chrisnu's church search

[chrisnu]

I figured I'd hi-jacked the "what is your denomination" thread enough, and should start a new one.

I found out I cannot become a creedal Lutheran today. Catholics, you know what I'm talking about. I can bring it up, if need be. Very troubling to me. I'm mulling over whether I should check out an LCMS church or not, considering that I will not be able to become a member. I have not considered the ELCA, not just because of their recent decision, but because of their pro-choice stance on abortion, and the deal-breaker being their denial of the inerrancy of Scripture.

I have also not considered the Presbyterian Church (USA) because of both issues (and neither the PCA nor OPC because I am not Reformed at this time, which I really don't want to get into in this thread). For similar reasons, I had not considered the United Methodist Church (pro-choice stance, full communion with the ELCA, and "reconciling congregations" which are allowed to contradict the denominations official positions without being disfellowshipped). There are Wesleyan churches nearby. Not many choices in terms of "high church" left...

I know that seems like a lot of negatives, and not a lot of positives. I know that seemingly rejecting denominations outright simply because I disagree with certain positions may not be the best thing to do, but this whole process is entirely new to me. I have not really looked into Assemblies of God, Nazarene churches of Foursquare/Hope Chapels yet. If anyone has had experiences attending or being members of any of these denominations, feel free to share. I'm just trying to find out as much information as I can about each denomination, and figure out where I am supposed to be.

[spacebrat311]

I know for a fact that there is no such thing as a denomination that holds all of my views exactly, so if you're looking for that, it might not happen. Honestly, I think that sometimes that this can be important- being the church should require you to be in communion with those who are in tension with you to some extent. Still, some things are a dealbreaker and I can understand that. I'm very much not down with inerrancy doctrine, which I see as a weird historical aberration for a number of reasons, so that probably makes high church options a bit easier for me. I identify Presbyterian (PCUSA), because it's the church I grew up in, and so culturally a part of me that I don't think I can fully escape it's influence. In terms of viewpoints I probably lean more Eastern Orthodox than most Protestants, but I could never become Orthodox, because that very act is such a Protestant act that it might never fully make sense to me.

All this to say: I feel your pain.

[Simon]

I agree with spacebrat.
It seems you need to ask yourself what being part of a church implies to you.

To me, it implies being in communion with a community. This would make tensions of difference fairly healthy because different perspectives can help balance the community as a whole. The bottom line for me is the importance of being in communion with the Body of Christ, which is essentially the Eucharist. I have trouble choosing a church on a dogmatic basis because I find it troubling to deny communion with someone who disagrees with me; I could not ever claim the authority to say that someone with (even extremely) different doctrinal or political views is not fit to worship at my side since I could not benefit from their contribution to the community. I think it is particularly those people we might look at as strangers that have something we could learn from. I can't say that I have very definitively chosen a church for myself yet, but I seem to attend churches with a community where people learn from each other, and I have an opportunity to enter into that exchange. I would say this opportunity to enter the Body of Christ is a gift, which has become a very important and loaded term for me, and I respond to that gift with thanksgiving (eucharist) by returning what I have been given through participation in the community.

[Vlad!]

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your information about each denomination's beliefs? If you're going to the website of some denomination's headquarters, I encourage you to stop by churches in your area and talk to an elder or a pastor there. There are times when the denomination 'officially' believes one thing but an individual congregation might believe something else entirely...for example, I know many people in supposedly pro-choice denominations who are very strongly against abortion, and especially in cases where the denomination 'headquarters' are geographically separate from the church you're considering these differences may be pronounced.

[bethany]

Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to agree with everything to join a church in a denomination, necessarily. For example, if you're at a PCA church, yes, you will hear teaching coming from a reformed perspective, but you do not personally have to be persuaded of reformed theology or the Westminster Confession or anything to become a member. You just have to agree to some basic truths of the Christian faith (Jesus is the Son of God, etc.).

[chrisnu]

Out of curiosity, where are you getting your information about each denomination's beliefs? If you're going to the website of some denomination's headquarters, I encourage you to stop by churches in your area and talk to an elder or a pastor there. There are times when the denomination 'officially' believes one thing but an individual congregation might believe something else entirely...for example, I know many people in supposedly pro-choice denominations who are very strongly against abortion, and especially in cases where the denomination 'headquarters' are geographically separate from the church you're considering these differences may be pronounced.

