Do you believe what I believe? Is it ever possible to do so? I mean unless you know everything I know and have the same experiences that I have then your perspective is going to be different, and beliefs are based on what we know and experience.
At any time many of our individual beliefs may be undergoing changes as we reflect upon the experiences of our life. Each person’s relationship with God produces unique understanding and beliefs dependent upon their knowledge and God’s personal revelation to them. We therefore could not say that what we personally believe today is exactly the same as last year, or even last night! If a member of a group has agreed to what the “group believes” but then grows to think differently to the group they should logically, if honest, leave the group. Yet the problem with this statement is that no group actually thinks. A group is made up of individuals who think. The group therefore cannot actually believe anything, it can only teach a specific understanding of a subject.
Therefore, as all members of the Church grow and change over time we certainly can’t say that we believe exactly what others believe. Added to this is the simple fact that we can’t know what others believe for it’s in their heart, not tattooed on their forehead for us to read! Yet the teachings of the church are something that should be clearly understood, particularly if you are going to join a church.
In reality there are as many beliefs about the Bible as there are people in any church, as we are all growing in knowledge at a different rate. We simply can’t all have the same understanding of everything at the same time, it’s just not logical. No two people believe everything the same, how then can a group of people believe a list of things? A group may only really have a statement of what it teachers, which is based on their understanding of the Bible, but the group does not actually think as an organism or an individual.
For this reason Friends with God (FWG) likes to make a clear a distinction between what an individual church member believes, which we see as personal and individual, and what the churches teachings are, which we see as the collective understanding of the group.
This distinction between belief and teaching is not merely semantics but an important clarification of the personal relationship that members have with God and how they relate to the organization they are a part of. We also feel, as this paper aims to show, that a distinction between belief and teaching is imminently logical and is supported by scriptures.
Growth and Change in Understanding
As we grow in knowledge about God we also develop a deeper understanding of what we believe. And this God expects, for we are told to “continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 3:18).
It needs to be made clear that we are not talking about a hierarchy of belief either. Just because someone has been a Christian for a long time does not mean they have a greater or deeper understanding of God and the Bible than a person new to the faith. The new person obviously has a great deal to learn, but they also have their own perspective and relationship with God which is unique. I could not say to you “I don’t expect you to understand what I believe, but as you grow in knowledge you will” for the simple reason that due to your uniqueness your growth could produce a different perspective to what I now have and you may then convince me to change my beliefs! FWG doesn’t expect you to adhere to or teach anything you don’t understand and believe in. We don’t teach that anything is mysterious and unknowable, not that we know it all by any means, but God will reveal all things eventually- maybe not in our life time or to us specifically but all things will be eventually revealed. (Matthew 7:11, 19:26, 21:22, John 14:26, 15:15, 16:15, Acts 3:21)
As the members of FWG grow and change and develop at various rates and in various directions it’s clear that they will all have different beliefs from each other. What then unites us? It’s our agreed teachings. For example we teach that we should rest on the Sabbath Day. But what does rest mean to you? To me it means sleeping in and having a late breakfast and walking around the garden. To you it may mean getting up early and going for a walk along the beach or in a park. We can agree to teach the same thing while also allowing individual interpretation of what it means.
Implementing the Teachings
Yet teachings are not always broad principles but can be very specific also. For example the Sabbath is determined as being from sunset to sunset (Lev 23:32). There really could be no interpretation that denies this clear scriptural reference. However when exactly the sun is set is a matter which an individual must make up their own mind about. Is sunset when the sun has gone behind the horizon? But what if you live next to a mountain and the sun goes behind it at 3pm but it’s still light in the sky till 11pm? Of course there is always the question of those who live in the Arctic or Antarctic where the sun doesn’t go down for months at a time, and stays down for months at a time! Fortunately there are not too many people in these high latitudes that need to make up their mind about this issue. What we need to concern ourselves with is how to apply these teachings to our lives today.
Teachings of FWG are based on members understanding of how the Bible is interpreted and implemented in their lives, which is of course based on their individual beliefs. As we grow in understanding our beliefs will change, and it’s therefore obvious that our teachings are not immutable but can and will also change over time. The process of changing a teaching in FWG is spelt out in the membership agreement that all members sign when joining FWG. This agreement states that while members have individual beliefs that may be very different from each other, in order to maintain unity in the group no member is to teach anything opposed to the teachings of FWG. Obviously we can discuss our various beliefs, and we can put forward proposals to change the teachings, but to actually teach that which has not been agreed to by the majority of members, as if it’s a doctrine of FWG, is not acceptable.
FWG doesn’t believe anything!
Teachings therefore don’t change or develop quickly within FWG. However as God provides you with new insights and as you discuss with others their ideas and experience your beliefs and personal understanding may rapidly grow in many different unique directions at the same time.
When we make the distinction between teachings and beliefs we free ourselves from the temptation of being judgmental of others’ thoughts and actions, and instead become inquisitive as to why they believe and do what they do. This provides the freedom to be yourself while also being a part of a group that has a clear perspective on what the Bible teaches us to do.
