s/o catholic/protestant thing - SOF issue

[WishboneDawn]

The difference is that issue of authority. Anyone can go to the Vatican website, Catholic.com, EWTN, the USCCB or the catechism to see what the Church teaches. It is all out there. No secrets. Any diocesan Catholic Church and any religious order that hasn't left that authority will believe and teach that.

 

You can't get that as a protestant. One Baptist church may not teach what the other one a block over teaches. A Presbyterian won't believe exactly as the Baptist does. And a UCC might disagree with all of it, at any given point. THIS is exactly why a lot of the SOFs exist, actually, to bring it back around to the point of the thread. Because every one of these churches can teach something different, a group that contains them all has no reference point in common unless they come up with one.

 

 

That's a pretty good point.:)

[Avila]

I disagree that the Catholics are actually being "singled out." I can't sign most Statements of Faith because they demand a belief in a 7 day creation. I don't believe that, and I cannot sign that I do. I was raised in a charismatic church. I believe in faith healing, speaking in tongues, Sole Fide, just not a literal creation story.

 

Once again, I will point out that I understand the desire to have like-minded people together when it comes to teaching Bible or even science. I don't understand the need when it comes to doing field trips or teaching other types of classes.

 

I have not seen the YE vs. OE in a SOF, but I haven't looked in the last year either. Every single SOF I have seen includes sola scriptura or sola fide, and sometimes both. And both weed out Catholics.

 

The SOFs may be becoming more restrictive and start aiming at what they consider more liberal Christians. I don't know because I won't be signing any. But out of the dozens I have looked at in the last 6 years, all of them were written to exclude EO, RC and LDS.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Asenik

[MamaSheep]

The issue isn't that holding those beliefs, in and of itself, makes one small-minded and insecure. It's that requiring that those around you also hold those beliefs is.

 

But...doesn't that go both ways? Isn't that what people who are offended by SOFs are doing too? Demanding that those around them also disapprove of SOF requirements? Isn't saying "I would never join a group that requires a SOF because I don't want to be with people like THAT" just as exclusionary as saying "I will only join a group with like-minded people as outlined in a SOF?"

 

I mean...from over here on the sidelines where I don't have strong feelings one way or the other I'm not seeing a lot of difference there...

[Mrs Mungo]

I have not seen the YE vs. OE in a SOF, but I haven't looked in the last year either. Every single SOF I have seen include sola scriptura or sola fide, and sometimes both. And both weed out Catholics.

 

The SOFs may be becoming more restrictive and start aiming at what they consider more liberal Christians. I don't know because I won't be signing any. But out of the dozens I have looked at in the last 6 years, all of them were written to exclude EO, RC and LDS.

 

I'm guessing you probably would not notice it unless you were a OEC protestant. I see the things that exclude Catholics, but mostly because of these types of debates on this board. Many of them contain a statement about infallibility or that the scriptures are 100% correct, without error, those are all sideways ways of weeding out the OEC types.

[Mrs Mungo]

But...doesn't that go both ways? Isn't that what people who are offended by SOFs are doing too? Demanding that those around them also disapprove of SOF requirements? Isn't saying "I would never join a group that requires a SOF because I don't want to be with people like THAT" just as exclusionary as saying "I will only join a group with like-minded people as outlined in a SOF?"

 

I mean...from over here on the sidelines where I don't have strong feelings one way or the other I'm not seeing a lot of difference there...

 

I think saying "I wouldn't join a GROUP like that because I disapprove," doesn't have anything to do with whether you would hang with those people as individuals. I have lots of friends who belong to groups with statements of faith.

[Ellesmere]

This is ridiculous. That's like going to a neighbour to let them know their son has been tossing rocks at your dog and having them accuse you of telling them how horrible their family is.

 

None of this has been about how horrible we Protestants are. Point to where posters have been accusing all Protestants of horrible things.

 

It is about how some Protestants treat other Christians, Catholics in particular but more generally LDS, Mormons...Even fellow Protestants. And it shouldn't be an eye-opener. Not when churches are handing out Jack Chick tracts about "death cookies" or BJU makes it clear that Catholics are not real Christians.

 

The only horrible thing about Protestants is if we fail to see what some fellow Protestants are doing in our name.

Are there groups that self-identify as Protestant and line up with the BJU line of thinking with regards to Catholics, LDS, etc.? This is a question, not an argument. :)

 

The reason that I ask is that I raised my eyebrows when someone commented that they encountered the attitude of "pray people get saved and converted to our church" in a specifically Protestant setting. Not at all saying it didn't happen, but my Catholic, Methodist, EO, or Episcopalian friends/family wouldn't pray for me to be saved out of another Christian group.

 

The churches that I know of (and I haven't been to tons) were not Protestant, but many people outside of those fellowships identified them as such. However, they called themselves non-denominational and separated from mainline Protestants, such as Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians. And they sent a lot of students to BJU. The BJU wiki calls the school Protestant but they actually self-ID as "fundamental Christian", which is a little different from my POV. And I could see a Protestant getting a bit ruffled over being grouped in with them. I'm just wondering, as I haven't spent time in an actual Protestant church in a very long time so I really don't know.