Interesting. Yes, I was getting information from the official Web sites for the various denominations. More comfortable for me to do than have to talk to a living person. I will have to consider this.

Also, it's worth noting that you don't have to agree with everything to join a church in a denomination, necessarily. For example, if you're at a PCA church, yes, you will hear teaching coming from a reformed perspective, but you do not personally have to be persuaded of reformed theology or the Westminster Confession or anything to become a member. You just have to agree to some basic truths of the Christian faith (Jesus is the Son of God, etc.).

I did not know that, either, so thank you.

[spacebrat311]

I'm going Eastern Orthodox.

Not really, but I had a wonderful discussion with an Antiochian Orthodox priest yesterday, in which I was nicely reminded of my commonalities with more traditionally Eastern understandings.

[murlough23]

Just go to a church with a bunch of freaks in it, who don't care about your past (non-)denominational baggage. That's what I do. We're weird for an American Baptist church, and weird for a mostly Asian church, and never having been any of those things (OK, except American), I fit in perfectly.

On a less facetious note, while it may be true that you don't always have to agree with all aspects of a church's doctrine to attend or even be a member of that church, it can still be troubling to hear stuff taught from the pulpit week after week that you disagree with. It depends on the degree to which you have a problem with it. I can deal with minor theological differences because I know my church's pastors are generally open for a good debate and not afraid of tough situations in which we must agree to disagree. But if there were major ones, sustained over several sermons, I'd consider leaving.

[Vlad!]

I'm also going to chime in to say that non-denominational churches are sometimes the way to go. It's a mixed bag...you can certainly get a church that's pretty out there doctrinally, but in my experiences many churches which claim to be non-denominational have given more thought to what they believe than those who simply toe the line. Also, what really matters is the heart, and I think if a church has to work out for itself what it believes then that shows a very admirable (shall I say...Berean?) character.

(For the record, I go to a non-denominational church, whose beliefs are probably closest to those of the International Churches of Christ).

[Aaron]

Most of the "non-denominational" churches here in upstate NY tend to lean pentecostal or charismatic or Word of Faith.  It's laughable to call them non-denominational.

[murlough23]

Most of the "non-denominational" churches here in upstate NY tend to lean pentecostal or charismatic or Word of Faith.  It's laughable to call them non-denominational.

I'm not sure if those things are denominations in the strict sense, but practically speaking, those descriptors serve the same function as denominational names, in that they tell you something about what the church believes.

[Aaron]

Yeah.  I just grow tired of people saying "Oh my church is non-denominational" when in reality, that's far from the case.  I'd assume that there are many good n-d churches out there but I haven't experienced many yet.  There is one in my city which is a fairly big church and their big thing is their "independence" and freedom from outside authority.  Anytime a church stands on its own and has no accountability other than within its doors, that's a red flag to me.  It also doesn't help that they focus so much on speaking in tongues (they believe you're not a true believer if you do not speak in tongues) and they are big on emphasizing financial blessings...it's sad that it's one of the more popular churches in town.

[chrisnu]

Anytime a church stands on its own and has no accountability other than within its doors, that's a red flag to me.

Yes. This is the primary reason why I believe I will shy away from n-d churches for a long time. If the church doesn't follow a congregational model, the senior pastor can become an unquestionable authority - which is seen as entirely normal by the congregants. There's also far too much danger of becoming a cult of personality.

Just go to a church with a bunch of freaks in it, who don't care about your past (non-)denominational baggage. That's what I do. We're weird for an American Baptist church, and weird for a mostly Asian church, and never having been any of those things (OK, except American), I fit in perfectly.

That's what I will continue to try to do. One thing I have noticed about the mainline Protestant denominations (and the American Baptists are one) is that they allow for some latitude of opinion. After carefully doing some more reading, the PCUSA is far more pragmatic on the issues of abortion and Biblical inerrancy, for example, than I first believed. A confessional denomination like the LCMS would have none of that. There is a PCUSA church in town, been there for over 120 years, and is fairly well-renowned for its music. I plan to visit.  I did notice that the PCUSA is hemorrhaging members (they've lost 127,000 in the past two years), and I'm going to ask some folks why they think that may be.

