Question about Moderate Churches

[JTornado1]

Which churches or denominations are considered moderate?

 

[Qyöt27]

If you're going by the definition of moderate as 'moderate in behavior', that's more of an individual attitude rather than a denominational one (although theologically-moderate churches probably do have a lot of behaviorally-moderate members).

If you go by theology, I'd roughly say Mainline Protestantism, but that's not totally accurate, and also depends on how you define 'conservative' and 'liberal' - Mainline churches usually have distinct conservative, moderate, and liberal segments within them (although generally the congregations are probably pretty moderate as a whole). You might also see Catholic and Orthodox churches grouped into the moderate category if you define 'conservative' as 'Fundamentalist Protestant' and 'liberal' as 'Unitarianism and the like'.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Which churches or denominations are considered moderate?

Beats me.

As a self-described moderate Christian, I never went looking for a moderate church, and might not want one if I found it.

That's because when I say I'm moderate, what I mean is not that I line up with a set of doctrines that are moderate, in same way that some are liberal or conservative. Nor do I mean that I'm lukewarm - I'll match my zeal for the Lord against the average conservative or liberal anytime, and expect to come out ahead.

What I am is orthodox but not predictably liberal or conservative. I try to follow my best understanding of the Bible even when it makes liberals nervous... and also when it makes conservatives nervous. And I'm tolerant of other points of view, and place a high value on civil discussion, even with those with whom I sharply disagree.

The best and most compatible church I'm been able to find happens to be my local church, which is affiliated with Assemblies of God, which is on the liberal side for AG, and "emerging church"-friendly. For the most part, it exemplifies what I described in the previous paragraph, though I say that only for my particular congregation. The denomination is a whole is too conservative for me, and I probably wouldn't be happy in a random AG church elsewhere.

 

[WannaWitness]

What I am is orthodox but not predictably liberal or conservative. I try to follow my best understanding of the Bible even when it makes liberals nervous... and also when it makes conservatives nervous. And I'm tolerant of other points of view, and place a high value on civil discussion, even with those with whom I sharply disagree.

Amen! To a degree, tolerance can be a good thing (see Romans 14).

 

[Atlantians]

Amen! To a degree, tolerance can be a good thing (see Romans 14).

Tolerance can be a bad thing:
Revelations 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Galatians 5:7-12
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

 

[WannaWitness]

Tolerance can be a bad thing:
Revelations 2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Galatians 5:7-12
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

I see your point, but I'm not talking about tolerance against blatant immorality. That should be a given that it should not be tolerated. The tolerance I'm talking about is between believers, and being tolerant and respectful of each other's personal convictions. It mentions the eating of meat - the one who doesn't eat meat should not condemn the one who does, nor should the one who does condemn the one who doesn't. And this goes for other iffy issues, as well (the "doubtful things" of verse 1). Things like dress code (whether or not women should wear pants, jewelry, or makeup), what Bible version to use, what type of music a Christian should listen to, and things like that. Christians are going to think differently on a variety of matters, and should not condemn one another just for having different takes on these (and other such) issues. That's what I meant by "to a degree".

My mistake for being vague at first. I hope this post has cleared things up a little more as to what I meant.

 

[Atlantians]

I see your point, but I'm not talking about tolerance against blatant immorality. That should be a given that it should not be tolerated.

Not in todays culture, or this forum, or much of the apostate Church.

My mistake for being vague at first. I hope this post has cleared things up a little more as to what I meant.

Indeed.

 

[hedrick]

Everybody has their own idea of "moderate," because it would mean not being unacceptably far from what they think is right.

In the context of a public forum like this I'd say it would include people who don't necessarily accept inerrancy and who may accept evolution and moderate modern Biblical criticism, but that people would still accept basic standards such as the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, i.e. they would accept the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and the authority of Scripture (yes, if you're conservative I know you think no one can possibly be serious about this unless they believe in inerrancy, but in that case there's no sense in having a moderate group separate from the conservative group), but interpreted more loosely than in the conservative group.

While moderate Christians would not want to accept immorality, they may not consider homosexuality immorality.

I would think liberal would be people who have serious doubts about or reject major ideas such as the Trinity and Incarnation, and may not consider Scripture inspired or authoritative even in the slightly loose sense that moderates would. Their statement of purpose specifically accepts homosexuals.

 

[dusky_tresses]

To be honest, I find it difficult to describe a church as moderate or any other label, there has been a church I've looked into in the past which I could describe as moderate:

Woodland Hills Church - Controversial Issues

I had a lot of people tell me that while many of the church's beliefs are conservative in nature, the teachings in the sermons by the pastor are very non-judgmental and practical in nature.

