s/o catholic/protestant thing - SOF issue

[Mrs Mungo]

Hmmm...well, again from over here on the sidelines it sounds as if you're saying that you're justified in your attitude toward them because of their wrong-headed beliefs. Which sounds to me just like what they're saying about you.

 

If I ask you, you will say, "Yes, but I'm the one that's right, and they are the ones that are being evil." And if I ask them, they will say the same about you.

 

Saying it's ok for you to disapprove of and avoid them, but it's not ok for them to disapprove of and avoid you sounds to me like a double standard.

 

This doesn't make sense to me from a logical standpoint.

 

I might disapprove of Statements of Faith for most groups. I might think there is a better way. But, how am I being evil for it? What are my thoughts *doing* to them? Nothing.

 

AND, it doesn't follow that all actions are equally "evil." For an *unrelated example* (I am not equating anyone to a racist): there was a white supremacist woman on the board. She had white power links in her sig and she made specific white supremacist arguments. A couple of us reported her and she got banned from the board. Were the moderators acting *evilly* by banning her? Should we, as a board, have welcomed her opinions? I don't think so. That's why I can't accept your argument.

[MamaSheep]

This doesn't make sense to me from a logical standpoint.

 

I might disapprove of Statements of Faith for most groups. I might think there is a better way. But, how am I being evil for it? What are my thoughts *doing* to them? Nothing.

 

AND, it doesn't follow that all actions are equally "evil." For an *unrelated example* (I am not equating anyone to a racist): there was a white supremacist woman on the board. She had white power links in her sig and she made specific white supremacist arguments. A couple of us reported her and she got banned from the board. Were the moderators acting *evilly* by banning her? Should we, as a board, have welcomed her opinions? I don't think so. That's why I can't accept your argument.

 

Well...reading this it doesn't even sound like you clearly understood what I was getting at because you're not addressing the point I was attempting to make. I think there are aspects of this that you refuse to see. Just as there are aspects of it that I think those who use a SOF to hide behind (as opposed to those who use it merely to define the scope of a group) refuse to see. Honestly, though, I don't think I'm up to the kind of discussion it would take to hash all that out, so I think I'll just shake my head and let both sides go on despising whoever they want for whatever reasons they choose. I think it's sad, but there it is. Carry on. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

Thinking someone is wrong doesn't mean I despise them. I don't think they "despise" me either. That is a crazy assertion.

[oraetstudia]

It is even more surprising to me how many Protestants don't know the history of their own church or denomination and where that church/denomination splintered from.

 

Well, some of them deny their history and make claims that they really go back (in secret) all the way to the beginning -- you know -- when the Catholics apostatized in 100 AD (or whenever). There may have been some more recent guys who brought them back out into the open, but they claim those aren't founders, merely people along the way in their history.

 

There are some very a-historic Protestants, not that they would necessarily call themselves Protestants.

 

It was very eye-opening to think about and study Church history on my way to becoming Catholic.

[8circles]

Well, some of them deny their history and make claims that they really go back (in secret) all the way to the beginning -- you know -- when the Catholics apostatized in 100 AD (or whenever). There may have been some more recent guys who brought them back out into the open, but they claim those aren't founders, merely people along the way in their history.

 

There are some very a-historic Protestants, not that they would necessarily call themselves Protestants.

 

It was very eye-opening to think about and study Church history on my way to becoming Catholic.

 

If they don't call themselves Protestant then why would you?

[HS Mom in NC]

Back to the OP (now that my computer is finally back online.)

 

I'm not crazy about co-ops with SOF in general myselfwhich is why I've never joined one, but I think there are times when it's necessary. Is it possible this is one of those situations? Will the curriculum and subject matter be presented with a particular view (the view represented in the SOF) like other private religious schools do?

 

Are they trying to tell you, "Look, this is what we teach as truth here. We're telling you up front so if you don't like it, you won't have wasted your time and ours. If you don't like what we're going to teach this isn't the co-op for you. This is the co-op for people who believe the things we listed." Now, not everyone (including people who agree with the SOF) necessarily want a monolithic group, but that doesn't mean people aren't free to sign their kids up for a monolithic group if they want to. It is, after all a private party, and the hosts can invite whomever they like.

 

If the subject matter being taught in the co-op is coming form a particular worldview/underlying philosophy/doctrinal point of view then it would be critical for the sake of honesty in advertising that an SOF be given to and agreed to by participants. If the students are going to have discussions that even touch on to what is good and what is bad and/or what is right and what is wrong, you'll have to understand the values/convictions of the person/people doing the teaching/leading the discussions. These things easily come up in History, Science, Ethics, Social Issues, Economics, Philosophy, Politics,etc.

 

 

The SOF, as I read it, did not strike me as specifically Baptist (I am one of the many different subcategories of Baptists) it's Fundamentalist. That's a broader category that would be in keeping with some other denominations. That's why people are pointing out that it wouldn't just exclude Catholics, but other groups as well. (Baptist distinctives include matters of church constitutions and operating as a body politic in addition to doctrinal teachings-I'll not bore you with the details because they're not relevant.)

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

If they don't call themselves Protestant then why would you?

 

Because Protestants that testify that the church went into apostasy (is that the right word?) look to them as their church Fathers, but they were 1400 years or so before the Reformation.

[twoforjoy]

Hmmm...well, again from over here on the sidelines it sounds as if you're saying that you're justified in your attitude toward them because of their wrong-headed beliefs. Which sounds to me just like what they're saying about you.

 

If I ask you, you will say, "Yes, but I'm the one that's right, and they are the ones that are being evil." And if I ask them, they will say the same about you.

 

Saying it's ok for you to disapprove of and avoid them, but it's not ok for them to disapprove of and avoid you sounds to me like a double standard.

 

It's not a double standard, at all.

 

It would be a double standard if people were starting groups with SOFs that excluded conservative Christians.