[murlough23]

I did notice that the PCUSA is hemorrhaging members (they've lost 127,000 in the past two years), and I'm going to ask some folks why they think that may be.

Isn't the Church at large hemorrhaging members?

[Simon]

Yeah, many churches are, and from what I have seen, denominational churches are falling and non-denoms are rising. I know that the major struggle in PCUSA is homosexual ordination. The debate mostly exists on the leadership level, but it gets communicated to congregations (at least my pastor informed my home church).  There is a group threatening to leave if there is not homosexual ordination and there is a group threatening to leave if there is homosexual ordination. I am pretty sure homosexual ordination is not allowed, but I don't think the debate has been decisively concluded. I have been away, so I might be behind on the news. From what I understand PCUSA has done its best to keep unity as much as possible, but it is probably only a matter of time until one side gets a permanent answer and the church splinters. I think this is situation that most every major denomination is caught in at the moment. It threatens to dissolve the communion that denominations provide. I know it is an important issue, but it seems like it would be a tragedy if this is what causes Christian churches across America to go their own separate ways.
 
Sorry if that was kind of a tangent.  I have the most loyalty to PCUSA since I grew up in a PCUSA church, so I kind of care about them. Although it is the biggest issue in leadership, it is not something that should be a big issue from church to church so I don't think that would explain their drop in numbers. There are some thriving churches and there are many neglected churches with lots of character. I think the denomination needs some young blood with new thoughts that still understand the importance of understanding tradition. Maybe one day I will see how I can help.

[murlough23]

There's no easy way around the homosexual ordination issue. I can see both sides of that one, and it's probably only a matter of time before it hits our church. Our church has talked a lot about how to love homosexuals and accept them as part of the community, but the church's official position is still that it was a sin. My pastor's explanation is that, just as he wouldn't give a free pass to an unapologetic heterosexual adulterer, he's not going to give one to someone who is openly gay and sees no problem with this. That doesn't mean he won't allow that person to be part of our community, but presumably he would not hire that person as a member of our pastoral staff. I'm still working out my own position on the gay thing, but I respect his stance.

On a lighter note, Chris, in addition to carefully picking a church, you should be similarly selective about which coffee shop you go to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7_dZTrjw9I

[chrisnu]

On a lighter note, Chris, in addition to carefully picking a church, you should be similarly selective about which coffee shop you go to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7_dZTrjw9I

Oh my goodness. This is the best thing I've seen this month. I have to share this with all of my church folk Facebook friends. Scary.

[murlough23]

Oh my goodness. This is the best thing I've seen this month. I have to share this with all of my church folk Facebook friends. Scary.

You can thank the folks who lead the adult Sunday school class I've been attending for showing it to me.

[chrisnu]

I have an ethical question. Today, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected a partnered gay bishop. I don't agree with that decision. Would it be morally wrong for me to visit my local Episcopal parish, to try and get a free copy of the Book of Common Prayer? I have heard that they are particularly cordial with visitors.

[Vlad!]

I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out your ethical question...are you asking if it's ethical to attend a church that elected a gay bishop, or attend a church for the express purpose of getting the BCP?

Since I suspect the latter is actually your question, I would say that you should make it clear what your goal is. If you acted like you are interested in attending the church and becoming Episcopalian just to get the book, that would be disingenuous. But if you asked specifically for a copy of the book without making any other commitments, they are free to refuse you if they're not OK with it.

Also, I imagine your local library has a copy of it if you decide not to get one through shenanigans.

[spacebrat311]

Unrelatedly, that decision almost makes me want to become Episcopal.

[chrisnu]

I've thought about it at length, and I think that attending service with no intention of becoming Episcopalian, and just to try to get a BCP, would not be the right thing to do. However, I will call the church office and see if they have any available for purchase.

The first part of that question was regarding whether it's a violation of conscience to attend a church whose theology you disagree with greatly. I'm still not so sure on that issue.