[twoforjoy]

But...doesn't that go both ways? Isn't that what people who are offended by SOFs are doing too? Demanding that those around them also disapprove of SOF requirements? Isn't saying "I would never join a group that requires a SOF because I don't want to be with people like THAT" just as exclusionary as saying "I will only join a group with like-minded people as outlined in a SOF?"

 

I mean...from over here on the sidelines where I don't have strong feelings one way or the other I'm not seeing a lot of difference there...

 

No, I don't think it really goes both ways, any more than you can say that people who ran integrated restaurants and people who ran whites-only restaurants were doing the exact same thing. One was including everybody, one wasn't.

 

I wouldn't join a homeschool group with a SOF because I wouldn't want to be in a group that excluded people based on their religious beliefs. I'm sure many of the people in exclusive groups are perfectly pleasant, nice people who I'd get along with. I still wouldn't want to join a group that would exclude people on the basis of religion.

[Avila]

I'm guessing you probably would not notice it unless you were a OEC protestant. I see the things that exclude Catholics, but mostly because of these types of debates on this board. Many of them contain a statement about infallibility or that the scriptures are 100% correct, without error, those are all sideways ways of weeding out the OEC types.

 

Gotcha now. :). And it makes total sense, of course. I am OE, but I wasn't thinking of those statements in that way, probably because I can't sign them for the other stuff.

 

Thanks for explaining that.

[lionfamily1999]

Ooh! That's a subtle twist. You're around me therefore I require that you subscribe to xyz beliefs. Yes, that would be ridiculous. That is NOT what they are doing with their SOF.

 

With an SOF they are looking for like-minded people with which to hang. (Not necessarily exclusively hang, but hang w/ their kids in a school-ish setting.) Maybe it is small-minded and insecure to blast people who want to let their guard down in a certain educational setting where they can trust the philosophical outlook of the other adults and not have to worry about them saying something wonky to their kids. The parents may or MAY NOT hear about said wonkiness and therefore MAY NOT have the opportunity to discuss.

 

I don't get why this issue gets hashed out ad nauseum. Those who feel excluded just can't get past it. We're talking about the education of children here. There are many other educational institutions which require SOF of participants as well as instructors. SOF are not exclusive to the homeschooling world.

:iagree:

:confused:

 

Your comment strikes me as humorous in a thread about how wrong headed exclusionary restrictions are too judgemental. I can't imagine why someone might not want to spend their coop time with a family that thinks they are small minded and insecure.:001_huh:

 

I think there is a difference between a class or group organized under the umbrella of a community organization like a museum, library, nature preserve or rec center and one that is organized by a church for the primary purpose of supporting the growth of church members and attendees.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that every homeschool group should accomodate every single interested homeschooler. I expect that a group with the purpose of promoting classical homeschooling will be less than excited about an influx of school in the box families or that an unschooler support group would be feel that their purpose were being misdirected by a growth in new members that were trying to steer the group toward a very curriculum centered model.

 

Likewise, I would assume that an "inclusive" group is going to frown on much religious talk, no matter how intrinsic that is to the lives of particular member families. Or that a natural history museum based science club is going to assume agreement with particular viewpoints on topics like the age of the Earth and evolution.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

I think there is a difference between a class or group organized under the umbrella of a community organization like a museum, library, nature preserve or rec center and one that is organized by a church for the primary purpose of supporting the growth of church members and attendees.

 

Not all exclusive groups are under the umbrella of a church.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that every homeschool group should accomodate every single interested homeschooler. I expect that a group with the purpose of promoting classical homeschooling will be less than excited about an influx of school in the box families or that an unschooler support group would be feel that their purpose were being misdirected by a growth in new members that were trying to steer the group toward a very curriculum centered model.

 

Many times groups with these types of statements of faith have no co-op or curriculum to worry about. That's where I have a problem. It's not a matter of being accommodated, that just isn't the right word to use here.

 

Likewise, I would assume that an "inclusive" group is going to frown on much religious talk, no matter how intrinsic that is to the lives of particular member families.

 

Every inclusive group that *I* have been involved with (I cannot speak with regard to any other groups) has mostly been made up of Christian cast-offs who aren't Christian *enough* or aren't the "right" type of Christian for the local groups. Religious talk hasn't been the least bit frowned upon. Now, proselytizing in a mixed group of religious might be frowned upon, but that's more than talk.

[asta]

Well, you might. ;). There are some groups who call themselves Traditional Catholics (note the capital T) that are pretty radical. And you can go to their web sites and find some pretty nasty stuff, though much of it will be aimed at the post-Vatican II Catholic Church.

 

The difference is that issue of authority. Anyone can go to the Vatican website, Catholic.com, EWTN, the USCCB or the catechism to see what the Church teaches. It is all out there. No secrets. Any diocesan Catholic Church and any religious order that hasn't left that authority will believe and teach that.

