New Denomination Idea

[BrendanG]

I have an idea to create a church called "The Church of John 14:15"

John 14:15 reads: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.

The main purpose of the church would be to share philosophical and practical knowledge of how to live a Christian life, and how to support each other in these endeavors. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long.

An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. Paul said that there must not be a hint of immorality among you, and to kick people out of the church who do not repent of sin. This should be a very obvious policy for 100% of Christian churches. The fact that essentially no churches do this is one of the important reasons why I do not go to church. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.


The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.


If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.

During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.

My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.

So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.

I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

 

[PloverWing]

These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.

I think most churches try to do these two things. Unfortunately, being limited and flawed humans, we disagree about what Jesus asked us to do, and about how much stuff we really know and what things we don't know.

 

[Clare73]

I have an idea to create a church called "The Church of John 14:15"

John 14:15 reads: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Some major obstacles already.

1) Jn 14:15 boils down to two commandments, love of God and neighbor as self.

2) You being its founder have no spiritual power to communicate to your rmembers enabling them to obey the two commandments.

3) Your church is spiritually dead and will never have the spiritual power to get off the ground.

These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.

The main purpose of the church would be to share philosophical and practical knowledge of how to live a Christian life, and how to support each other in these endeavors. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long

An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. Paul said that there must not be a hint of immorality among you, and to kick people out of the church who do not repent of sin. This should be a very obvious policy for 100% of Christian churches. The fact that essentially no churches do this is one of the important reasons why I do not go to church. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.


The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.


If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.

During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.

My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.

So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.

I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have an idea to create a church called "The Church of John 14:15"

John 14:15 reads: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.

The main purpose of the church would be to share philosophical and practical knowledge of how to live a Christian life, and how to support each other in these endeavors. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long.

An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. Paul said that there must not be a hint of immorality among you, and to kick people out of the church who do not repent of sin. This should be a very obvious policy for 100% of Christian churches. The fact that essentially no churches do this is one of the important reasons why I do not go to church. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.


The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.


If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.

During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.

My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.

So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.

I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

.... I really like the general idea and how you introduced the concept for a new church. Or, I was liking it..............at least up to the part where you said such a new denomination would necessarily kick divorced people out, which I assume means in 'pronto fashion.' I don't think I can jive with that.

As a philosopher, I'm going to have to say I wouldn't count such a church as the kind of church which could truly serve on a more "philosophical" level for the seeker of Christ.

Also, is this proposed denomination going to "practically" handle the numerous live objections of Higher Criticism of the Bible which hang in the air like miasma in downtown Las Angeles? If it can't, I don't know that I'd cite your proposal as being fully philosophical or practical in nature.

But as I said, I liked the general idea ...

 

[timothyu]

Ideally it would be a really short church service. Hi! Put God's will ahead of your own, which is love all as self. See you next week. No need for anything else as God's got it under control. Wouldn't be long before the congregation would realize they didn't need to show up as they were simply living a new way of life running contrary to the traditional self serving ways of man.. as commanded by God.

 

[Clare73]

