s/o support group statement of faith

[bairnmama]

I was reading the Catholic/Protestant thread about the statement of faith and got to wondering about my own group's SOF. We have the word "Christian" as part of our group's name and require prospective members to attend at least 3 meetings before applying for membership so that everyone can get an idea as to whether we will be a good fit for their family or not. We are not a co-op, just a close-knit support group that shares with and leans on each other as well as providing lots of activities for the kids. We are also not affiliated with any particular church. I'd like to know if there was anything in our SOF that would be offensive to any who calls themselves Christian... whether Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever. Thanks!

 

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
   
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
   
4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
   
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.
   
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.
   
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
   

 

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

[dianachoate]

Line 1, my friend who is Catholic always crosses out the word "only" when signing a SOF for a group we both belong to.

[tntgoodwin]

I don't have a problem with any of it, but I don't really understand the last one I don't think.

[Melissa in Australia]

well, anyone that believes that God is not part of a trinity would have trouble, and yes there are lots of Christians that do.

[Melissa in Australia]

just read them all again. I only agree with point 1, so I won't be joining your group. ( not that I live close anyway)

[Ellie]

FTR, even if I agreed with everything in this SOF, I wouldn't join, because I don't believe in requiring members to sign one. I think it's ok for the *leaders* to be required to, but not members. I just don't think it's necessary.

[WishboneDawn]

FTR, even if I agreed with everything in this SOF, I wouldn't join, because I don't believe in requiring members to sign one. I think it's ok for the *leaders* to be required to, but not members. I just don't think it's necessary.

 

:iagree:

 

I respect the right of groups to have these but don't want to join a group with them.

[MamaSheep]

The first point would be problematic from an LDS Christian perspective since we also believe the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price to be the inspired word of God. We also believe revelation recieved through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to be the word of God.

 

Also, in LDS belief the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct beings who operate in complete unity, rather than one being expressed in three persons.

 

Those are the only points that jump out for me, personally, other than a somewhat nit-picky pet peeve that it bothers me when people say that the Bible is the "only Word of God" because in John Jesus is clearly referred to as "The Word", and Jesus and the Bible are clearly not the same thing, so saying that the Bible is the only Word of God is self-contradictory. But as I say, that's really just a nit-picky personal whine and I know this is a common way of phrasing the sentiment.

 

But yes, those first two points say to me rather plainly that as a Mormon I need not apply. So to speak. I don't think it would be entirely accurate to say I find them "offensive"--that's much too strong a word. But I would see them as a hint that I was not welcome in that group and would look elsewhere.

 

The "personal return in power and glory" phrase could be a problem for some Christian groups, as this has been a point of contention in some discussions I've seen. And I'm aware that some Christian groups believe that only the saved will be resurrected.

 

There are also some phrases here that are a little buzz-word-ish and may not be understood the same way by people of different backgrounds. For example, "regeneration by the Holy Spirit", "the present ministry of the Holy Spirit", and "the spiritual unity of believers" sound to me as if they might have a very specific and narrow definition to people of a particular faith background, whereas they might be read just at face value (rather than with the implied specific doctrinal meanings) by people from backgrounds where they are not commonly used.

Edited July 9, 2011 by MamaSheep

[WishboneDawn]

Those are the only points that jump out for me, personally, other than a somewhat nit-picky pet peeve that it bothers me when people say that the Bible is the "only Word of God" because in John Jesus is clearly referred to as "The Word", and Jesus and the Bible are clearly not the same thing, so saying that the Bible is the only Word of God is self-contradictory. But as I say, that's really just a nit-picky personal whine and I know this is a common way of phrasing the sentiment.

 

I'm Anglican and share the same peeve. To me the Word is Jesus and the Bible is the witness to the Word, but not the Word.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I could not sign your SOF (which looks pretty typical, I guess). Even when I attended mainstream churches (Methodist, Baptist, etc), I could not have because I believed what I read in the scriptures over what I was being taught.

 

I have never been part of a formal group. I've always felt I was too Christian for some groups and too differently Christian for others. Well, and I haven't ever really felt the need for a formal group. We did have a more informal group for a couple years.

 

Oh, and we were invited to a group once. I expressed concern as I knew a couple of the families from my past association with a certain church. I was assured that they were inclusive as she cited that there was a Catholic family, Mormon family and a mixed race family. I tried my best not to fall over from shock.

