Litmus tests for various Christian groups

[Ernie]

Having lived in the Plain Anabaptist world all of my life, it is usual for conversations to quickly go to this when talking about girls or women who decide to follow Jesus.

"Is she wearing a covering?"

I have never once heard it asked, "Has he started lifting his hands?"

In Charismatic circles it is quite common, and is indeed a way people critique each other's spirituality on a weekly basis. "I saw so and so lifting his hands again last Sunday."

Interesting. I had no idea. Goes to show I guess how much our fragmented Christian landscape has coalesced into silos.

I'm curious what other denominations or faith traditions use as litmus tests for spirituality or being willing to follow the Bible.

[joshuabgood]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that any group that excludes fellowship from those that don't "practice their requirements" are therefore litmus tested. If you don't "do as we do" you aren't enough of a "true Christian" to be in fellowship/communion. So that could include everything from certain types of clothing, to certain types of transportation, to certain types of baptism, etc. (It's quite a long list.)

[Soloist]

That’s probably true, but generally people don’t go and ask “do they believe in the trinity?”

[JohnH]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that any group that excludes fellowship from those that don't "practice their requirements" are therefore litmus tested. If you don't "do as we do" you aren't enough of a "true Christian" to be in fellowship/communion. So that could include everything from certain types of clothing, to certain types of transportation, to certain types of baptism, etc. (It's quite a long list.)

I think Ernie's post might have been more aimed at practices as opposed to mental assent to various beliefs.

[joshuabgood]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that any group that excludes fellowship from those that don't "practice their requirements" are therefore litmus tested. If you don't "do as we do" you aren't enough of a "true Christian" to be in fellowship/communion. So that could include everything from certain types of clothing, to certain types of transportation, to certain types of baptism, etc. (It's quite a long list.)

I think Ernie's post might have been more aimed at practices as opposed to mental assent to various beliefs.

Yeah...the point I was trying to make is, that, in the church I grew up in say, a straight cut coat was a litmus test for fellowship/communion. One might with "the lips" say that it wasn't a litmus test for being a Christian, however, in functionality, fellowship, as a Christian brother, the Holy Kiss, etc, would be denied on that basis.

Prior to conversion, the lay down, after conversion, the straight cut.

[JohnH]

Yeah...the point I was trying to make is, that, in the church I grew up in say, a straight cut coat was a litmus test for fellowship/communion. One might with "the lips" say that it wasn't a litmus test for being a Christian, however, in functionality, fellowship, as a Christian brother, the Holy Kiss, etc, would be denied on that basis.

Prior to conversion, the lay down, after conversion, the straight cut.

That would be analogous to Pentecostal practices. Prior to conversion, they might say you're a Christian, but you would be a "lesser" one. After conversion (evidenced by speaking in tongues), you're now a full-fledged Christian.

The difference is that instead of changing the cut of one's suit, one starts speaking in tongues - which I must confess is more economical from a sartorial perspective.

[Ernie]

Yeah...the point I was trying to make is, that, in the church I grew up in say, a straight cut coat was a litmus test for fellowship/communion. One might with "the lips" say that it wasn't a litmus test for being a Christian, however, in functionality, fellowship, as a Christian brother, the Holy Kiss, etc, would be denied on that basis.

Prior to conversion, the lay down, after conversion, the straight cut.

That would be analogous to Pentecostal practices. Prior to conversion, they might say you're a Christian, but you would be a "lesser" one. After conversion (evidenced by speaking in tongues), you're now a full-fledged Christian.

The difference is that instead of changing the cut of one's suit, one starts speaking in tongues - which I must confess is more economical from a sartorial perspective.

In this thread I was focusing on what are litmus tests for being a "real" Christian.


The plain coat thing, while definitely a communion litmus test for many churches, is not really used as a test of faithfulness to God by most adherents. It is a denominational thing and communion is structured around denominational matters rather than faithfulness matters.
For example: Nearly all plain suit wearing Anabaptists would feel like faithful Christians in Eastern Europe whose women veil and wear modest clothing and practice non-resistance are full-fledged members of the body of Christ. But their theology allows them to draw communion lines at a different place.

In contrast, many (most???) Plain Anabaptists might say that a woman is not being fully obedient to the scriptures if she does not veil her head with something. (they wouldn't care so much whether that veil matches their church standard)

The point I was making earlier is that the same standard is not applied to men who don't lift their hands in prayer.

[joshuabgood]

The plain coat thing, while definitely a communion litmus test for many churches, is not really used as a test of faithfulness to God by most adherents.

Is this a distinction without a difference?

[ken_sylvania]

The plain coat thing, while definitely a communion litmus test for many churches, is not really used as a test of faithfulness to God by most adherents.

Is this a distinction without a difference?

No. We believe that there are many outside of our specific church organization who are faithful to God.

[Ernie]

The plain coat thing, while definitely a communion litmus test for many churches, is not really used as a test of faithfulness to God by most adherents.

Is this a distinction without a difference?

That is a theology/ecclesiology question in my mind. I was describing what is. But I think it is fair to ask what should be.