 

You can't get that as a protestant. One Baptist church may not teach what the other one a block over teaches. A Presbyterian won't believe exactly as the Baptist does. And a UCC might disagree with all of it, at any given point. THIS is exactly why a lot of the SOFs exist, actually, to bring it back around to the point of the thread. Because every one of these churches can teach something different, a group that contains them all has no reference point in common unless they come up with one.

 

The aggravating part is that there is SO much that RC and EO DO have in common as fellow Christians, but we are the ones singled out by the SOFs. These groups disagree with one another on a lot of issues, but it is only the issues that differ with RC and EO and LDS that get put into the SOF. All we agree on is apparently not realized or understood or considered important enough to base a group on.

 

The difference is, those "Catholic" groups aren't approved by the Vatican.

 

Even Opus Dei, which is about as whack as it gets, doesn't bash others. They're just weird to themselves.

 

No, I don't think it really goes both ways, any more than you can say that people who ran integrated restaurants and people who ran whites-only restaurants were doing the exact same thing. One was including everybody, one wasn't.

 

I wouldn't join a homeschool group with a SOF because I wouldn't want to be in a group that excluded people based on their religious beliefs. I'm sure many of the people in exclusive groups are perfectly pleasant, nice people who I'd get along with. I still wouldn't want to join a group that would exclude people on the basis of religion.

 

Now THIS is interesting!

 

Show of hands: how many people on this thread who insist there is nothing wrong with exclusionary SOFs agree with racial segregation?

 

Because, let's face it, when the rubber hits the road, an ism is an ism.

 

 

asta

[justamouse]

As much as I'd love to continue walking hand-in-hand with my sisters in Christ here I've got a meal to deliver.

 

Do you have to take every single thing so personally? It really hinders the conversation.

[8circles]

Do you have to take every single thing so personally? It really hinders the conversation.

 

Yes, I guess I do. When I, as a Protestant, am lumped-in with criticism of groups that subscribe to different beliefs than mine, & repeated attempts to clarify get shrugged off, I take it personally. Continued statements lumping all Protestants as ____________ when that's clearly no the case certainly aren't helpful to any conversation.

[8circles]

I disagree that the Catholics are actually being "singled out."

 

:iagree: There are many Protestants that are excluded from the SOF's that have been posted - for many reasons.

[8circles]

The difference is, those "Catholic" groups aren't approved by the Vatican.

 

Except Protestants don't have any Vatican. Anyone can identify themselves as Protestant if they aren't RC or EO. It isn't accurate to lump them all together when you are referring to specific beliefs.

[Violet Crown]

The difference is, those "Catholic" groups aren't approved by the Vatican.

That depends on which Traditionalist group you're talking about. Wikipedia has a very good page on Catholic Traditionalism, and you'll see that there are groups both inside the Church (FSSP and diocesan TLM Massgoers, for instance) and outside (SSPX, or various sedevacantist groups [e.g. Hutton Gibson's, and probably his son Mel's, variety]).

 

No Traditionalist of any variety, though, would claim that a person who had been baptized was not a Christian. That issue was settled in the early Church. Baptism, using water, the trinitarian formula, and with intent to baptize, makes one a Christian.

 

Even Opus Dei, which is about as whack as it gets, doesn't bash others. They're just weird to themselves.

Opus Dei aren't Traditionalists. Being very very conservative and eyebrow-lifting weird don't make one a Trad (though they're probably minimal requirements... :D ). OD is perfectly happy with the current Roman Missal, which is the Big Issue demarcating Traditionalist Catholics from just regular sane Catholics.

[Ellesmere]

All the years I went to Protestant church, we never prayed for any other denomination unless it was in hopes to show them the error of their ways so they would convert.

Did it self-identify as Protestant? The one I went to that prayed for the other denominations in that manner was identified as Protestant by the community but did not call itself Protestant.

 

Not that there aren't Protestant churches where that may happen, as in your experience, but the mainline ones around here aren't like that, to my knowledge. Haven't been to them, just going by how my Protestant friends treat me. :)

 

ETA: I'm going to start keeping a tally, just so we Protestants can know just how horrible we all are. Keep us humble.

Not see anyone saying how horrible Protestants are. I didn't even call the fundamentalists unchristian even with the exclusive nature of their SOFs (and yes, Asta, some of them would probably have racial segregation to some degree if it wasn't so frowned upon.)

 

I get your point and agree that these SOFs exclude many Protestants -- I've said that at least once. I guess I don't get your tone.

[8circles]

This is ridiculous. That's like going to a neighbour to let them know their son has been tossing rocks at your dog and having them accuse you of telling them how horrible their family is.

I disagree. Not a valid comparison. More accurate would be going to a neighbor to complain them that another child in his class was tossing rocks at your dog so it may as well have been their child.

None of this has been about how horrible we Protestants are. Point to where posters have been accusing all Protestants of horrible things.

I'll give you "horrible" is a stretch. It isn't hard to find us being called judgmental & uneducated & having issues with authority for a start.