Edited July 9, 2011 by 2J5M9K

[AvasMom]

I was reading the Catholic/Protestant thread about the statement of faith and got to wondering about my own group's SOF. We have the word "Christian" as part of our group's name and require prospective members to attend at least 3 meetings before applying for membership so that everyone can get an idea as to whether we will be a good fit for their family or not. We are not a co-op, just a close-knit support group that shares with and leans on each other as well as providing lots of activities for the kids. We are also not affiliated with any particular church. I'd like to know if there was anything in our SOF that would be offensive to any who calls themselves Christian... whether Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever. Thanks!

 

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.

6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.

7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

 

Not "offensive" but I couldn't agree to the second half of line 2.

[AvasMom]

FTR, even if I agreed with everything in this SOF, I wouldn't join, because I don't believe in requiring members to sign one. I think it's ok for the *leaders* to be required to, but not members. I just don't think it's necessary.

 

:iagree: Our co-op has a SOF but only the leaders are required to sign it. I think that's appropriate.

[happyhappyjoyjoy]

A Catholic would have to change line 1.

Edited July 9, 2011 by happyhappyjoyjoy
meant would not wouldn't

[Parrothead]

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
   
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
   
4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
   
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.
   
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.
   
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
   

 

Line 1 has pretty obvious problems since Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Line 4 - what is this regeneration? It sounds kind of Dr. Whoish instead of Christian.

Line 5 - the present ministry? It might be perfectly alright, but without defining those terms it could be a problem.

Line 6 - the whole saved and lost thing. Without it being spelled out these could be problematic.

[DawnM]

I am going to emphasize the bolded part and simply say that if your group believes what you have stated and that is the exclusive group you want, then I wouldn't ask a message board for opinions.

 

You already say you lean the same way, so ask them if they are ok with how you have stated it.

 

I would assume if you wish to have every branch of Christianity in there you would have been very basic and said something like, "Those who believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God and savior of mankind."

 

Dawn

 

, just a close-knit support group that shares with and leans on each other as well as providing lots of activities for the kids. We are also not affiliated with any particular church. I'd like to know if there was anything in our SOF that would be offensive to any who calls themselves Christian... whether Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever. Thanks!

.

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

Edited July 9, 2011 by DawnM

[Renthead Mommy]

I

 

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.

6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation.

7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

 

Okay here's my take. I signed/agreed to one of these once. Mainly because it was all that was around for the kids and my friend was also a memeber.

 

I don't have a problem with people that believe any of the above. Or anything else in other religions for the most part. I have a problem with people taking religion and using it to turn themselves into wack-jobs (I'm talking more like telling a 7yo she's going to hell for dressing up for halloween, wearing pants and so on. You want to believe that, fine, just don't try and scare my kid into believing what you believe. Terrorist in the name of religion is a whole other level and not what this conversation is about.)

 

I'm christian because I was born christian, not jewish, islamic, buddist or anything else. I was also born Irish, English and Scottish.

 

If I met you and you didn't make me crazy, didn't tell my kid he was going to hell for reading HP or dressing up for Halloween or other things like that, and you had nice kids, nice moms and did fun things, I probablay wouldn't mind joining your group.

 

I had no issues siging the similar SOF because I read the above bylaws as "WE (the current members of this group) believe yada, yada, yada." And I'm okay with you, the current memebers of that group believing that. I'm not saying I believe that, but I'm agreeing that, yes, you believe that, and I'm okay with you believing that.

[....]

I "think" (but may be wrong) that the Orthodox would disagree with a small portion of Line 3.

 

I was watching a documentary last week that said there are 1500 different Christian denominations in the US. You would almost need to be a theologian to write a SOF these days. :D

[....]

Line 1 has pretty obvious problems since Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Line 4 - what is this regeneration? It sounds kind of Dr. Whoish instead of Christian.

Line 5 - the present ministry? It might be perfectly alright, but without defining those terms it could be a problem.

Line 6 - the whole saved and lost thing. Without it being spelled out these could be problematic.

 

Now that I look at these lines a second time, the wording seems a little intense and has a "flavor" to it... I thought we were considered mainstream Christian (we're Lutheran), but if I read the SOF, I would probably be turned off.

 

I'm also wondering who the "present ministry" is (with 1500 denominations running around) and #6 is just too many details.

[G5052]

I've been "around" enough to know that Statement of Faith requirements always lead to problems in time.

