Do you know your own religion?

[Redlass]

I just had an interesting conversation with my dad. My brother has recently transferred his membership from the Nazarene church we grew up in to the Presbyterian church where they are now attending. My parents made the decision at the same time to not transfer membership even though they plan to continue attending the church.

The reason they are abstaining is a doctrinal difference. (Presbyterians and Nazarenes are a lot alike, but there are still some pretty major differences between Calvinists and Wesleyans). They're still attending because they like the church and there were signs at the last general assembly (including elevating the "essentials" to be on equal footing with the Westminster confession) that the church is making doctrinal shifts.

That led us into a discussion of how surprised we were at the small number of people who actually understand the doctrine of the churches they attend. My dad suspects that out of the 4,000 members of his individual church, only 400 or so have any grasp of the Presbyterian teachings of limited atonement or irresistable grace. Indeed, he thinks more people might challenge those doctrines if they did know and understand them (Americans in particular are pretty resistant to the idea that we have no free will and that to allow humans any choice in their salvation diminishes God while making man too great).

We also discussed how there are some denominations that teach doubt is a sin rather than doubt being a necessary step to faith. Those are the same denominations that discourage their members from too much education, claiming that education and intellectual scrutiny is a hindrance to faith (a concept I find so foreign that it is difficult for me to discuss without prejudice).

So, do you agree that most people--even very religious people--lack a knowledge or understanding of their own doctrine? If you do, do you think its necessarily a bad thing?

And how did this happen? Why would someone to whom their faith was an essential, important part of their life take so little time to explore it in detail? Doesn't it show for a lack of passion? Or am I letting my personal prejudices overcloud my view here?

[patach]

I guess technically, the "basic" details of each religion is all people really care about.

But is this necessarily a bad thing? I mean, there's so many different sects of Christianity, BUddhism, Hinduism and so on, that if everybody is against each other... then it'll make things more confusing than taking a common stance :p

[mrisch[$]]

I would venture to say that most Jews know the details of their sects, and the differences with others (except maybe some Orthodox/Hasidic jews, who often ignore the other sects). These details (as well as the broad strokes) are routinely taught at religious school.

[theeye]

Originally posted by mrisch
I would venture to say that most Jews know the details of their sects,

Sorry, but I'm afraid I've got to disagree. Most Jews are abysmally ignorant of the details even of their own flavors of Judaism.

[emeleel]

Yes, I think many people lack more than a very basic knowledge of their own denomination's particular beliefs. I attribute it to many people just showing up at church to feel good or to socialize but never putting any real study into their own faith.

[mshawpyle]

I'm an Anglican. We're the ones whose bank accounts are in fine shape, but whose deposit of faith has been overdrawn for decades.

Of course, with us in these parlous times, it's the bishops and clergy who are most ignorant of what we are supposed to be and stand for. A goodly (note: two os, please: not 'a godly') chunk of 'em wouldn't recognize either Creed or the Lambeth Quadrilateral if they tripped over the same graven in granite.

[frazzledspice]

After twelve years of Catholic school, I guess I should!

But after having moved to several different states within a few years, I discovered that most people "church hop" when they move.

And they don't really church hop based on doctrinal beliefs. They church-hop because they have higher expectations of what church membership should do.

First of all (and perhaps foremost) it should help them make friends. That may sound really dumb to people who have lived in the same town for twenty years, but if you move frequently, it's very important. You want a strong caring community.

After that, you might look for meaningful services, and, finally, programs that meet your family's needs.

Through our moves we stayed Catholic, but on this last move, I was very tempted to explore other churches (I knew especially that Lutherans are very similar to Catholics.) During our other moves, my Mom was alive....I didn't want to contribute to her demise by changing religions. She had passed away shortly before our last move. In addition, my initial experience with the Catholic churches here was just dreadful. Cliquish, snobbish, deathly obsolete music sung in choir lofts.

Just when I'd about had it, I saw a notice in the bulletin asking for people to audition for the contemporary band, and joining the band allowed me to make good friends and participate in the exciting changes that have taken place here.