 

But, having a group that includes everybody is just not the same, in any way, as having a group that excludes large numbers of people, including large numbers of Christians.

 

Whether people like others or think they are right doesn't matter. What matters is having policies that outright exclude people.

 

I can say, "I'm not going to attend an all-white homeschool group. I'm not comfortable joining a group that excludes people of other races." Does that mean I'm the same as a person who says, "I'll only join an all-white homeschool group, because I don't want my child doing educational activities with people of other races"? If you think those two are the same, then I'm really not sure what to say. I'm not saying, in the first example, that I don't want my child around white people. I'm not saying that I think white people--or even people with racist attitudes--are dangerous and I don't want my child around them. What I'm saying is that I don't want to be part of a group that excludes others.

[ktgrok]

Hmmm...well, again from over here on the sidelines it sounds as if you're saying that you're justified in your attitude toward them because of their wrong-headed beliefs. Which sounds to me just like what they're saying about you.

 

If I ask you, you will say, "Yes, but I'm the one that's right, and they are the ones that are being evil." And if I ask them, they will say the same about you.

 

Saying it's ok for you to disapprove of and avoid them, but it's not ok for them to disapprove of and avoid you sounds to me like a double standard.

 

But I'm NOT avoiding them. I'd love to joint their group, and have playdates and park days and such. But they won't let me. I'm completely willing to join, and know that they have their beliefs, and I have mine. But they won't allow that.

[hollyandab]

I may be risking some wrath here, but I'm glad when groups post a SOF. I have no problem being in a group or being friends with people of different faiths, in fact I enjoy discussing our differences. But having recently moved to a new state, I do want to find "like-minded" people to spend time with, and a SOF helps me to do that. I feel that people of any faith enjoy spending time with others who believe as they do, and I see that as a good thing.

 

I've never thought of SOFs as exclusive, although this one in particular is pretty specific, I've seen them as a way to outline a groups beliefs. I've also never thought that signing one was an greement, just a statement that I understand what this group believes, so there is no confusion later. I can't get upset, say, if I join an LDS group and they start talking about Joseph Smith and I don't believe in that.

 

I've never thought of those kind of groups as "excluding others" but as "including like minded individuals". In other words, I don't think most groups sit down to write a SOF and think, "ok, how can we make sure no Catholics join?", they're thinking "how can we attract people who believe as we do?".

:iagree:

 

Yes, this is exactly why they have a specific SOF. Having come from an extremely conservative, fundamentalist background (think Bob Jones University), I can attest to this. I am still conservative in my doctrinal beliefs; however, God has shown me that I am to extend grace to others who may believe differently, just as He has extended His grace to me.

 

However, I can say that they (meaning the ultra-conservative, seperating over pretty much everything) are truly, 100% trying to live a life that is holy and pleasing to God---not for salvation, but because of what Christ did for us... a reasonable response to the sacrifice that Christ made. They do not intend to be hurtful to others who believe differently; they simply, whole-heartedly believe they are living the way God has asked them to live. They do not view it as a matter of who is "right" or "wrong," but as a matter of obeying what they believe to be true. And part of what they believe as being true is to seperate from others who are not like-minded. Now, the "non-like-minded" people can be offended by this, OR......they can realize that this is simply part of what this group of people believe. And I think we can all agree that we should all have freedom to believe as each of us sees fit.

 

If someone who is Catholic tells me I'm wrong in my beliefs (which they most probably would!) I am completely not offended by this! They have the right to believe any way they want, as do I! If they want to have a group with Catholics only--I am completely fine with this also! If they want to print up a SOF that is their point of view--go for it!! I completely understand that this is because they believe differently than I, and that's ok!! It is God who does the work in each of our hearts, and it is to Him alone that we answer. I won't answer to an athiest or a Lutheran or Anglican or JW...I'll answer to God and God alone. A Muslum would most definitely tell me that I am going to hell. I wouldn't be offended by that. Why should I? Nobody's beliefs should offend me. I am to test my faith on God's Word, and nothing else!

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is, instead of being offended by others when their views exclude you, why not respect it? Why not embrace it as an amazing freedom that we have in this country? Now, I'm not saying that I personally think seperatism is ok. But what I am saying is, if someone feels it is wrong to affiliate with others of differing views, then that is part of their faith and it should be respected and not taken offensively. It's not about you; it's about their beliefs.

 

Does that make any sense? Hopefully it does. We were robbed yesterday :tongue_smilie: and I'm a bit loopy!!

 

Loving the freedom we have in Christ, and the freedom in this country:001_smile:,

 

Holly in KY

Mama to 11yo twin boys :D:D

[hollyandab]

Wanted to add quickly to my last ramble... If a Catholic or JW or Methodist, whomever... were to tell me that I wasn't a Christian because I don't believe the same as they...who cares!! Why should that bother me?? I am amazed at how many people get so horribly offended by others who believe differently! Should I be ducking tomatoes here? I mean, realllly!!!??? What does it matter what a PERSON or GROUP says?! Isn't what God says what matters? Since when did someone else's belief determine where I spend eternity? I just don't get it! (Now if you come after me to throw me in jail because I believe differently, well then, that's another matter!) But I certainly don't care a whit what someone else believes to be true about my eternal destination, because it has no bearing on it whatsoever!! Be confident in Whose you are!! And if you aren't, then go to the Bible to find your answers! Don't go lookin' at a religious affiliation!!

 

Happy posting!!:lol:

 

Holly in KY

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree:

 

Yes, this is exactly why they have a specific SOF. Having come from an extremely conservative, fundamentalist background (think Bob Jones University), I can attest to this. I am still conservative in my doctrinal beliefs; however, God has shown me that I am to extend grace to others who may believe differently, just as He has extended His grace to me.

