Other Similar Denominations?

[bostonian]

Hi,

I am an adult who was raised without a religion. I have been looking for my first church. I have not been baptized in any denomination.

I have been attending services at my local Episcopal Church for the last few months and there is a lot I like about it, but I'm getting a really bad vibe from the Presiding Bishop. As much as I like the Episcopal Church and my local Priest, I think the Church is just too liberal for me. I don't like the road they are going down with respect to homosexuality, for example.

I think I have to find another denomination, but since I have no religious background, I'm not sure where to turn. I feel that the Catholics do good work, but I am discouraged by the pedophile priest thing, for one.

Two questions:

1) Is there a book, or website, or other source, that compares the denominations in some summarized form?

2) Is there a denomination that is similar to the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church? I think I'm looking for a denomination that allows priests to marry and have families (unlike the Catholics) yet isn't so liberal to allow homosexual bishops. I am not looking for a conservative fundamentalist denomination, but one that is slightly more conservative than the Episcopalians.

[Sojourner]

In many respects the ELCA represents some of what you are interested in. Their sacramental theology is accepted by the Episcopal Church. However, there is the same turmoil in the ELCA regarding the ordination of homosexual persons. The Lutherans have been a little more adept at managing the issue, but there are congregations within the ELCA that represent every spectrum of thought on the subject.

Most "mainline, liberal" -- to use a rather trite phrase -- churches have some degree of conversation and contention regarding the place of homosexuals in the life of their churches. The United Methodists, the United Presbyterians and the Disciples of Christ pretty much maintain an exclusionary policy regarding gays and ordination. However, each of these organizations have a vocal minority of parishes who support the ordination and call of homosexuals. However, I reiterate that the official policy of these denominations is to exclude homosexuals from sacramental ministry.

[angli_fan]

You might be interested in the various Christian Denomination Comparison Charts available at religionfacts.com

www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/comparison_charts.htm

[bostonian]

Thank you all for the information!

I was hoping to go to a local church in order to form friendships in my own town. Do you think that is reasonable criteria?

There is no ELCA or Presbyterian church in my town. The nearest Disciples of Christ church is also quite some distance from me. The nearest "Anglican breakaway" church is 20 miles from me.

I am having some trouble finding Eastern Orthodox churches. Are those typically tied to a nationality, like the Greeks have their own church?

The United Methodist Church looks interesting, but I'm concerned about their position on homosexuality as well: archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1753

The comparison charts helped a bit, but to be honest I didn't understand a lot of it. For example, I can't tell how the demoninations differ with regard to the Holy Spirit. Each one uses different words, but it almost sounds like they all say the same thing.

I feel very frustrated about this. I feel like God is calling me to join SOME church, but I don't know how to take the next step.

[bostonian]

Thanks again for the response. I guess I will venture outside my town. Maybe I'll give that "Anglican breakaway" church a shot.

My feelings about homosexuality is that God calls us to love all human beings, including homosexuals. So I have no problem with homosexuals living together or having hospital visitation rights, etc. and I wish them a happy life.

But, like most people in the USA, I have a problem with homosexual "marriage" because it denigrates the sanctity of real marriage. God made it very clear that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one. It is very unfair to a child to have to be raised by homosexual "parents". That is very very wrong.

Consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop is absolutely unbiblical, and when I hear Katharine Jefferts Schori go on about it, as much as it pains me, that's where I have to get off. As much as I love the Episcopal Church I have been attending, it's clear the direction she intends to take the Church in, and I can't be a part of that.

[anglicansablaze]

None of the mainline Protestant denominations such as the Disciples of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the United Methodist Church are free of the influence of the radical liberal ideology that has gained the ascendancy in the Episcopal Church. This ideology has made serious inroads in the three denominations that I have named. You will find in each of these denominations a “confessing church movement” like the Anglican Communion Network in the Episcopal Church, which seeks to uphold and propagate the Christian Faith, as received from the Apostles. The Disciples of Christ is the most liberal of the churches that trace their origin to the 19th century Restorationist movement. Several years ago it entered a pulpit exchange agreement with the liberal United Church of Christ. Disciple of Christ pastors may serve United Church of Christ churches and visa versa.