Without the band, I'd probably be worshipping in a Lutheran church today, even if it was only while living here. (I had worked as a musician in a Lutheran church while living in St. Louis, so it wouldn't have been a big jump for me.)

I know there are a few tiny differences, but if you attend their services, the only difference is that they say "the holy Christian church" instead of "the holy Catholic church" during the Creed.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by theeye


Sorry, but I'm afraid I've got to disagree. Most Jews are abysmally ignorant of the details even of their own flavors of Judaism.

That's true for me.

Which reminds me, I'm in the middle of reading an essay on this topic by Adam Gopnik in the February 18 & 25 New Yorker that I'd like to give a great big "HR" for being funny and serious at the same time. I'd link to it, but they don't seem to have posted it online. Anyway, it starts off like this:

I suppose it's a sign of just how poor a Jew I am that when I got a letter from the Jewish Museum last February asking me to be the Purimspieler at its Purim Ball I thought there must be some kind of mistake. I don't mean that I thought there must be some mistake in asking me. I am enough of a ham that I would not be surprised if a Hindu congregation asked me to come forward and recite choice selections from the Bhagavad Gita. I mean that I was surprised becaues I thought the Jewish Museum was making a mistake about the date of Purim.

"Isn't that the one in the fall?" I asked my wife, Martha. "With the hamantaschen? And the little hut in the back yard?" ...

[bupkiss]

Yes, I do think some/many religious, even devoutly religious, people don't fully know or grasp the intricacies of specific sects and doctrine, but I also don't see anything wrong with gleaning what works for oneself and applying it to daily life as long as it isn't hurtful to others. I do find it surprising that some people don't have a basic understanding of some of the main tenets that you're referring to, but I also believe religion and its interpretations are personal, even if one is involved in a larger organization. People become part of churches for many reasons: faith, camaraderie, centering, or even simply routine.

Then again, I'm an agnostic with a strong leaning toward fatalism who tends to avoid organizations (except Epinions ), so what do I know?

[vania]

Is it more important to know the underlying tenets of a certain faith, or find a church where you enjoy and agree with the weekly services?

For example, I've been raised Presbyterian and I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the doctrines behind this denomination... but I do enjoy the services themselves (although I haven't really been to church in a few years).

I've visited a few Baptist churches in my time, and I remember just not being comfortable at all with the format and a few of the messages.

So.... does the doctrine really matter if it's not being overtly taught by a specific church?

v.

[kurt_messick]

You'd be surprised at the number of would-be ministers who show up at seminary with little to no knowledge of this sort, either.

[poseidon]

Originally posted by vania
So.... does the doctrine really matter if it's not being overtly taught by a specific church?

v.

I'd say "Yes" it does.

I'm sure there are tons of Catholics out there who are absolutely clueless as to why the Pope is infallible, why the clergy has to remain celebate, etc.

I'm sure there are tons of Protestants who are absolutely clueless as to why their sect baptizes full-immersion, baptizes with oil, or settles for a sprinkling of water.

I know there are Mormons who don't have a clue in the world as to how Joseph Smith started his religion.

While it might be nice to enjoy the service (and I'll be the first to state how important that is), what if in the background you discover that there are some truly awful things going on in your church? I'm not talking about what individuals do outside of the realms of the church, I'm talking about church consented and possibly "required" things? Wouldn't that bother you?

If you belong to the Church of Christ, wouldn't you be at least slightly interested as to why all the songs are sung acapella? Wouldn't you really want to know why Easter and Christmas aren't celebrated?

If your church is Charasmatic, wouldn't you want an explanation as to why there is always someone there talking in tongues? Wouldn't you want to know their viewpoint on how important "works" is compared to how important "faith" is?

If you're a Jehovah's Witness, wouldn't you be curious as to why only 100,000 people are going to heaven, particularly since there are more than 100,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in the world?

If you're a Seventh Day Adventist, aren't you curious as to why your church has services on Saturday versus Sunday?

On top of that, if you're not a Seventh Day Adventist (but are a Christian), aren't you curious as to why your church doesn't hold services on the Sabbath and instead chooses the first day of the week?

