then too, since these very doctrinal debates are ancient – having gone on for – in some cases almost two thousand years – without clear resolution … doesn’t that suggest they are “fruitless?”
With all respect to this blog and it’s orientation, perhaps it would be to review some strengths and limitations of its approach, therefore.
4) Indeed, does the Bible itself really firmly outline this or that doctrine? A poststructural theological look at the Bible, suggests that it was written in equivocal language, to simultaneously entertain three or four theologies; and thus “include” many rival schools … even in ancient times. So that finally, the BIble itself is not entirely firmly unequivocal at all, in its message. (What indeed is the meaning of “blessed are the poor in spirit”? Half the words in this sentence are impossibly polysemic; this sentence has at least five possible different meanings. And the context does not firm any one of them up, either).
For these and other reasons, much contemporary scholarly theology, has pretty stopped writing much on the aspect of theology that this blog focuses on. Which might be called … Dogmatics? Denominational taxonomy? Which is perhaps useful at the level of … a pastor deciding which denomination to preach for.
But many would say that most serious scholarly theology just bypasses these endless doctrinal disputes. Which again, have been going on for in some cases, literally thousands of years … without resolution. Most of contemporary theology currently addressing other problems, other approaches, altogether. As our host knows; as he offers courses on those subjects. So that his own approach is often broader.
5) Given all that – and more? It seems there are many reasons not to get too bogged down in doctrine at all.
With all due respect and gratitude for this blog, a brief discussion here, of the strengths and limitations of its approach, seems in order. Especially and specifically, a discussion on the concentration on denominational doctrine, or Dogmatics.
Could this blog consider opening topics more relevant to contemporary Theology? Rather than reviving the war between Protestants and Catholics, say?
[…] Why do I (a Calvinist) go to an Arminian church? C. Michael Patton […]
“I think Calvinists too often Major in the Minors[…]”
This is too often true in the worst way.
But I think there’s a bit of unfairness here. The prevailing culture right now is strongly Armenian; the default position is to side with what you know. People who aren’t doing that MUST make a conscious effort to be different, and they will be obvious. People who just assume “free will” implies what they’ve always held about the roles of God and man in salvation won’t make a splash, but they can and do still teach their doctrines with the same incorrect emphasis that their opposites on the other side have.
The true error isn’t to “major in the minors”, if you define that as “study and develop opinions on points that aren’t critical to salvation.” The true error is to preach a false gospel, either one that doesn’t involve what it should or involves what it shouldn’t.
-Wm
“But there are many reasons not to get too firm about doctrines.”
All the reasons you listed seem to indicate that people believed those ideas were important. Yes, they then seemed to make a lot of errors… But that doesn’t mean they were wrong about the importance of the ideas. Were they?
-Wm
Indeed, if doctrine weren’t important, why is there such an emphasis on it in the New Testament? Timothy was even told by Paul to take heed to himself and to his doctrine so that he could save both himself and his hearers.
Ok, I will put it another way. You either believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone—OR you believe that you can work your way to heaven, lose your salvation, ect. You can’t have it both ways.
Paul had this to say about those who tried to say we are saved by Jesus plus works: ” If any one ( even an angel from heaven) preach a different gosple than what we preached- let him be eternally condemned.
Pretty clear. Adding any works to salvation is very dangerous. We are saved by faith in Christ. There is NO other way.
Stan,
You are right that we are saved by grace, through faith on the basis of what Christ did alone.
However, it is important to preserve this truth just as it was handed down to us. It was carefully preserved and recorded by those disciples of Christ and the apostle Paul at great cost to themselves as well.
So that doesn’t mean that doctrine replaces salvation, nor is it considered to be ‘works’, even if some parts of the church argue that it is. It is simply a reinforcing of the biblical truth that has been handed down in such a way that it is kept intact for all generations.
Whether we are Armianians or Calvinists, or fall into any denominational category, or not, there are many essential truths of the Christian faith, such as how to live a Godly life, what commandments to follow, and what our commission as Christians is. That is essential doctrine, and the truths we are to continue to go by until Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, comes back for His people.