I would recommend visiting a church in one of these denominations a number of times before deciding to make it my church home. Where I lived in Louisiana, the local ELCA church had an orthodox pastor, an orthodox congregation, and a strong Bible teaching ministry. It went to three services on Sunday morning and grew to the point that it outgrew its building. It eventually swapped buildings with the local Disciples of Christ church that had shrunk under the leadership of a liberal pastor.

I attended a United Methodist church over a year before I picked up from the pastor’s preaching that he was not as orthodox as he initially had seemed to be when I first started to attend the church. In most of his sermons he was fairly Biblically faithful in his teaching. But on two occasions he preached what he had learned from his liberal professors at seminary and not what the Scriptures themselves taught. The first sermon had to do with why bad things happen to good people. In that sermon he took issue with what the Scriptures teach. The second had to with the particularity of the Christian Faith. In that sermon he argued that Jesus Christ was the way to salvation for Christians but not for all people. People of other faiths had their own way to salvation. The sermon was a denial that salvation is found in Christ alone. I do not believe that he would have gathered as large a congregation as he had if he had been preaching sermons like that from the start. It was a new church—only two years old. He was the founding pastor. I think that he felt comfortable enough with the congregation that he could reveal his true thoughts on the matter, or at least what his seminary professors had taught him. He was well liked and the congregation overlooked these departures from faithfulness to the Bible. They troubled me, I suspect, more than anybody else but not enough to cause me to leave. In most of his sermons he kept to the Bible.

What did prompt me to leave was more related to his actions than his teaching. He encouraged me to become involved in a prison ministry. My role included recruiting more volunteers and requesting donations, cookies, and prayers from the congregation. He then informed the coordinator of the prison ministry that the church was unable to support the ministry. He had concluded that there was not enough interest in the congregation. He, however, did not tell me. He agreed to announce a blood drive for my grandnephew who had been diagnosed with leukemia. When he neglected to make the announcement during the time of announcements, I concluded that he had forgotten and stood up and made the announcement myself when he had finished talking. He was furious with me for “disrupting the service.” His reaction surprised me since I thought that he would have wanted the congregation to know about my grandnephew’s medical condition and how they might help him. The only part of the service that remained was the benediction. I had not made a very long announcement. Later I concluded that he had decided not announce the blood drive because it competed with the church’s groundbreaking for its first building. If people had donated blood to my grandnephew, they would not have attended the groundbreaking. He had wanted a large attendance at the ceremony. The new building was more important to him than the life of a child. Or so it seemed to me.

It began to trouble me that, while he often spoke of how caring the church was at the meetings of the church’s CARE team and would have a team member send a get-well card to a church member’s child who was bitten by ants, as well as to other church members and their families, he never asked the team to send a card to my grandnephew and his parents, even though I had been regularly attending the church for over a year and served on the CARE team. The message that I was receiving was that the church’s caring extended only to church members and their families and not to regular attenders and their loved ones. I would move on to a church which cared for people whether or not they were members and whose members did their best to be instruments of God’s love in the world, a Southern Baptist new church start that at the time was meeting in a fire station for worship on Sundays.

The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod is fairly orthodox in its views of Christ, the Gospel, the authority of the Bible, human sexuality and marriage. Its worship is liturgical; its sacramental theology affirms the Real Presence. A number of the conservative Presbyterian and Reformed churches are also orthodox in their teaching in these areas and use liturgical forms of worship. They are “virtualists” in their sacramental theology, that is, they believe that the Holy Spirit, when believers eat the bread and wine of the Holy Communion, conveys the “virtue” of the Body and Blood of Christ, i.e., forgiveness of sins and the other benefits of Christ’s passion and death upon the cross, to them. “Virtualism” is also a sacramental theology that is associated with 16th and 17th century Anglicanism; it is the sacramental theology of many Evangelical Anglicans to this day. Other possibilities are Free Methodist and Independent Lutheran churches.

