What Christian "brand" may best suit me???

[FireDragon76]

I'm curious to know the reason(s) why you think the Episcopal Church may better suit me than the UMC--besides on the issue of chapel ambiance and ritual, of course. Do tell, please.

In my experience, the Methodists are not as liberal as Episcopalians. The conservative evangelical movement is much more stronger than in the Episcopal church - I grew up Methodist and the church is now more conservative than when I was younger.

BTW, I live in the Midwest. Do you know which Midwestern Episcopal dioceses may have values not in line with what I'm seeking?

I don't have an exhaustive list, but Quincy and Springfield are known to be conservative diocese.

I live in the Orlando area and the Episcopal Church diocese here is also much more conservative- they tend to follow Reformed Anglican theology with a heavy Charismatic influence, and they oppose gay marriage and the inclusion of gays in the full life of the Church- there are only two or three parishes that relatively moderate, and that's because they have populations that are largely non-southern (Winter Park's St. Richard's, for instance, full of so-called "Snowbirds" from New England).

Reflecting on what you've said, I believe Quakers or Unity are probably a good match for your beliefs, especially Quakers. Episcopalians, like most Protestants, tend to emphasize sinfulness and grace, not innate goodness. Liberal Episcopalians just tend to emphasize the social justice aspects of redemption.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yea, not exactly Mormon, but the OP's views reminded me of LDS because of their cosmology.

LDS believe that YHWH used to be a mortal. They take a lot of the Old Testament very literally- they believe God literally has hands and feet and a body, and heaven is some place up in outer space. The righteous get a planet of their own to be "gods".

This is far different from what Seer is talking about, which sounds more like Unity or some Quaker beliefs.

Though I would point out, the idea of becoming divine is not inherently un-Christian or un-traditional. Many of the Church Fathers talk in similar language but how they understood this metaphysically was not quite the same necessarily (basically, human beings become divine the same way metal put into a furnance glows red- the metal is still metal but it takes on the "energy" of the fire). But it's still historically naïve to exclude this sort of language of "becoming God" altogether. In the end its really a question of emphasis.

To me, the important part of being Christian is following Jesus, the rest, including doctrine, is secondary. But I know others, even liberal Christians, would really want to steer somebody towards a more mainstream understanding of the divine nature and human condition.

 

[Targaryen]

Though I would point out, the idea of becoming divine is not inherently un-Christian or un-traditional. Many of the Church Fathers talk in similar language but how they understood this metaphysically was not quite the same necessarily (basically, human beings become divine the same way metal put into a furnance glows red- the metal is still metal but it takes on the "energy" of the fire). But it's still historically naïve to exclude this sort of language of "becoming God" altogether. In the end its really a question of emphasis.

They spoke of being Christ-like, not gods. What the OP described was not what the ECF's or what you were getting at but that all humanity was a part of the divine...which is NOT orthodox Christian thought at all.

 

[Soma Seer]

Thought I would just mention a few things, the Wesleyan theology would be your Pentecostals and revivalist churches like the Holiness churches, they are famous for emotional worship. The Seventh Day crowd is mostly into setting dates for Christ's return, of course they are always wrong and start a new calculation. I've never been able to take Seventh Day Adventists seriously.

Any church known for an "emotional-worship" style would not be a good fit for me. And what you've shared about the Seventh Day Adventist church also makes it a not-so-hot fit for me.

I personally come from a Campbellite background, basically the Church of Christ, Christian Church and Disciples of Christ were one church, the Disciples of Christ became the more liberal of the branches. They have a lot in common with the Methodists in worship and their services tend to be contemporary.

Thank you very much for sharing this info. I remain intrigued by the Disciples of Christ, even though I suspect their worship style might be too contemporary for me. (Plus, the nearest DoC church is farther from me than I'd be willing to travel each Sunday.)

If I may ask, what Christian faith do you currently follow?

 

[Soma Seer]

I am not sure branding Christians serves a good purpose. A Christian should be a human being who obeys the command of Jesus to love your neighbor. Everything after that is details, including what group you are a part of on Sunday.

I can't argue against that point.

 

[Soma Seer]

In my experience, the Methodists are not as liberal as Episcopalians. The conservative evangelical movement is much more stronger than in the Episcopal church - I grew up Methodist and the church is now more conservative than when I was younger.

I had no idea that the UMC has been becoming more conservative. That seems a shame....

I don't have an exhaustive list, but Quincy and Springfield are known to be conservative diocese.

I attended Quincy University, as a matter of fact. But I didn't attend any churches during my time there, other than two Masses performed in the campus chapel.

Reflecting on what you've said, I believe Quakers or Unity are probably a good match for your beliefs, especially Quakers.

Believe it or not, I twice tried a Unity service and found it too touchy-feely/happy, if that makes sense.

Quakerism--at least a programmed meeting--might suit me well but there are no meeting houses close enough to me for me to find out. Alas.

Episcopalians, like most Protestants, tend to emphasize sinfulness and grace, not innate goodness. Liberal Episcopalians just tend to emphasize the social justice aspects of redemption.