[spacebrat311]

The first part of that question was regarding whether it's a violation of conscience to attend a church whose theology you disagree with greatly. I'm still not so sure on that issue.

I don't understand how this would be a moral issue. Perhaps you could explain the dilemma a bit?

[Vlad!]

I don't understand how this would be a moral issue. Perhaps you could explain the dilemma a bit?

I don't know how chrisnu feels about it, but from my perspective one of the most important aspects of church life is being in full fellowship with believers you trust to hold you accountable, challenge you, help you grow, and guide you down the right path. Thus, if you see the church deviating from what seems to you to be the path the Bible has laid out, it's going to be much more difficult to establish that trust. There will always be that doubt in your mind that you have to hold yourself back from being completely open for fear of going against the majority and also that you can't necessarily believe everything your fellow believers say because of this other thing they are OK with and you aren't.

[chrisnu]

I don't know how to coexist with people whom I seemingly disagree with on issues of faith I see to be fundamental. I have watched interviews with the Presiding Bishop of the church espousing a seemingly Universalist view (that there are other paths to God than through Jesus), and another prominent bishop (now retired), John Shelby Spong, denying the deity of Christ, and even denying the existence of God as a spiritual being. There's quite a lot more there that I have issues with, than the election of a gay bishop. I know that Episcopalians are known for allowing for a great latitude of opinion, but the difference in this case is that the people at the top are whom I disagree with most, not individual parishioners, people providing spiritual direction for the church at large. I would be concerned that participating in worship there could constitute tacit approval of that spiritual direction.

[spacebrat311]

I think that there's a difference between participating in a worship service as a guest/visitor and actually joining a church. I also see the ability to interact in tension as an important part of what the church is/does, although the point about the leadership is a good one. I'm no fan of Spong myself, but he seems hardly characteristic of Episcopal leadership to me. If you see a certain position on homosexuality as a fundamental issue of faith, I think that a search for a high church liturgy to be part of is going to be a bit hard as the kinds of questions that that would indicate are important to you are generally very secondary to those denominations, at least as core (salvation-related would be a poor term but might point you towards what i mean) faith issues. Have you considered Pentecostal or Baptist churces? They might be more what you're looking for, ideologically.

[murlough23]

Spong is a headcase. I have one of his books sitting on my shelf. Don't think I ever made it all the way through it.

[spacebrat311]

I understand where Spong is coming from. I would never call him crazy. I think he's dead wrong, and I don't think that he should occupy the leadership position that he does, but he really just represents the end that early 20th century Protestant liberalism (I don't mean American political liberalism, I mean the school of thought that birthed a lot of mainline European protestant theology throughout this century; eg Enlightenment liberalism) was always going to lead to.

[murlough23]

Going to the end of either extreme (conservative or liberal) is never a good idea. And I think a person has to be at least somewhat crazy to get that far. That said, I can understand what you're saying about his extreme views being a bit of a logical outgrowth of the general direction he was already headed in.

Back to the Episcopal Church issue... I don't see it as disingenuous or as expressing tacit approval for you to take free materials that a church is offering. Sure, they're offering it with the hope that you'll be jazzed about their church and want to join, but it sounds like no strings are attached, and you're not expected to give them a donation, so no worries about what that's gonna fund. You're simply seeking to be informed. I'll pretty much always encourage that.

I think a church's hiring practices should be consistent with the doctrine they teach. If they teach racial equality, they should not discriminate potential employees on the basis of race. If they teach white supremacy (which is abhorrent - I'd never go to such a church, but it is their legal right to hold such a view), they obviously should not hire non-white clergy. If they teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong (which the vast majority of churches would), a man who is known to be engaging unrepentantly in an extramarital affair should not be allowed in the pulpit. If they teach that homosexuality is a sin, the same logic applies to an unrepentant homosexual. If they take the view that homosexuality is OK, then there's no reason for them to specifically avoid hiring gay clergy. I'm not saying churches should make up their theological views willy nilly - often certain requirements are imposed as a condition of continued membership within a denomination. And I think it's fair for the denomination to say "You're no longer a part of this group" if a particular church or bishop or pastor disobeys.

