CBF Re-Envisioning and Alternative Denominations

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

I've not been in this thread because Fox's title didn't interest me. I don't buy the idea that the SBC has enough influence to pervert America. I think America does well enough at that by itself. LOL

But your interest in different churches caught my eye today.

Just my own persona takes here, I like the UCC. I like their openness and some time back I might have considered the UCC. For me their congregational polity became less attractive over the years. Much of what I see wrong in Baptist life is related to flaws in congregationalism. But if the Methodists disappeared off the earth I'd have to give them some thought.

I've not had enough contact with the Quakers to make informed statements. I would find their contemplative bent attractive. But I know they don't practice baptism or communion (at least as far as I know) and that wouldn't work for me.

Probably if I couldn't be a Methodist my first next choice would be Episcopalian.

[Sandy]

My general experiences in Methodist churches have been good. There was a large FUMC close to where I used to live in Texas that did contemporary worship as well as anyone I know, and I liked the fact that they held it on Saturday night. I could worship regularly in a Methodist church as conservative as that one was. The main point of disagreement I have with Methodists is the structure of the church. I don't think I would be very comfortable with a hierarchy between the local church and the universal church. There are a few points of Wesleyan doctrine that I wouldn't agree with, either, but those wouldn't be major deal breakers.

To me, the UCC is an example of a pure congregational church. From church to church, it doesn't appear to be a "franchise" operation. They lack the element of Baptist DNA that causes people to be bothered by another church's lack of conformity. And they seem to be able to hold together without much int he way of controversy.

If I were looking for another denomination, I'd give the Quakers a second and third look. They are pretty wide open on a lot of things, and I'd have to get into the details of some of their doctrinal positions before I would be able to embrace everything, and even though they are relatively small in number, there are several different kinds of Quaker practice that are not shared within the various groups. I'm fully in line with their pacifism, with their belief in the "inner light", their interpretation of "holiness" and their belief in spiritual gifts. They reject sacramental baptism and communion, and as a result, some groups do not practice either so that there is no mis-interpretation. They do have pastors, but they reject any formal designations of "clergy" and I'm fully on board with that. And the combination of contemplative worship, waiting on the Holy Spirit to move and speak, with an emotional, powerful response is, as I said before, something that I relate to the most spiritual experiences I've ever had. They are much more focused on living out faith in the real world every day than they are about how many times you make it to meeting in a month. Some groups only have meeting once a month, some less frequently than that.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

It is interesting that most (if not all) of us grew up in the SBC and yet now have very different thoughts about what denominations would be attractive if we were to choose otherwise. Of course, I've chosen otherwise twice so I believe I'm where I intend to stay because the fit feels good.

I know a number of Baptists who have moved into a more liturgical church or have moved into a more connectional church. But also several of you seem to be interested in an even less structured church than the Baptist family.

I once read a statistic about the average Christian being in three different denominations in their life time. I wonder what the average is now? I also wonder how different that average is for people in ministry?

[Sandy]

Well, I wasn't actually anticipating a change of denomination when we moved to Pennsylvania, but we had determined we needed to find a church fairly close to home, in order to be actively involved and avoid driving in winter weather, and there was only one SBC church close enough to warrant a serious visit, and it wasn't a fit. Non-denominational, conservative, Evangelical churches these days are all cookie cutter in worship and programming, and are largely focused on "sit and listen" experiences. Small groups in two of the three local churches we went to watched a video of the Sunday sermon, and were based on questions sent by the pastor over the interned. I actually found the church we now attend on the internet through a google search. Other than church governance, which is slightly different than the SBC churches we've attended, I haven't found anything doctrinal that is a problem, or wouldn't be found in SBC churches somewhere. Membership was different, there's no invitation at the end of the service, and there's only one "business meeting" a year. Other than that, the most substantial difference I found is that no one brings fried chicken to the carry-in dinners.

My last Sunday school class at the church I attended in Texas before we moved, which was a couples class from age 70 up, including three centegenerians, surprisingly had a lot of members, perhaps 15 out of 40, who had come from other denominations after age 70. We had some members who came from a nearby secured retirement center, and they came with some of our regular members who attended there. I actually baptized two ladies in their 70's who had been sprinkled when they were confirmed.

[Tim Bonney]

[Haruo]

Just a side note on Quakers and Communion. I attended Friends Memorial Church (now ) in the hollow between the Wedgwood and Ravenna-Bryant neighborhoods of Seattle for a few months in my early sobriety. They are Evangelical Friends (the kind that have Pastors and Sermons and programmed congregational singing, and gave us Richard Nixon...) and, at the time, I did not consider myself a Christian and I found them to be "too Christian" for me, so I eventually stopped attending. But I did stay long enough to learn their take (one I agreed and agree with) on Communion. Their position was that Jesus' words of institution were not about a church ceremony; they were about a meal taken together. Jesus was saying not, "Whenever you hand out little cubes of bread or anemic soda crackers and tiny cups of Welch's, Remember Me," but rather, "Whenever you get together for a meal, a seder or otherwise, Remember Me". So for them, the common meal in the fellowship lounge after the service was Communion.

And in spite of the great power and beauty of Eucharistic services of a wide variety of stripes, and in spite of the fact that I do not doubt that they can be and often are means of grace, I agree with the folks at Friends Memorial (and the Peruvian Quaker, whose name I do not recall, who wrote the book that the subject came up in while I was there): Coffee Hour is (or should be) the true Eucharistic Meal.

[Haruo]

Here's the website for the denominational group the North Seattle Friends belong to:

[Haruo]

As far as Alternative Denominations... Mrs H and I both incline to the view that of the 48 different fellowships I worshiped with last year, if I had to give up Fremont Baptist, the most attractive alternative was Findlay Street Christian Church, which is DOC, a denomination nobody has mentioned here yet to my recollection.

Also, Timothy, I notice you've not mentioned ELCA as a possible refuge when God removes all traces of Wesley from the Earth. What is it that makes Episcopalianism more attractive to you than Lutheranism?

[Tim Bonney]