 

However, I can say that they (meaning the ultra-conservative, seperating over pretty much everything) are truly, 100% trying to live a life that is holy and pleasing to God---not for salvation, but because of what Christ did for us... a reasonable response to the sacrifice that Christ made. They do not intend to be hurtful to others who believe differently; they simply, whole-heartedly believe they are living the way God has asked them to live. They do not view it as a matter of who is "right" or "wrong," but as a matter of obeying what they believe to be true. And part of what they believe as being true is to seperate from others who are not like-minded. Now, the "non-like-minded" people can be offended by this, OR......they can realize that this is simply part of what this group of people believe. And I think we can all agree that we should all have freedom to believe as each of us sees fit.

 

If someone who is Catholic tells me I'm wrong in my beliefs (which they most probably would!) I am completely not offended by this! They have the right to believe any way they want, as do I! If they want to have a group with Catholics only--I am completely fine with this also! If they want to print up a SOF that is their point of view--go for it!! I completely understand that this is because they believe differently than I, and that's ok!! It is God who does the work in each of our hearts, and it is to Him alone that we answer. I won't answer to an athiest or a Lutheran or Anglican or JW...I'll answer to God and God alone. A Muslum would most definitely tell me that I am going to hell. I wouldn't be offended by that. Why should I? Nobody's beliefs should offend me. I am to test my faith on God's Word, and nothing else!

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is, instead of being offended by others when their views exclude you, why not respect it? Why not embrace it as an amazing freedom that we have in this country? Now, I'm not saying that I personally think seperatism is ok. But what I am saying is, if someone feels it is wrong to affiliate with others of differing views, then that is part of their faith and it should be respected and not taken offensively. It's not about you; it's about their beliefs.

 

Does that make any sense? Hopefully it does. We were robbed yesterday :tongue_smilie: and I'm a bit loopy!!

 

Loving the freedom we have in Christ, and the freedom in this country:001_smile:,

 

Holly in KY

Mama to 11yo twin boys :D:D

 

I just cannot agree. Let me elaborate.

 

Understand, my family's home church is an Assembly of God church. They are quite fundamentalist. I grew up there. I have uncles who are pastors in that denomination. I understand it perfectly and still find this practice of exclusionary statements of faith to be extremely misguided.

 

One of the main reasons I find it misguided is that I have attended churches where I couldn't join the homeschool group because the homeschool group's SOF was *more strict* that the church's statement of beliefs. That does not make sense to me. It creates division within a *specific* church, not just the church as a body of believers. In my experience, it creates a kind of caste system *within that specific church* that cannot be anything OTHER than hurtful. I'm good enough to volunteer, I'm good enough to make meals for people, I'm good enough to teach SUNDAY SCHOOL, but not good enough to go to the zoo with? I think that is insane.

 

Understand, that these statements of faith are being used *very differently* by *very different* types of groups.

[Scarlett]

Wanted to add quickly to my last ramble... If a Catholic or JW or Methodist, whomever... were to tell me that I wasn't a Christian because I don't believe the same as they...who cares!!

 

 

I'm always amused when someone trys to pigeon hole my religion. But I don't get angry. As you say....who cares? I will attempt to correct their thinking on incorrect ideas of my beliefs....but if they don't REALLY want to know--shrug.

[MamaSheep]

Thinking someone is wrong doesn't mean I despise them. I don't think they "despise" me either. That is a crazy assertion.

 

Oh this thread is full of crazy assertions. Really, though, by "both sides" I meant a much broader sampling of people than just you, and a much broader sampling of experience than just this thread, and I have certainly observed an attitude of despite by some people and/or groups on both sides. This was a general observation, not a personal one. I am very much aware that there is a difference between disagreement and despite.

 

But ok, just for you I'll try one more time since you asked so nicely. :) After that, I really think I'm done with this thread, though. So here goes.

 

If the argument is that having an exclusionary SOF is wrong because it does not include EVERYBODY, then it is contradictory to argue that it's ok to exclude ANYBODY--including the people with the exclusionary SOF. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

If it's ok to exclude SOMEBODY (such as people with an exclusionary SOF) then you're not taking a different moral position from the SOF folks, you're really just "haggling over price".

 

From where I stand, I see both sides making the same arguement:

 

"We will not associate with [insert group] because they wrongly believe [insert belief], which we find morally objectionable; we don't want to support that attitude or expose our children to it."

 

The only difference is what is used to fill in the blanks. One side would complete the statement thusly:

 

"We will not associate with homeschoolers who don't agree with our SOF because they wrongly believe in unsound doctrines and traditions like additional books of scripture, or a different purpose for baptism, which we find morally objectionable; we don't want to support that attitude or expose our children to it."

 

The other side would fill in the blanks like this:

 

"We will not associate with homeschool groups who have a SOF, because they wrongly believe in unsound social attitudes like intentionally excluding some people from their group, or not associating with people who have different beliefs, which we find morally objectionable; we don't want to support that attitude or expose our children to it."

 

It's the exact same attitude, it's just that they have different criteria for WHO it's ok (or even laudable) to exclude and WHY.

 

If a person's position is that NOBODY should EVER be excluded for ANY reason, then it's hypocritical to refuse to associate with anyone for any reason, including people who disagree with that point of view.

 

If a person's position is that it's ok (and even laudable) to exclude SOME people, at least some of the time, because they don't meet with certain minimal criteria of personal belief and/or behavior, then it's hypocritical not to allow other people to do the same, even if one doesn't agree with the other guy's criteria.

[MamaSheep]

But I'm NOT avoiding them. I'd love to joint their group, and have playdates and park days and such. But they won't let me. I'm completely willing to join, and know that they have their beliefs, and I have mine. But they won't allow that.

 

Then you're not part of the group I was talking about. I was referring to people who say they won't associate with people who are part of groups with exclusionary SOFs.