It is about how some Protestants treat other Christians, Catholics in particular but more generally LDS, Mormons...Even fellow Protestants. And it shouldn't be an eye-opener. Not when churches are handing out Jack Chick tracts about "death cookies" or BJU makes it clear that Catholics are not real Christians.

I think Christians have issues with treating people in general badly. It isn't confined to Protestants. I've never seen a Jack Chick tract but don't deny their existence. I've never supported BJU anything & refuse to even consider their curriculum.

The only horrible thing about Protestants is if we fail to see what some fellow Protestants are doing in our name.

I agree but I don't see the point in making the distiction there - as Protestants. I'd like to know how the people behaving badly define themselves... as Protestant? I'd be willing to bet they'd be a tad more specific than that.

[mommaduck]

Did it self-identify as Protestant? The one I went to that prayed for the other denominations in that manner was identified as Protestant by the community but did not call itself Protestant.

 

Not that there aren't Protestant churches where that may happen, as in your experience, but the mainline ones around here aren't like that, to my knowledge. Haven't been to them, just going by how my Protestant friends treat me. :)

 

 

Not see anyone saying how horrible Protestants are. I didn't even call the fundamentalists unchristian even with the exclusive nature of their SOFs (and yes, Asta, some of them would probably have racial segregation to some degree if it wasn't so frowned upon.)

 

I get your point and agree that these SOFs exclude many Protestants -- I've said that at least once. I guess I don't get your tone.

 

Actually, I do know some churches (not in their statements, but "off the record") that DO encourage segregation. I also know that certain branches of Protestants have more than the norm of those that believe in segregation (to the point that they believe interracial marriage is a sin).

[Mrs Mungo]

Continued statements lumping all Protestants as ____________ when that's clearly no the case certainly aren't helpful to any conversation.

 

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that. People have said they have experience with many groups who X or all of the churches they have attended believed Y. I think they all left YMMV wiggle room.

[8circles]

I guess I don't get your tone.

 

My tone is one of frustration & hurt & sadness.

[8circles]

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that. People have said they have experience with many groups who X or all of the churches they have attended believed Y. I think they all left YMMV wiggle room.

 

Clearly I'm in the minority but I haven't read much YMMV wiggle room at all. Not just in this thread but other recent ones.

[mommaduck]

My tone is one of frustration & hurt & sadness.

 

Because you keep saying that we are saying "all". No one has done this. In general, with many groups, maybe...but definitely not all.

[Mrs Mungo]

Clearly I'm in the minority but I haven't read much YMMV wiggle room at all. Not just in this thread but other recent ones.

 

There are a couple of problems with this discussion. First, what makes a protestant church? This post touched on that:

 

The churches that I know of (and I haven't been to tons) were not Protestant, but many people outside of those fellowships identified them as such. However, they called themselves non-denominational and separated from mainline Protestants, such as Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians. And they sent a lot of students to BJU. The BJU wiki calls the school Protestant but they actually self-ID as "fundamental Christian", which is a little different from my POV. And I could see a Protestant getting a bit ruffled over being grouped in with them. I'm just wondering, as I haven't spent time in an actual Protestant church in a very long time so I really don't know.

 

All of the posts *I* saw were more like this:

No, but there is something to listening to the general experience of many people from various places rather than just looking at what is immediately in front of us. The truth is, this is an issue that is rampant within Protestantism in general, even though some fortunate people have not experienced it. And I stated that even when I was a Protestant (and trust me, I wasn't a loosy goosy one either).

 

Milovany was responding exactly due to what you pointed out...that simply because it wasn't your reality, it is the reality of others. That should not be so easily dismissed and neither should your experience.

 

momoflaw-are you originally from Wisconsin? Because I think you would find things are very different according to region.

[WishboneDawn]

Yes, I guess I do. When I, as a Protestant, am lumped-in with criticism of groups that subscribe to different beliefs than mine, & repeated attempts to clarify get shrugged off, I take it personally. Continued statements lumping all Protestants as ____________ when that's clearly no the case certainly aren't helpful to any conversation.

 

I think you need to provide quotes if you're going to claim people here are referring to all Protestants.

[8circles]

There are a couple of problems with this discussion. First, what makes a protestant church? This post touched on that:

 

I agree. There's an awful lot of diversity within that umbrella that needs to be acknowleged much more than it is. Basically anyone who isn't RC or EO can be considered Protestant - with I think the exception of LDS. I could be wrong on that.

 

All of the posts *I* saw were more like this:

 

 

momoflaw-are you originally from Wisconsin? Because I think you would find things are very different according to region.

Originally from IL & have also lived in MI & CO as well as Czech Republic, Spain, & Malaysia where I was active in Protestant churches. I don't think I have a narrow view but I've been wrong before.

[8circles]

I think you need to provide quotes if you're going to claim people here are referring to all Protestants.

 

Well, I've done it in other threads but I'm going to plead single-parent for the week & pass on this one. I think that oftentimes there is no "all" but there is also no "some" or any other qualifier. To me those read as an implied "all" most of the time, depending on context.

[Mrs Mungo]

Originally from IL & have also lived in MI & CO as well as Czech Republic, Spain, & Malaysia where I was active in Protestant churches. I don't think I have a narrow view but I've been wrong before.