Other than that church, most churches are considered either "very conservative", "conservative", "liberal", or "very liberal".

I think it all comes down to how the church accepts communities-- such as with my church, there is a heavy emphasis on accepting cultural differences and being culturally aware, because we have a rather large immigrant population and Hispanic community. To some, that can easily be seen as "liberal". But as far as beliefs, it's conservative.

I would say the ELCA is a very liberal church, same with Episcopalian. Very conservative churches would be Bible churches and Baptist churches.

 

[Atlantians]

To be honest, I find it difficult to describe a church as moderate or any other label, there has been a church I've looked into in the past which I could describe as moderate:

I would name another: Laodicea.

Woodland Hills Church - Controversial Issues

Their doctrine:
Issues Involving God & Humanity-
1. Debatable. Non-Essential.
2. True.
3. WARNING! Heresy alert:
Does God foreknow all that shall come to pass, including future free decisions?
We affirm the omniscience of God with regard to the past, present and future. We also recognize the current disagreement among evangelical Christians about the biblical data regarding the content of the future that God perfectly knows. All views hold that God is omniscient, but some interpret this to mean that God knows all things that shall come to pass, while others hold that the future is not completely there to know. Within the bounds of the whole-hearted affirmation of God's omniscience, we recognize both positions as legitimate evangelical options. As a local church, we hold no single position on this issue. As with many issues within the church today, we encourage ‘unity in the essential things, freedom in the non-essential things, and agape-love in all things.’

OPEN THEISM IN PIOUS DISGUISE ALERT!

Issues Involving the Holy Spirit-
1. Debatable. Non-Essential.
2. Debatable. Non-Essential.
3. Debatable. Non-Essential.
4. Debatable. Non-Essential.

Issues Involving Ministry-
1. UnBiblical conviction alert:
"We affirm that ministerial authority is based upon a person’s character, calling and giftedness, not his or her gender."

A Female Pastorate is a Canary in a coal mine of liberalism. It is oft the first to go.

2. Debatable. Non-Essential.

Issues Involving the Christian Life-
1. True.
2. True.
3. Debatable. Non-Essential.
4. True, but stated weakly.
5. True.
6. Debatable. Non-Essential. (IE: Christians CAN'T be possessed, but the legitimacy of a 'deliverance ministry' to a Christian is debatable).

I had a lot of people tell me that while many of the church's beliefs are conservative in nature, the teachings in the sermons by the pastor are very non-judgmental and practical in nature.

In other words: They preach "felt-needs" and "relevance" rather than scripture, as a Pastor is called to do in that very scripture.

Other than that church, most churches are considered either "very conservative", "conservative", "liberal", or "very liberal".

All denominations vary.

I would say the ELCA is a very liberal church, same with Episcopalian.

There is another term for the ELCA and Episcopalian Churches: Apostate.
God Bless those in those denominations who remain faithful and fight the tide.

Very conservative churches would be Bible churches and Baptist churches.

Sometimes.Still largely depends on the church.

 

[hedrick]

But that church still looks like I'd classify it as "moderate" from the point of view of forums here. Saying that female pastors makes a church apostate marks you as conservative. Which is fine, but we're talking about the definition of "moderate," which by definition is different than conservative. I agree with you that this is "one of the first things to go" which is why you'd expect to see it in "moderate" churches. Presumably moderate is closer to conservative than "liberal" is, so moderate churches would have beliefs that are among the "first things to go," while "liberal" ones would have differences that are more extreme.

I also think your exegesis is wrong.

While I don't agree with Open Theism, I observe that people who seem otherwise evangelical seem to accept it, so again it seems OK in a "moderate" church.

 

[dusky_tresses]

I just wanted to point out, ministerial authority doesn't always apply to pastors. There are many churches which believe that women should not speak AT ALL, and therefore they aren't even allowed to do the readings during services. Let alone have director or authority-like positions within the faith formation aspects of the church. At my church, no woman can lead a congregation, but we've had lots of women do the readings, give talks, have director-type jobs, lead certain ministries, etc. Taking that view seems rather moderate to me, but I wouldn't care for a female priest.

 

[hedrick]

This is why I warned that "moderate" is a tricky term. Everyone thinks they're moderate. I think McLaren and N T Wright are moderate. In fact a lot of people consider Wright a defender of the conservative Christian point of view, because he is largely defending the credibility of the NT and ideas such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. The churches consistent with this point of view include PCUSA and ELCA. But people in online forums like this tend to be very conservative, and they wouldn't recognize these writers or these churches as moderate.