[Mrs Mungo]

If the argument is that having an exclusionary SOF is wrong because it does not include EVERYBODY, then it is contradictory to argue that it's ok to exclude ANYBODY--including the people with the exclusionary SOF. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

I don't see an argument like this? Maybe I have missed something? I'm in an inclusive group. We don't exclude *anybody*, not even people who might also be a member of one of the groups with a SOF. Saying that I don't want to be associated *with a group* that excludes people doesn't mean that I won't include/associate with individuals who might belong to that group. Those are different things.

[LittleIzumi]

I don't see an argument like this? Maybe I have missed something? I'm in an inclusive group. We don't exclude *anybody*, not even people who might also be a member of one of the groups with a SOF. Saying that I don't want to be associated *with a group* that excludes people doesn't mean that I won't include/associate with individuals who might belong to that group. Those are different things.

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

I haven't read much of this thread but wanted to say that I have always been so confused by the NEED of SOF for homeschool groups.

 

When my son joined the swim team, no one asked me to sign a SOF.

 

If I joined a cooking club would I be asked to sign a SOF?

 

Book club?

 

Car club?

 

What makes a homeschool group think they have to exclude all those who believe differently?

 

Then again I've been part of a religion that 'believes differently' for my entire life, so I don't bat an eye over it. I just move on down the road and do my own thing.

[Melinda in VT]

So, I guess what I'm saying is, instead of being offended by others when their views exclude you, why not respect it? Why not embrace it as an amazing freedom that we have in this country? Now, I'm not saying that I personally think seperatism is ok. But what I am saying is, if someone feels it is wrong to affiliate with others of differing views, then that is part of their faith and it should be respected and not taken offensively. It's not about you; it's about their beliefs.

 

Why should we respect something just because it is part of someone's faith? :confused:

 

I am very proud that our country has freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect everything anyone says. I can defend their right to say something, even while thinking they are complete jerks for saying it. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

Why should we respect something just because it is part of someone's faith? :confused:

 

I am very proud that our country has freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect everything anyone says. I can defend their right to say something, even while thinking they are complete jerks for saying it. ;)

 

:iagree:

[Orthodox6]

For the rest of my life, I shall be surrounded by people whose beliefs, and by organizations whose tenets, are wrong. In order to maintain the relative safety our country enjoys, generally we all demonstrate respect for those who differ from us. Most of the time, I agree that this is the best way to live. At the same time, it no longer is socially acceptable to call something wrong; social harmony shall prevail. (I write the previous clause with mild sarcasm.) Resultantly, one must pick-and-choose when to take a bold stand. Rarely is a message board an effective venue for that.

 

I really appreciate that the WTM boards suffer far, FAR less from verbal machete tactics than other boards which I shall shield by not naming. Religion is an intense topic. None of us is going to persuade anybody to change beliefs already held. I'm glad to read the perspectives of you all.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Orthodox6

[hollyandab]

Why should we respect something just because it is part of someone's faith? :confused:

 

I am very proud that our country has freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that I have to respect everything anyone says. I can defend their right to say something, even while thinking they are complete jerks for saying it. ;)

 

Umm, okay, maybe "respect" was the wrong word. Maybe "not care" would be better? I see your point.

 

Let me say this...you have to remember that the majority of these strict groups that have strict SOF to join are not just exclusionary of varying views of Christianity. They are exclusionary if you (as a woman) wear pants or jeans or a skirt above the bottom of the knee, or a low cut shirt (more than 3 fingers from the collar bone--the rule from my high school), or yada-yada-yada. They will seperate over the style of music...no drum beat allowed! And heavens, you'd better not slide your notes when singing!! And don't even begin to think about dancing--not even the four square!! They seperate over versions--KJV only!! I, according to them, read the terrible, horrible NIV!!

 

When my husband and I got married and left this kind of thinking behind, I used to get offended when the in-laws and parents and others from my old church insinuated that we were out of God's will because we weren't using the King James, or that we (gulp) listened to contemporary Christian music, or that we didn't go to an "approved" church. I tried to make them see that I was right and in God's will and that they were WRONG!! Slowly, however, God has shown me that I was doing the very thing that I criticized them for...causing division and trying to be the "right" one. I now leave the "right" or "wrong" to God. Each one answers to God. I had to come to realize that we are all trying to live for Him.

 

So I guess all I was saying is that we shouldn't get offended or bent out of shape just because others may think we're wrong. Maybe "respect" isn't necessarily what we have to do, but simply shrug our shoulders. Actually, better yet, not even look towards what they say or think. We're to keep our eyes on Christ...Satan soooo wants to get us all distracted and bickering and fighting!

 

God bless!!

 

Holly in KY

[pfamilygal]

Ha, Holly!

 

I left a homeschool PE club (yes, just for PE!) over legalism like that. I should have run the minute I saw them handing out pieced of cardstock to measure our children's inseams.

[nono]

Ha, Holly!

 

I left a homeschool PE club (yes, just for PE!) over legalism like that. I should have run the minute I saw them handing out pieced of cardstock to measure our children's inseams.

 

Holy crap! The Protestants have been overrun by Catholic nuns. Proof, that deep down, possibly we are all one.

 

(We used to sew velcro in our uniforms...two lengths at the knee and above the knee...always at the "right" length for the couple of old nuns who still cared about that in the late 70s.)

[hollyandab]

Holy crap! The Protestants have been overrun by Catholic nuns. Proof, that deep down, possibly we are all one.

 

(We used to sew velcro in our uniforms...two lengths at the knee and above the knee...always at the "right" length for the couple of old nuns who still cared about that in the late 70s.)

 

Heehee!! That's too funny! Yes, we Protestants have found a way to bring the rules right back in!! I look at the pictures from my highschool cheerleading days, and I wonder how on earth we were ever able to do any jumps with the ten pounds of material hanging off of our waists! Some of us (never me, of course!) would roll the cullottes (heavens, how do you spell that ugly word!) at the waist when the teachers weren't around, and unroll them when they were! That brought it from the mid-shin to high-shin... Oh, so silly!