While I am attracted to some Eastern Orthodox forms of prayer, I am not comfortable with its theology and its liturgical practices. I have tried to understand some of the conclusions that it claims to draw from the Scriptures but cannot see how it draws these conclusions without relying heavily on how certain Eastern Orthodox theologians “interpret” certain passages of Scripture, what they, as far as I can see it, read into these passages.

Eastern Orthodox worship has a very ancient pedigree. However, I do not like the Eastern Orthodox practice of hiding the altar behind an iconistasis from what is regarded as the rude gaze of profane eyes. During the liturgy the priest at times prays one set of prayers inaudibly out of the sight of the congregation while a deacon leads the congregation in another set of prayers. I prefer worship in the Common Prayer tradition in which the priest and the people are one liturgical unit and in which the priest says prayers in full sight of the people and in a clearly audible voice, and not with his back turned to the people or concealed behind a screen and in a barely audible mutter.

I have been reading and studying the Bible for over 30 years. I have found nothing in the Bible that provides a warrant for the practice of ordaining non-celibate gay or lesbian deacons or priests or consecrating non-celibate homosexual bishops. I have found nothing that provides a warrant for blessing a homosexual relationship, much less conducting Christian marriage ceremonies for gay or lesbian couples. What I do find is a blanket condemnation of homosexual practice.

In the New Testament Jesus is recorded as equating thoughts and desires with actions. One does need to need to do something to disobey God; one just has to think about doing it or desire to do it. Jesus is also recorded as saying that all evil comes from within the human heart—our innermost self. He lists various evils that come from within us. This list includes pornia, variously translated as “fornication,” “sexual immorality,” or “unfaithfulness.” As used at that time, pornia included homosexual practice. So it is not just the Old Testament or Paul that identifies homosexual practice as an act of rebellion toward God, it is also Jesus himself.

When Jesus speaks of marriage, he speaks always of a man and a woman. He never speaks of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Liberal Episcopalians who regard the Scriptures as purely human writings are quick to brush off the teaching of the Bible concerning human sexuality and marriage. They claim that the Bible is culture-bound and outdated and therefore not relevant to our time.

Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans, on the other hand, believe that the Scriptures are divinely revealed: they had human writers but God was the author. They believe that the teaching of the Bible is valid today as it was 2000 years ago. Consequently they are scrupled in these matters. Liberal Episcopalians have no patience with their scruples and count them as prejudice and hostility against gays and lesbians.

Liberal Episcopalians have displayed a surprisingly illiberal reluctance to allow for real conscientious objection. Their devotion to what they describe as “radical inclusion” bears a striking similarity to the fanaticism that is seen in sectaries. It has not only led them to abandon Biblical teaching about human sexuality and marriage but also Biblical teaching about Jesus Christ, the Gospel, and the authority of the Scriptures. Erosion of the Christian Faith in one area has contributed to erosion in other areas. As Archbishop Mouneer Anis drew to the attention to the House of Bishops at its New Orleans meeting, there is a growing perception that the Episcopal Church is not only a “different church” from the other provinces of the Anglican Communion but a “different religion” from orthodox Christianity. As long as a large number of Episcopal bishops fail to guard the church against “strange and erroneous doctrines,” as the classical Anglican Prayer Book calls them, and spread these doctrines themselves, the Episcopal Church will continue down the road of apostasy and heresy.

If you know other people who have become estranged from the Episcopal Church due to its theological direction, you might want to consider the formation of a home fellowship. The fellowship meets once a week for a meal followed by a time of worship, Bible study, and prayer. The object is to build each other up in the faith, support each other in a difficult time, and to encourage each other in the embodiment of God’s love in the world. New people can be invited to meetings. This includes non-Christians who may in time through their interactions with believers come to faith in Jesus Christ themselves. A sympathetic priest might be found to occasionally celebrate a home Eucharist with the fellowship. God has used such groups to start new Biblically faithful churches.