I note that the statement for the liberal group seems to me to be significantly more far out, which implies that my view of moderate makes sense here. My feeling is that the boundary between conservative and moderate is inerrancy, and the boundary between moderate and liberal is the Nicene Creed. The two hot-button sexual issues can also be used as a test. Conservative groups don't ordain women or homosexuals. Liberals do. Moderates typically ordain women and are fighting about homosexuals.

 

[Atlantians]

But that church still looks like I'd classify it as "moderate" from the point of view of forums here. Saying that female pastors makes a church apostate marks you as conservative.

Well, I am a Conservative. By self Identification.

I am a Reformed Baptist.
Calvinistic, Covenantal, and Confessional.
That sums up my beliefs in a nut shell.

Since the forum has no rules yet, I do not know if this forum will allow liberals and conservatives to both voice their points fully and debate.

But in any case, I go to a PCUSA church. I would not call this Church apostate.
In spite of female elders and having had a female pastor.

The denomination is largely apostate, though.

It is a bad sign, a canary in a coal mine. But not apostasy in and of itself.

Apostasy would involve basically rejecting the faith through doctrine and deed.

Female leaders is the sign of a compromising Church, not an apostate one.
Compromise leads to apostasy.

"Which is fine, but we're talking about the definition of "moderate," which by definition is different than conservative. I agree with you that this is "one of the first things to go" which is why you'd expect to see it in "moderate" churches. Presumably moderate is closer to conservative than "liberal" is, so moderate churches would have beliefs that are among the "first things to go," while "liberal" ones would have differences that are more extreme."
'Liberal' ones reject Christianity in all but name only.

I also think your exegesis is wrong.

My exegesis of what is wrong?
Their belief statements?

I did not exegete anything in my post.

While I don't agree with Open Theism, I observe that people who seem otherwise evangelical seem to accept it, so again it seems OK in a "moderate" church.

Open Theism is damnable heresy. To affirm it is to deny the clear words of scripture that God "declares the end from the beginning"

 

[hedrick]

The denomination is largely apostate, though.

I doubt it. I'm a member of a church in the Northeast. That tends to be the most liberal area. I don't think the churches here are by any reasonable definition apostate. I understand why people are skeptical about the national leadership, but I'm not sure the evidence for them being apostate is much more than rumor. There are certainly a few people, but I think they have more publicity than numbers or influence. For a while one could suspect that extreme feminist theology might come to have significant influence, but I don't think that's really happened.

I've been involved in Presbytery now and then, and know a few pastors and churches. Most of them don't believe in inerrancy, but otherwise I don't think there's much reason to think that they're apostate.

Female leaders is the sign of a compromising Church, not an apostate one.

That's the exegesis I was talking about. Unless you've invented your own objections to female leadership, I assume it's based on some passages from Paul, whose interpretation I think is questionable. I think the acceptance of female leadership is a sign of people opting for Scripture against tradition.

'Liberal' ones reject Christianity in all but name only.

Maybe. My experience is with groups that I'd call moderate, so I don't feel I'm in a position to judge the more liberal groups. There certainly are groups that are historically Christian but have moved to a position where I don't think it makes sense to consider them Christian anymore. E.g. the Unitarian Universalists. Beyond that I'd need to live with them for a while before I'd want to make that judgement. I think conservatives tend to be a bit too quick to judge people who are more liberal than they are, and to assume that they are caving into the culture, when often I think they are responding to what they see in the Gospel.

Open Theism is damnable heresy. To affirm it is to deny the clear words of scripture that God "declares the end from the beginning"

It seems to me that it's hard to support, but then I'm a Calvinist. I'm simply observing that it is often held by people who otherwise wouldn't fit in the liberal classification.

 

[actionsub]

As far as denominations go, probably United Methodist, American Baptist, and Presbyterian Church-USA would be moderate. I say this in the sense that there are some very liberal congregations and leaders within those denominations, but at the same time there is a real mandate from the rank and file to keep these in line.

Again, as far as local congregations, your mileage may vary.

 

[Atlantians]

I doubt it.

I may have exaggerated a bit, but my Church is not sending money to the general assembly because of the national issue with ordaining homosexuals and others in wanton sin.

I'm a member of a church in the Northeast. That tends to be the most liberal area. I don't think the churches here are by any reasonable definition apostate. I understand why people are skeptical about the national leadership, but I'm not sure the evidence for them being apostate is much more than rumor. There are certainly a few people, but I think they have more publicity than numbers or influence. For a while one could suspect that extreme feminist theology might come to have significant influence, but I don't think that's really happened.

