Denominations similar to "reformed"?

[MaddieD]

Hello, I'm having a hard time finding a local church family. My husband and I consider ourselves to be "reformed", but there are only a couple of reformed churches in the area and they aren't very close to our house. Is there another kind of church that is similar to reformed that we can look into? Or a denomination that is reformed, but calls themselves by another name? Thank you!

 

[hedrick]

It depends upon what you want from Reformed. If you care about TULIP, then the main Reformed bodies in the US are Presbyterian, Reformed, and Congregational. (Most Congregational churches are now part of the United Church of Christ. That's a mainline church, which probably wouldn't hold to TULIP, but there are still some independent Congregational churches.) However there are some Reformed Baptist churches, and at least in some countries Reformed Anglican / Episcopal (though that may be unusual).

Outside actual Reformed churches, probably the closest theological tradition is Lutheran.

If you're not trying to find a church that holds to predestination strictly (i.e. TULIP) then any moderate Protestant church becomes a candidate. There are fine churches of many denominations (and non-denominations). The character of local churches tends to depend more on the specific members and pastor than the denomination, outside the conservative confessional churches.

 

[MaddieD]

It depends upon what you want from Reformed. If you care about TULIP, then the main Reformed bodies in the US are Presbyterian, Reformed, and Congregational. (Most Congregational churches are now part of the United Church of Christ. That's a mainline church, which probably wouldn't hold to TULIP, but there are still some independent Congregational churches.) However there are some Reformed Baptist churches, and at least in some countries Reformed Anglican / Episcopal (though that may be unusual).

Outside actual Reformed churches, probably the closest theological tradition is Lutheran.

If you're not trying to find a church that holds to predestination strictly (i.e. TULIP) then any moderate Protestant church becomes a candidate. There are fine churches of many denominations (and non-denominations). The character of local churches tends to depend more on the specific members and pastor than the denomination, outside the conservative confessional churches.

Thanks, this was helpful. I honestly do not know a whole lot about theology, but I do know that everything I've ever heard from a reformed preacher seemed accurate to me, while other kinds of preachers confused me. God isn't the author of confusion, so the reformed churches seem like a safe place to be.

I've never been to a Lutheran church, but I've heard R.C. Sproul talk about Martin Luther a lot, so it shouldn't surprise me that you mentioned them. Maybe I'll check one out.

 

[Lizabth]

Maddie, My husband and I are in a Lutheran church due to the lack of reformed options in our area. To join as communicant members, we had to agree with Luther's Small Catechism, nothing more. To be voting members of our congregation, we'd have to subscribe to the Book of Concord, which we cannot do, in good conscience. And that is fine. We don't have a voting voice in the congregation, which is proper, given our reformed views. We are happy to worship with our Lutheran brothers and sisters in our situation. We take the good, which is quite a lot. We leave the stuff we must, without a fuss, as we are in their house. The music is always good, the liturgy excellent and the service very reverent. Our pastor is a very dear man: kind and patient. He's probably not 'confessional' to the extent of some Lutherans, but with all that entails, we are glad of it. Some of those 'confessional Lutherans' can be a little...well....Germanic.

 

[hedrick]

That reaction gives a bit more to work with.

Reformed and Lutheran are the major traditions going back to the Reformation. As such they share a general approach. They're also, in my view, the most coherent theologies in the Protestant church. Lutherans and Reformed had to create a whole theology at once, because they were trying to do a major rethinking of all of theology in splitting off from the Catholics. Other churches started because of various concerns or insights, but don't necessarily have this complete theological vision. Even in their more liberal forms (which I'm part of) I find the Reformed and Lutheran churches more theological somehow than other Protestant churches.

Between the two, in my view the Reformed tradition tends to be more logical, and the Lutheran tends to maintain a bit more paradox. That's not necessarily good or bad. After all, humans don't fully understand God. So sometimes a view that's too logical can oversimplify the truth. But there's a lot of commonality between Reformed and Lutheran.

But if you're looking for churches today, be aware that (at least in the US) there are two major approaches in both the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. The churches that stick closest to the original theology coming from the Reformation are "confessional." Those that use critical Biblical interpretation and accept ideas of history and science that don't agree with literal interpretation are "mainline."

Typically mainline churches ordain women and gays, while the confessional churches don't (though some may ordain women to some offices).

Most churches from the Presbyterian / Reformed background today are mainline. For the Lutheran churches it's about 50 / 50 I think. If you've heard R C Sproul, he represents a conservative, confessional form of Reformed thought.

I'm going through all of this because I don't want you to think that if you walk into a church labelled "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" you're always going to get theology similar to Sproul's. You aren't, because he's from a confessional church and most Presbyterian churches today are mainline.

If you're willing to do some reading, take a look at the Westminster Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) - no frames, and the PCUSA's Declaration of faith, A Declaration of Faith - Introduction. That will show you the two approaches in their Presbyterian versions. Westminster is used as an authority by the confessional churches. The PCUSA declaration is more typical of mainline churches.

You'll see that Westminster tends to be more precise in terminology, but uses lots of terms and forms of thought from the Christian tradition that aren't directly Biblical. The PCUSA declaration tends to stick with Biblical terms, but isn't as precise, and the Biblical terms are often understood in a modern sense. The PCUSA is more willing to tolerate differences in interpretation. These differences are typical of the approaches.

The same differences exist among the Lutherans, except that as a Presbyterian I don't have Lutheran statements handy to show the two approaches there.

If Sproul has attracted you, he is a representative of the confessional point of view, using Westminster as its authority.

There are different sets of denominations reflecting the two approaches. For Reformed, here's a list of denominations in North America. (If you're not from here, please say so.) List of Reformed denominations in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It uses "liberal" for the mainline denominations. I believe the rest tend to be conservative, though they seem to be using "orthodox" to mean that they stick to the traditional creeds and "evangelical" to refer to a less credal conservative viewpoint. Sproul would be classified as "orthodox."

On the Lutheran side, I believe the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is the mainline version and the many other denominations are conservative. (Because conservatives want to maintain fairly precise theological standards, those churches tend to fracture when there's a disagreement. So there are a lot more conservative than mainline churches in each family, but the conservative ones are normally smaller.)

 

[MaddieD]

That reaction gives a bit more to work with.

Reformed and Lutheran are the major traditions going back to the Reformation. As such they share a general approach. They're also, in my view, the most coherent theologies in the Protestant church. Lutherans and Reformed had to create a whole theology at once, because they were trying to do a major rethinking of all of theology in splitting off from the Catholics. Other churches started because of various concerns or insights, but don't necessarily have this complete theological vision. Even in their more liberal forms (which I'm part of) I find the Reformed and Lutheran churches more theological somehow than other Protestant churches.

Between the two, in my view the Reformed tradition tends to be more logical, and the Lutheran tends to maintain a bit more paradox. That's not necessarily good or bad. After all, humans don't fully understand God. So sometimes a view that's too logical can oversimplify the truth. But there's a lot of commonality between Reformed and Lutheran.

But if you're looking for churches today, be aware that (at least in the US) there are two major approaches in both the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. The churches that stick closest to the original theology coming from the Reformation are "confessional." Those that use critical Biblical interpretation and accept ideas of history and science that don't agree with literal interpretation are "mainline."

Typically mainline churches ordain women and gays, while the confessional churches don't (though some may ordain women to some offices).

Most churches from the Presbyterian / Reformed background today are mainline. For the Lutheran churches it's about 50 / 50 I think. If you've heard R C Sproul, he represents a conservative, confessional form of Reformed thought.

I'm going through all of this because I don't want you to think that if you walk into a church labelled "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" you're always going to get theology similar to Sproul's. You aren't, because he's from a confessional church and most Presbyterian churches today are mainline.

If you're willing to do some reading, take a look at the Westminster Confession, That will show you the two approaches in their Presbyterian versions. Westminster is used as an authority by the confessional churches. The PCUSA declaration is more typical of mainline churches.

You'll see that Westminster tends to be more precise in terminology, but uses lots of terms and forms of thought from the Christian tradition that aren't directly Biblical. The PCUSA declaration tends to stick with Biblical terms, but isn't as precise, and the Biblical terms are often understood in a modern sense. The PCUSA is more willing to tolerate differences in interpretation. These differences are typical of the approaches.

The same differences exist among the Lutherans, except that as a Presbyterian I don't have Lutheran statements handy to show the two approaches there.

If Sproul has attracted you, he is a representative of the confessional point of view, using Westminster as its authority.

There are different sets of denominations reflecting the two approaches. For Reformed, here's a list of denominations in North America. (If you're not from here, please say so.) It uses "liberal" for the mainline denominations. I believe the rest tend to be conservative, though they seem to be using "orthodox" to mean that they stick to the traditional creeds and "evangelical" to refer to a less credal conservative viewpoint. Sproul would be classified as "orthodox."

On the Lutheran side, I believe the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is the mainline version and the many other denominations are conservative. (Because conservatives want to maintain fairly precise theological standards, those churches tend to fracture when there's a disagreement. So there are a lot more conservative than mainline churches in each family, but the conservative ones are normally smaller.)

Thank you, this was all very informative and helpful. I had a friend trying to explain this to me once, but I wasn't quite sure what she was talking about. All that I took away from our conversation was that most Presbyterian churches were different from what I believe. Now I see what she was getting at. Generally, I'm going for what I hear R.C. Sproul preaching. I've read a bit by John MacArthur as well and liked what I read. I listened to a chunk of an introductory series on theology that R.C. Sproul recorded, but it was a lot of information to take in so I don't remember too much of it.

This list of reformed denominations should help, thank you.

 

[ContraMundum]

That reaction gives a bit more to work with.

Reformed and Lutheran are the major traditions going back to the Reformation. As such they share a general approach. They're also, in my view, the most coherent theologies in the Protestant church. Lutherans and Reformed had to create a whole theology at once, because they were trying to do a major rethinking of all of theology in splitting off from the Catholics. Other churches started because of various concerns or insights, but don't necessarily have this complete theological vision. Even in their more liberal forms (which I'm part of) I find the Reformed and Lutheran churches more theological somehow than other Protestant churches.

Between the two, in my view the Reformed tradition tends to be more logical, and the Lutheran tends to maintain a bit more paradox. That's not necessarily good or bad. After all, humans don't fully understand God. So sometimes a view that's too logical can oversimplify the truth. But there's a lot of commonality between Reformed and Lutheran.

But if you're looking for churches today, be aware that (at least in the US) there are two major approaches in both the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. The churches that stick closest to the original theology coming from the Reformation are "confessional." Those that use critical Biblical interpretation and accept ideas of history and science that don't agree with literal interpretation are "mainline."

Typically mainline churches ordain women and gays, while the confessional churches don't (though some may ordain women to some offices).

Most churches from the Presbyterian / Reformed background today are mainline. For the Lutheran churches it's about 50 / 50 I think. If you've heard R C Sproul, he represents a conservative, confessional form of Reformed thought.

I'm going through all of this because I don't want you to think that if you walk into a church labelled "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" you're always going to get theology similar to Sproul's. You aren't, because he's from a confessional church and most Presbyterian churches today are mainline.

If you're willing to do some reading, take a look at the Westminster Confession, Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) - no frames, and the PCUSA's Declaration of faith, A Declaration of Faith - Introduction. That will show you the two approaches in their Presbyterian versions. Westminster is used as an authority by the confessional churches. The PCUSA declaration is more typical of mainline churches.

You'll see that Westminster tends to be more precise in terminology, but uses lots of terms and forms of thought from the Christian tradition that aren't directly Biblical. The PCUSA declaration tends to stick with Biblical terms, but isn't as precise, and the Biblical terms are often understood in a modern sense. The PCUSA is more willing to tolerate differences in interpretation. These differences are typical of the approaches.

The same differences exist among the Lutherans, except that as a Presbyterian I don't have Lutheran statements handy to show the two approaches there.

If Sproul has attracted you, he is a representative of the confessional point of view, using Westminster as its authority.

There are different sets of denominations reflecting the two approaches. For Reformed, here's a list of denominations in North America. (If you're not from here, please say so.) List of Reformed denominations in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It uses "liberal" for the mainline denominations. I believe the rest tend to be conservative, though they seem to be using "orthodox" to mean that they stick to the traditional creeds and "evangelical" to refer to a less credal conservative viewpoint. Sproul would be classified as "orthodox."

On the Lutheran side, I believe the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is the mainline version and the many other denominations are conservative. (Because conservatives want to maintain fairly precise theological standards, those churches tend to fracture when there's a disagreement. So there are a lot more conservative than mainline churches in each family, but the conservative ones are normally smaller.)

I just have to say that while none of what you posted it news to me, or even new information, your post actually got me thinking in such a way that I have started to ask questions again about things that have bugged me since my comversion that I had put on the back burner.

Really well put!

 

[JM]

Hi Maddie,

If you are Reformed and by Reformed I mean Reformed in doctrine and not just appearance, you might enjoy fellowship with conservative Calvinistic Baptists. What hedrick describes by 'mainline' are those non-confessional Reformed churches who retain the outwardly Reformed order or worship, the preaching and doctrine is hit and miss.

The Lutheran church is an option but if the Lutheran church is confessional (WELS, LCMS) they would not allow you to partake in the Lord's Supper (because their confession of faith means something).

What is important is the preaching of the Gospel. Since most liberal churches muddy the Gospel with a reinterpretation of biblical Christianity I would avoid them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[hedrick]

Thank you, this was all very informative and helpful. I had a friend trying to explain this to me once, but I wasn't quite sure what she was talking about. All that I took away from our conversation was that most Presbyterian churches were different from what I believe. Now I see what she was getting at. Generally, I'm going for what I hear R.C. Sproul preaching. I've read a bit by John MacArthur as well and liked what I read. I listened to a chunk of an introductory series on theology that R.C. Sproul recorded, but it was a lot of information to take in so I don't remember too much of it.

This list of reformed denominations should help, thank you.

Right. In much of the country, it's hard to find conservative Reformed churches, though in the South it's more common. As you are finding out, there's a split in the Reformed community, with the two halves often not acknowledging the other as Reformed (or even Christian). Most of the traditional Reformed denominations are mainline, which is rather different from Sproul's approach.

If you want conservative Reformed, and you're not lucky enough to be near a PCA or OPC church or one of the smaller Reformed denominations, the largest confessional denomination in many areas is the LCMS (Lutheran Missouri Synod). But you may also find Baptist or non-denominational churches with a Reformed flavor.

Several participants in this forum have had to make compromises of that type.

Sproul is particularly known for his admiration of the Puritans. A lot of his writing is an attempt to interpret Puritan theology for today's church. The term "Puritan" has taken on negative connotations in today's culture that are generally unfair to the original Puritans. Their theology is certainly worth looking at.

 

[JM]

Mainline churches are not traditional in belief, only outwarly, in appearance only.

 

[MaddieD]

Hi Maddie,

If you are Reformed and by Reformed I mean Reformed in doctrine and not just appearance, you might enjoy fellowship with conservative Calvinistic Baptists. What hedrick describes by 'mainline' are those non-confessional Reformed churches who retain the outwardly Reformed order or worship, the preaching and doctrine is hit and miss.

The Lutheran church is an option but if the Lutheran church is confessional (WELS, LCMS) they would not allow you to partake in the Lord's Supper (because their confession of faith means something).

What is important is the preaching of the Gospel. Since most liberal churches muddy the Gospel with a reinterpretation of biblical Christianity I would avoid them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Honestly, I cannot tell the difference by outward appearance. You see, I was raised in the "word of faith" movement, so any church that does not have people rolling around on the floor or screeching like an animal appears to be rather reformed to me.

Now that I've finally heard real preaching, I know what you mean when you say that the liberal churches muddy the Gospel with a reinterpretation of biblical Christianity. I would hardly say that the "Word of Faith" churches that I've been in even mentioned the Gospel, so I won't count them at all, but in my search for truth, I've been to a few churches that are speaking gospel-like words, but obviously missing the whole point. I guess it's not that obvious to everyone though, being that they have a following. I typically leave those places feeling pretty angry, so I think that what I am looking for is something very conservative and truly reformed.

 

[MaddieD]

Right. In much of the country, it's hard to find conservative Reformed churches, though in the South it's more common. As you are finding out, there's a split in the Reformed community, with the two halves often not acknowledging the other as Reformed (or even Christian). Most of the traditional Reformed denominations are mainline, which is rather different from Sproul's approach.

If you want conservative Reformed, and you're not lucky enough to be near a PCA or OPC church or one of the smaller Reformed denominations, the largest confessional denomination in many areas is the LCMS (Lutheran Missouri Synod). But you may also find Baptist or non-denominational churches with a Reformed flavor.

Several participants in this forum have had to make compromises of that type.

Sproul is particularly known for his admiration of the Puritans. A lot of his writing is an attempt to interpret Puritan theology for today's church. The term "Puritan" has taken on negative connotations in today's culture that are generally unfair to the original Puritans. Their theology is certainly worth looking at.

Here's what I found to check out:

1) A Reformed Presbyterian church ("Orthodox")
2) Another Reformed Presbyterian church ("holds to the historic Christian faith, expressed in the Early Church in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and, following the Protestant Reformation, in the Westminster Confession of Faith & Catechisms")
3) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
4) Christian and Missionary Alliance church (A conservative-reformed friend of mine is an elder there)

#'s 1 and 2 are further away from our house, but #4 is the closest (#3 is in the middle) Distance is a factor because I would like to see the people that I meet and have a relationship with them outside of church. I have a feeling that I'm going to like #1 the best, but it is the furthest away. #2 is in a terrible neighborhood and I'm kind of afraid of even going there.

 

[JM]

1) A Reformed Presbyterian church ("Orthodox")

2) Another Reformed Presbyterian church ("holds to the historic Christian faith, expressed in the Early Church in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and, following the Protestant Reformation, in the Westminster Confession of Faith & Catechisms")

3) Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

4) Christian and Missionary Alliance church (A conservative-reformed friend of mine is an elder there)

Started by a New School Presbyterian and they are widely known to be Arminian and for the most part conservative. They are closer to American Arminian Baptist than Reformed.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

 

[MaddieD]

Started by a New School Presbyterian and they are widely known to be Arminian and for the most part conservative. They are closer to American Arminian Baptist than Reformed.

Yours in The Lord,

jm

Thanks!

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm a member of a PCA church.

 

[MaddieD]

So, I went to the "orthodox" Reformed Presbyterian Church this morning, and I'm very encouraged by my experience! First of all, it wasn't as far away as I thought, and one of the people I met drive there from even further away than me. The preaching was GREAT. Very refreshing. The congregation was super friendly, and they really went out of their way to encourage me to bring my son to the childcare. He's autistic, so I'm very protective of him and nervous about the environments that I bring him into. They didn't seem to think it was that big of a deal (which I appreciate, because he's totally "normal" to us), and they showed me the childcare area so that I would feel more comfortable, which I do. I found out that I'm not the only one there with a background in mystical charismatic church movements, so it was really nice to relate on that matter. Overall, I am very encouraged.

I will say this though, this was my first time in an actual reformed church, so it was very different to me, which made me uncomfortable. Not because I thought there was anything wrong with it, it's just that it was a little shocking. I'm used to some sort of a band putting on a show on a stage before the preaching, and this was a couple of instruments BEHIND the congregation playing hymns. I LIKED it, but it was different for me. It was also very quiet, people were actually paying attention, kids were shockingly well behaved, people were dressed modestly and nicely. It was really nice, but a little shocking compared to the "come as you are" coffee slurping, jeans and a T-shirt, rock concert mornings that I had grown accustomed to. Obviously, that wasn't working for me, so I'm more than willing to get used to a traditional church service.

 

[hedrick]

There is a specific Reformed philosophy for worship, which is that worship should be as God has ordained, and not just anything that seems good to us. (This is called the "regulative principle.") While styles are up to us, within limits, there's also an appreciation that some styles are more conducive to worship than others. In fact one early Reformed interpretation of this was that the only songs permitted were "inspired," i.e. Psalms and other texts from the Bible, and the singing should be unison, with no accompaniment. We're no longer quite so restrictive, but at least in the PCUSA you'll see a lot of hymns based on the Psalms in our hymnal, and most hymns have at least some Scriptural basis. That's why our hymns tend to have more content than the repetitive "praise choruses" that you'll see in some other kinds of worship.

The service is centered on the Word, and the concept is that God may have things to say to us that we may not want to hear. What you're seeing is the distinction between a service whose goal is to help us hear and understand the Word, and a sort of consumerist approach to worship.

The Reformation was largely conducted from the pulpit. While I haven't seen many historians say this, I think the Reformation was one of the largest and most successful projects in adult education ever carried out. To make it work, whole populations had to be brought to an understanding of Scripture and theology. That aspect continues. Praising God is certainly one purpose of worship, but so is education. Hence the tradition of ministers wearing academic garb. One traditional title for the minister is "teaching elder."

The Reformed tradition also tends to have more of an appreciation that worship (and even the sanctuary in which it is conducted) is what I'd call "holy ground" than some other modern approaches to worship. I'm particularly conscious of this because I recently had to clue in my class of 12 - 14 year olds why they're expected to be listening and not texting their friends during worship. The text I used was Moses and the burning bush.

I've had one kid with Asperger's in Sunday School. (He's now active as a youth leader.) And I have one with PDD-NOS now. I can't speak for other congregations, but we (and our kids) try to be accepting of differences.