 

I was on the board of a group that had a very general statement supporting the trinity, the Bible as the Word of God, and salvation in Jesus. Only the leaders were required to sign it. Then the decision was made to require members to sign it, and some dropped out and some signed it that I knew didn't agree. Then they adopted the statement from the hosting church, which was long and detailed, and the group became pretty much just people from that church or like-minded churches. I left at that point because I couldn't sign and there were other irregularities that came to light that bothered me. DH and I revisited it again this summer because I miss seeing those folks, but no, we still can't sign if we are honest about it, so that is that.

 

Frankly if you have a happy group, I wouldn't rock the boat, or I'd go with something very general. The more detailed you get, the more issues you're going to have, and is that really appropriate for a homeschool group? IMHO that is an individual/church issue anyway.

[Murmer]

Its already been pointed out why people couldn't sign it...I would like to add that I don't mind knowing what the background beliefs of a group that I am a part of so that I don't say anything that might offend...but being required to sign that I believe it is not something I am willing to do if there is any part I can't say I believe.

[WishboneDawn]

I am going to empasize the bolded part and simply say that if your group believes what you have stated and that is the eclusive group you want, then I wouldn't ask a message board for opinions.

 

:iagree:

 

Excellent point.

[simka2]

Theology aside I would not sign it because of #7. To me that is a passive agressive way of saying, "If you disagree with someone you are not acting in unity.....therefor YOU are not acting like a Christian and are the problem."

Edited July 9, 2011 by simka2

[dangermom]

I'm LDS and MamaSheep already covered that part, but I'm pretty sure that not even all Protestant sects believe in Biblical inerrancy.

 

I object to SOF's on principle anyway, but certainly that one is written to keep many people out.

[Tarreymere]

We don't believe in swearing to anything and we don't believe in judging others. We do believe that trying to establish an exclusive group in the first place is misunderstanding the essential message.

[mommaduck]

Line 1 has pretty obvious problems since Catholics are not sola scriptura.

Line 4 - what is this regeneration? It sounds kind of Dr. Whoish instead of Christian.

Line 5 - the present ministry? It might be perfectly alright, but without defining those terms it could be a problem.

Line 6 - the whole saved and lost thing. Without it being spelled out these could be problematic.

:iagree: Mostly line 1 is an issue. Line 6 is depending upon definition. Protestants define things differently than the RC, the EO.

[Carol in Cal.]

Our local Christian support group has a far more inclusive SOF than this, BUT, the leadership has just decided to eject everyone who is using a public charter ISP, effective in the Fall. I believe that this is almost half of the membership. It's really sad.

[mommaduck]

Our local Christian support group has a far more inclusive SOF than this, BUT, the leadership has just decided to eject everyone who is using a public charter ISP, effective in the Fall. I believe that this is almost half of the membership. It's really sad.

What if the family is using a public charter ISP for some kids but not for others?

[Denise in Florida]

FTR, even if I agreed with everything in this SOF, I wouldn't join, because I don't believe in requiring members to sign one. I think it's ok for the *leaders* to be required to, but not members. I just don't think it's necessary.

:iagree:

On principle I do not join any group that requires me to sign a SOF. I am a sincere, faithful, Bible-studying Christian. I do not give authority to any group to limit or define my faith. Yes, I am a member of a particular denomination and have officially joined a church and received confirmation.

 

To answer the OP, yes as a legitimate Christian I would have trouble with number 1. I can believe that the Bible is the word of God, but it is not my place to tell God that he has not or can not have other scripture than the one I know about. That seems like extreme hubris. :tongue_smilie:

[DawnM]

Good grief. Please excuse the typos in my post.....I was typing fast as I had to get out the door and using the computer that doesn't auto spell check!

 

Dawn

 

:iagree:

 

Excellent point.

[dangermom]

Our local Christian support group has a far more inclusive SOF than this, BUT, the leadership has just decided to eject everyone who is using a public charter ISP, effective in the Fall. I believe that this is almost half of the membership. It's really sad.

That's too bad.

 

There was a local group here specifically for independently homeschooling moms. It was Christian, but didn't have an SOF, and I belonged until we went broke and I joined a charter.* I was sad not to be able to go anymore. Unfortunately I guess a lot of people were in my boat; membership declined after that and the group has broken up. :( Has your group leadership considered this possibility?