 

Have you lived in the southern USA?

[mommaduck]

Have you lived in the southern USA?

 

Or Southern Illinois (which is not like the rest of Illinois....especially if you are around St. Louis). And my sister, along with others, have stories to tell out of South Carolina and Tennessee.

[justamouse]

Allison, I really don't mean to offend at all but there are 33k denominations that identify as Protestant (they aren't EO/RCC) and I simply can't differentiate for all of them in a discussion like this-nor do I even KNOW all of them. Which is why I qualify my own personal experience in these discussions.

 

Lutheran

Vinyard

AOG

E Free

Non Denom

Baptist

Pentecostal

 

those are the churches I've attended. I will say that (what I remember of him as I was 15) my Lutheran Pastor was one of the best, most learned men I've had the opportunity to sit under. So, should I add in a disclaimer in these discussions that I'm not speaking of specifically him? :confused:

[Avila]

Or Southern Illinois (which is not like the rest of Illinois....especially if you are around St. Louis). And my sister, along with others, have stories to tell out of South Carolina and Tennessee.

 

Boy, isn't that the truth? Although a lot of people seem to think Illinois is limited to Chicago and its suburbs! I lived in St. Louis all my life until a year ago, so that is my perspective, and specifically that Southern Illinois side of the suburbs where I am from.

 

I am not sure how the argument became about all protestants being bashed. I missed that. But it kind of makes my point really. It is hard to lump such a diverse group together, since the main thing a lot of them have in common is not being Catholic (or EO, for that matter). It is a diverse group. Really, such a wide range that I wonder why someone would automatically assume anyone in it would have any more in common with another Protestant than they might with a non-Protestant Christian. Which is why I think most SOFs are not well thought out and uncharitable.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Asenik

[8circles]

I am not sure how the argument became about all protestants being bashed. I missed that. But it kind of makes my point really. It is hard to lump such a diverse group together, since the main thing a lot of them have in common is not being Catholic (or EO, for that matter). It is a diverse group. Really, such a wide range that I wonder why someone would automatically assume anyone in it would have any more in common with another Protestant than they might

with a non-Protestant Christian. Which is why I think most SOFs are I'll thought out.

 

Anyhow, each of us can only speak of the experiences we have had with the groups we have been involved in and the people we have known. If you lose that, there is no longer a conversation. I don't know what is left.

 

Well, that's my point. As I've said before, using a particular belief or denomination would be much more productive & much less likely to cause offense. To make any kind of meaningful statement about Protestants other than that they aren't RC or EO is quite difficult & most likely ends-up being false for the majority of Protestants, IMO. By all means, people should speak about their experiences, but be specific.

 

No, I've never lived in the south.

[Avila]

Well, that's my point. As I've said before, using a particular belief or denomination would be much more productive & much less likely to cause offense. To make any kind of meaningful statement about Protestants other than that they aren't RC or EO is quite difficult & most likely ends-up being false for the majority of Protestants, IMO. By all means, people should speak about their experiences, but be specific.

 

No, I've never lived in the south.

 

:grouphug: I am sorry that you have felt personally hurt by this discussion. I think using a specific denomination would not help either because one Baptist church, for instance, does not necessarily match another in beliefs.

 

Usually my non-Catholic friends don't self-identify as Protestant but as Baptist or Methodist or whatever specifically describes the church they attend. Maybe it would help you to detach from the term somehow on here? I don't think anyone personally meant you any offense. I know I did not.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Asenik

[Carol in Cal.]

I have read recently that during the 1960's or so, Francis Schaeffer made the argument that a non-RC/EO Christian with a very conservative view of the Bible had more in common with others like him than with liberals in his own denomination. That idea started to float around quite a bit. It was somewhat in reaction to the liberal historical critical views of the Bible that had become completely dominant in American Christianity. And he certainly had a point.

 

I remember being in a denomination that was kind of heading that way, and how helpless people felt about it. (Of course, it turned out to be one of the few that went back again, but that's kind of beside the point right now.) I remember attending a university that had quite a few significantly, aggressively, crusadingly anti-Christian professors. It was kind of exciting in both of those contexts to find someone else who was more conservative and Christian as I was. Of course, in my case that was not just conservative Lutherans but Coptic and Syrian Orthodox people, and liberal Lutherans, and all kinds of other Christians. We all had some things in common and other things not in common, but we were brothers and sisters in Christ, and that was our bond (as it should have been.)

 

I think that out of those kinds of experiences, plus the concern with the need to be able to speak about Christianity to a wider variety of people, arose both the theoretically non-denominational churches and also the kinds of groups with SOF's. I think that people are appropriately careful about what their children hear when they are young. Personally, I have been in secular homeschooling groups and in one (formerly) inclusive Christian one, but I also made sure that I was watching out for my daughter's spiritual exposure along the way. I can respect, although I disagree with, some people setting up exclusive, very conservative homeschooling groups. However, I feel very strongly that they should label them appropriately.