Allowing the Father to be called mother, the son sister or daughter... yeah. That is abject heresy.

PC(USA) - Presbyterians Today Online: What Presbyterians Believe, Reclaiming the Trinity

"Beyond 'rock, paper, scissors' theology
Undisciplined use of any three words to refer to the Trinity is a "rock, paper, scissors" theology—three, any three, will do. The Trinity is too vital to our faith for such laziness. Here are examples of ways to amplify and enrich our language of the Triune God. They are products of disciplined reflection, yet are vivid and rooted in Scripture. Note the inner relationships between the terms:

-The One to Whom, the One by Whom, and the One in Whom we offer our praise

-Speaker, Word and Breath

-Overflowing Font, Living Water, Flowing River

-Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb

-Our Sun, Ray and Warmth

-Rock, Cornerstone and Temple

-The Fire that Consumes, the Hammer that Breaks, the Storm that Melts Mountains

Can you envision them being used in your prayer life and in worship? Can you think of others?"

Recommending calling the Holy Spirit "life-giving womb"?!
Yeah, no.

Compassionate Mother? No.

Beloved Child? Oy vey. Not wrong, per se, but in this context: Obvious obfuscation.

I've been involved in Presbytery now and then, and know a few pastors and churches. Most of them don't believe in inerrancy, but otherwise I don't think there's much reason to think that they're apostate.

That is a rather important thing to "not believe".

That's the exegesis I was talking about. Unless you've invented your own objections to female leadership, I assume it's based on some passages from Paul, whose interpretation I think is questionable. I think the acceptance of female leadership is a sign of people opting for Scripture against tradition.

Here is the thing. I grew up in Charismatic Churches where Paul's word to Timothy were ignored.
I started going to a PCUSA Church Senior year.
When I decided to write an essay for school on the topic of the early Church, I addressed the issue and convinced myself through research using PCUSA that Paul was not banning female leadership in the Church.

I realized, especially after analyzing the words more than I had, especially with some LCMS literature that refuted much of the research I had relied on (the term authentein is not a purely negative term, for instance; it exists outside of the Biblical example with positive uses) and forced me to be consistent in my exegesis.

I don't really understand it, but I believe it because it is true, scriptural, and I will submit to the scriptures over my own 'feelings'.

Maybe. My experience is with groups that I'd call moderate, so I don't feel I'm in a position to judge the more liberal groups. There certainly are groups that are historically Christian but have moved to a position where I don't think it makes sense to consider them Christian anymore. E.g. the Unitarian Universalists.

Woah. The Unitarians are heretics. The Universalists are heretics.
When they joined doctrines, they basically became full apostates.

Beyond that I'd need to live with them for a while before I'd want to make that judgement. I think conservatives tend to be a bit too quick to judge people who are more liberal than they are, and to assume that they are caving into the culture, when often I think they are responding to what they see in the Gospel.

Would you please define the Gospel?

I call things as I see them through the lens of scripture.
I make judgements, sure, but I test them in light of scripture and judge the judgements to assure they are right and true.
I am not above scripture.

It seems to me that it's hard to support, but then I'm a Calvinist.

I guess you can't be all bad then.

5-points?

I'm simply observing that it is often held by people who otherwise wouldn't fit in the liberal classification.

Well thats true. It is not really a token liberal doctrine in most groups.
I doubt that liberals are not open theists though, but they are so wishy washy, especially the Emergent Church brand of liberalism, I am not sure they would even admit to doctrinal titles of any sort.

There are different brands of heresy and apostasy.
Legalism for instance. Damnable heresy.

Paul remarked that he wished the legalists who insisted on circumcision-salvation would just emasculate themselves, and get it over with.

The Westboro Baptists are heretics.
They hold to a strange brand of works based salvation.

 

[dusky_tresses]

Since it looks like this is just going to be a self-debate by one poster due to the lack of pleasant candor emanating from this thread, I think I'm just gonna bow out now...

 

[hedrick]

Since it looks like this is just going to be a self-debate by one poster due to the lack of pleasant candor emanating from this thread, I think I'm just gonna bow out now...

Huh? I disagree with Atlantians in some respects, but I detect no lack of candor.

 

[Atlantians]

Since it looks like this is just going to be a self-debate by one poster due to the lack of pleasant candor emanating from this thread, I think I'm just gonna bow out now...

Eh?
What on earth are you talking about?

Your use of candor in this context is rather unusual though.
Threw me at first.
You are using an older definition.

Huh? I disagree with Atlantians in some respects, but I detect no lack of candor.

Tact... maybe. Candor, no.