Belief therefore is a personal thing as it’s our dynamic, individual understanding that guides how we live our life. Given this definition of belief it should not come as a surprise that FWG as an organization can not actually believe anything, for we are a group of people not an individual with a single mind.
Again this is not just playing with words but is a clear distinction between the role of the group and that of the individual. FWG as a group teaches what the Bible says, the individual member then applies it in their own unique circumstances as they see appropriate and their understanding is what they believe. So when someone asks you “What does FWG believe” you can truly tell them “FWG doesn’t believe anything, but it does have some clear teachings”.
The outcome of making this clear distinction between teaching and beliefs is that FWG requires the members to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, which may be seeming blindingly obvious and logical, but it’s not always spelt out when we join a group. Some people join groups in order to become part of a larger organization so that they don’t need to think for themselves- so that the organization is the authority that tells them what to think, and in doing so proceed to abrogate their responsibility and individuality to the dictates of the group. We in FWG want to make it clear that is not the goal of our group, and it’s deliberately set up to require members to be responsible individuals.
We Can’t Trust Anyone To Tell Us What To Think!
The Bible clearly tells us that God has revealed his truth to men and women, young and old and people from all races (Rom 10:12, Gal 3:28). There is not any deeper or greater understanding that a man has over a woman, or a person from a specific cultural background has over anyone else. God is not a respecter of persons, but looks on the motivations and desires of our heart. (Heb 4:12, Acts 10:24, Col 3:25) It’s therefore our motivations that we need to focus our attentions on, not on obeying specific teachings in the exact way that someone else tells us how to do it. Our motivation is our relationship with God not our desire to conform to the group: we are to “continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” it does not say “Grow in the grace and knowledge of the church”.
We can’t trust what someone else says just because of whom they are or their experience- instead we need to work out our own salvation with respect and understanding of God and his word (Phil 2:2). We see examples in the Bible of very young people doing great deeds of righteousness, even babies in Matt 21:15-16! Conversely we also see examples of people whom have know God intimately for many years doing stupid and evil things- sometimes they repent of them and sometimes don’t. King Solomon is a very sad case in point. All these examples are there for our understanding to be guided by the lessons taught.
For this reason the doctrinal teachings in FWG are not meant to restrict members’ thoughts and their spiritual growth in understanding of the Word of God, the teachings are meant to guide the members thoughts. However as those thoughts change and grow then the teachings will need to be changed and expanded upon by the members. Facilitation of the process to enable change of the teachings in FWG is therefore essential or as the members grow in understanding then the church will split and dissipate and all the individual growth of the members will be lost to factional fighting.
The role of the agreed teachings in FWG is not to stifle new understanding but to specifically help both new and long time members to know what our fundamental understandings of the Bible are, and to explain how we come to them through the scriptures. Once we understand these teachings then we have sufficient knowledge to change them if necessary.
Who Teachers What, When and How?
It also must be understood that the act of teaching is emphatically not an exclusive role for the paid ministry to perform. All members of FWG are encouraged and expected to participate in the teaching of not only new people but also each other. This facilitates growth in both the teacher and the listener, such that both people take on the role of teacher and student in an open discussion rather than a one way communication.
In the process of helping new people understand the truth as we know it, of necessity FWG members must also think about the teachings. In the process not only the new people but the “know it all members” will also come to a deeper understanding of these teachings- and these new ideas will eventually be input into new teachings and facilitate the process of growth of the entire Church.
No Statement of Beliefs in FWG
The teachings of FWG are not written in a Statement of Beliefs, for as we have said the group can’t believe anything. What we have instead is a list of teachings, which includes a process for changing these teachings. We deliberately try to steer away from the term ‘doctrine’ (as well as many other spiritual sounding words) as they have specific meanings which we don’t want to incorporate into FWG.
Unfortunately the use of a Statement of Beliefs for a church has frequently been used to define why one church is different from another, most often being the one that it has split away from. A Statement of Beliefs of necessity restricts the individual to not be able to research other ideas without being outside the beliefs of the group.
By creating a Statement of Beliefs of the organization it also necessitates the definition of the words in these beliefs. Terms such as salvation, justification, glorification all need to be defined. Who and what is God also needs to be defined and clarified. When doing this the Statement of Beliefs becomes a de-facto list of doctrines and interpretation of the Bible itself. It all becomes an interwoven set of defined terms that support each other. The problem then arises as to how such a list can be changed without upsetting the very fabric of the entire church of believers that have their lives based around this Statement of Beliefs? The answer is that it cannot be changed without severely upsetting the structure of the group.
Change does and will continue to happen, and indeed it should be welcome if we are to continue to grow in grace and knowledge. If we individually grow but the church “Beliefs” stay the same then we will outgrow the church and it will split, or be leaving behind, or out in the cold, those that don’t change at the same pace. Therefore some groups fracture and split and other churches stay conservative and stagnate as they try to never change from what they were in their beginning.
FWG feels that it would be more honest for members of the church to be able to say “I support what this church teaches” rather than “I believe what the church believes”. It’s therefore important to clarify what the church teaches and leave the beliefs up to the individuals. In this way when our individual beliefs grow and change and mature the church won’t be inclined to fracture and split.