 

For instance, coopting the term 'Christian' is offensive.

 

However, remembering that relief when we felt sort of alien and alone for whatever reason, I can understand people wanting their children to grow up in an environment where they themselves can control the timing of their children's being exposed to beliefs that they don't hold. For many, that is a key reason to homeschool.

 

I choose to think of the SOF's of some of those groups as an extension of their descriptions about themselves. They are a clue to me of what kind of people they are eager to associate themselves with. There is nothing to be gained by me joining, for instance, a Christian homeschooling group where everyone only uses Abeka and the females are not allowed to wear pants. I'm just never going to have enough in common with those people to have fruitful fellowship. I would rather know in advance that that's the 'culture' of the group, and the SsOF make it easier and faster to figure that out.

 

I would hope that people in Christian homeschooling groups would be biased in favor of being inclusive rather than exclusive, as Christ was (is).

[8circles]

:grouphug: I am sorry that you have felt personally hurt by this discussion. I think using a specific denomination would not help either because one Baptist church, for instance, does not necessarily match another in beliefs.

 

You're right - but you could easily specify a particular doctrine & then labelling it with a denomination is unnecessary.

 

For instance, coopting the term 'Christian' is offensive. ...

I would hope that people in Christian homeschooling groups would be biased in favor of being inclusive rather than exclusive, as Christ was (is).

I couldn't agree more but I'd take out the word "homeschooling".

[Ellesmere]

I agree but I don't see the point in making the distiction there - as Protestants. I'd like to know how the people behaving badly define themselves... as Protestant? I'd be willing to bet they'd be a tad more specific than that.

 

My tone is one of frustration & hurt & sadness.

 

Sure, in my area, heavily influenced by southern fundamentalists (but not southern USA), they are much more specific than Protestant and outright separate from Protestantism.

 

I understand you are hurt and can totally understand the frustration, but your tone sounded a touch sarcastic and rude. I just am not seeing anyone call Protestants horrible. One problem is this (I think we agree here): some of the groups that get very narrow do not ID as a particular denomination and, right or wrong, they get lumped in with Protestants. No offense is meant when someone does that and no one is painting a dark picture of all Protestants. The other issue, if I may say gently, is that offense has been taken when none was honestly meant.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

I have had experiences with referring to people as Protestant that don't think of themselves as Protestant. It makes for an interesting conversation. To me it is cut and dry. If you consider Luther a hero you are Protestant. If you don't you are not. As the wikipedia page on Protestant states, it is widely accepted that there are three branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. With the first two there are universal doctrines. Since the latter is an umbrella of churches that don't believe in creeds or doctrine, it makes conversations like this frustrating. Momoflaw I see how this could be frustrating for you. I also saw that you haven't lived in the Southern US, and I think that is where a lot of these experiences are rooted. I don't think they are contained to that area, but the churches in other areas that have these mentalities that so many of us have experienced were likely rooted there. I've seen these experiences at a tiny Baptist church and a huge megachurch. Those are about as extreme as you can get from each other in Protestantism and everything that has been shared here I saw there. Of course this was in the South.

[WishboneDawn]

Those are about as extreme as you can get from each other in Protestantism and everything that has been shared here I saw there. Of course this was in the South.

 

Not just there though. I'm in Eastern Canada and know an otherwise wonderful lady who's a Baptist and who tries to get me to come to her church. *sigh* The root of it is that I'm not really saved or Christian in her eyes. My being a Protestant does not matter one whit to her. I can only imagine what she must think of Catholics. :)

[8circles]

I have had experiences with referring to people as Protestant that don't think of themselves as Protestant. It makes for an interesting conversation. To me it is cut and dry. If you consider Luther a hero you are Protestant. If you don't you are not. As the wikipedia page on Protestant states, it is widely accepted that there are three branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. With the first two there are universal doctrines. Since the latter is an umbrella of churches including those that don't believe in creeds or doctrine, it makes conversations like this frustrating. Momoflaw I see how this could be frustrating for you. I also saw that you haven't lived in the Southern US, and I think that is where a lot of these experiences are rooted. I don't think they are contained to that area, but the churches in other areas that have these mentalities that so many of us have experienced were likely rooted there. I've seen these experiences at a tiny Baptist church and a huge megachurch. Those are about as extreme as you can get from each other in Protestantism and everything that has been shared here I saw there. Of course this was in the South.

 

I appreciate this post. I would modify your statement a bit as in red but thank you for understanding my point.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

I appreciate this post. I would modify your statement a bit as in red but thank you for understanding my point.

:grouphug: Thanks for the modification.

[MamaSheep]

I think saying "I wouldn't join a GROUP like that because I disapprove," doesn't have anything to do with whether you would hang with those people as individuals. I have lots of friends who belong to groups with statements of faith.

 

Well...and they're YOUR friend too. That sounds like another two-way street to me. I think often people who would be excluded from a religious homeschool group would still be welcomed by members of that same group on the basis of individual friendship. Often the SOF is just about defining the content of the group, not about thinking people who are "other" are somehow not "worthy" or whatever.

