Religious Organizations Enforcement of their Beliefs

[KingsGambit]

Conservative denominations (and even more so conservative independent churches) tend to have a problem with listing too many beliefs as required to subscribe to in order to believe. I also get the impression that they don't pay that much attention to them in many cases. I don't see a point in requiring one to hold a given belief on the points of TULIP, or one's interpretation of Genesis 1. All that does is present roadblocks to genuine Christians to joining the church. (I once saw a church website that went so far into details on beliefs that it actually listed a stance on whether Christians had to get tattoos surgically removed if they got them before they became Christians. Seriously, let it go.)

The reason I suspect that some people don't take it as seriously is because I've seen it. I attended a church once where I could not attend because of my stance on an eschatology issue (despite the fact that they told new members that one of their biggest influences was John Stott, who held the same stance.) The assistant pastor said that it wasn't a big deal and I could probably just go ahead and join, but if it explicitly says otherwise, I'm not okay with that.

Liberal churches have the opposite problem, but I'm not concerned with them here. That's a whole different can of worms.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Cow Poke started a discussion, "Catholic Bishops - on Denying Communion to Pro-Abortion Politicians" over in CIVICS. I want to have a similar discussion "in house."

I grew up in PC(USA). I left the denomination when my church split. I didn't give up on the denomination at that point. That came several years later when I read an article about a PC(USA) minister who denied all the supernatural elements of Christianity but was going on calling himself a Presbyterian minister. From my experience with PC(USA) polity, I realized the man would never be defrocked.

How far should a religious organization go in enforcement of their beliefs? Certainly the leadership should be held to a higher standard. I think, however, they have to leave room for disagreement on points where the Bible isn't clear. Also, the members (non-leadership) should be cut more slack on disagreeing with the standards. On the other hand, an influential member who really challenges core beliefs should be disciplined and if necessary cast out.

This is tough and as I think about it, I'm not surprised many organizations don't do well. However not doing some degree of enforcement means eventually your group will believe anything and cease to be meaningful. I have more respect for people who have and maintain a position than those who change with the wind.

It's got to be done. You can't expect someone to say, "I don't believe this anymore, I'm leaving," More likely they're going to say, "I'm going to change the organization to reflect my beliefs."

What do you think?