I have an idea to create a church called "The Church of John 14:15"
John 14:15 reads: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
These would be the tenants of this church:
1. We try to do what Jesus asked us to do.
2. We don't pretend to know stuff which we don't really know.
The main purpose of the church would be to share philosophical and practical knowledge of how to live a Christian life, and how to support each other in these endeavors. I could speak a great deal on this, but I think that would make the post quite long.
An example of something very obvious that this church would have to do is kick people out of the church who get frivolous divorces. Jesus in the New Testament was asked if it was okay to get divorces for any which reason, and he said no. This is one of the few topics that Jesus spoke about in plain language. Therefore, no-fault divorce is obviously a no-no for Christians. It should be an obvious policy that if you get a no-fault divorce and have not made any attempt to repair your relationship with your ex-spouse (this would show sincerity of repentance), then you are not welcome in the church. Paul said that there must not be a hint of immorality among you, and to kick people out of the church who do not repent of sin. This should be a very obvious policy for 100% of Christian churches. The fact that essentially no churches do this is one of the important reasons why I do not go to church. Why should I go to church and put myself under the authority/teaching of a pastor who is obviously holds himself and his congregation to a much lower moral standard than I hold myself to? I am afraid if I went to church, it would harm my marriage because of the bad example that the churches set.
The church does not have as direct influence on most other areas of society, but there is a lot of evil they could be speaking out against that they do not mention. I looked up a bunch of stats once and calculated that about 40% of US GDP is spent on murder, theft, and gambling. This is because 100% of our wars for decades have been illegal because congress did not declare war, which makes them equivalent to murder even by secular standards. All government-mandated welfare is theft. Social security, for instance, takes food out of the mouths of the grandchildren so that the grandparents can be idle. Capital gains is a good measure for theft via inflation, since net capital gains would be impossible in an economic system that had
a steady currency supply. Also, alimony + involuntary no-fault divorce fits the literal definition of slavery. The USA is still practicing legal slavery. A lot of Christians focus on gay sex and abortion, but the people they are nagging are obviously not Christians, and therefore obviously don't care about what Christians have to say. But Christians are supporting murder, usury, theft, and slavery on a daily basis, and they don't even acknowledge that they are doing this. I don't know what an individual Christian can do about these things, but at least acknowledging them would be a good start.
If I were pastor of a church, I would pick a Bible passage or two and discuss how to practically apply it in one's life, and discuss its psychological significance (A LOT of what Jesus says is basically a kind of psychology). Then I would confess my recent sins to the congregation as we are asked to do in the New Testament, and have the congregation likewise confess whatever they are comfortable with confessing. Then we could say a prayer together (like the Lord's Prayer), sing some psalms according to the preferences of the congregation, and do the communion.
During the communion, I'd probably say something like, "I'm not sure what is technically happening during communion, or what its significance is, but you asked us to do it, so we are doing it." Then I'd read the passage in the Bible where Jesus talked about communion, and I'd give the congregation actual bread and actual wine, like it says in the Bible.
My church would not concern itself with topics that we can't actually know, such as transubstantiation or Christology.
So yea, basically I don't go to church because all the churches talk about a bunch of nonsense which they don't really know, but don't do the things that they ought to know to do.
I will almost certainly not actually start a church like this, because no one has ever listened to anything I've had to say since my earliest memories. I don't know a single person in real life who I think would understand why I think running a church like this is necessary. But I wanted to put it out there that I think the is how a church ought to be run, and I don't go to church because real churches don't look anything like this.

Assuming you don't not see yourself as the spiritual founder of your church, would it include practicing things like

1) all Scripture used for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for his good work (2 Tim 3:16)?

2) studying to show yourself to God as one approved to correctly handle the word of Scripture (2 Tim 2:15)?

3) presentation of the word of God in its fullness (Col 1:25)?

4) the word of Christ dwelling in all of you richly that you may teach and admonish one another with all wisdom (Col 3:16)?

5) watching your doctrine closely (1 Tim 4:16)?

 

[seeking.IAM]

If we start kicking sinners out of church, there are going to be plenty of pews to choose from. Sermons could become a problem, too.

 

[nightmares]

How about The Church of If You Love Humanity Then Release Us From This Prison Planet

 

[timothyu]

How about The Church of If You Love Humanity Then Release Us From This Prison Planet

You mean before the allotted number of humans in the great design have been rehabilitated ?

 

[dzheremi]

What makes you think that existing churches aren't at least trying to live according to John 14:15, OP? And if they aren't doing such a good job at that, what makes you think that your new group would do any better?

Denominationalism is bunk.

 

[Strong in Him]

I hate denominations and we certainly don't need another one.
But I have sometimes said that if I were to start a church I'd call it "the church of the thorn in the flesh", and anyone who said "you can't do that; you're too weak, disabled, under qualified" etc would be out.

Edit; grammar.

 

[Daniel9v9]

This sounds like a fine summary of the original intention behind the Salvation Army. You may find their Handbook of Doctrine interesting.

Now, there are many things that are commendable about this kind of attitude towards Scripture. I'm glad you recognise the Bible as the true Word of God rather than merely containing His Word, or needing unlocking by some other authority or revelation. And it's good to be concerned about God's Word and living and preaching according to it even if it's unfashionable. However, where I think this attitude suffers, where it's weak, is (1) it's a rather law-driven system at the expense of the comfort God brings us through His Word. And (2) it's divorced from the history of the Church, which, besides being a bit arrogant, has a tendency to result in confusion, sectarianism, and doctrinal minimalism — the idea that it's sufficient to agree upon the least common denominator. This is not a good or godly attitude to the Scriptures.

In my experience, there are many well-intentioned non-denominational churches with Baptist and Pentecostal backgrounds that set out to create a new relevant church with greater fidelity to God's Word, having a low view on creeds and not being interested in what they dismiss as "doctrine". Only later do they find themselves needing to create a statement of faith, which is the creation of a creed, which is doctrine. So, in reality, they have broken off from a larger church body to create their own new church body; opposing creeds and tradition to create their own creeds and tradition, and one that has less accountability and is more prone to change and influence. In the end, they tend to become another typical non-denominational church, which generally means re-embracing Baptist or Charismatic teaching, or becoming a theologically liberal or syncretistic institution.

