Seems to me we could be just as arrogant about the fact that we don’t have a creed and this is something that makes us better than others or look down on them.
Even if it’s entirely true that the people you mention are mistaken, i don’t see any qualitative difference in dropping their names here versus them dropping the names of others elsewhere.
no, i don’t feel any unique obligation to agree with the ideas of early restoration leaders anymore than i feel any unique obligation to agree with Calvin or Wesley.
i think if there are *no* tests of fellowship, then there’s no definite content to the word “Christian.” Hypothetically, if i did know at least one thing that separated Christians from non-Christians, why would it be wrong for me to draw functional lines of exclusion based on that one thing?

I don’t see why anyone would ever need to possess an exhaustive understanding of the Bible in order to understand and know *some* things about it. And I don’t see how claiming that some belief is true and any contrary belief is false necessarily means I’m not searching for truth. Was Jesus wrong for unequivocally affirming Himself as the Christ such that all dissenters were wrong? If He was not wrong in doing such, then how could I be wrong by affirming the same about Him? I don’t see why me claiming that Jesus is the Christ and anyone disagreeing is wrong and will suffer eternal consequences as a result—I don’t how that mere claim makes me guilty of anything immoral at all.

I think your point about creeds is a good one. Prior to graduating preaching school, we all had to take a lengthy “true/false” type questionnaire regarding various doctrinal positions. Point being, enough wrong answers could put your graduate status in jeopardy.
(1) if many are willing to have such questionnaires that they treat as tests of communion, or the statements of faith you mention, then why not a creed? What really is the practical difference between the two? Other than just some historic precedent not to have one and that such gives us some sort of bragging point is all I can think of.
(2) I don’t see why, in itself, any such statement or questionnaire would be wrong. I might disagree with the *content* of the questionnaire or statement of faith, but that’s a separate issue. I’m saying, if I take X, Y, and Z to be non-negotiable essentials of what it means to be a Christian, then regardless of what X, Y, and Z represent, doesn’t that belief obligate me to certain things? Wouldn’t it be unconscionable of me to endorse as a Christian someone who rejected all three? If I sincerely thought someone was, in fact, my brother in Christ, should I really sit idly by while he moves toward rejecting one or all of these?

As to the rest of your examples, I’d really rather avoid all such name dropping for fear of being involved in talk of an un-Christian nature. All the people you mentioned may very well be mistaken. I don’t know. And I don’t want to presume to know their motives.

one thing i don’t quite understand though is why it would be wrong to identify people who aren’t following Christ. i realize we could have several good reasons for saying this shouldn’t be going on: (1) the critics are sinfully judging, (2) even if the critics aren’t sinfully judging, they at least run the risk of spreading cynicism, (3) the particular items being criticized do not warrant criticism, (4) the attitude of the critics is sinful. (maybe there are other wrong reasons as well.)

but suppose you personally had a criticism of someone’s practice or belief, and suppose that none of the above four reasons (or any other sinful or poor reason) were your reason. suppose you genuinely feared for the spiritual well-being of the person due to this practice or belief. do you really think it would be *wrong* of you to mention it to them for that reason? If your best friend was addicted to meth, do you honestly think you’d be *wrong* for talking to him about it or calling him out about it and maybe even raising your voice just to try and get his attention? Now listen, i wholeheartedly concede that there are plenty of CoCers who are criticizing and writing for all the wrong reasons. However, while you and i might not think of gymnasiums or applause as analogous to meth-addiction, it’s entirely possible that some among us *do* see those as analogous. should we really fault them for fearing for their family (even if that fear is ultimately un-grounded)? i think our mistrust and skepticism over the motives of critics can itself become just as cynical and wrong as some of the work of the critics themselves.

and one more thing, if you don’t mind me being a tad long-winded: i guess i don’t completely understand why some people feel its so ghastly to be like denominations in some ways. hear me out, though–i do think there are particular ways in which we must not imitate denominations. but basically what some commentators here are discussing is their dislike for what we might call CoC heresy trials. i’d just like to ask a couple questions that might get me into trouble. (1) Should we understand that absolutely nothing is heresy and nothing is worth calling out as wrong and unacceptable? is there nothing which disqualifies one from our communion? (2) is it really so horrible to have a clear standard of what’s okay and what’s not and who’s my brother and who isn’t? for instance, is it really so awful to have a creed? (i know some people probably either chuckled or just had a heart-attack even reading that question, but i’m serious.) i think there’s a sense in which a presbyterian (adhering to the WCF) actually has an advantage over me in regard to these questions. While i might think that the content of the WCF is wrong, nevertheless that presbyterian has some clear answers to questions that within the CoC it has become un-kosher to pretend to have clear answers to. But at base, doesn’t everyone think there is a drawn line *somewhere*? Why then fault people for trying to behave consistently with where they think that line is drawn? If that means your line excludes me, then i either need (1) to suck it up and try and get inside your line for the sake of your conscience, (2) try and teach you (without a sinful attitude) why your line is improperly drawn, (3) admit i’m outside your line and don’t even pretend that we’re communing with each other, or (4) stop criticizing you or griping about you and just love you as my brother/sister no matter how you feel about/treat me.

I was aware of the list and it is sad that it has been used as a litmus test.

Rex

Joe’s statement about having the bishop/editor and the learning-institutions/denominational-control (perhaps more regional now) is exactly correct. Anyone received the nice little letter from “New Testament Church…Today” yet? Another group of men (all from 3 southern states) trying to exert control over the rest. Instrumental music is not an issue in the congregation where I serve despite the reality (like most CoC’s) that we have members on both sides of the issue, yet we choose to be all a capella and are a congregation at peace. So it is not an issue, yet a group of men want to make it an issue for us. What a crock! Do they not believe that we can study our own Bibles, work out our own issues as they become issues, clean up our own mess, etc…? And if we happen to need assistance, do they not believe that we can raise our own voice asking for help from the appropriate people?

One of the words we like to use to describe ourselves is “autonomous.” But that word means nothing as long as certain more well known people continue to try and control how every congregation interprets certain scriptures and makes decisions on certain issues.

Grace and peace,

Rex