What would it take?

[Macrina]

Please read this entire post before you respond.


What, if anything, would your church/denomination have to do in order to make you part ways with them and go elsewhere? Is there a "line" that may not be crossed? What, for you, would be the hypothetical scenario required for you to seek another church?

My denomination is struggling with congregations leaving over theological and ecclesiological differences, so there has been much talk about this lately amongst my fellow clergy.


One ground rule please: PLEASE do not use this as an opportunity to bash anyone else's denomination/tradition. We are speaking hypothetically about your church and your "lines in the sand," should they exist.

 

[a_ntv]

Well, this question shows perhaps a different attitude towards own church/denomination.

My church is for me like a teacher, a mother: so if my church crosses a heavy lines (as to accept divorce or to order women), my though would be that the problem is in me, and that I should follow anyway the teaching of my Mother Church.
I'm a student in the faith, not because I've not jet studied, but for humility.
And I know that the powers of death shall not prevail against it: that is very relief for me

The only think I want to ask to my church is to be firm: I'm like a child that dont like hesitations in the Mother.

 

[Macrina]

Well, this question shows perhaps a different attitude towards own church/denomination.

My church is for me like a teacher, a mother: so if my church crosses a heavy lines (as to accept divorce or to order women), my though would be that the problem is in me, and that I should follow anyway the teaching of my Mother Church.
I'm a student in the faith, not because I've not jet studied, but for humility.
And I know that the powers of death shall not prevail against it: that is very relief for me

The only think I want to ask to my church is to be firm: I'm like a child that dont like hesitations in the Mother.

Okay, so there is absolutely nothing? This is purely hypothetical, and I know that it wouldn't happen... but in the case that the church said, say, that Jesus wasn't the only way to God? Or that some part of the Creed was an error? If the answer is "no," then fine -- I'm just trying to understand where other people are coming from.

The reason I ask is that so many people ask me where my line is -- implying that I should have already left my church. But it's not so simple as that, is it?

I really hope it isn't offensive for me to ask these questions -- it's interesting and helpful for me to hear the perspective of Christians from other traditions.

 

[a_ntv]

Okay, so there is absolutely nothing? This is purely hypothetical, and I know that it wouldn't happen... but in the case that the church said, say, that Jesus wasn't the only way to God? Or that some part of the Creed was an error? If the answer is "no," then fine -- I'm just trying to understand where other people are coming from.

Ok. let's work on a pure hypothetical line.

The line is:
- apostolic succession by bishops is lost/rejected
- not sacramentaly-ordered people to consacrate the Eucharist
- deny that abortion is a sin
- deny that euthanasia is a sin
- rejection of even one sacrament
- rejection of the communion with the pope
.....
Well, the base point is the first: apostolic sucession. Any of us shall have a bishop (of the apostolic group) that take care of him: my bishop is the cardinal of my town, and he is responsable of the faith. In such a hypotetical/horrible case of any of the above points by him, I would ask a more orthodox bishop to let me enter in his flock.

 

[Macrina]

Thanks, a_ntv -- I know these are radically hypothetical scenarios, but they help me understand your ecclesiology better. I appreciate the input!

 

[sunlover1]

The reason I ask is that so many people ask me where my line is -- implying that I should have already left my church. But it's not so simple as that, is it?

It's not so simple as that no, and yes.

I can't say ahead of time what those lines would be.
I will worship the Lord wherever the name of Jesus Christ is lifted up.
The real Jesus.
Other than that, yes, we should be (in my opinion) very choosy about what we will tolerate in God's church.

I left a denomination when I was in my late teens because after reading the Bible myself, I felt this church disregarded parts of the Word of God.

my .02,
sunlover

 

[Rick Otto]

but how far over & how often it is crossed.
It seems to me, it isn't so much a line, like ordaining women & homosexuals, as it is "the last straw", or just how much you personaly can take before your ability to cope ends.

 

[IamAdopted]

I would leave my church if the Bible was not being preached.. I would leave my church if the church leader was not living what he preached after this was brought up to him and he chose not to repent from wrong doing..

 

[Communion]

sacrificing a goat on the pulpit would do it for me

...wouldn't have to go that far. If a woman was selected for the pulpit I'd drift on out in a quiet way...

 

[billwald]

A "worship team," drums, and a guitar and I'm out the door.

 

[Rick Otto]

used help me tolerate the criminal attire (suits & ties) and the Greek Oratory Tradition slavishly aped.

The costumes & paraphanalia of priesthood are to over-the-top for me.