 

Holly in KY :D

[hollyandab]

Ha, Holly!

 

I left a homeschool PE club (yes, just for PE!) over legalism like that. I should have run the minute I saw them handing out pieced of cardstock to measure our children's inseams.

 

 

You are a very wise woman to run! :lol: Truly, we all do things out of our own conviction...it's just that some convictions seem so cwazy! Thank the Lord for His patience and grace!

[hollyandab]

I just cannot agree. Let me elaborate.

 

Understand, my family's home church is an Assembly of God church. They are quite fundamentalist. I grew up there. I have uncles who are pastors in that denomination. I understand it perfectly and still find this practice of exclusionary statements of faith to be extremely misguided.

 

One of the main reasons I find it misguided is that I have attended churches where I couldn't join the homeschool group because the homeschool group's SOF was *more strict* that the church's statement of beliefs. That does not make sense to me. It creates division within a *specific* church, not just the church as a body of believers. In my experience, it creates a kind of caste system *within that specific church* that cannot be anything OTHER than hurtful. I'm good enough to volunteer, I'm good enough to make meals for people, I'm good enough to teach SUNDAY SCHOOL, but not good enough to go to the zoo with? I think that is insane.

 

Understand, that these statements of faith are being used *very differently* by *very different* types of groups.

 

Okay, maybe I can clarify (I ate some food and am sort of thinking better...maybe....:D).

 

First: I don't think we necessarily have to respect their beliefs, just their rights to their beliefs.

 

Second: Their way of thinking doesn't have to make sense to us. If they want to be isolated, then let them. I really, really don't know why you'd want to be part of a group that will probably annoy you anyway! :tongue_smilie: (Trust me on this!)

 

Third: Pray that God will lead you to the right group of homeschoolers where God can use you the way that He wants to! They are the ones saying you are not good enough, not God. Don't worry about what others say.

Such freedom!! If you are confident in what you believe, then go somewhere of like thinking! You don't want to get caught up in other people's rules and restrictions. You have liberty in Christ.

 

Does that make any sense?? :001_smile:

 

Blessings!

 

Holly in KY

[Mrs Mungo]

Holly,

 

I don't know how well you "know" me from here. :D But, I am confident. I do not care what other people think...ever. BUT, I've seen the hurt that it causes in other people. I think it's wrong to treat people that way. I will continue to think it's wrong and nothing will change my mind about it. That's all I'm saying.

[hollyandab]

I just cannot agree. Let me elaborate.

 

It creates division within a *specific* church, not just the church as a body of believers. In my experience, it creates a kind of caste system *within that specific church* that cannot be anything OTHER than hurtful. .

 

Okay, I'm adding again. I definitely agree with you. This does cause pain, hurt, division amongst Christians, and it's very sad. Satan loves extremes. Extreme liberty and extreme legalism. However, we don't have to get caught up in that hurt. A pastor of ours once said, that if we are dead to ourselves, the way Christ tells us to be, then we can not be offended. Can a dead man be offended? Can he be hurt? Can he feel insulted? If we die to ourselves and give our emotions and feelings to Christ, then He takes on that hurt and pain for us. We do not have to bear it. That is why I say we shouldn't be offended when others think we're wrong. That's actually in a way being prideful...and I say that fully understanding where you're coming from...I've felt this way mannnny times in my life. It's taken God a long time to show me that if I am focusing on Him and what He has for me, then it just doesn't matter what others think or say. What is important is that I obey Him and put Him first...not myself or my feelings.

 

 

I hope this encourages you. I've been there!

 

Holly in KY

[pfamilygal]

You are a very wise woman to run! :lol: Truly, we all do things out of our own conviction...it's just that some convictions seem so cwazy! Thank the Lord for His patience and grace!

 

They also insisted that it was a sign of deep-seated rebellion in a child's heart if they wore their baseball cap backwards.

 

I got an email after the first week saying I was dressed immodestly and needed to wear "God-honoring" attire if we were to attend. I was wearing capris and a v-neck t-shirt. In August. ( Didn't even show cleavage. I kid you not.) I was assigned to the nursery. So you know my crazy inch or two of exposed skin below the tracheal notch was driving the six month olds to lusting. :lol:

[hollyandab]

Holly,

 

I don't know how well you "know" me from here. :D But, I am confident. I do not care what other people think...ever. BUT, I've seen the hurt that it causes in other people. I think it's wrong to treat people that way. I will continue to think it's wrong and nothing will change my mind about it. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

I definitely agree! I do think it's wrong to treat people that way. However, I personally don't want to get caught up with feeling about them the way I hate that they feel about me. :001_huh: Did that make any sense? :tongue_smilie: It's wrong how they are critical of others; I don't want to be that way, but I also want to extend them grace because I know I need it ALL of the time! I'm wrong so often, and God is constantly showing me where I am lacking maturity and understanding. And because God has given me His patience when I've been wrong, how can I be so critical of others when God has given me so much grace?!

 

I'm not trying to change your mind; maybe just sharing with you what I've learned? You can agree or not; no biggie! :001_smile: We're all a work in progress! (Or at least I am!)

 

Holly in KY

[hollyandab]

They also insisted that it was a sign of deep-seated rebellion in a child's heart if they wore their baseball cap backwards.

 

I got an email after the first week saying I was dressed immodestly and needed to wear "God-honoring" attire if we were to attend. I was wearing capris and a v-neck t-shirt. In August. ( Didn't even show cleavage. I kid you not.) I was assigned to the nursery. So you know my crazy inch or two of exposed skin below the tracheal notch was driving the six month olds to lusting. :lol:

 

Heehee! Try 23 years of that! I remember in the 5th grade when Miami Vice was all the rage, the guys in our school weren't allowed pushing their shirt sleeves up to their elbows because that was supposedly trying to look like the stars on Miami Vice! Wowsers! The things that stick in a kid's head! It does make for some good laughs 20 years later though!

