People rarely agree. Getting people to agree on one point is difficult enough; getting people to agree on 20, 30, and 50 points in nearly impossible. In matters of religion, I think it is impossible! Given the rarity of agreement, one would think that Christian denominations would limit their statements of faith to include only the most salient doctrines of Christianity, as well as a few denominational distinctives thrown in for good measure! And yet, it is common for denominational statements of faith to include many articles on secondary, tertiary, and quaternary doctrines, as well as non-biblical issues. This seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.
If an organization has, say, 30 articles in their articles of faith that one must assent to in order to belong to the group, one of at least four things will happen:
- Some will subscribe to them based solely on the authority of tradition, not because they have personally examined them and found all 30 to be true;
- Some will personally examine them and come to agree with all 30;
- Some will personally examine them and come to disagree with one or more articles, but give lip service to all 30 so that they will be able to remain in the group;
- Some will personally examine them and come to disagree with one or more articles, and on pain of conscience be forced to leave the group.
Creedal requirements in an organization should be kept to a minimum. The more creedal requirements you have, and/or the more specific you make them, the less likely it will be to forge agreement with others, and thus the less likely it will be to form a thriving organization. People will either be prohibited from joining, will be forced to leave should they change their mind on an issue, or will continue to subscribe to the statements with a “wink-wink.”
Not only should the creedal requirements (articles of faith) be kept to a minimum, but it should only contain core doctrinal issues. This may get me in trouble, but I think it is absurd that an articles of faith contain both an article on the oneness of God, and an article on mixed-gender swimming. While I agree with both, that the latter should be a defining belief of an organization, and a requirement for fellowship on the same level as belief in the oneness of God, to me at least, cannot be described as anything other than absurd.
Thinking to Believe 
October 18, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Great points, in my opinion, sir!
LikeLike
October 18, 2011 at 9:59 pm
I think you’re looking at it backward. The goal isn’t to form an organization, the goal in fellowship is to warm each other like two pieces of coal. Just because one lump of coal prefers to ignite flaring to the left rather than the right…makes no difference. There is much for a Christian to discuss in the details, but all have the foundation of Christ, that’s the only requirement there is. And if you choose to hang out with a different group of lumps of coal also on the foundation of Christ, that’s good too. I think what might be absurd is to think we all must be cookie-cutter Christians, all thinking exactly alike. I think the beauty of God is discovering a little more about Him all the time and sharing what we find. It’s always a little different for all of us because every relationship is a little different. It’s personal. God touches each of us exactly where we are. That’s the beauty of it.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 7:32 am
I find your remarks with the UPCI articles of faith in implied view. to be enlightening as to where you stand on the basis of mutual fellowship. We agree for the most part, especially in that smaller is better.
I will remind you during the Westberg resolution furor of the early 1990’s, David Bernard argued in an unpublished, but circulated essay, entitled “Affirming our Fundamental Doctrine and Holiness Message” … in discussing the purpose of the articles stated that the founders of this organization regarded the articles of faith merely it as a
“minimum foundation of fellowship’. In his paper, he insisted that these were not creedal statements or “authority on doctrine”. He also stated that the act of affirming articles of faith ,even on paper, does not constitute a necessary, or sufficient, requirement to be saved.
As to the mixed bathing and holiness standards that were not included as a minimum foundation of fellowship at the merger … the problem with some of the organizational political process is that a simple majority can dictate the whims of a “tyrranical” few. (See what Hamilton and Madison wrote on the matter of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in the Federalist Papers)
Interestingly, enough an org like the UPCI, has no statements on justification, atonement (proposed this year), nor THE NEW BIRTH.
But has clear stances on makeup, attending a movie theater, uncut hair and owning a tv.
This whole issue of allowing tolerance in interpretation as to promote fellowship was tested recently with the passage of the resolution that now overturns the Conscientious Scruples article … allowing for personal convictions on a view that was very much part of the Holiness movement of the last century.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 8:32 am
I do have a question for you, Jason.
Even what is considered “core” doctrine is susceptible to debate and personal interpretation? Is it not?