The trickier part is whether it's OK to have a clergy member who is struggling with a particular sin but appears to be repentant of it and working on it. Do you kick them out of the pulpit immediately and say, "You can come back after a probation period once you've straightened your life out?" Do you keep it under wraps and let them continue preaching and hope they sort it out? DO you just throw them out of the church altogether to be on the safe side? All clergy members are still sinners. They will sin in front of people at some point during their tenure - but usually it's a "lesser sin" that people don't perceive as being so severe, or as a repeatable problem.

I realize I'm not really answering the question, just opening up more cans o' worms. That's kind of what I do.

[spacebrat311]

I kind of agree about extremism- In any liberal/conservative dichotomy I tend to think both sides are wrong. I don't tend to buy moderate positions either, however. Often I'm more likely to agree with a distinct "third way" approach that sees the concerns of both sides as essentially missing the point.

[murlough23]

I just figure, the day I start devoting myself to accepting liberal ideas wholeheartedly because they are liberal, or conservative ideas because they are conservative, I've lost my ability to think for myself and it's game over. The idea (supported by valid evidence, of course) should be the attractive thing, regardless of its perceived placement on a political or social spectrum.

I've called myself a "moderate" in the past, only to realize it doesn't help much - I take liberal positions on some issues and conservative issues on the other, and will be labeled by others based on how far to the left or right I seem compared to a person who has taken a position father on either side on the latest issue being discussed. Labelling myself doesn't seem to help much - a moderate is liberal by a conservative's standards.

You are right in thinking it's probably more complex than a one-dimensional scale, but our feeble minds like to sort things into binary on/off states; it makes it easier to separate "us" from "them".

[chrisnu]

The trickier part is whether it's OK to have a clergy member who is struggling with a particular sin but appears to be repentant of it and working on it. Do you kick them out of the pulpit immediately and say, "You can come back after a probation period once you've straightened your life out?" Do you keep it under wraps and let them continue preaching and hope they sort it out? DO you just throw them out of the church altogether to be on the safe side? All clergy members are still sinners. They will sin in front of people at some point during their tenure - but usually it's a "lesser sin" that people don't perceive as being so severe, or as a repeatable problem.

I realize I'm not really answering the question, just opening up more cans o' worms. That's kind of what I do.

I've witnessed this first-hand a couple of times, at Calvary Chapel. In one case, the person was unrepentant, and they were quietly removed from their position, and told not to come back. In the other case, the person was repentant, and they were required to publicly confess to the congregation. Not so sure how cool I am with that, particularly with how the unrepentant pastor suddenly disappeared without explanation to the congregation. Yes, they are in leadership, but I'm not sure that public humiliation is warranted, nor acts a deterrent. They were suspended from ministry but not forced to fellowship elsewhere. I believe they were asked to enter counseling regarding the issue. After a time, I believe it was a few years, they were eventually restored to ministry.

[Vlad!]

Not so sure how cool I am with that, particularly with how the unrepentant pastor suddenly disappeared without explanation to the congregation. Yes, they are in leadership, but I'm not sure that public humiliation is warranted, nor acts a deterrent.

In the case of unrepentance, I think it's reasonable to say "if you want to remain in fellowship, you have to come forward and confess". If the person does not wish to remain as part of the church, I see no reason to say any more than "so and so is leaving; s/he will be replaced by so and so".

In the case of repentance (by which I mean actual repentance, or turning away from the sin, prompted by Godly sorrow a la 2 Cor 7:10), I don't see anything in the Bible that says it has to be brought before the entire congregation, though I also see nothing that says it shouldn't. As long as the person has voluntarily and humbly confessed to an appropriate group of people (for a church leader, the elders and pastors would be a good starting point), the only reason I can see for either asking the leader to step down or bringing it before the congregation is if it affects the person's job. Obviously if someone in charge of handling money has confessed to theft, for instance, or if someone in charge of child-wrangling confessed to looking at child pornography, it might be time to consider a change of positions. However, I also think that at least part of the decision should be left up to the person in question.