[*Lulu*]

Bob Jones University only dropped its ban on so-called "inter-racial" dating in the year 2000, after a fire-storm of protest surrounding the visit of President Bush to BJU.

 

They have apologized for their long history of racism, but continue to pursue viscously anti-Catholic practices. I would not give BJU a dime. I'm sorry anyone does.

 

Bill

 

And it wasn't long before that they finally did away with the "pink" and "blue" sidewalks. :001_huh:

[Ellesmere]

Yep. BJU has a long and ugly racist past. BJU did not even allow blacks to attend BJU until 1971 and they actively supported racial segregation. Only when the campain visit by then candidate George W Bush made the issue too hot did they reverse the policy of so-called "inter-racial" dating and under pressure offered up an "apology."

 

They have never (to my knowledge) apologized for their viscous anti-Catholic bigotry (things like calling Pope John Paul II an agent of Satan when he died, to give only one example).

 

Bill

I haven't heard any "apologies" perhaps (and I'm not saying this is fact) because they haven't changed their mind on this. 

 

What does it matter what a PERSON or GROUP says?! Isn't what God says what matters? Since when did someone else's belief determine where I spend eternity?

Holly in KY

 

Why do I care if someone calls other Christians lost, hell-bound, false teaching, evil-loving sinners?

 

No one is saying that these judgments are an attack on one's confidence or eternity. And I'm not saying they deserve the same hate they dish out. But it's an attack  and I've watched it divide family, friends, and communities.

 

It's ugly and I think that matters.

[*Lulu*]

At the end of the day I think how you feel about statements of faith will be greatly determined by WHY you are seeking a co-op or homeschool group.

 

If I am looking for a Bible class, or if I require all instruction to be Bible focused, I would only want instruction coming from someone who is of a nearly identical theological bent. On the other hand, if I am just looking for a few other families who are homeschooling to go on field trips or do crafts with, I will not be as concerned with what their personal faith practices are. Holding the former position almost insures that instruction = indoctrination while the latter position does not.

 

This thread has helped me firm up my position on SOFs, as well as helped me to understand what some of the reasoning behind them might be. Thank you all for such thoughtful and civil discourse.

[hollyandab]

I

 

 

 

Why do I care if someone calls other Christians lost, hell-bound, false teaching, evil-loving sinners?

 

No one is saying that these judgments are an attack on one's confidence or eternity. And I'm not saying they deserve the same hate they dish out. But it's an attack on Christians and I've watched it divide family, friends, and communities.

 

It's ugly and I think that matters.

 

Faith is divisive. What you believe will offend someone somewhere. There's no way around it. Jesus offended many....so many that the masses crucified Him. But instead of taking it personally and getting all huffy and puffy, Jesus asked the Father to forgive them. Wow. Shouldn't we be following His example?

 

Holly in KY

[asta]

If they don't call themselves Protestant then why would you?

 

Oh good Lord.

 

I've been to Erfurt and to Wittemburg. I've actually read Luther's writings in his own hand, by his own pen. He. started. it.

 

Everyone of every single Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and LDS can blather on all of they want about "oh, WE'RE not PROTESTANT, we're _________", but guess what? You (general you) would have NOTHING, NOTHING without Luther.

 

Luther. A CATHOLIC priest who got struck by lightning, had a "revelation", got p!ssed at the Pope, went on a hypergraphic bender, and created a new religion. Which spawned about a thousand other sects.

 

And yes, I'm YELLING.

 

The biography of Luther is fascinating. Not the "popular press" one, the actual one - the one in the museum dedicated to him in Wittemburg. One can actually read and see a descent into madness of a brilliant man over a period of time. There was a REASON that other people "took the reigns" from Luther, and it wasn't just to "make the religion fit" to their particular culture or region - the guy was seriously losing it.

 

Calvin may have been the one running things with an iron fist, but ALL of them - Zwingli, Simons, Grebel - they all saw an opportunity opening up that hadn't come around in over a thousand years: the ability to hitch their wagon to something that truly protested the Catholic Church. That was viewed as truly having the support of the people. Something that could stick. And, just like the Catholic Church, which was SO despised for its "money grubbing" ways, there was money to be made. Catholic churches were taken by force. Lands were seized. "Donations" were taken "for the people".

 

No, I'm not making this up. It's all written down in black and white in Wittemburg. Only it's "spun" in a much more "charitable" light.

 

No one is perfect. Not the Catholics, the EO, the LDS, or the Protestants (whatever you want to call your sect [general you]). But it IS history. And just because it may be uncomfortable, or the term may have become unfashionable or disconcerting, does not remove its basis. We do our children a disservice by teaching them anything different.

 

Because Protestants that testify that the church went into apostasy (is that the right word?) look to them as their church Fathers, but they were 1400 years or so before the Reformation.

 

YES!

 

Wycliff and Huss paved the way for Luther a hundred years before he was even born! To make an analogy: they planted a seed, and Luther ate the fruit off of the tree. (oh, ok, that is a bad analogy - but whatever - it isn't meant maliciously.)

 

 

asta

Edited July 14, 2011 by asta

[Mrs Mungo]

Faith is divisive. What you believe will offend someone somewhere. There's no way around it. Jesus offended many....so many that the masses crucified Him. But instead of taking it personally and getting all huffy and puffy, Jesus asked the Father to forgive them. Wow. Shouldn't we be following His example?

 

Holly in KY

 

Faith doesn't have to be divisive. Jesus had the leaders of the community upset because he was questioning the way things were run. He was welcoming people into the kingdom, he ATE with prostitutes and tax collectors. He touched lepers! He was crucified so that we could all be saved. That is exactly why creating unnecessary divisions for nit-picky reasons is offensive.