The Process of Change
Members are encouraged to participate in how the teachings change through a series of doctrinal feedback mechanisms that all members can contribute to and vote on. If the members agree that some teachings should be amended or other truth is now understood then they can be added to what is taught. A forum for discussion of new teachings is provided through an annual process of dissemination of summaries of proposed changes. As all the members originally agreed to the teachings when they joined, any changes must be agreed to by a large majority, which is set at 90%.
As an individual grows and changes they may find that they support some of what the group teachers but not all of it, and they can also provide financial donations dependent upon how much of the teachings they support and still remain members of the church. However, this does not mean that anyone can teach doctrine to the group which the membership has not agreed with, such an action will only cause division. The place for change of doctrine is not at the pulpit but in the forums for doctrinal comment.
By making a clear distinction between an individuals thoughts and actions and the teachings of the church as a whole group it encourages members spiritual growth and development as well as their participation and responsibility for others new and old in the group. This participation in turn will also support the long term spiritual growth of the church through deeper understanding of the Bible and how this understanding supports the doctrines.
So, far from being merely a semantic or pedantic discussion, the distinction between individual belief and group teachings provides a strong foundation to support individual and church development over the years.
Members of FWG therefore agree not to a “set of beliefs” but rather to “support the doctrinal teachings of the Church” and in doing so are committed to not undermine them by contra teachings. This enables freedom for individuals to change and grow and debate Biblical topics, while they continue to meet in an atmosphere of firm teachings that don’t alter greatly from year to year.
Summary
As it’s recognized that individuals will change and grow in understanding the Church must also not only be ready to accept such changes but welcome them for such new insights can be seen as an expression of the deeper relationship that God has developed with members of the Church over time.
FWG therefore feels that it’s logical and Biblical to make a distinction between the “collective agreed teachings” and “an individual’s understanding and beliefs” so as to provide freedom of thought and expression within the group while also supporting the organization’s stance on any one subject.
POST SCRIPT
In Vain Do You Worship Me, The Oral Law and the Written Law
There is much confusion about the use of the term ‘law’ in the New Testament.
The Oral Law was a judgment by the elders when there was a dispute in Israel. If something was too difficult to sort out between two disputing parties they went to the elders to make a determination on matters of the law. (Deut 17:8-13) This is what is called the Oral Law by modern Jewish teachers. [1] The term Oral Law is not mentioned in the Bible, but it is assumed that “traditions of the elders” and similar terms means the same thing. (Matt 15:2-6, Mark 7:3-13, Col 2:8, 1 Peter 1:18))
The oral law as developed in Deut 17:8-13 was enforceable on those that asked for the judgment, but it was not enforceable on others as their circumstances were not the same as the original case. However the original verdict could no doubt be used as a precedent in other cases. It appears that these precedents developed over time to have significant weight when considering a case and developed into a law with as much weight or more than the written law.
What the Pharisees were doing when they condemned the apostles for picking and eating grain on the Sabbath was implementing an Oral Law edict that they had made up. Perhaps this was something that had been originally determined as a matter of judgment, but now it was taken as being applicable in all situations, whereas their jurisdiction as indicated in Duet 17 was only to make narrow interpretations of the law in specific situations.
In making these broad determinations they were attempting to put their judgments on par with, or ever greater than, the law of God. They were taking too much upon themselves. They already had the authority to interpret the law in difficult situations, they however went to the next level and made edicts that they thought were not only applicable in all situations but which they were willing to implement by force if necessary.
While they also had authority to implement by force the laws of capital and corporal punishment, (and such authority also extended to implementing their narrow interpretations of the law in specific situations) they again took too much upon themselves and tried to develop and implement punishments not required in the law and punishments for their own broad edicts.
Added to this they undermined the written law with their edicts and traditions, saying that it was possible to negate the need to keep some aspects of the written law of God if someone performed another ritual. (Mark 7:11) We are told however that the written law of God is good should not be negated:
Rom_7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
1Ti_1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
Yet in certain circumstances it may be impossible to keep, or may be overridden by another aspect of law- see Matt 12:3-13, Luke 13:15-17 and 14:5.
In such instances a determination needs to be made as to what law should be kept and how. The Kingdom of God has been taken away from physical Israel and given to those who will bring forth the fruits of it. (Matt 21:43) What we see in Matt 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23 is the empowering of the elders of the church to make these determinations for Christians when such determinations need to be made. It seems that the responsibility of ‘sitting in Moses seat’ (Matt 23:2) was passed to the disciples, as we see in Acts 15:1-29.
[1] “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exodus 24:4), which implies that there was nothing that he did not write down. However Orthodox Jewish tradition holds that the Oral law was also delivered to Moses and was passed down through generations verbally until it too was eventually written down between 200-500AD. The Conservative and Reform Jews do not consider that the Oral law was delivered to Moses, but feel that, while they have significant weight, they are a collection of traditions developed over the years that are able to be amended and changed.