Are you curious as to your church's position on divorce? Some churches don't sanction divorce. Some sanction divorce but don't sanction a second marriage to someone other than the person you've divorced.

Are you curious as to your church's doctrine on pre-marital sex? How about homosexuality?

I could go on and on here... but yes, I think it is important to understand your church's philosophy on a variety of issues and discover if that is truly your faith or not. The only way you'll learn is by asking.

Jeff

[sylvanb]

Originally posted by mshawpyle
I'm an Anglican. We're the ones whose bank accounts are in fine shape, but whose deposit of faith has been overdrawn for decades.

Of course, with us in these parlous times, it's the bishops and clergy who are most ignorant of what we are supposed to be and stand for. A goodly (note: two os, please: not 'a godly') chunk of 'em wouldn't recognize either Creed or the Lambeth Quadrilateral if they tripped over the same graven in granite.

And that's one reason I'm now Orthodox (Eastern) Christian, much as I loved the C of E.

Since the Eastern church has a very different world view from the Western, in this country I think there's a pretty high level of understanding. Also we are "rational sheep" -- while obedient to our bishops, it is the responsibility of the laity to hold their bishops to right belief and teaching.

[theeye]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma
Which reminds me, I'm in the middle of reading an essay on this topic by Adam Gopnik in the February 18 & 25 New Yorker

That's truly hilarious.

Reminds me of a story that Rachel Cowan tells. (Rachel Cowan, a Reform Rabbi and convert to Judaism who has written a number of books and is a regular columnist in a number of Jewish publications is also the widow of Paul Cowan, author of "An Orphan in History". She's also an incredibly sweet person. )


When Rachel and Paul married, she was a completely non-practicing Christian and he was a completely non-practicing Jew. (It was when their first child was born that Rachel decided that they ought to at least learn about the traditions they had rejected and they both ended up embracing Judaism wholeheartedly.)

This story takes place long before they had their first kid (perhaps even before they were married). They were on a long road trip together and reached the city where Paul's sister lived. His sister, while not very observant, maintained a connection to Judaism. As luck would have it, they showed up at her house on Yom Kippur. Paul was surprised that she wasn't going to services, but didn't say anything.

When his sister offered them a bite to eat, though, Paul exploded. "You're supposed to be the real Jew in the family! How can you possibly think of eating on the holiest fast day of the Jewish calendar?"

"Paul?", replied his sister. "Yom Kippur is the day after tomorrow."

(Note: It's a lot funnier when Rachel tells it.)

[vania]

Originally posted by poseidon

While it might be nice to enjoy the service (and I'll be the first to state how important that is), what if in the background you discover that there are some truly awful things going on in your church? I'm not talking about what individuals do outside of the realms of the church, I'm talking about church consented and possibly "required" things? Wouldn't that bother you?

Good points, but how bout this?? What if, say, I were a Baptist and had found a church I loved. I loved the people, loved the preacher, loved the message.

Then I found out that Baptists are supposed to be boycotting Disneyworld because they offer gay partners benefits.

What if my church didn't preach or condone this but, there it is, as part of the Baptist "dogma." Assuming I disagree with this b/c I find it to be way too conservative and closed-minded and silly....

Should I leave the church?

valerie, who is in no way a Baptist

[Redlass]

Interesting responses. It's one thing I like about the Soapbox--it opens my eyes to the way other people think about an issue, especially when it diverges so strongly from mine.

Is it more important to find a church than to understand the doctrine? Obviously for some people it is. I've never thought it so. In fact, I've always thought of actual church attendance as being of secondary importance. It's not a bad thing to do, but it is far from compulsory.

On the other hand, knowing what I believe is of the utmost importance to me. First, understanding the teachings of one's church helps you explore your own faith. By hearing the reasonings of sages through the ages, you can make better personal judgements when deciding what to keep and what to reject (and I would argue that no one faith is going to be right for all people; it's why God has blessed so many faiths).