 

I care about it not because of how it affects *me*, but because of how it affects the excluded at large. When believers do things that actively turn people away from their faith, I think it is wrong. I am not huffy, I am being matter of fact.

 

eta: If we don't care about this stuff, then why do we care what Fred Phelps and his group do?

Edited July 14, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[mommaduck]

I want to say, "Go, asta!" :lol:

 

Lutherans don't call themselves Reformed, but they ARE Protestant (not all Protestants are Reformed, but all Reformed are Protestant).

[hollyandab]

Faith doesn't have to be divisive. Jesus had the leaders of the community upset because he was questioning the way things were run. He was welcoming people into the kingdom, he ATE with prostitutes and tax collectors. He touched lepers! He was crucified so that we could all be saved. That is exactly why creating unnecessary divisions for nit-picky reasons is offensive.

 

I care about it not because of how it affects *me*, but because of how it affects the excluded at large. When believers do things that actively turn people away from their faith, I think it is wrong. I am not huffy, I am being matter of fact.

 

If we don't care about this stuff, then why do we care what Fred Phelps and his group do?

 

Well, I think perhaps we are more on the same p

 

age than we realize. We both agree that it is wrong and hurtful. However, the only point I was trying to make is that I don't want to ALSO be divisive by doing the same thing they're doing--pointing the finger at them and blaming them for being the "bad guy." I know it makes God sad that there are so many splits in His church, but His grace covers it all, and some day He'll make it right. In the meantime, I would rather focus on what God has for me to do than to whine that another group of Christians think I'm wrong and won't let me play with them...and I'm not saying you're doing this, just that it happens. It's sad that they won't let me "play" with them, but I truly believe that if more Christians focused on Christ, and not on what others are doing wrong, then there would be waaaaaay less divisions in the church.

 

Make sense? or are we arguing in circles? :lol:

 

Hope you have a great day!

Blessings on a sunny day in the beautiful Bluegrass state!

Holly

[hollyandab]

Oh good Lord.

 

I've been to Erfurt and to Wittemburg. I've actually read Luther's writings in his own hand, by his own pen. He. started. it.

 

Everyone of every single Christian denomination other than Roman Catholic, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and LDS can blather on all of they want about "oh, WE'RE not PROTESTANT, we're _________", but guess what? You (general you) would have NOTHING, NOTHING without Luther.

 

Luther. A CATHOLIC priest who got struck by lightning, had a "revelation", got p!ssed at the Pope, went on a hypergraphic bender, and created a new religion. Which spawned about a thousand other sects.

 

And yes, I'm YELLING.

 

The biography of Luther is fascinating. Not the "popular press" one, the actual one - the one in the museum dedicated to him in Wittemburg. One can actually read and see a descent into madness of a brilliant man over a period of time. There was a REASON that other people "took the reigns" from Luther, and it wasn't just to "make the religion fit" to their particular culture or region - the guy was seriously losing it.

 

Calvin may have been the one running things with an iron fist, but ALL of them - Zwingli, Simons, Grebel - they all saw an opportunity opening up that hadn't come around in over a thousand years: the ability to hitch their wagon to something that truly protested the Catholic Church. That was viewed as truly having the support of the people. Something that could stick. And, just like the Catholic Church, which was SO despised for its "money grubbing" ways, there was money to be made. Catholic churches were taken by force. Lands were seized. "Donations" were taken "for the people".

 

No, I'm not making this up. It's all written down in black and white in Wittemburg. Only it's "spun" in a much more "charitable" light.

 

No one is perfect. Not the Catholics, the EO, the LDS, or the Protestants (whatever you want to call your sect [general you]). But it IS history. And just because it may be uncomfortable, or the term may have become unfashionable or disconcerting, does not remove its basis. We do our children a disservice by teaching them anything different.

 

 

 

YES!

 

Wycliff and Huss paved the way for Luther a hundred years before he was even born! To make an analogy: they planted a seed, and Luther ate the fruit off of the tree. (oh, ok, that is a bad analogy - but whatever - it isn't meant maliciously.)

 

 

asta

 

Okay, I TOTALLY do NOT want to get into a debate... I just want to throw something out there--food for thought perhaps. Instead of comparing Protestants and Catholics, and where the Protestants and Lutherans and Catholics and all that come from, I would like to take it back further. I'm talking about the New Testament Church further. Forget Luther, the Pope, Wycliff, all of them. (And no, I'm not literally saying to forget them...we need to understand history...I know, please don't take this the wrong way...) However, go back to the Early Church--the church in Acts. That is how our church ought to look like. Excited, on fire, people being saved--awesome!! Religious establishments have made a mockery out of what God had intended for His church.

 

Love, love, LOVE that our church doesn't look to any man in history, other than the God-Man Jesus Christ and what HE established in the New Testament Church!!

 

And I am NOT going to get sucked into a debate, because it's really quite simple!! Read the book of ACTS!! :001_smile:

 

Blessings from KY on a beautiful sunny day!!

Holly

[mommaduck]

Okay, I TOTALLY do NOT want to get into a debate... I just want to throw something out there--food for thought perhaps. Instead of comparing Protestants and Catholics, and where the Protestants and Lutherans and Catholics and all that come from, I would like to take it back further. I'm talking about the New Testament Church further. Forget Luther, the Pope, Wycliff, all of them. (And no, I'm not literally saying to forget them...we need to understand history...I know, please don't take this the wrong way...) However, go back to the Early Church--the church in Acts. That is how our church ought to look like. Excited, on fire, people being saved--awesome!! Religious establishments have made a mockery out of what God had intended for His church.

 

Love, love, LOVE that our church doesn't look to any man in history, other than the God-Man Jesus Christ and what HE established in the New Testament Church!!

 

And I am NOT going to get sucked into a debate, because it's really quite simple!! Read the book of ACTS!! :001_smile:

 

Blessings from KY on a beautiful sunny day!!

Holly

That Church still exists and it doesn't make a mockery out of what God intended.

[hollyandab]

That Church still exists and it doesn't make a mockery out of what God intended.

 

 

Yes, it still exists, but I don't see how it looks anything like the New Testament Church! Just my opinion!!:001_smile: No biggie if you disagree!

[hollyandab]

That Church still exists and it doesn't make a mockery out of what God intended.

 

And maybe I should have said "many" religious establishments have made a mockery, or made it into a man-made machine, but not all. I just don't like "religion" because it seems to have morphed the church into what this man or that man thinks it should be like. That's all!

[WishboneDawn]

Okay, I TOTALLY do NOT want to get into a debate... I just want to throw something out there--food for thought perhaps. Instead of comparing Protestants and Catholics, and where the Protestants and Lutherans and Catholics and all that come from, I would like to take it back further. I'm talking about the New Testament Church further. Forget Luther, the Pope, Wycliff, all of them. (And no, I'm not literally saying to forget them...we need to understand history...I know, please don't take this the wrong way...) However, go back to the Early Church--the church in Acts. That is how our church ought to look like. Excited, on fire, people being saved--awesome!! Religious establishments have made a mockery out of what God had intended for His church.

 

Love, love, LOVE that our church doesn't look to any man in history, other than the God-Man Jesus Christ and what HE established in the New Testament Church!!

 

And I am NOT going to get sucked into a debate, because it's really quite simple!! Read the book of ACTS!! :001_smile:

 

Blessings from KY on a beautiful sunny day!!

Holly

 

Yes, 2000 years and countless denominations and interpretations and even Paul writing in his time trying to smooth feathers and sooth egos and yet it's all so simple. :001_rolleyes:

 

Not buying it.

[hollyandab]

Yes, 2000 years and countless denominations and interpretations and even Paul writing in his time trying to smooth feathers and sooth egos and yet it's all so simple. :001_rolleyes:

 

Not buying it.

 

 

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then! No biggie!:001_smile:

 

Happy day!

 

Holly in beautiful bluegrass country!

[Carol in Cal.]

I want to say, "Go, asta!" :lol:

 

Lutherans don't call themselves Reformed, but they ARE Protestant (not all Protestants are Reformed, but all Reformed are Protestant).

 

I don't call myself white, but I am. I call myself European-American, usually. I have a friend who doesn't call herself Oriental, although her ancestry is from the Orient. She calls herself Asian-American. The words white and Oriental have taken on connotations over the years that don't reflect or go beyond their factual meaning. So it is with the word Protestant, a point that several have tried to make, calmly and repeatedly, in the face of being yelled at and insulted. If this were applied to ethnicity, it would be denounced as racism. I don't consider it a perfect parallel, but simply as a matter of clarity and basic respect it is polite and better to refer to people the way they prefer, as long as that is not untruthful.

[hollyandab]

I don't call myself white, but I am. I call myself European-American, usually. I have a friend who doesn't call herself Oriental, although her ancestry is from the Orient. She calls herself Asian-American. The words white and Oriental have taken on connotations over the years that don't reflect or go beyond their factual meaning. So it is with the word Protestant, a point that several have tried to make, calmly and repeatedly, in the face of being yelled at and insulted. If this were applied to ethnicity, it would be denounced as racism. I don't consider it a perfect parallel, but simply as a matter of clarity and basic respect it is polite and better to refer to people the way they prefer, as long as that is not untruthful.

 

 

:iagree:Like it!!

 

Hmmmm, what's it been three hundred and some posts, and none is any closer to agreeing than before? :001_huh::001_smile::tongue_smilie: Mayhaps, perhaps, just sayin' here, doesn't all of this kind of support why some churches/groups/co-ops/etc have SOF? Maybe to avoid this kind of, well, "discussion" every week? Maybe it's not to keep others out, but bring likeminded people together? Just sayin'...

 

We all have our little square that we have drawn on to stand and say, this is what I believe. More than likely, a lot of our squares are going to disagree with other squares. So we can either stand on our squares and get mad at the other square for disagreeing, or we can practice religious tolerance and say, well, that's too bad we don't agree, but I guess that's ok, and move on down the road... ??? Am I being too simple? Maybe it's not easy, but... just sayin'!

 

Lovin' y'all in Christ!!

 

Holly in KY

[Ellesmere]

Faith is divisive. What you believe will offend someone somewhere. There's no way around it. Jesus offended many....so many that the masses crucified Him. But instead of taking it personally and getting all huffy and puffy, Jesus asked the Father to forgive them. Wow. Shouldn't we be following His example?

 

Holly in KY

I wrote thoughtfully and sincerely and your response is to call me "huffy and puffy" towards people who have done & said evil towards Christians and have made no apologies.

 

This isn't about how it affects me. Please stop saying that I am taking it personally or that anyone is whining about not being able to play in someone else's backyard. It is not true and you keep saying that, as you keep passing along judgments on other people's faith.

 

Please rethink the flippant remarks that you are making. I hope you will pause and consider how insulting your words are.

 

An organization that practices religious bigotry is wrong. Stating this fact is not whining and pointing the finger anymore than noticing that a racist or homophobic person is narrow-minded and prejudiced.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Clairelise
grammar

[Scarlett]

Mayhaps, perhaps, just sayin' here, doesn't all of this kind of support why some churches/groups/co-ops/etc have SOF? Maybe to avoid this kind of, well, "discussion" every week? Maybe it's not to keep others out, but bring likeminded people together? Just sayin'...

 

As I said several pages back WHY is a SOF needed for a homeschool group? It isn't a religious group---or rather there is no real NEED for it to be a religious group.

 

No one has ever asked me to sign a SOF for ds's swim team.

 

Photographer club?

 

What is it about homeschool groups that incites this zealousness to keep 'non-believers' out?

 

I don't get it.

 

(said as one of the hs moms who has never seen a SOF she would sign)