For example, if a minister in the Assemblies of God (which has 16 Fundamental Truths), or even in the UPCI … does not believe in the initial evidence doctrine … which is core doctrine in mainline Pentecostalism …
should they be denied fellowship if they still believe tongues is evidence but not initial evidence?
So many layers and nuances … even in Oneness doctrine. Yet to some, a man like CH Yadon held an Arian view … even among his peers.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 9:59 am
Dan Alicea writes,
There is no doubt some of Bro. Yadon’s writings lend credence to that claim, but his brother, C. M. Yadon, personally told me he (C.H.) was not an Arian. He insisted his writings were taken out of context. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Shewalksaway,
Organization is required of any group of people if they want to be effective, and if people are not agreed on what is true and what the goal of the group is, they will not b effective. That is why there are multiple organizations within Christianity. While we may bemoan the fact that there are so many, at the very least there must be one. And I’m arguing about what an AOF should look like even if we only had one organization called Christianity.
I agree that we shouldn’t expect cookie-cutter views among Christians, which is precisely why I am arguing against an expansive AOF that covers a wide range of topics, many of which deal with peripheral issues rather than core Christian doctrines.
Jason
LikeLike
October 19, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Dan,
The principles I spoke of regard any articles of faith, but in the last paragraph I am definitely speaking of the UPC’s AOF.
As for Bernard and the Westberg Resolution, yes, the AOF were intended as a minimum foundation for fellowship. That’s the problem! The AOF is so expansive that the minimum foundation is so large that few will be able to fellowship together (unless they subscribe to the AOF blindly without critical evaluation, assent to the AOF even though they disagree with certain portions of it, or subscribe to it), or the fellowship will not last long (because as soon as someone disagrees with one point, they should turn in their card).
Whether the holiness section as it stands today was there at the merger is not relevant to anyone who wants to come on board with the UPC today. But it is relevant to those who committed themselves to the original AOF because once it got included, all existing members of the UPC were expected to agree or leave. The more we add to the AOF, the more we will force people of conscience to leave the UPC.
Yes, I was quite surprised at the passage of the new resolution. I think this just goes to show how many ministers disagree with portions of the AOF but stay in our ranks anyway. You can’t tell me that the majority of all ministers present at the GC changed their mind on this since becoming licensed ministers, or since signing their last bi-annual affirmation statement. They have disagreed for years but continue to hold license.
As for core doctrine, yes, that is debatable. But as Frank Beckwith says, just because I can’t tell where stubble ends and a beard begins doesn’t mean I can’t tell the difference between a beard and stubble. I have no question that mixed-gender swimming is not a core doctrine, and that salvation is.
I don’t think the initial evidence doctrine is a required doctrine in the AOG, but I could be wrong. It is in the UPC, and thus if someone denies it they cannot assent to the AOF, and thus cannot become a minister in the UPC. What if someone is already a minister in the UPC and changes his mind on the issue later? They may want to leave. If not, then I would say that when it comes time to sign their bi-annual affirmation statement they should try using a “line-item veto” to indicate their disagreement with that clause in the AOF and explain their position. If the licensing powers that be accept it, then they can remain in good conscience. If not, then they’ll have to move on.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Jason,
Just to point out a couple of things. As a licensed minister with the UPCI, I do not sign a statement affirming the “AOF”, rather a belief in the “Fundamental Doctrine and the “Holiness” section of the AOF. (I have pasted the pertinent items in the next post)
I do agree with both or I would not sign. I even made sure that I was not affirming conscientious objection status when the statement first came out.
I also see both points regarding the reasons for the AOF. I do however, believe that it is much better to narrow down those who you wish to “fellowship” with in these particular areas of belief. If you open up the door to anyone you then have to deal with their influence upon you and your congregation potentially. If you truly hold a Biblical view of separation from ungodly influences in your life, then you of necessity will not wish to hold close fellowship with those who feel it is fine to look, speak, live just like the lost world around them.
Obviously, there are still points of difference within the UPCI in this area. I believe that the reason I can still be comfortable fellowshipping brethren who differ in specifics with me is that I know we do share a core belief. Hence the purpose of the “affirmation statement”. I would point out that the “holiness” statement is written in general terms and not specific terms for this reason.