[This discussion is getting a bit far afield of the original topic; if it's interfering then let me know and I can split it off into a separate thread].

[murlough23]

We had a youth director a few years ago who had an affair with a student. (Was the student over 18? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say yes, otherwise that's a crime and this person should have been arrested.) Obviously she needed to be stripped of her position once that was known, and I don't remember whether it was her or her husband or the student or someone else who brought it to the attention of the pastoral staff. But the lead pastor did tell the church what had happened after the youth director had left her position and her family had chosen to leave the church (not because they were forced to leave the church, but because they couldn't bear the shame of people knowing what had happened and just wanted a place to start over). The rest of the congregation was told, not to shame the youth director, but because the pastor didn't believe it was right to have this person quietly disappear with no one knowing why and rumors abounding. He felt that it was better to face it head-on and ask us to pray for and have a merciful attitude toward those involved.

[Vlad!]

I've seen both 'quietly disappear' and 'full disclosure' used before, and honestly I'm not a big fan of either one. I think the best way I've seen it done was to say "this person is leaving the church. If you feel like you need to know more, feel free to ask the person or one of the leadership staff and we'll talk with you. We're not announcing anything publicly because we're concerned that it will lead to gossip and idle talk".

(In that situation I didn't feel as though there was any reason other than curiosity for me to know the answer, so I didn't ask and thus to this day don't know why...but I don't feel like this lack of knowledge has hindered me in any way, and it was good to know that if I did want to know the answer I could talk with someone about it).

(not because they were forced to leave the church, but because they couldn't bear the shame of people knowing what had happened and just wanted a place to start over)

To me this seems like the wrong response. The point of Christian community is loving each-other in spite of our faults. Either they're going to a new church and hiding this part of their past, which I don't think is a good approach, or they're going to a new church and exposing it, in which case they have gained nothing and lost what I assume is at least a few deep friendships.

Christianity isn't about running away or "starting over" when things get awkward or uncomfortable, it's about dealing with it head-on and moving through it.

[murlough23]

To me this seems like the wrong response. The point of Christian community is loving each-other in spite of our faults. Either they're going to a new church and hiding this part of their past, which I don't think is a good approach, or they're going to a new church and exposing it, in which case they have gained nothing and lost what I assume is at least a few deep friendships.

I agree, but there are cultural issues involving shame here that I don't want to go into. (I think our Christian beliefs should transcend cultural expectations of how people should behave, but that's easier said than done, and easier to resolve to do yourself than to insist others act similarly.)

My main point in bringing this up was to point out that even if a leader has done something the church considers to be sinful and they have repented of it, there may be good reasons for not allowing them to continue to hold that leadership position. We can point the finger at gay clergy easily, but how do we deal with clergy members who have affairs or who embezzle? I'm hoping that's on-topic in some way.

[Vlad!]

My main point in bringing this up was to point out that even if a leader has done something the church considers to be sinful and they have repented of it, there may be good reasons for not allowing them to continue to hold that leadership position. We can point the finger at gay clergy easily, but how do we deal with clergy members who have affairs or who embezzle? I'm hoping that's on-topic in some way.

I addressed that point a couple posts up:

the only reason I can see for either asking the leader to step down or bringing it before the congregation is if it affects the person's job. Obviously if someone in charge of handling money has confessed to theft, for instance, or if someone in charge of child-wrangling confessed to looking at child pornography, it might be time to consider a change of positions. However, I also think that at least part of the decision should be left up to the person in question.

[murlough23]

OK, so how does that apply to a pastor or bishop, etc., who is openly gay in his/her personal life, but who does not endorse or address any position on the issue from the pulpit?

NP: "Little Drummer Boy", Future of Forestry

[Vlad!]

OK, so how does that apply to a pastor or bishop, etc., who is openly gay in his/her personal life, but who does not endorse or address any position on the issue from the pulpit?

Unrepentant sin is not something the Bible is ambiguous on. My comments were about someone who is repentant.

[murlough23]

Unrepentant sin is not something the Bible is ambiguous on. My comments were about someone who is repentant.

Fine. Someone who has admitted to having same sex attractions but who is not endorsing a gay lifestyle or pursuing a gay relationship?