 

 

*I remember we were unemployed and broke and I felt that the charter was a direct blessing; just what I wanted--complete freedom and money! :) At the same time that I enrolled, I got the newsletter from the group that directly stated that everyone should stay independent and rely on God to provide. I'm pretty sure God provided for me with this charter...

[WishboneDawn]

Good grief. Please excuse the typos in my post.....I was typing fast as I had to get out the door and using the computer that doesn't auto spell check!

 

Dawn

 

I'm often embarrassed by the typoes in my posts. Must be a Dawn thing. :D

 

ETA: See that? "typoes". Oh my.

Edited July 9, 2011 by WishboneDawn

[dangermom]

I wonder why people don't use the Nicene Creed. Smarter people than I am got that one set down on paper, died to defend it, and it has been the time-proven point of unity among East and West, whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

...but not LDS, who do not accept it. :001_smile:

[SailorMom]

First - I am not Christian....

However, that being said, I have studied religious history at length...

 

This is an exlusive SoF, in many ways. That isn't - in and of itself - a bad thing. If that is what your group wants, then it's perfect. It is not inclusive, and even my mother-in-law (Methodist pastor) would not be able to sign that.

 

I think unless you kept it down to about two sentences there is really no way around excluding some main-line Christian faiths...

 

For example - "I believe in one God, I believe Jesus saved us from our sins." Period. Dot. That's about all they really have in common :) (depending on the denominations of course)

 

Even the Nicene Creed can get dicey - through wording and interpretations - although it is a good suggestion.

 

When you get into Sola Scriptura, salvation by faith, grace, works - or some combination, meaning of the Eucharist, baptism, etc... well - there are the reasons for your main church schisms of the past.... And the infallible part - yeah - they don't all agree with that either.

[MamaSheep]

I wonder why people don't use the Nicene Creed. Smarter people than I am got that one set down on paper, died to defend it, and it has been the time-proven point of unity among East and West, whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

Having said that, as for this one, right away on #1, I have a question: Why not say ..."only WRITTEN Word of God." Theologically, for all Christians, this is a better way of saying it. The Bible itself calls Jesus Christ the Word.

 

:0)

 

I actually do not have trouble at all with co-ops requiring SOFs. It's clarifying for everyone. However, I think that the more exclusive a co-op is, the less likely it is to survive in terms of numbers and disagreements that break it apart.

 

...but not LDS, who do not accept it. :001_smile:

:iagree: I think I remember someone on the other thread mentioning that there are other Christian faiths who don't believe in accepting "man-made creeds" as well.

 

The "only WRITTEN Word of God" phrasing would also exclude LDS members.

[SailorMom]

I never knew Christianity was so complicated. :001_huh:

 

I was about floored when I started studying the schisms of the main churches. The point of conflicts can sometimes seem very tiny - and yet, they have led to so many different faiths!

[LittleIzumi]

I am going to emphasize the bolded part and simply say that if your group believes what you have stated and that is the exclusive group you want, then I wouldn't ask a message board for opinions.

 

You already say you lean the same way, so ask them if they are ok with how you have stated it.

 

I would assume if you wish to have every branch of Christianity in there you would have been very basic and said something like, "Those who believe Jesus Christ to be the son of God and savior of mankind."

 

Dawn

 

:iagree:

[SnowWhite]

Not "offensive" but I couldn't agree to the second half of line 2.

 

This. I am not allowed in our local hs group because I asked if I could cross out the word "persons" and substitute "offices" to the SOF and they did not respond. (thus signifying in my mind I could not). Although I know local families who just DID this cross out/substitute and joined anyway.

[Greta]

I wonder why people don't use the Nicene Creed. Smarter people than I am got that one set down on paper, died to defend it, and it has been the time-proven point of unity among East and West, whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

I was thinking about this as well. The creed is what I affirmed at my baptism, it was my 'Declaration of Christianity', in a sense. I was looking into a co-op a few months ago. It didn't work out for other reasons, but when I saw their SOF, I thought to myself "well, I could sign this, but I don't think these words mean to me what they mean to them." The creed would have been so much clearer and simpler, with less confusion about what the terms mean. (Maybe not "no confusion" but definitely less!)

[Carol in Cal.]

Unfortunately I guess a lot of people were in my boat; membership declined after that and the group has broken up. :( Has your group leadership considered this possibility?