So, instead of fanning the flame to create new churches, how about we simply encourage those in our own lives to receive God's Word and to live according to it in their various vocations, and be encouraged with our Lord's good promises of forgiveness of sins, adoption, and resurrection? We can do this in any denomination.

 

[BrendanG]

Thanks for your replies guys.

I particularly like Daniel9v9's reply. I think a part of the reason I wrote this message was that I was hoping to find a church that I could attend, but I couldn't find anything suitable. I have opened up the Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine and I will check it out. I've known about the Salvation Army for a while, but it was something I had always taken for granted and I never thought about where it had come from. I will at least learn something today.

I can believe that people have tried something similar to what I have suggested, and that they ended up creating just another denomination and set of creeds, but I do not understand the mechanism by which this occurred. With my idea of starting a church (this is just a thought experiment, because I don't know how to practically make it happen), it would be impossible to make it into a denomination because it would be based on personal relationships and personal experience. I think for practical purposes, there has to be somebody (or somebodies) who are in charge and run the meeting room/church, but I think it would be hard to just take a set of doctrines and plop another identical church down somewhere else.

Aaron112 said some things about underground churches who didn't have divorce. If there were underground churches, I'd like to be able to visit (although I suppose their being underground would make them hard to find).

 

[BrendanG]

About kicking people out of church: I think people go to church for a particular purpose. I would go to church to be encouraged and supported in a Christian way of life. I do not see frivolous divorce as being consistent with a Christian way of life (since both Jesus and Paul spoke about this explicitly), so I don't know what a frivolous divorcer would go to church for. It would be the same to me as if somebody went to weight watchers with a bunch of cake and ice-cream, or if somebody went to alcoholic's anonymous with a bottle of vodka. You would ask them, "What are you doing here?" If I were an alcoholic and I wanted to quit, I would not go to an alcoholic's anonymous where the members brought alcoholic drinks with them, and my view of churches is the same.

Considering that church membership has drastically declined in recent decades, it seems obvious that the churches are doing something wrong, and this may be one of those things that they are doing wrong. If word got out about a church like this that actually had standards, it might find that members would come. I am uncertain that I would be the right one to do it though, since I have never been charismatic.

I actually do not believe that no divorces should take place at all. I believe that people should try to make their marriages work. So, "No-Fault" divorce seems to clearly be outside the the realm of "trying to make it work." Jesus says that you can only divorce for adultery, and Paul says if your spouse gets up and leaves, you don't have to stay with them. So, given that there are 2 examples of valid reasons for divorce in the Bible, no divorce under any circumstances does not seem to be a valid position. My position is that marriage is meant to be permanent, so you have to try to make it work. But since it cannot be done by one person's effort alone, if your spouse is deliberately sabotaging your marriage, (such as by adultery, violent beatings, making false accusations to the police, or just getting up and leaving), then you're not obligated to try to stay with that person. But I do think that if your spouse is trying to make the marriage work, then you have to try to make it work too. So I believe when there is a divorce, at least one person sinned. I suppose there could be some rare situation where you think your spouse is dead but he really isn't, or some other kind of serious miscommunication, but this is not the usual situation.

I do not think that getting a frivolous divorce should earn a life-time ban from church. The person who has initiated the divorce has to show by her actions (I'll assume it's a she, since most divorces are initiated by women) that she has really repented. If it was a recent divorce, she can try to get back to her husband (although I don't think a divorced husband is obligated to take his wife back). If she acquired child support and alimony from a husband who didn't even want to divorce, then she can give it back, and try to get him to take on his responsibilities as a father on a voluntary basis (which he was probably already doing before the divorce). And she can publicly apologize. Unless she does these things, then I would not believe that her repentance is sincere, and I would not want to share church space with this kind of person. Your spouse is supposed to be the person on Earth that you love the most. If you can't even do that, who can you love?

I think there should be a similar attitude to all manner of sin. I just used divorce as an example because it is very common today, not addressed by most churches, and is important to me because my marriage is important to me.

 

[YorkieGal]

We should have 'Christianity' only and no denominations at all.

As far as I know, we are the only religion who is so fractured. When other religions 'interpret' the expectation of their religion differently to their peers, they discuss or consult with elders. They don't create a whole new version to suit their interpretations.

The Bible is as the Bible is and too many people try to make it some sort of philosophical, political or scientific endeavor leading to confusion and discord amongst Christians.

IMO.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I don't know what a frivolous divorcer would go to church for

It is a question, isn't it? Is the church to be a hospital for sinners or a museum for saints? Who among us is without sin?

 

[BrendanG]

It is a question, isn't it? Is the church to be a hospital for sinners or a museum for saints? Who among us is without sin?

