What would it take?

[Silliness]

for me, it would take our leadership/elders taking on a view/attitude that is very clearly scripturally wrong. but it would have to be more than just ONE person. it would have to be at least 3.

beyond that, i don't really think there is anything unless i felt called by God to attend another church.​

 

[Knowledge3]

My church would be Patristic and all of the members would be well-versed in Scripture and ECF's.

I would celebrate the Eucharist exactly as they did in the early Church.

 

[freespiritchurch]

My church would be Patristic and all of the members would be well-versed in Scripture and ECF's.

I would celebrate the Eucharist exactly as they did in the early Church.

Which century of "the early church" would you be using as your model?

 

[Knowledge3]

Which century of "the early church" would you be using as your model?

1st century.

The writings of the Church Fathers would be a guideline to proper Theology,Canon and Patristics.

 

[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.

My church would be Patristic and all of the members would be well-versed in Scripture and ECF's.

I would celebrate the Eucharist exactly as they did in the early Church.

Thanks for the input.
Do you have a response to the OP?

 

[a_ntv]

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.

What you write is great.
You explained perfectly,and I realize that it can work

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.

Women-priest was simply an exemple.
(I'm personally completly against the women priests in CC/EO/OO/Anglicans for doctrinal reasons, but I think that there is nothing against women pastors in protestantism)

 

[freespiritchurch]

Thanks! It's always a pleasant surprise when CF allows Christians with different viewpoints to understand each other better.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

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

Cool! I love church history...

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?

Yes, I'm referring to the basics of Christian belief. There are a lot of peripheral issues like worship styles, music, church government, etc. that I regard as preferences rather than essentials.


LDG

 

[Macrina]

Cool! I love church history...



Yes, I'm referring to the basics of Christian belief. There are a lot of peripheral issues like worship styles, music, church government, etc. that I regard as preferences rather than essentials.


LDG

Thanks for clarifying. There are some who have differing views of what's "essential" and what's "peripheral," so I wanted to be sure I was understanding you properly.

 

[a_ntv]

Thanks for clarifying. There are some who have differing views of what's "essential" and what's "peripheral," so I wanted to be sure I was understanding you properly.

Well, not only what is "essential" is IMO actually essential.

In all families there are lots of habits that are not "essential" (to eat, sleep, work), but these are the richness of the family and useful to unit the same family.

So I dont understand this research of the "essential".

The Church is a family. Ad instance the Litugy of the Hours was settled in centuries by many actual family members (now near Him): why we should cancel it rejecting the history of our family, for a un-supported reseach of the "essential" ?

We are NOT the first Christians in the world !! We are part of a family: the Church, with all its important "un-essential" richnesses, that made us a family.

The line (of the OP post) is before of the "essential"

 

[Macrina]

Well, not only what is "essential" is IMO actually essential.

In all families there are lots of habits that are not "essential" (to eat, sleep, work), but these are the richness of the family and useful to unit the same family.

So I dont understand this research of the "essential".

The Church is a family. Ad instance the Litugy of the Hours was settled in centuries by many actual family members (now near Him): why we should cancel it rejecting the history of our family, for a un-supported reseach of the "essential" ?

We are NOT the first Christians in the world !! We are part of a family: the Church, with all its important "un-essential" richnesses, that made us a family.

The line (of the OP post) is before of the "essential"

I don't mean to discount the richness of tradition -- certainly not! I so value the fellowship we share with saints of all the ages.

Let me try to come up with an example:

I value the tradition of the liturgical year. The season of Lent, for example, is a particularly beautiful way to focus on certain aspects of our individual and communal relationships with God, including reflection, repentance, and deepening our spiritual disciplines. That's a wonderful tradition that I don't think we should do away with.

But if another congregation in my denomination chose not to observe the liturgical year, would I break fellowship with them over the issue? No. I would accept them as fellow presbyterians, even if I think they're missing out on something wonderful.

Now, if the difference were, say, that they denied Christ's Lordship, that's essential in the sense that I can't in good conscience be in fellowship with a group which denies this doctrine.


Perhaps for you, tradition is on an equal footing with doctrines such as the Trinity or other essentials found in the Creed. For me, however, it is not. I would still stay together even if different congregations differed in certain elements of practice.


Thank you for your input, though. Part of the purpose of this thread is to define the "essentials" and see if there is any variation in what those are. The essentials, for the purpose of this thread, being what you require to have in common in order to still be in full fellowship with one another.

 

[a_ntv]

Well, the Liturgy is the safe-box of the doctrine, so if we make not-light changes in the Liturgy (like not to observe Lent), it is a clear breaking point of the OP line.

PS probably many Protestants do not realize that at our eyes the changes made by Luther to the order of the Mass and of sacraments are even more heavy that his doctrinal issues. The doctrinal issues can be (and sometime are) healed with the dialogue, while the liturgical issues are by far more difficoult to heal and are sources of endless other doctrinal differences.

 

[Macrina]

Again, thank you for explaining what you consider essential. It's very informative.

 

[Prodigal7]

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

I play guitar in a worship team.

You got to laugh at all the ways man worships God. Psalms says David danced worshiping the Lord. Is there not room for honest disagreement in that huge book which we call our holy scriptures?

My criteria for leaving a flock is if the Nicene Creed is not followed. Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead after three days, and the other core beliefs.

Most of us are born into a faith. We all have strong reasons for our preference. I think if we follow the creed we're all Christians. I'm kind of a hybrid because I was born Orthodox but right now "I play guitar in a worship team".

The church I go to bears good fruit so I believe it is a valid church. I'm kind of a wierdo though because I actually enjoy hearing what various congregations believe. I can't afford to split hairs on doctrine because I paid too high a price to become a believer. My old way of life was very detrimental.

 

[Macrina]

...I paid too high a price to become a believer...

For all of us, the ultimate price was enormous... but we weren't the ones to pay it.


I appreciate your comments.

 

[Prodigal7]

For all of us, the ultimate price was enormous... but we weren't the ones to pay it.


I appreciate your comments.

Thanks for the correction. You're right - he paid the price.

I get that false ego because I've made progress.

Take Care

 

[MoNiCa4316]

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.

If my church were to directly contradict something in Scripture or teach that Christ is not the only way to salvation, I would consider leaving.

 

[ps139]

Tough question for Catholics. A lot of us are Catholic because we believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, that the pope is given the charism of infallibility on faith and moral matters, and that the Holy Spirit will never abandon us.

So, let's say Pope Whoever "infallibly" declares that Jesus is not God. Well, in our minds, HE would have left "the Catholic Church" ...we'd also consider him a false pope... and his church would be some apostate church, and we might have to go "underground" but we would still be in the same "Church."

I hope that makes sense!

What would it take for me to leave? Probably a visual appearance by Jesus, directly to me, saying "LEAVE" and my absolute certainty that it was not a hallucination.

 

[Rick Otto]

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?

It would take calling it "my" church, because it is His church, nobody else's.