 

No, I don't think it really goes both ways, any more than you can say that people who ran integrated restaurants and people who ran whites-only restaurants were doing the exact same thing. One was including everybody, one wasn't.

 

I wouldn't join a homeschool group with a SOF because I wouldn't want to be in a group that excluded people based on their religious beliefs. I'm sure many of the people in exclusive groups are perfectly pleasant, nice people who I'd get along with. I still wouldn't want to join a group that would exclude people on the basis of religion.

 

I guess I see it differently. And maybe it depends a little on the REASONS for the exclusion. If the exclusion is being made because people who don't fit the SOF criteria are viewed as lesser forms of humanity, then I would have to agree with your analogy.

 

However, if the purpose of the SOF is just to define the scope of content for the group I don't think this is a good analogy at all. Especially if the "deal" is that anyone can BE there as long as they abide by the limitations in the SOF. In that case it would be more like defining a restaurant as one that serves Italian cuisine so that patrons would not come in expecting to be able to order Chinese food. It's not that you have anything against Chinese people or those who like to eat Chinese cuisine, it's just a matter of having to limit the menu for the sake of keeping the scope of the undertaking to a manageable level. I don't think it's racist for an Italian restaurant to refuse to serve Chinese food to people, and to warn potential patrons that the kitchen staff is not going to welcome demands for Asian cuisine, or even courteously delivered advice to use more soy sauce and sesame seeds in the lasagna. If a patron showed up and wanted to join in the dining experience there, but they insisted that they only wanted to order Chinese food, the host would be justified, in my opinion, in saying that the restaurant would be unable to accommodate that request, and the patron should try the Chinese place across the street. I don't think it's "racist" for an Italian restaurant to refuse to serve Chinese food. It would be difficult to run a restaurant at which anyone could walk in and order any dish they desired (even though it would be fun to EAT at one). Limiting the "menu" is a smart business choice. I think the same can be true of homeschool groups. I don't think it's significantly different to limit the scope to a specific religious viewpoint than to limit the scope to a specific educational philosophy.

 

As I say, I don't really have a horse in this race, I'm just trying to understand both sides. Or all sides, since there seem to be more than two. And I enjoy open, inclusive groups myself. It's like a picnic at the park where everyone brings what they like along with them, and sometimes you can share. But I don't think it's fair to exclude people from the picnic just because they also like to dine at a restaurant, and I don't think it's fair to go to a restaurant and insist that the diners should be picnicking instead. I think there's room for tolerance of each other's personal preferences.

 

...Now THIS is interesting!

 

Show of hands: how many people on this thread who insist there is nothing wrong with exclusionary SOFs agree with racial segregation?

 

Because, let's face it, when the rubber hits the road, an ism is an ism.

 

 

asta

 

Well...here's another ism. Autism. I just got back from our autism spectrum parents' support group meeting. We get together and talk about issues relating parenting children on the autism spectrum. We specifically exclude children (because we need a break from their drama, and because we want to talk about them). It's not because we hate autistic children, or want them out of our lives, it's just that the meeting has a specific purpose and having the kids there would make it impossible to fulfill that pupose effectively. We also exclude parents of children with a multitude of other disabilities. That's not because we're bigotted against people with those disabilities, it's just that we need to limit the scope in order for us to be able to focus on this topic enough to help the parents who need it. There's a pretty broad range of needs even within this narrow scope, because some of these kids are non-verbal and others are hyper-verbal and that sort of thing. If we tried to cover every existing disability we would never get enough information about one topic to do anybody much good. We do include people who have kids with closely related disorders, but they have to understand that autism is the focus and we may not really discuss some of the other issues they're dealing with. For example, one good friend there has a boy with both autism and Downs Syndrome. She understands that this group is about autism and we're not going to have lessons about DS kids, and she's fine with that. We also welcome educators, though not many of them come.

 

And I don't think we're being descriminatory against either autistic kids or against parents who have kids with other disabilities just because we limit the scope of our group to the subject of autism.

 

I guess to me limiting a homeschool group to a particular religious -ism could certainly work along these same lines. Although I DO see that some groups are just being bigotted, it seems a little unfair to paint them all with the same brush.

[Ellesmere]

There are many Protestants that are excluded from the SOF's that have been posted - for many reasons.

A point that I also brought up and agree with. As I said, I get your frustration with the wrong identification (calling fundamentalists Protestant) but I don't understand the harshness in your tone towards people who have been civil and have not in the least said that all Protestants are the same. Someone relating an experience at one of the many, many Protestant churches is in no way being disrespectful to you or deserving of that tone, IMO. We do agree on a lot -- are you willing to see that?

 

Actually, I do know some churches (not in their statements, but "off the record") that DO encourage segregation.

That doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of people from a background that taught interracial marriage was a sin. I want to be clear: Most of them don't actually agree with it or treat me differently, but some do and some are better at hiding it from me than others.

 

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that. People have said they have experience with many groups who X or all of the churches they have attended believed Y. I think they all left YMMV wiggle room.

