Already updated [added two bottom rows] [And another]
1997 (*)
agree
|
1997 importance
|
2007
agree
|
2007 importance
|
2017
agree
|
2017 importance
|
|
Women can’t be deacons
|
7
|
10
|
3
|
8
|
0
|
9
|
Women can’t be elders
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
8
|
9
|
8
|
Women can’t teach adult Sunday School
|
10
|
9
|
8
|
8
|
6
|
7
|
Women can’t teach teenaged boys in
Sunday School
|
10
|
8
|
6
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
The only acceptable grounds for
divorce are infidelity or abandonment 1
|
9
|
9
|
6
|
7
|
0
|
9
|
“Reverence” in service is
important 2
|
6
|
5
|
8
|
7
|
9
|
9
|
Lack of attendance is a Matt. 18
discipline issue 3
|
8
|
9
|
5
|
7
|
1
|
9
|
TULIP
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
9
|
10
|
7
|
The church should be EXTREMELY
careful about whom it baptizes/gives communion 4
|
9
|
10
|
5
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
The bible is clear on the mode of
baptism 5
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
2
|
4
|
2
|
I am right about the Gospel
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
10
|
I might be wrong about other doctrine
|
4
|
9
|
9
|
6
|
10
|
9
|
Theistic Evolution
|
2
|
7
|
8
|
4
|
10
|
3
|
(*) That's about a year after I became a Christian.
1 I would, for example, absolutely add abuse (both spousal and child) to this list explicitly, without the usual trick of saying abuse is a form of abandonment. Rather I would take the approach—admittedly so risky to use –that it is so obvious that the Holy Spirit, rather than inspiring its inclusion, places it in the “duh” category.
1 I would, for example, absolutely add abuse (both spousal and child) to this list explicitly, without the usual trick of saying abuse is a form of abandonment. Rather I would take the approach—admittedly so risky to use –that it is so obvious that the Holy Spirit, rather than inspiring its inclusion, places it in the “duh” category.
2 This is ill-defined. But I feel
myself inching slightly to the right on the “anything-goes-hippie-church” to
the “high-church” spectrum.
3 This does not mean that I think
absent members should not be pursued. It is only that I don’t think official
church discipline is ever the correct response for absent members. The examples of church
discipline in the New Testament are for unfit individuals who want to stay in the body,
not those who want to voluntarily separate.
4 I think the church should administer the sacraments properly, and
should teach on who should partake, but apart from visually obvious cases
(e.g., someone clearly making a mockery; someone who says they have never heard
of Jesus, someone wearing a Satan-worshipping shirt or a Tom Brady jersey, etc.) the church should not
decide whether a person is sincere or acceptable. Rather, I believe, the burden is entirely on the person (or parents thereof) claiming
to be ready. I think the examples in scripture make this clear, especially the
case of “Simon the Magician” in Acts 8. There was a teachable moment. Simon was baptized. When he was excommunicated, the elders could have been instructed (for their benefit and ours) to be more careful whom they baptized. Such an admonishment was not recorded. I always put it this way: I would
rather face God when he was asking me “Why did you baptize that person who was
not a believer?” than face the question “Why didn’t you baptize this person who
was a believer?”
5 That doesn’t mean I disagree with
churches practicing one mode or another. I am perfectly fine joining a Baptist
church that only practices “believers” baptism by immersion. However, I would
view it more as an acceptable, WYSIWYG tradition rather than as something that
is demonstrable from scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment