Compiling a list of potentially heterodox churches and denominational outliers

DragonFox91 said:

Goodness, you would have quite a list when all is said & done. For example, many churches hold gay marriage weddings & fly LGBTQIA+ flags.

Or are you looking for oddballs that aren't a dime a dozen?

Click to expand...

Whereas I object to these practices in the mainline denominations, this thread is not specifically about denomination-level issues but rather is about individual local churches, cathedrals, chapels, parishes, even monastic communities, within any denomination or that are entirely independent, that are in some doctrinal or liturgical respect highly divergent both with the normative beliefs of their denomination or general category, and with the Nicene Christian faith as a whole, or which are engaging in practices that could be abusive of their lay members, or both. So yes, oddballs that aren’t a “dime a dozen” but rather which are engaging in something that most members of even their own denomination might very well find highly objectionable.

So if I were writing this list back in 2012, and I were at the time aware of the problem, which was not, I would include, as an example, the local Coptic Orthodox church in Muqattam, Egypt, which was wandering a bit far from the Coptic tradition to put it mildly, but since that time a new bishop, H.G. Abanoub, was sent to that church, who is extremely stalwart in Coptic Orthodoxy, and the problems at that church, which serves the extremely impoverished Christians of the town of Muqattam in suburban Cairo who are forced to live off of pork from swine herds which feed in the adjacent landfills, have been rectified. So my goal is twofold: that people are aware of these divergent churches, which being local churches not in accord with the normal beliefs of their denominations, are obscured, and the extent to which they are not what they appear is not necessarily evident to someone who might otherwise worship in them, and also secondarily, since the majority of these churches like, for example, Capitol Hill Baptist Church or the Cathedral of St. John the Divine are members of denominations which in theory could reign them in or remove them, and in this manner I could remove them from this list.

Reigning in these wayward local churches, I should add, would be particularly easy, I would note, for the ELCA and the Episcopal Church and the UMC in the case of the parishes of those located in Alameda, and in San Francisco, and Seattle, which made it to this list, since these churches have bishops, and the divergent parishes are just local parishes and not cathedrals or independent churches, for example, Westminster Abbey and Savoy Chapel in London are under the personal authority of Queen Elizabeth in her role as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, and are not under the authority of any diocesan bishop nor directly subordinate to the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and thus are in theory more difficult for the Church of England to regulate.

And indeed the Savoy Chapel has historically been something of a minor oddity within the C of E for different reasons, in that for many years it was the only Anglican church in London which would remarry divorced persons, but these minor oddities are not sufficient to earn it a place on this list, in my opinion, based on what I know about it.

There is presently only one church pending addition to this list, which is a mainline protestant North American parish which did something I regard as truly shocking, but what they did has shocked and horrified me to the point where I am not sure they could be put in the same group of these churches, which are problematic churches which in each case can in theory be rectified, even in the most extreme case which is of course Westboro Baptist Church, which has managed to embarrass all other American Christians of a traditional view on human sexuality, which of course includes myself, but their action stop extremely short of what this particular church did.

Specifically, without getting into the dreadful details, the church which I am considering adding to this list did engage in what you and I would regard as an act of violence in extremis in the course of worship which is something so far beyond the pale as to seemingly put that parish, and possibly the mainline denomination of which it is a member, in a different category altogether. Indeed I have privately discussed the matter with other members and still have not resolved what to do about it pastorally or personally.

DeFyYing said:

That's so funny, first thing I did was check if HerChurch was on here and yep it is

Click to expand...

Indeed HerChurch is almost literally the raison d’etre for this list and represents along with Westboro Baptist Church something of the gold standard for inclusion therein on doctrinal grounds, in that in both cases, we have a particular church which causes embarrassment to other Christians by virtue of adopting a theological position and mode of worship that, to put it mildly, is highly incongruous with the norms of Evangelical Lutheran or Fundamentalist Baptist doctrine.

The other category of churches on this list is represented by churches like Bethel Church and Capitol Hill Baptist Church, which are engaging in abusive practices towards their own members under the guise of “church discipline.”

I am entirely convinced that most, possibly all, denominations, even those denominations that I greatly prefer, have problematic local churches flying under the radar, some of which are scandalously divergent from the normative belief and praxis of their denomination or which else are operating in a cult-like abusive manner. Only occasionally does one of these churches do something extreme which makes it noticeable.

Paidiske said:

It's a minor point, but Queen Elizabeth is not the "head" of the Church of England, but its governor. The last monarch to hold the title of "head" of that church was Mary Tudor, before she sought to return it to allegiance to Rome. Monarchs since then have been styled "supreme governor" of the church, in recognition that our true head is Christ alone.

Click to expand...

I greatly appreciate that reminder and as the most invincibly pedantic member of these forums have, as one would expect, edited my post to reflect the correct nomenclature. Indeed to fail in this respect would be to engage in gross hypocrisy considering that I make a point in nearly every thread where a Bishop of Rome before the sixth century is mentioned to comment to the effect that referring to these archbishops as Pope is strictly speaking, anachronistic, since they themselves did not style themselves as such (although Leo did adopt the title of Pontifex Maximus, literally translated as “chief bridge-builder”, which previously had been used by the head of the now defunct Roman national pagan religion, and which was an office historically held by a great many famous Roman politicians such as Gaius Julius Caesar).

Andrewn said:

I didn't know what "grave soaking" meant until I googled it. It brought to mind Benny Hinn's famous visits to the grave of Kathryn Kuhlman.

But it also brought to mind the EO and OO veneration of relics and holy objects, which you wrote about approvingly in the past.

Click to expand...

The difference of course being that when I and others venerate sacred relics, we are not trying to “soak up” mysterious energies from these objects for some strange occult purpose.

Andrewn said:

What is the role of the monarch as a supreme governor of the Church of England?

Click to expand...

It’s primarily titular, however, certain churches including the Chapels Royal, the Savoy Chapel and Westminster Abbey are designated as Royal Peculiars and are under the personal jurisdiction of the Queen and not a diocesan bishop, although I believe on all matters of theology et cetera they are still subject to the hierarchy of the C of E and of course their priests must be ordained by a bishop.

Andrewn said:

It is important to remember Mother Earth, not to worship her but to intercede for her and to take care of her.

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Click to expand...

It certainly is important to take care of the planet and pray for it, however, referring to the Earth as Gaia is at best mythologization and at worst, neo-Paganism. But should we pray for the health of the planet? Absolutely.

Also one of the few political areas I allow myself to get involved in is support for the construction of next-generation nuclear power plants such as those now in use in China which are designed so as to be incapable of melting down in the manner of Fukushima or Three Mile Island (pretty much only Chernobyl could explode like Chernobyl due to the terrible design and lack of a proper containment structure, but these next-gen nukes also can’t melt down in that way). New power plants of this design could allow for the complete replacement of coal and natural gas power plants, which would hugely benefit the environment. I would also like to see a transcontinental aquaduct in North America to connect some of the perpetually flood-prone areas in the East with the increasingly perpetual drought in the West, albeit reversible, as a device which could protect against climate disruption.

Andrewn said:

The church of Hagia Sophia, has been vandalized.

"The plight of the Hagia Sophia, which was converted to a mosque in July 2020, is back in the news with reports that the 1,400-year-old imperial gate of the edifice was vandalized."



Read more: Experts warn Istanbul's iconic Hagia Sophia at risk as ancient gate damaged

Click to expand...

Note that this tragedy has nothing to do with the article on the Reimagining Conference that @Mark Quayle linked us to. As my Eastern Orthodox friends @prodromos @Lukaris and @HTacianas will be quick to point out, the worship of a goddess called Sophia at the Reimagining conference is anathema to the Eastern Orthodox church which built Hagia Sophia, which the Turks then stole in 1453.