I always am surprised that orthodox Christianity doesn't emphasize the innate goodness of (our) souls. The Bible says that we're created in God's image--but, then, the teaching passed down is that we've become something other than what we truly are. If we're Divine--in the sense that we're created by and a part of--God, then, for me, perfection is our actual/permanent state, even if we've forgotten as much due to a sinful state of mind. Ah, well.

Perhaps I should check out a few local Episcopal churches by me in the near future.

 

[Soma Seer]

They spoke of being Christ-like, not gods. What the OP described was not what the ECF's or what you were getting at but that all humanity was a part of the divine...which is NOT orthodox Christian thought at all.

I know that cherry-picking biblical quotes often proves problematic but I still would like to point out Psalms 82:6, John 10:31-38, Galatians 3:23-26 and John 14:12.

I also would like to add that FireDragon76 hit the nail on the head when s/he said that it is a matter of emphasis regarding what the Bible states. For me, the idea of souls "becoming as gods" means that we (slowly) are returning to our Original State--i.e., the image of God--as we recall our true, Divine heritage. (I think the Parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates this idea.)

 

[ViaCrucis]

I know that cherry-picking biblical quotes often proves problematic but I still would like to point out Psalms 82:6, John 10:31-38, Galatians 3:23-26 and John 14:12.

I also would like to add that FireDragon76 hit the nail on the head when s/he said that it is a matter of emphasis regarding what the Bible states. For me, the idea of souls "becoming as gods" means that we (slowly) are returning to our Original State--i.e., the image of God--as we recall our true, Divine heritage. (I think the Parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates this idea.)

The historic, orthodox, patristic sense of passages, in particular ones like Psalm 82:6 and 2 Peter 1:4, is what is known as the Christian doctrine of Theosis. We see this in grand statements such as by St. Irenaeus, "The Lord became what we are that we might become what He is", or St. Athanasius "[God] became man so that man might become God".

Those are certainly fascinating statements and by themselves could sound very odd, especially to modern Western Christian ears not particularly well accustomed to such language. But it's language that has long been resonant within Christianity, both East and West, right up until the present. In C.S. Lewis' famous Mere Christianity he writes,

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”

In the historic Christian meaning Theosis is not like the Platonic return to origin--the soul of man having descended down through emanations into the lowlier world of matter, only to be taken back up again into the infinite world of the Good. It is instead a teleological work by which God having created human beings--flesh and blood creatures that we are--in the Divine Image means He is going to make good on that. And of course to be created in the Image of God is to mean, very simply, that the human creature is God's image-bearer, a creature that reflects the Divine goodness to the rest of creation and therefore brings honor and glory to God. The Divine Image is not ontological, but functional, it's what man was created for. Sin, of course, has damaged the image; but again God is going to make good on what He's said and done. In Christ, therefore, God has condescended to meet man right here in his sin and death, and by death and resurrection, overcome these and put them beneath His feet. Thus as risen from the dead He has taken humanity in Himself, by His own body, and raised it from death to life. And thereby having assumed our humanity, calls us to a life together in Him and with Him which will be accomplished on the future coming day when God sets the world and all things to rights.

Even as God having come and met us in our humanity has called us, in Himself, to meet God in Him, and thus to know God by Him, and to share in God with Him. And thus to be in Christ, and ultimately that means that we will be raised up, bodily, from the grave to eternal life right here on God's good, renewed, green earth is to share in the sort of life that Christ has. Which, as eternal Son of the Father, is the very life of God.

And to therefore share in God's own Divine Life, as grace in Jesus Christ by His death and resurrection, and the reality of that future life and world--that means very much, "ye are gods". To be a thing that really does reflect that love and goodness and light and glory of the good Creator God.

Not to be subsumed away from our individual and creaturely identities into a great amorphous mass of impersonal divinity; but to be brought into that kind of communion and fellowship with God that whereby we are, fundamentally, transformed by God, and are as God intended. Truly, really human.

That's actually kind of the upside-down counter intuitive nature of the thing. The irony is that in man aspiring to be divine in a sense lost their humanity, and it is that God has taken upon Himself our humanity and restored it, that in God we again recover and become really and actually human.

Roman Catholic theologian Herbert McCabe puts it this way:

"Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history - and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human."

In that sense Theosis, the divinization of man is fundamentally the re-humanization of man in God, in the God who became man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Targaryen]

The historic, orthodox, patristic sense of passages, in particular ones like Psalm 82:6 and 2 Peter 1:4, is what is known as the Christian doctrine of Theosis. We see this in grand statements such as by St. Irenaeus, "The Lord became what we are that we might become what He is", or St. Athanasius "[God] became man so that man might become God".