[Sojourner]

bostonian, I am somewhat confused by your statement: "The United Methodist Church looks interesting, but I'm concerned about their position on homosexuality as well...." I read the link you offered and compared it to your explanation of your views about homosexuality, and frankly saw no difference. Could you be more specific about your concerns related to the United Methodist position on homosexuality?

[bostonian]

I was referring to this:

We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

It's hard for me to know what exactly is meant by "guardian relationships". I read that to mean that they approve of homosexuals raising children. Clue me in if I am misunderstanding that.

[Sojourner]

Thanks for clarifying your position. You pose an interesting question. Do you believe that it is better for a child to be placed in foster care rather than raised by a birth parent who is gay?

[bostonian]

Yes I do.

[Canadian Phil]

On the subject of the Eastern Orthodox, look for one which associates itself with the Antiochenes (i.e. the Patriarchate of Antioch), since they've been doing some more English language congregations than other groups.

As for the Catholics, I know the pedophile priest thing is disturbing, but it would be inaccurate to tar all Catholics or even all Catholic priests with that. While the hierarchy has been less than quick in dealing with this, dismissing the Catholics only for that is cutting yourself from an important tradition. Mind you, I'm rather to Protestant to swim the Tiber or the Bosphorus, so here I am.

Peace,
Phil

[bostonian]

Thanks for the input, Phil. I like the Catholic Church in a lot of ways, but I am put off by the fact that priests cannot have families. I don't know what the cause of the pedophile priest thing is, but nothing good can come from making grown men go celibate. Men are not built that way, no matter how much they love God.

Also, I don't like the Catholic notion of confession. I have no intention of telling a Catholic priest what I did with Suzie next door when I was in high school. I feel like that is between me and God (and Suzie ;-) )

Can somebody explain the Episcopalian equivalent of confession to me? I think that it is available for those who want it, but most Episcopalians don't. Is that correct?

[christian]

Strigdon,

I have a feeling that if we were at the same church we'd have long conversations at coffee hour every Sunday. My wife would roll her eyes when she saw us talking and be pulling at my sleeve in order to finally leave.

The reconciliation of a penitent is a service to officially re-install into the church someone who left or was rebuked and denied communion, a form of excommunication(this is allowed for in the rubrics, though only the orthodox seem to practice). While it can be used as a form of confession, officially confession formally occurs just before communion in general form. Private confession with the priest is also provided for, but it is very rare.

[bostonian]

Tell me about "the rubrics". Where is it? What is it?

[Canadian Phil]

I don't think I can agree with your take on celibacy. While I agree that it is good for ministers to have families, so I don't see that celibacy is necessary for the priesthood, I also would fight shy of saying that nothing good can come of celibacy because of the way that men are. My concerns are two-fold.

First, it implies that men can't control their sexual appetites, which is dangeorusly close to saying that sex is not optional, but necessary for men. That, I would say, is wildly over-estimating the importance of sex and, very possibly, leading to making it an idol which we can't do without. This ignores that there are many many ways to interact with people (friendship, hospitality) in which physical sexuality isn't a part. It is, in short, exagerrating the importance of sex in our lives.

Second, celibacy, rightly practiced, can free up energy and space for digging deeper into one's spiritual path. That doesn't mean a celibate isn't tempted or even that they are perfectly able to withstand those tempations. We are human beings with material bodies, but what we do with those bodies can affect us spirituality. Celibacy is one way to be aware of that.

Third, celibacy is only one of the forms of spiritual disciplines. Marriage, of course, is another (under-appreciated in our society today), but both have in common that there are vows that we really don't know how to keep or know the cost of keeping them and which we have to rely on God to help us being faithful. By claiming that celibacy is impossible, we're saying that God can't guide us in our sexuality and that is a problem.

Peace
Phil