I'm averse to ritual& ceremony.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

What, if anything, would your church/denomination have to do in order to make you part ways with them and go elsewhere? Is there a "line" that may not be crossed? What, for you, would be the hypothetical scenario required for you to seek another church?

Hi Macrina,
Would your handle happen to be named after Macrina the sister of Basil and Gregory?

My church is an independent Bible church, so the "lines" are more local than denominational. Hypothetically I think I would leave if the church leaders were to actively promote unorthodox or heretical ideas and also supress basic Christian beliefs. I would be uneasy with my family there. Also I would leave if they did not allow me to stay and make a difference.


LDG

 

[Macrina]

Hi Macrina,
Would your handle happen to be named after Macrina the sister of Basil and Gregory?

My church is an independent Bible church, so the "lines" are more local than denominational. Hypothetically I think I would leave if the church leaders were to actively promote unorthodox or heretical ideas and also supress basic Christian beliefs. I would be uneasy with my family there. Also I would leave if they did not allow me to stay and make a difference.


LDG

Yes, that's the Macrina I named myself after! Nice to have the name recognized.

When you say "unorthodox or heretical ideas," are you talking about things that would, say, go against the Nicene Creed, or are there more specifics that would be necessary in order for you to stay?

And true, the point about not being allowed to stay. If it ever gets to the point where I am asked to abide by or affirm a rule which violates scripture, then I'll refuse... and the consequences might shut me out.

 

[freespiritchurch]

I would leave my church if they ever decided to fire the pastor.

 

[Macrina]

I would leave my church if they ever decided to fire the pastor.

(same here )

 

[a_ntv]

(same here )

Why, a church can fire a partor?
In the worse case the bishop can order the priest to change parich or to go to serve in some monastary (but a parish priest is not easy to be moved not even by his bishop)

IMO it is horible to think that the lay people of a parish could fire a priest. It means that the priest, each time he preachs, shall remind that he preachs to who can fire him, and so he cannot preach the Truth in freedom, because he shall never hurt the parishioners.
So the parishioners cound fire a priest who teach that the divorce is a heavy sin, who teach against the use of contraceptive, who forbid funeral for suicided, who underlines that we are not saint but we need lots of prayer.
On the contrary, a priest who says that we are all already almomst perfect, that wheedle people, that is liberal in moral, who dont ask to pray every day, who dont require private confession, well this priest will never be fired. But this is not a good service to the Truth.

Yes, to be in a church where the lay people choose, pay and fire the priest, is for sure a line for which I would change church (see the OP):

 

[freespiritchurch]

This is off topic, but it's important. It's especially important to me, because I firmly believe that each church should elect its own pastor. Today, the only "denominations" that allow a church to elect its own pastor also allow churches to fire their pastors. This is not ideal, but it's far better than a situation in which a pastor is imposed on a church by a superior authority, or chosen by an elite from within the church.

There are several reasons that the situation I'm in doesn't constrain my freedom to preach the truth.

When a church needs a new pastor, they spend 1-2 years in what we call "search and call." During that long period, they consider many people, reflect on the particular mission to which God is calling them, and go through several stages. In the end, the congregation must give substantial support to the new pastor. I took a chance accepting my call because only 75% of the congregation voted for me. Normally, you would want to have near consensus before accepting a call. All this builds a bond of commitment between the church and the pastor before the pastorate even begins.

Furthermore, a pastor who teaches or preaches a message that the congregation can't receive is not doing his (or her) duty. Let's say that your priest recognizes that almost everyone in your parish is using contraceptives. If he preaches a sermon condemning the use of contraceptives that angers the parish, they won't fire him--but they won't stop using contraceptives either! In order to win people to the truth, he must first show them that he loves them.

I'm in the same situation. The congregation and I have built a bond of love and trust (that's still forming...I've only been here 8 months). Because of that bond, I have been able to deliver some pretty sharp messages to the people--and some of them have been received. Even when I haven't been successful in getting through, I'm not in danger of being fired because the congregation knows I love them.

 

[a_ntv]

This is off topic, but it's important. It's especially important to me, because I firmly believe that each church should elect its own pastor. Today, the only "denominations" that allow a church to elect its own pastor also allow churches to fire their pastors. This is not ideal, but it's far better than a situation in which a pastor is imposed on a church by a superior authority, or chosen by an elite from within the church.

There are several reasons that the situation I'm in doesn't constrain my freedom to preach the truth.