 

 

I am not sure what all led to the decision. Part of it was that the group apparently was organized under CHEA, which I didn't really understand when I joined as CHEA membership and/or conference attendance were not required. CHEA has been beating the anti-charter ISP drum for a long time, with arguments that are extremely insulting to Christian charter users and some of which state somewhat hazy opinions as if they are facts. The two main arguments are the danger of future requirements (which I think is a legitimate and compelling concern) and the supposed unconstitutionality of teaching anything Christian if you are in a charter (yes, you can't use charter funds for Christian materials, but taking the argument to the extreme would imply that if anyone sends their children to any public school they can't teach them about God at all--ridiculous, and this argument detracts from the other, legitimate one.)

 

The leadership started to accept and state these arguments as facts in postings to the group's email list, despite considerable warm, cautionary, voice of experience posts to the contrary. Then more seasoned members and former members started to post about the need for Christian love to prevail, and the importance and priority of maintaining unity of the group under God. Then the leadership team posted that after fasting and prayer they have the conviction that if we continue to have both types of homeschoolers in the group, there will by definition be first and second class members (since only private homeschoolers can be leaders, under CHEA's rules, again something I and many others didn't realize upfront), and that since that is unacceptable, the charter families would not be allowed to reregister in September of this year. The group really doesn't have a decision making structure or process, so this edict is unprecedented and of questionable legitimacy, but there is no real way to prevent it without having an unseemly power struggle that no one wants.

 

I have to say, personally I'm not effected by this very much since my daughter started at a brick and mortar high school last year, but the group was so loving and peaceful and generous in spirit until this controversy, that I think that it is really a great loss locally to let this divide us.

 

I doubt that either the original group or the spin off will last. But I hope that I'm wrong about that.

 

The group was a great blessing to me when I found them 3-4 years ago. I had never prayed with other moms for our children before, and it was such a relief to be able to do that that I just about melted. I'm glad that it was there for me while I was homeschooling middle school. I'm sorry that it won't continue in the way and with the spirit that it did before.

[dangermom]

I am not sure what all led to the decision. Part of it was that the group apparently was organized under CHEA, which I didn't really understand when I joined as CHEA membership and/or conference attendance were not required. CHEA has been beating the anti-charter ISP drum for a long time, with arguments that are extremely insulting to Christian charter users and some of which state somewhat hazy opinions as if they are facts. The two main arguments are the danger of future requirements (which I think is a legitimate and compelling concern) and the supposed unconstitutionality of teaching anything Christian if you are in a charter (yes, you can't use charter funds for Christian materials, but taking the argument to the extreme would imply that if anyone sends their children to any public school they can't teach them about God at all--ridiculous, and this argument detracts from the other, legitimate one.)

 

You know what, this explains a lot about my old group. Most of them were CHEA members, I think, but I'm not so I didn't know anything about it.

 

I agree about the danger of future requirements, and even that if we all join charters, that might not be a good thing. OTOH, this is where I find myself.

 

I routinely use some religious materials (R&S grammar, CW, and MP Latin) in our homeschooling, and the charter accepts the work with no problem--they just won't pay for the books. But you knew that already. ;)

 

Thank you for the explanation; that helps a lot. I hope your group leadership will come to its senses--it's so easy for a group to fall apart.

[Greta]

The thing is, the Nicene Creed is one of the more ancient--meaning that it is universal through time and space--and that Christianity is unchanged. If we ditch the Nicene Creed, then something was wrong with the Christianity of time before ours. I don't get how that works out.

 

Yes, I completely agree. But you said it much better than I could have. :001_smile:

[Carol in Cal.]

I agree about the danger of future requirements, and even that if we all join charters, that might not be a good thing. OTOH, this is where I find myself.

 

 

You know, I make it a POINT to object to the idea of regulations and requirements vocally, every time it comes up, no matter what, specifically because of this danger. I think that I can be more persuasive because I did use a charter and STILL don't think it should be required, and because my dd transitioned very well to a good private parochial high school already. I feel obligated to make this case so that my stance doesn't hurt those who don't participate in charters.

 

Just like I volunteer at a public school now. I always said that I would once I stopped homeschooling, because of the argument that homeschooling takes good families with volunteering parents out of the 'system'. I am FAR better at this because of my experience with homeschooling. I have a 5th grade girls' group that is strikingly similar to the literature coop I organized when DD was in 6th grade.

 

Thank you for the explanation; that helps a lot. I hope your group leadership will come to its senses--it's so easy for a group to fall apart.