I didn't say this explicitly, but the main point is that the frivolous divorcer is unrepentant. If you've divorced frivolously and don't even believe that you need to repent, then church has no possible purpose. Same as it is stupid to go to alcoholics anonymous with a bottle of vodka.

 

[BrendanG]

We should have 'Christianity' only and no denominations at all.

As far as I know, we are the only religion who is so fractured. When other religions 'interpret' the expectation of their religion differently to their peers, they discuss or consult with elders. They don't create a whole new version to suit their interpretations.

The Bible is as the Bible is and too many people try to make it some sort of philosophical, political or scientific endeavor leading to confusion and discord amongst Christians.

IMO.

You might be too focused on the word "denomination". Or maybe I shouldn't have used that word. If someone wants to tell me something useful about Christ's commandments, I don't mind if he is Catholic or Orthodox or whatever. I suppose the idea I had when I wrote that is that I wasn't aware of any church that seemed to really have standards that I could join which also had freedom of conscience. I admire the Amish, for instance, but if I joined, I'd be lying about what I really believed to fit in. Similar to the Orthodox. But where is a church that admits, "we don't know" about arcane issues such as Christology, but which maintains basic standards of conduct (such as don't get divorced for no reason)? I don't know of a church that works that way. There might be one somewhere among the protestant denominations, but I don't know where.

I used to be a member of the Orthodox church, and I joined after researching a lot about their history and cannons. I eventually found hypocrisy in that church too (related to divorce and to following what the government says rather than what the Church cannons say). I also looked into the history of the first Church Schism (related to the split between the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox), and I realized that I don't believe I can know what the correct Christology is without Christ himself coming down and telling me. Did Christ ever give a sermon about whether he was 2 natures in one person or not? Or is there anything on Earth that we can perform a scientific experiment on to determine Christ's nature? I don't believe either are true. But in order to be a part of the Orthodox church, you have to believe in all their doctrines without question. That means I have to take a position on Christology which I believe I'm fundamentally unable to know. That was a big issue for me. And I don't believe that Christology is an important issue either. Do you need to know how your mother's respiratory or circulatory systems work in order to love her? I think not. Likewise, I don't think it is important to know the details of Christ's nature to love him and to try to follow his commandments.

 

[YorkieGal]

You might be too focused on the word "denomination". Or maybe I shouldn't have used that word. If someone wants to tell me something useful about Christ's commandments, I don't mind if he is Catholic or Orthodox or whatever. I suppose the idea I had when I wrote that is that I wasn't aware of any church that seemed to really have standards that I could join which also had freedom of conscience. I admire the Amish, for instance, but if I joined, I'd be lying about what I really believed to fit in. Similar to the Orthodox. But where is a church that admits, "we don't know" about arcane issues such as Christology, but which maintains basic standards of conduct (such as don't get divorced for no reason)? I don't know of a church that works that way. There might be one somewhere among the protestant denominations, but I don't know where.

I used to be a member of the Orthodox church, and I joined after researching a lot about their history and cannons. I eventually found hypocrisy in that church too (related to divorce and to following what the government says rather than what the Church cannons say). I also looked into the history of the first Church Schism (related to the split between the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox), and I realized that I don't believe I can know what the correct Christology is without Christ himself coming down and telling me. Did Christ ever give a sermon about whether he was 2 natures in one person or not? Or is there anything on Earth that we can perform a scientific experiment on to determine Christ's nature? I don't believe either are true. But in order to be a part of the Orthodox church, you have to believe in all their doctrines without question. That means I have to take a position on Christology which I believe I'm fundamentally unable to know. That was a big issue for me. And I don't believe that Christology is an important issue either. Do you need to know how your mother's respiratory or circulatory systems work in order to love her? I think not. Likewise, I don't think it is important to know the details of Christ's nature to love him and to try to follow his commandments.

This is why I'm saying that denominations just divide. Other religions don't have this fractious set up. Read the bible, do as it says and claim Christianity. That's all that is required.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think a part of the reason I wrote this message was that I was hoping to find a church that I could attend, but I couldn't find anything suitable. I have opened up the Salvation Army Handbook of Doctrine and I will check it out. I've known about the Salvation Army for a while,

I've often thought of joining the Salvation Army. People see the uniform, which is a witness, and know what they stand for.
If there was an accessible branch near me, I might be tempted to go for it. The only question mark I have is that of the sacraments. Where I used to live, a SA couple resigned from leadership because some non Christians had become believers, wanted to be baptised, the couple agreed and their Head Office were not happy about it.
Both baptism and communion are Scriptural, so I'm not sure why the church hierarchy disapproved.