Sorry for the rambling response, comes from too little sleep for to many days. 🙂
Love you my friend.
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I do hereby declare that I believe and embrace the Fundamental Doctrine as stated in the Articles of Faith as set forth in the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International. I also believe and embrace the holiness standards of the United Pentecostal Church International as set forth in said Articles of Faith, and I pledge to practice, preach, and teach the same.
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE
The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible stan- dard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.
We shall endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit until we all come into the unity of the faith, at the same time admonishing all brethren that they shall not contend for their different views to the disunity of the body.
HOLINESS
Godly living should characterize the life of every child of the Lord, and we should live according to the pattern and example given in the Word of God. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, deny- ing ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (I Peter 2:21-23).
“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).
“But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conver- sation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb with- out blemish and without spot” (I Peter 1:15-19).
We wholeheartedly disapprove of our people indulging in any activities which are not conducive to good Christianity and godly living, such as theaters, dances, mixed bathing or swimming, women cutting their hair, make-up, any apparel that immodestly exposes the body, all worldly sports and amusements, and unwholesome radio programs and music. Furthermore, because of the display of all these evils on television, we disapprove of any of our people having television sets in their homes. We admonish all of our people to refrain from any of these practices in the interest of spiritual progress and the soon coming of the Lord for His church.
LikeLike
October 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for chiming in Darren. It’s good to hear the perspective of someone licensed with the UPC.
I agree. Making sure you are fellowshipping like-minded believers is important. But how like-minded must they be? We want to make sure they are Christians, and thus their doctrine is important, but should fellowship and co-laboring together in the Gospel hinge on one’s view of their idea of amusement? Why not just have an AOF that affirms holiness and separation from the world? Why do we have to get into such specifics (and so many)? How many ministers are going to disapprove of all the things we’ve listed? Aren’t the majority going to believe in some, and disagree with others? I think so. Isn’t polka dancing ok? But that’s dancing, which is prohibited by the AOF. How many will oppose every kind of make-up? The majority of pastors I have been under think natural colored make-ups are ok (cover-up, lip gloss, etc). But that is make-up, which is prohibited by the AOF. I’m not exactly sure what a “worldly sport” is supposed to be, but look how many of our ministers attend professional sports games. As I’ve said in the past, the only worldly sport I know of is female mud wrestling! And what about TV. Even among those who won’t own one, they have no problem watching TV. In fact, they’ll go to restaurants specifically so they can watch TV—often to watch worldly sports! And while they don’t have a TV in their home, they are watching TV via their computers and playing movies on their monitors. When such large numbers of ministers who otherwise agree on the majors can’t agree to the holiness articles without engaging in bizarre interpretations that stretch credulity, then perhaps we need to rethink whether or not we are really organized around these beliefs after all. And if we’re not, they should be changed. And as I said in my post, I don’t think non-biblical issues should be in an AOF. It’s bad enough when organizations make minor doctrines a test for inclusion, but to include non-biblical issues goes too far in my opinion. They can do whatever they want, but the fruit of it won’t be good in the long haul in my opinion. It’s their prerogative, but it’s not wise.
You are right, the affirmation statement only covers two sections of the AOF, so I should not have added “or since signing their last bi-annual affirmation statement” in my comment to Dan since the conscientious objection article never gets re-affirmed.
Technically, every member of the UPC should be able to agree with every part of the AOF that they signed to when becoming a member. Isn’t that the purpose of the AOF: to be the bounds for fellowship? So why think that we can disagree with certain parts of it and still get enter/remain in the fellowship (apart from changes to the AOF that may have occurred after one was licensed, and are not part of the fundamental doctrine or holiness sections)? I know of a number of young men who would like to get licensed but won’t bother because the AOF are unnecessarily restrictive. I know of others who have turned their licenses because they have changed their mind on some minor issues, or because they can no longer–in good conscience–reinterpret the AOF in the manner they have been. This is unfortunate in my opinion.
Jason
LikeLike
July 24, 2012 at 7:59 am
I love to go swimming anytime. Night swimming in particuar is a relaxing activity that i enjoy. Daytime swimming also helps me tone down body fats. `,`.:
Best regards
http://www.healthmedicinelab.com“>
LikeLike