 

Nope, done is done. And this is DONE. It is very unfortunate. I would like to see some of the non-charter families join the new inclusive spin off group on principle. I don't know whether that is happening or not, but I have not heard that it is.

[dangermom]

The thing is, the Nicene Creed is one of the more ancient--meaning that it is universal through time and space--and that Christianity is unchanged. If we ditch the Nicene Creed, then something was wrong with the Christianity of time before ours. I don't get how that works out.

 

From the LDS POV, the fact that everyone was arguing over doctrine and had to vote on it is a problem. LDS can very nearly accept the Nicene Creed as a true statement; it's just that we don't think the Bible teaches that God, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 1 in 3. We believe that they are 3 beings absolutely united in purpose, but not in substance. Also, we don't do creeds; if they're not scripture, why do you have to subscribe to them? And if they are scripture, who made them so?

[Orthodox6]

(interpolated responses below from an Eastern Orthodox Christian)

 

 

 

 

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God. The Holy Bible is an essential portion of Holy Tradition, not a stand-alone document. The Bible was born within the Church; the Church was not born from the Bible. "Sola Scriptura" is rejected. Scripture is interpreted according to "the mind of the Church", not according to individual opinion.
   

 

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Agree.

 

1. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles , Agree.
   
2. in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, No "doctrine of atonement" is present within our theology in the sense meant here.
   
3. in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory. Agree.
   
4. We believe that for salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential and that salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Works without faith are dead. Faith and works coexist integrally. There is no inherent opposition between the two; both are required. Salvation is a free gift of God, granted after life-long struggle to those whom He chooses. We do not teach "once saved, always saved".
   
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Holy Trinity are present and active in the world.
   
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of ****ation. Nobody is officially "lost" until the Final Judgment. Salvation is a life-long process and a constantly hoped-for goal.
   
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. Don't know what this means.
   

 

 

This SOF is in our bylaws, and by signing the membership agreement, a family is agreeing to all that is in our bylaws.

 

An Orthodox Christian could not sign this statement of faith.

 

In general, I don't care for SOF requirements. Just let me join a group somewhere to make friends with nice families. I don't want to have carbon copies of myself wherever I go. SOF requirements around here have prevented us from joining support groups for fifteen years because they (SOFs, that is) are applied locally in order to exclude people, not merely to draw together like-minded individuals. Other parts of the country are less rigid, I have learned. Even other parts of my region.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Orthodox6

[bairnmama]

As the OP, I'd like to try to clarify a few points. I was putting this question out there because the 2 remaining founding members of our group are getting close to graduating their youngest children and the main leadership will then change dramatically. As an officer, I was curious if our SOF specifically excluded other Christians or whether it could be simply tweaked w/o throwing it out altogether (some strongly believe it should stay but could be changed). The bylaws were intentionally written over 15 yrs ago as a result of a very bad split from another group in which there were a LOT of deeply hurt feelings. The other group has since dissolved, but this one has remained strong. The founding members wanted to make sure everyone was on the "same page" so that another major incident/split like the previous one would not happen. However, some of us who have more recently joined, but are officers, are considering other ways of doing things.

 

No one sits down with the prospective members and says, "This is our interpretation of the SOF, and you must interpret it the same way." Every family takes the words as they are written, interprets them on their own, and decides if they wish to join or not. Personally, I never read the first point to say that the Bible was the ONLY Word of God... just the only infallible one. Also, I didn't take it to mean only the Bible of, say Baptists over that of Catholics - aren't they both simply called the Bible by those who practice that faith? And as far as "the unity of believers", I read that as all Christians belonging to the same body... the unity of the church regardless how the different denominations split hairs of specific ideologies. Only God knows who is saved, renewed, reborn, whatever you wish to call it. In my personal family, we have Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, Non-denominational, and Life Tabernacle. We may not agree on everything, but we agree that God is sovereign, Jesus died to give us new life, and we will one day live with Him in Heaven.

 

Currently, our group has some Baptists (at least 3 different "flavors"), some other Protestants (not sure which but definitely NOT any variety of Baptist), and at least one family that doesn't align with any denomination at all and chooses to study scripture as a family w/o a church body at all.

[Tarreymere]

Do you think Jesus would join an exclusive group that requires a SOF and excludes people who wouldn't or couldn't sign it? I doubt that He would do that. I think such a group must have a misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian.

[LittleIzumi]

As the OP, I'd like to try to clarify a few points. I was putting this question out there because the 2 remaining founding members of our group are getting close to graduating their youngest children and the main leadership will then change dramatically. As an officer, I was curious if our SOF specifically excluded other Christians or whether it could be simply tweaked w/o throwing it out altogether (some strongly believe it should stay but could be changed). The bylaws were intentionally written over 15 yrs ago as a result of a very bad split from another group in which there were a LOT of deeply hurt feelings. The other group has since dissolved, but this one has remained strong. The founding members wanted to make sure everyone was on the "same page" so that another major incident/split like the previous one would not happen. However, some of us who have more recently joined, but are officers, are considering other ways of doing things.

 

No one sits down with the prospective members and says, "This is our interpretation of the SOF, and you must interpret it the same way." Every family takes the words as they are written, interprets them on their own, and decides if they wish to join or not. Personally, I never read the first point to say that the Bible was the ONLY Word of God... just the only infallible one. Also, I didn't take it to mean only the Bible of, say Baptists over that of Catholics - aren't they both simply called the Bible by those who practice that faith? And as far as "the unity of believers", I read that as all Christians belonging to the same body... the unity of the church regardless how the different denominations split hairs of specific ideologies. Only God knows who is saved, renewed, reborn, whatever you wish to call it. In my personal family, we have Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, Non-denominational, and Life Tabernacle. We may not agree on everything, but we agree that God is sovereign, Jesus died to give us new life, and we will one day live with Him in Heaven.

 

Currently, our group has some Baptists (at least 3 different "flavors"), some other Protestants (not sure which but definitely NOT any variety of Baptist), and at least one family that doesn't align with any denomination at all and chooses to study scripture as a family w/o a church body at all.

 

Then maybe the bolded should really be your SoF, if you keep one. :) I could sign that one easily and not feel excluded.

[Dobela]

I would not sign that statement of faith for numerous reasons - and I am a Christian. A conservative one. I don't think the hows and whys are as important though. If you are wanting a statement of faith I think it needs to be simple if you are trying to attract membership from across Christian denominations.

 

If a statement of faith has to be signed for me to be a part of a group, and I don't agree with it, I don't sign it. I have been known to write something to the effect of "I don't agere with this but will respect it as the beliefs of the majority of members and not use the group for evangelization purposes." And then I sign it.

 

I wish we could find a group that would just say something like, "We are Christians under the very broad umbrella of Christianity. Anyone believing they are a Christian can belong with the understanding that this group will not tolerate attacks on personal beliefs or church beliefs. The group cannot be used for evangelizing as it is designed to be a homeschool support group."

[WishboneDawn]

No one sits down with the prospective members and says, "This is our interpretation of the SOF, and you must interpret it the same way." Every family takes the words as they are written, interprets them on their own, and decides if they wish to join or not. Personally, I never read the first point to say that the Bible was the ONLY Word of God... just the only infallible one. Also, I didn't take it to mean only the Bible of, say Baptists over that of Catholics - aren't they both simply called the Bible by those who practice that faith? And as far as "the unity of believers", I read that as all Christians belonging to the same body... the unity of the church regardless how the different denominations split hairs of specific ideologies. Only God knows who is saved, renewed, reborn, whatever you wish to call it. In my personal family, we have Church of Christ, Southern Baptist, Non-denominational, and Life Tabernacle. We may not agree on everything, but we agree that God is sovereign, Jesus died to give us new life, and we will one day live with Him in Heaven.

 

To some degree, how you personally interpret the SOF or whether you accept people interpreting it in different ways is beside the point. Many people, looking at the simple fact that you have an SOF in the first place will decide that you're an exclusionary group and won't look into your group far enought to find out if you guys happen to be willing to let members interpret the SOF rather liberally. Personally when I see an SOF the question for me isn't truly how I'd interpret it so I could get into the group. The question is how I think the group views it and whether that would make me uncomfortable in the group. I generally don't give the group the benefit of the doubt.

 

For me an SOF is a big red flag that a group is meant to serve just an existing membership or possible members from a very specific shared view or community. It's a sign that the group isn't interested in different types of homeschoolers or Christians in their midst.

 

The question your group needs to settle is what kind of group they want to be. Then the SOF question should settle it's self.

[Mrs Mungo]

Generally, a statement regarding the "infallible" or "inerrant" scriptures means they do not welcome old earth creationists. So, I wouldn't join a group with that in their SOF.