Second, I'm of the belief that an understanding of doctrine will promote a greater tolerance and ecumenical spirit. For example, a Catholic familiar with his or her doctrine could challenge a person (usually a Protestant) who claims the pope is infallible. They'd be able to point out that the pope is not infallible on all things and in the two thousand years of church history, the pope has spoken infallibly only twice--many fewer times than most Protestant ministers who simply use different terms. Once that point is clarified, there is a greater liklihood that the person speaking out of a lack of knowledge will better understand the doctrine. They may not agree with it still, but they're less likely to look on it with as great an antagonism.

To use another example, an understanding of doctrine would allow a Presbyterian and Jehovah's Witness to recognize what they have in common--as both believe in limited atonement. The difference is that while Jehovah's Witnesses have determined the exact number who will be saved, the Presbyterians leave it a little more vague. They simply say that Jesus was able to name all the people for whom he was dying when he was crucified and that his atonement was for those people and those people alone. (Admittedly, the Westminster Confession does put that in more poetic terms than I just did.)

Doctrines are divisive when people have limited understanding of them. If they know only the catch phrases that describe a doctrine and lack a grasp of its complexity, then the doctrines start to look a lot more different than they really are.

My children's godparents have a "mixed" marriage. One is Catholic and one is Lutheran. They each took classes to learn about the doctrine of each other's church as they wanted to attend church together. What they ultimately discovered was that the doctrine was so different in areas that were important to them that neither could convert. My husband and I are in the same boat--he is staunchly Catholic and I'm staunchly Wesleyan. But because we both have an intimate understanding of what we believe and why, we can respect each other's religions and encourage each other in our respective worships. We're also able to focus on what the two religions have in common and form our own traditions based on those commonalities.

I remember in a thread awhile back someone expressing incredulity that intelligent people are able to be religious. I wonder if some of that attitude is born in the fact that so few people turn any intellectual energy to their religion. Religion should certainly be able to withstand the scrutiny (and most do), if they can't then it might be time for that denomination or religion to make changes (as every religion and denomination I know of has done from time to time).

[Redlass]

Originally posted by vania


Good points, but how bout this?? What if, say, I were a Baptist and had found a church I loved. I loved the people, loved the preacher, loved the message.

Then I found out that Baptists are supposed to be boycotting Disneyworld because they offer gay partners benefits.

What if my church didn't preach or condone this but, there it is, as part of the Baptist "dogma." Assuming I disagree with this b/c I find it to be way too conservative and closed-minded and silly....

Should I leave the church?

valerie, who is in no way a Baptist

I would point out that the boycott of Disney isn't part of their doctrine.

There is a huge difference between church rules and church doctrine. Doctrine is generally considered that which is essential. If you don't believe in the essential, then you can't call yourself a member of that denomination.

Individual churches that don't support the doctrine of the denomination quickly find themselves stripped of the title and become independent.

Church rules, on the other hand, are guidelines, guidelines put in place to help a person lead a life that is in harmony with the doctrine of the church. Church members may frown on someone who doesn't follow the rules, but they're definitely not soul-threatening issues.

In answer to the question, I'd say, no, keep attending the church. But don't become a member if you're not prepared to accept the church's doctrine. That would be my advice to someone in that situation. I would also advise against taking a leadership position in a church if you disagreed with their rules even if you completely embraced the doctrine.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

What a neat question!

I was born and raised Presbyterian, not that I even knew how to spell it until 8th grade Confirmation Class. I learned more about the doctrine then, plus more during Comparative Religion and Philosophy of Religion classes in college. I was at good old Kenmore Presbyterian Church from birth to age 26, when I moved to Long Island.

Church-shopping after I moved was hard. I wanted to stay Presbyterian because 1) it's what I knew and 2) I agreed with the church on MOST points and 3) my experience with the Presbyterian Church was that questioning and examining and debating church policies/doctrines was encouraged. So even though there were a few things I wasn't wholly in agreement with, I had the feeling that I could still express myself and (possibly) things could change.