Those are certainly fascinating statements and by themselves could sound very odd, especially to modern Western Christian ears not particularly well accustomed to such language. But it's language that has long been resonant within Christianity, both East and West, right up until the present. In C.S. Lewis' famous Mere Christianity he writes,

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”

In the historic Christian meaning Theosis is not like the Platonic return to origin--the soul of man having descended down through emanations into the lowlier world of matter, only to be taken back up again into the infinite world of the Good. It is instead a teleological work by which God having created human beings--flesh and blood creatures that we are--in the Divine Image means He is going to make good on that. And of course to be created in the Image of God is to mean, very simply, that the human creature is God's image-bearer, a creature that reflects the Divine goodness to the rest of creation and therefore brings honor and glory to God. The Divine Image is not ontological, but functional, it's what man was created for. Sin, of course, has damaged the image; but again God is going to make good on what He's said and done. In Christ, therefore, God has condescended to meet man right here in his sin and death, and by death and resurrection, overcome these and put them beneath His feet. Thus as risen from the dead He has taken humanity in Himself, by His own body, and raised it from death to life. And thereby having assumed our humanity, calls us to a life together in Him and with Him which will be accomplished on the future coming day when God sets the world and all things to rights.

Even as God having come and met us in our humanity has called us, in Himself, to meet God in Him, and thus to know God by Him, and to share in God with Him. And thus to be in Christ, and ultimately that means that we will be raised up, bodily, from the grave to eternal life right here on God's good, renewed, green earth is to share in the sort of life that Christ has. Which, as eternal Son of the Father, is the very life of God.

And to therefore share in God's own Divine Life, as grace in Jesus Christ by His death and resurrection, and the reality of that future life and world--that means very much, "ye are gods". To be a thing that really does reflect that love and goodness and light and glory of the good Creator God.

Not to be subsumed away from our individual and creaturely identities into a great amorphous mass of impersonal divinity; but to be brought into that kind of communion and fellowship with God that whereby we are, fundamentally, transformed by God, and are as God intended. Truly, really human.

That's actually kind of the upside-down counter intuitive nature of the thing. The irony is that in man aspiring to be divine in a sense lost their humanity, and it is that God has taken upon Himself our humanity and restored it, that in God we again recover and become really and actually human.

Roman Catholic theologian Herbert McCabe puts it this way:

"Jesus is God's Word, God's idea of God, how God understands himself. He is how-God-understands-himself become a part of our human history, become human, become the first really thoroughly human part of our history - and therefore, of course, the one hated, despised, and destroyed by the rest of us, who wouldn't mind being divine but are very frightened of being human."

In that sense Theosis, the divinization of man is fundamentally the re-humanization of man in God, in the God who became man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Soma Seer]

And to therefore share in God's own Divine Life, as grace in Jesus Christ by His death and resurrection, and the reality of that future life and world--that means very much, "ye are gods". To be a thing that really does reflect that love and goodness and light and glory of the good Creator God.

Not to be subsumed away from our individual and creaturely identities into a great amorphous mass of impersonal divinity; but to be brought into that kind of communion and fellowship with God that whereby we are, fundamentally, transformed by God, and are as God intended. Truly, really human.

This is the last thought I'll share on the matter, as my OP has veered way off-topic. Heh-heh...

I do not believe that souls, when fully returned to the Godhead, will become an "amorphous mass of impersonal divinity" and, thus, lose their individuality. I believe that we'll return our individuality, yet know ourselves to be One with God.

But here's where we do differ:

The irony is that in man aspiring to be divine in a sense lost their humanity, and it is that God has taken upon Himself our humanity and restored it, that in God we again recover and become really and actually human.

I don't believe that we were human first. I believe that our true form--or original form--is Spirit; thus, I believe that we're returning to our true form, through faltering steps, of course. But we're to rely on the living example of, as well as (requested) help from, Jesus.

Will humans become a perfected group/race/whatever on this material plane in time? Most likely so. Will it be a permanent state? I do not believe so, as, again, I think we're growing toward our true Spiritual state.

And with all that said, I take my leave of this topic and ask that anyone else who replies to this thread stick to the original question posed.

 

[Soma Seer]

Thank you, Everyone, for all of your input.

Those were the quiz results from 2 years ago? Have you considered re-taking the quiz?

I stand corrected on two points: 1) I first took the Christian-faith quiz (on SelectSmart.com) in 4/2013. (I guess time got away from me to the point that it felt like I'd taken it two years ago. ) And 2) I just retook it and my top five results now are:

• Episcopal/Anglican (100%)
• Methodist/Wesleyan (100%)
• Mennonite Brethren (90%)
• Evangelical Lutheran (88%)
• Assemblies of God (79%)

I suspect the Assemblies of God is so high on my list only because the quiz doesn't contain enough options, 'cause I know that faith doesn't fit me. And I wonder why Episcopal wasn't tied with Methodist. Oh, well.

I know my results likely would be vastly different if I'd answered even one question differently or if I even placed lesser or greater importance on one answer. (I was iffy on a few of the questions, as I don't have hard-'n-fast beliefs on certain subjects.)

No matter what, I suspect I'll always hold certain beliefs no orthodox faith could embrace; so I guess I will need to keep those to myself.

I think my real options--based on my current leanings and those churches close enough to my home--are: Episcopal/Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic (still considered due to my love of traditional service with ritual) and maybe the ECLA, which I need to investigate further.

SS