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

That doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of people from a background that taught interracial marriage was a sin. I want to be clear: Most of them don't actually agree with it or treat me differently, but some do and some are better at hiding it from me than others.

 

I left my Baptist church in high school after I got in a fight with the Sunday school teachers about interracial dating. Their argument failed when I pointed out that the youth minister was married to an Asian woman and "nation" had little to do with skin color in Biblical times. The teachers obviously had never really thought about what the curriculum was teaching.

[mommaduck]

I left my Baptist church in high school after I got in a fight with the Sunday school teachers about interracial dating. Their argument failed when I pointed out that the youth minister was married to an Asian woman and "nation" had little to do with skin color in Biblical times. The teachers obviously had never really thought about what the curriculum was teaching.

 

Funny (not really) how it's usually b/w dating people have a problem with and less likely b/a, w/a, b/na, w/na, etc that they have a problem with :glare: Ironically, I know a woman that said it's worse if it's male b/female w than if it's male w/female b :confused: I just don't get the thinking of these kinds of people :001_huh:

[FaithManor]

Funny (not really) how it's usually b/w dating people have a problem with and less likely b/a, w/a, b/na, w/na, etc that they have a problem with :glare: Ironically, I know a woman that said it's worse if it's male b/female w than if it's male w/female b :confused: I just don't get the thinking of these kinds of people :001_huh:

 

Mommaduck and Mrs. Mungo, I agree. This kind of thinking makes my brain twitch.

 

I think the thread is morphing.

 

Interesting discussion though; what is a protestant? That's a thorny, loaded, interrogative sentence.

 

Faith

[mommaduck]

Mommaduck and Mrs. Mungo, I agree. This kind of thinking makes my brain twitch.

 

I think the thread is morphing.

 

Interesting discussion though; what is a protestant? That's a thorny, loaded, interrogative sentence.

 

Faith

I can say this: The Anabaptists I know, would not call themselves Protestant other than the fact that they Protested. During the Reformation, and excluding the Orthodox who did not really have a role, it was the RC, the Reformers, and the Radicals (the Anabaptists falling under the Radical grouping). So, personally, I would exclude them as Protestants, but include them in this type of discussion.

[8circles]

A point that I also brought up and agree with. As I said, I get your frustration with the wrong identification (calling fundamentalists Protestant) but I don't understand the harshness in your tone towards people who have been civil and have not in the least said that all Protestants are the same. Someone relating an experience at one of the many, many Protestant churches is in no way being disrespectful to you or deserving of that tone, IMO. We do agree on a lot -- are you willing to see that?

My response is a reaction to many posts in many threads, not just this one. My comments have at times been sarcastic but I don't think I've been harsh so I disagree with you there. I do agree that we agree on a lot, that's kind-of the point. But I'm not sure what you are commenting on exactly that we agree on, I've lost that connection in this large discussion. There are so many things that RC/EO & a great many (I would say majority) of Protestants actually agree on yet it's always the differences that are pointed out & we're all lumped together. It's sad.

 

That doesn't surprise me. I know a lot of people from a background that taught interracial marriage was a sin. I want to be clear: Most of them don't actually agree with it or treat me differently, but some do and some are better at hiding it from me than others.

 

 

 

I've never met anyone who believes that interracial marriage is a sin. That's also sad.

[Carol in Cal.]

I can say this: The Anabaptists I know, would not call themselves Protestant other than the fact that they Protested. During the Reformation, and excluding the Orthodox who did not really have a role, it was the RC, the Reformers, and the Radicals (the Anabaptists falling under the Radical grouping). So, personally, I would exclude them as Protestants, but include them in this type of discussion.

 

Well, no, not really.

It was the RC, the Reformed, the Anabaptists, and the Evangelicals (original name for what we call Lutherans today.) Lutherans go back and forth as to whether they are protestants or not. The Reformed faiths so dominate the picture in most people's heads when they hear 'protestant'. Lutherans are SO different from the Reformed; and funnily enough it's because we are far more catholic. We have infant baptism, the Real Presence, liturgical worship according to the ancient forms of the Mass, Matins, and Vespers, etc.

 

There is actually a really good book called "Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant" that calls for three major current categories.

[Joker]

I've never met anyone who believes that interracial marriage is a sin. That's also sad.

 

When I was in high school our pastor pulled his dd out and decided to homeschool her because she had a black boyfriend.:001_huh: We ran and ran fast.

[mommaduck]

Well, no, not really.

It was the RC, the Reformed, the Anabaptists, and the Evangelicals (original name for what we call Lutherans today.) Lutherans go back and forth as to whether they are protestants or not. The Reformed faiths so dominate the picture in most people's heads when they hear 'protestant'. Lutherans are SO different from the Reformed; and funnily enough it's because we are far more catholic. We have infant baptism, the Real Presence, liturgical worship according to the ancient forms of the Mass, Matins, and Vespers, etc.

 

There is actually a really good book called "Lutheran, Catholic, Protestant" that calls for three major current categories.

 

Add common cup and exclusive psalmody and you have some of the Reformed as well.