Over five years I would start church-shopping and I would stop. Based on my previous church, I knew I wanted a Presbyterian church where I had opportunities to be active (or not) as I chose; a church that had an active, multi-generational congregation; a church with a solid music program; and a church that was active in service to the community. I vetoed a church where the people didn't seem very friendly. I vetoed a church where the people were too friendly (small congregation, seemed too desperate for a new, younger member). I also (reluctantly) vetoed a church whose choir consisted of a piano player, a singer and a tambourine. The last church I vetoed was one with a very Evangelical ("Can I have an 'AMEN!'") minister - just not my style. I found the perfect church about three years ago, I'm very active, I've made many friends, the sermons are thought-provoking, and it's one of the best things I've got going in my life. It's still not Kenmore Presbyterian, for which I get extremely homesick every Easter and Christmas, but it's my new church home.

Now as for hubby - he was brought up Roman Catholic, went to Catholic school, was an altar boy, etc. He believes in very little of his faith's doctrine but goes to Mass every Sunday. He's not comfortable with my church (the ritual is just too different for him). He is not active in his church and does not have friends there, but it's what he's used to. He deals with his conflict between his beliefs and those of his church in his own head: he figures God is God and God doesn't care which church he goes to. Hubby's God is more ... open/forgiving(?) than the Roman Catholic view of God, and God won't send him to Burn in the Everlasting Fires of Hell for practicing birth control or not believing the Pope is infallible. Personally, I wouldn't be able to stand going to a church whose beliefs are so far from my own and whose policies preclude debate about these doctrines, but Hubby has no problem with it. <shrug>

What I find funny is that, despite his 44 years of being Catholic and all that education and stuff, I seem to know more about his religion than he does. I tell him when his Holy Days are, I make comments about his church's policy/doctrine, I ask him questions about some of the finer points - and he has no idea about any of this! Just last night he was saying how he remembered that Masses used to be in Latin, and when I asked if it was Vatican II that changed that, he had no clue.

I guess my point is that while I didn't know much about my religion at first, I did look into it and consciously decided (more consciously than at Confirmation) that I would stick with the Presbyterian faith despite the minor points about which we do not agree. I think people should examine their chosen faiths, check the faith's values against his/her own, and decide if that's where they want to be. At the same time, if you're comfortable with the beliefs but not with the congregation/operation of the local church, it might be time to look around for a new worshipping venue either within or outside the faith.

mj

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by Redlass
Interesting responses. It's one thing I like about the Soapbox--it opens my eyes to the way other people think about an issue, especially when it diverges so strongly from mine.

Is it more important to find a church than to understand the doctrine? Obviously for some people it is. I've never thought it so.
[***]

On the other hand, knowing what I believe is of the utmost importance to me.
[***]

I remember in a thread awhile back someone expressing incredulity that intelligent people are able to be religious. I wonder if some of that attitude is born in the fact that so few people turn any intellectual energy to their religion.

BRAVA!

I mean no disrespect to any here, but I have to agree with and indeed underscore these points. I don't wish to asperse anyone for whom such considerations as friendliness or fellowship or even liturgical practice seem to be the driving forces, but I at least hold the faith I hold precisely because my reason impels me to assent to its propositions, not because it makes me feel tingly or because I like the Hymnal (1940, not the new one).

That position seems to startle a whole bunch of people these days. But that is precisely the position that was advanced and held by the Wesleys, Asbury, Richard Hooker, John Donne, Lancelot Andrewes, Thomas Ken, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin ... anyone see a trend here?

(Where's Jack Lewis when you need him, anyway?)

[roymeo]

Article in the latest New Yorker by Adam Gopnik about his complete and utter ignorance about Judiasm.



Adam Gopnik
A Purim Story
Being Jewish and being funny.

doesn't appear to be available online.

[roymeo]

And my experience as an atheist groving up in the Christian Midwest has been to get used to knowing more about someone's religion than they do. Not always, of course, but many a time have I had a joke fall flat that's hinged on indulgences to Catholics.

I've had conversations (long running, most often) with various friends where they think they're one thing at the beginning and figure out they're probably something else by the end. Whether that's "convincing" someone they're an atheist, or showing them that they actually do believe in the tenets of Christianity (as seen in Phil 201) even though they have major issues with their church.


Even though I'm an atheist, it scares me that so many people don't really seem to CARE about it or have any interest in it. This has been a part of humanity from at least as far back as the cave painters...try to get a little less self-involved and a little more introspective here people!



roymeo