When a church needs a new pastor, they spend 1-2 years in what we call "search and call." During that long period, they consider many people, reflect on the particular mission to which God is calling them, and go through several stages. In the end, the congregation must give substantial support to the new pastor. I took a chance accepting my call because only 75% of the congregation voted for me. Normally, you would want to have near consensus before accepting a call. All this builds a bond of commitment between the church and the pastor before the pastorate even begins.

Furthermore, a pastor who teaches or preaches a message that the congregation can't receive is not doing his (or her) duty. Let's say that your priest recognizes that almost everyone in your parish is using contraceptives. If he preaches a sermon condemning the use of contraceptives that angers the parish, they won't fire him--but they won't stop using contraceptives either! In order to win people to the truth, he must first show them that he loves them.

I'm in the same situation. The congregation and I have built a bond of love and trust (that's still forming...I've only been here 8 months). Because of that bond, I have been able to deliver some pretty sharp messages to the people--and some of them have been received. Even when I haven't been successful in getting through, I'm not in danger of being fired because the congregation knows I love them.

Well, you are right that with the charity you do all

Even if I see myself as a child christian, that shall grow up. So I need a priest that teach me also what I dont like, with love but with steadiness. Like when I was in shool...I heated y teacher bc he was to severe and gave us too many homeworks, I wanted to change him, but now I can say that he was a great teacher that really helped me.
On the contrary the ltin teacher wanted to bring us to do homework with kindness and love. We loved him, but I almost never did homework, because I prefered to go out with friends inthe afternoon.

I think that I'm, in front of God, like 5 years old child: I need a ocean of love but also a strict guide (that shall be over me, and so out from my jurisdiction)

The point is (back to the OP) that the problem is when the 75% becames the 49%. Consider a odd and limit case: a tv preacher teachs that cheating is not a sin, and the 51% of your parishers agree. They know that you love them, but they love to cheat and consider cheating not a sin. First or later, they will let you know that they prefer you to speak on other subjects, not about fornication. If youd ont, in a few time they choose an other pastor.
That is already happened in many churches with women ordination, homosex marriage and other issues.
This creates divisions into a congregation (see the OP)

 

[Macrina]

Why, a church can fire a partor? . . .

It was a joke. I'm the pastor, so if my church decided to fire the pastor -- I'd, well, leave. (Same as the post I was quoting when I said that.)

 

[freespiritchurch]

The point is (back to the OP) that the problem is when the 75% becomes the 49%. Consider a odd and limit case: a TV preacher teaches that cheating is not a sin, and the 51% of your parishioners agree. They know that you love them, but they love to cheat and consider cheating not a sin. First or later, they will let you know that they prefer you to speak on other subjects, not about fornication. If you don't, in a few time they choose an other pastor.

There are ways to keep this from happening. Our church constitution specifies that the minister is hired for an indefinite term. Before I accepted the call, I asked the board to approve a policy listing the specific reasons that I could be fired. The list is pretty common-sense--basically, as long as I behave ethically and remain faithful to God's word, I can't be fired. If the congregation fired me for something not on the list, I could sue them for breach of contract.

Not all congregations put these limitations on themselves. But several things will stop them from firing the pastor:

1) Choosing another pastor is a lot of work and is disruptive to the congregation. If they choose another pastor, they'll have to go through a lot of difficulty. If they continue to fire pastors, the congregation will eventually fail entirely (remember, there's no diocese to support a congregation in trouble; if the church runs out of money, it will close).

2) If they fire me, they can get a pastor who won't bug them about money, but they won't have me. The pastor who trained me talked about "pastoral credit." When I show my commitment to the congregation--even when they get on my nerves--they build a commitment to me--even when I get on their nerves.

3) If the congregation fires me, they have to get someone else. It's normal to ask what happened with the last pastor. When they say, "he convicted us of sin so we fired him," they're going to have a hard time replacing me. And they might be able to cover up the reality once, but before long they'll be known as the church that can't abide preaching about money. Once their reputation is known, anyone who comes to interview will be able to say in advance, "you can't fire me because you don't like the content of my preaching."

4) A good shepherd will sacrifice his life for the flock--if a pastor won't even risk his job, he's not really a minister of the Gospel. And that will show in other ways. Most Christians know that they're better off with a minister who makes them uncomfortable than one who tells them only what they want to hear.

That is already happened in many churches with women ordination, homosex marriage and other issues.
This creates divisions into a congregation (see the OP)

These issues are not questions of "sin" vs. "not-sin." I believe that it is morally wrong and contrary to Scripture to deny ordination to women. If I were at a church that rejected women's ordination, I could get in trouble--but because we had incompatible interpretations of Scripture, not because they didn't want to be convicted of sin.

Alan