I’ve never run into having to sign anything to be a church member, but there was a big blowup in the SBC mission board a few years back where they required the missionaries on field to sign a statement regarding no speaking in tongues etc. which was much debated. I have thought about what I would do as a deacon if asked to sign a document regarding evolution or inerrancy, and could not do so ( although the inerrancy issue is dependent on the definition, making it almost mean whatever you want it to mean unless they also strictly define it. As I suspect that our local church is probably pretty typical with at least 50% affirming an old earth and evolution of some sort, and probably a lot also believing it in the closet, I doubt it will ever come up.
I remember calling a church I was interested in visiting.
The church had a policy of NOT releasing information on its address. The pastor INSISTED on coming out to meet ME … and decide whether I was doctrinally close enough to his congregation’s requirements.
I wasn’t. I never found out where that church was… and my interest in doing so had dropped to conform to the situation!
I still think requiring people to sign something to be a member is coercive. We don’t get that around here. But my brother worked a while in the South, and he and his wife encountered a church where women weren’t allowed to wear pants. (I assume they wore dresses or skirts.)
Oh, please.
I’ve had to sign some kind of agreement that affirmed my intentions to uphold the rules and ideals of the community to get a library card, a pool pass, and a museum membership.
Don’t make it like “signing something” you agree to in order to become a member is some sort of aberrant Fundamentalist Evangelical thing.
The only time I had an issue was when a church youth group leader wanted the girls to take a vow of abstinence and wear a “purity ring.” Whatever happened to “Let your yes be yes and your no be no”?
Sorry…what I meant to say is that making people sign doctrinal statements in order to be church members is coercive.
This is creepy. And why not just teach good morals?
How would all the companies who sell ‘purity jewelry’ make their money if the Christians thought just teaching good morals and buying jewelry from pagans was the way to go? These people have to feed their families too. You probably don’t think there’s a need for Scripture candy either. Or Christian lingerie and ‘intimacy products’ for when you cash in those purity rings. No sense of entrepreneurship, there.
Chastity belts might be the way to go.
Now, the Mormon leaders exercise the most control over the lives of their congregants. Anybody can go to a local Mormon church, but to be able to enter a Mormon temple is quite the ordeal. (And the temple is where all the important stuff happens.) To get in, a Mormon must obtain a “temple recommend.” For this, he faces a detailed interview by a bishop and must produce documentation such as tax returns that shows he has paid his tithes and whatever. He’s also grilled on his personal life. And this recommend is no lifetime pass, either. Not sure how often it must be renewed; just glad I’m not part of it.
I looked at your links. Is this stuff for real and not from the Babylon Bee? Good grief.
Well described, @beaglelady !
And the whole time, all he can think about is his sacred under-garment bunching up right where he normally pockets his wallet. It’s all very distracting …
We saw what happened with the US division of World Vision seeking to be like the world with changes in their doctrinal statement.
Change of leadership can bring strong or weaker DS.
DS is important because doctrinal creep happens.
DS clarifies definitions because we all have a tendency to interpret to convenience.
I think that this is right–the purity ring seems to have been an understandable reaction to a destructive force (promiscuity has never been tolerated in any successful culture; we see the sadness that results from unstable families from sexual infidelity all the time) ; but as followers of God, we don’t have to let ourselves (we shouldn’t let ourselves) be defined by a reaction. Christ is much bigger than that.
Our society seems to define itself by causes and the accompanying emotionalism; both of these tend to oppose Christ’s mission. We forget empathy and personhood in this morass.
It’s even from the reason, I think, that my parents did not naturally carry crosses, use bumper stickers or other identifying markers. It mirrored their personality, which showed in their interactions. Their first act on meeting someone was not to declare what they were about, but to listen, and ask what the other found important.
I signed a doctrinal statement like this when I first joined our church 13 years ago. At the time, I was able to get a pass on the evolution issue as the pastor was not a legalist and he agreed that I could accept evolution. I didn’t think in great detail on the inerrancy issue; at the time, I was a strong concordist. Reading and taking Denis Lamoureux’ course in the last 2 years encouraged me that one could be a faithful Christian and not a concordist; so I’m not sure that I would pass that muster this time, by their definitions. However, the statement has changed now, and while my church is still YEC and very inerrantist, I don’t think they include it as a prominent portion.
The original version also was written near the repeal of Prohibition, and as a result, it actually forbade drinking. No one could hold church government positions who drank. The incoming pastor who had the statement changed was a Brethren background (open), who pointed out that it’s not biblical to forbid that; that part was dropped a few years ago.
It’s a good point that Christy made, that we are all going through our own adjustments to sometimes rapidly changing perceptions; we all need grace in that.
Great post. Thanks. I’m more amazed by that “2 YEARS LATER” label at the top.
It remains relevant today. I am on a new deacon selection committee at church (moderate SBC affiliated, though mainly Baptist General Convention of Texas, if that means anything to you as far as church politics) and we were discussing various changes in stance. The last cycle we ordained several divorced men as deacons which was a big change, and allowed men to serve as deacons who may have an alcoholic drink on occasion, which is also a big change. The question we are considering now is whether to ordain women as deacons. I think that at least a simple majority are fine with it, but whether our church culture is ready is another question, as we would probably lose a few families if we did. It will be interesting.
Interesting topic…
I have never had to sign a doctrinal statement – never had official employment with a church organization. I don’t have a strenuous objection to the idea. Seems to me, this is an issue with honesty in working with a church organization. I definitely have deal breakers and they would tie back to those reasons I believe in any of this stuff in the first place as I often link back to.
Just recently rejoined the UMC church of my parents, all they asked me was to obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, resist sin and evil and be a faithful member of the church. the UMC is very liberal and open so though if I were in charge I would go a bit further in theological unity but that would just be me being the theological Wesleyan-Methodist conservative that I am.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.