Which denomination....

[CelticRebel]

"Congregational" vs "hierarchical" involves much more than whether or not the property of a local church reverts the district or the denomination should the local membership decide to leave the denomination. As I mentioned previously it also involves the power wielded by church leadership. Perhaps that is even more important than whether or not the property reverts to the denomination. Also consider, for example, that in the United Methodist church, as well as in many other denominations, the local church district assigns ministers to congregations as opposed to local churches choosing their own ministers.

Of course what is most important with regard to characteristics of "congregational" vs hierarchical will vary depending on what is foremost in the minds of the members at any given point in time. When splitting is foremost, then who gets the property is highly important. If splitting is not foremost, then other things take precedence, i.e., whether or not the minister/bishop can kick you or your friends or your relatives out of the church, and for what reasons.

Be careful you don't let the tail wag the dog with regard to who gets church property on a split. It's not too difficult in some Anabaptist circles to run afoul of the church leadership/bishop and get kicked out for simply and carefully following the commandments of Jesus.

I understand, and you make a valid point. But what I am concerned with here involves a basic principle, and what I consider a spiritual principle -- the autonomy of the local church. That is one principle, from my Baptist background, that I consider vitally important.

 

[Caretaker]

How can the "autonomy of the local church" trump the body of believers? I don't recall the "autonomy of the local church" as a principle I've read of in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact - see Acts 15.

 

[CelticRebel]

How can the "autonomy of the local church" trump the body of believers? I don't recall the "autonomy of the local church" as a principle I've read of in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact - see Acts 15.

It has to do with freedom, and freedom is a spiritual principle. It is an inherent part of God's character, and He endows man with it. Thus, it is found all through scripture. The freedom of the individual under God is an inviolate principle. As an extension, the local church, made up of free individuals, is and should be free from all external control or compulsion. No outside body has a right to impose anything on a local church. The local church is characterized by freedom and voluntarism. No association or annual conference is the church; such does not worship together weekly, etc. Such a larger group is only a representative of the churches and should have no right to make laws that every church must follow. It can draft statements of faith, pass resolutions, issue opinions on various issues, but it has no right to compel any local church. The relation between the local church and any larger group should be strictly voluntary. There is no place for compulsion in the Body of Christ.

Those are Baptist principles, but also Anabaptist principles, particularly the Mennonite tradition.

 

[Caretaker]

Can you find support for what you wrote in scripture?

How would you regard Paul's, Timothy's, Barnabus's, Silas's, roles, and also the role of the church in Jerusalem, with regard to the churches these people helped to start?

Where does the notion of a Christian "body of believers" fit into your thinking?

How does Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth fit with those principles, especially with regard to what is written in Chapter 5?

Let's imagine that the body of believers is larger than a single church, i.e., that it encompasses believers who worship in many different local churches, but maintain contact with one another, help and guide each other spiritually, etc. That is, can we couch the discussion in terms of the early church described in the New Testament?

Now what if the church at Corinth had ignored Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 and continued to celebrate the misdeeds spoken of in that chapter as if they were good, wholesome, and Christlike? What is the responsibility of the larger body of believers with regard to a local group that has gone astray? Can Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 be the guide?

What if a group of people decide to "invade" a local church (i.e., join in sufficient numbers that they constitute a strong majority) and take it over in order to either further their own, possibly anti-Christ ideas or simply to sell off the property for financial gain? What if the larger denomination had worked hard, donated money and possibly land, and put in time and effort to help establish that church?

 

[CelticRebel]

Can you find support for what you wrote in scripture?

How would you regard Paul's, Timothy's, Barnabus's, Silas's, roles, and also the role of the church in Jerusalem, with regard to the churches these people helped to start?

Where does the notion of a Christian "body of believers" fit into your thinking?

How does Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth fit with those principles, especially with regard to what is written in Chapter 5?

Let's imagine that the body of believers is larger than a single church, i.e., that it encompasses believers who worship in many different local churches, but maintain contact with one another, help and guide each other spiritually, etc. That is, can we couch the discussion in terms of the early church described in the New Testament?

Now what if the church at Corinth had ignored Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 and continued to celebrate the misdeeds spoken of in that chapter as if they were good, wholesome, and Christlike? What is the responsibility of the larger body of believers with regard to a local group that has gone astray? Can Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 5 be the guide?

What if a group of people decide to "invade" a local church (i.e., join in sufficient numbers that they constitute a strong majority) and take it over in order to either further their own, possibly anti-Christ ideas or simply to sell off the property for financial gain? What if the larger denomination had worked hard, donated money and possibly land, and put in time and effort to help establish that church?

I can only repeat that I don't see anywhere that a local church was compelled to do anything. Denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention have "bodies of believers" beyond the local church, such as associations, and the convention itself. But these do not have the power or authority to compel the local churches. The SBC is the Southern Baptist Convention, not the Southern Baptist Church. An association and the convention are not churches; they are a group of representatives of the local churches. A local church belongs to an association or the convention voluntarily. It chooses the amount of money it gives to the convention; it is not assessed or apportioned an amount. An association may disfellowship a local church, but neither it nor the convention may take that church's property.

Regarding your last paragraph/scenario; That might happen, but such is the risk with freedom, and most Baptists (and others) are willing to take that risk in order to keep that freedom - the freedom to own the building and grounds on which they worship and that they maintain.

Let me ask a question: Suppose a local church is opposed to homosexual ordination and marriage, and suppose that local church does not own its property, that it is owned by the denomination. Suppose that the denomination votes to start ordaining homosexuals and performing homosexual unions and marriages. Then that local church that opposes this decides it cannot be a part of the denomination anymore and decides to withdraw. The denomination then comes in, kicks the members out, locks the doors, and takes control of the property -- the building and land that this congregation has worhiped in and on for a hundred years or more. That is simply wrong and an abuse of power that the denomination should never have had in the first place.

The above situation is one that is happening right now, over and over again, in the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterian Church USA. It could never happen in a congregational denomination.

 

[Caretaker]

In the Church of the Brethren the denomination could not do what you wrote, i.e., the denomination could not come in and kick the members out and padlock the doors. The church is owned by the local congregation, but if the local congregation votes to leave the denomination then the church property reverts to the local district.

 

[CelticRebel]

In the Church of the Brethren the denomination could not do what you wrote, i.e., the denomination could not come in and kick the members out and padlock the doors. The church is owned by the local congregation, but if the local congregation votes to leave the denomination then the church property reverts to the local district.

But that being the case, the local congregation doesn't really own the church property.

This is the case in those denominations I spoke of. The congregations voted to leave their denominations, but they couldn't keep their property. I don't agree with that.

 

[Jehane]

It probably doesn't help but a number of Quaker Meetings have Meeting for Worship on~line. This would tie you in with a body of believers while you considered other options.

 

[ml5363]

i was gonna say independent or presbyterial..these can vary like others from church to church...i just recently started attending an independent baptist...looking it up online this one is hardly like what is as described...good luck..I know the hunt for a new church home is tough..

 

[Caretaker]

But that being the case, the local congregation doesn't really own the church property.

This is the case in those denominations I spoke of. The congregations voted to leave their denominations, but they couldn't keep their property. I don't agree with that.

The property was bought with gifts to God. Many church buildings have been occupied for many generations, so the people who actually gave the money to God that was used to build the church are no longer living. Do current members have the right to take back and confiscate what was already given to God, and often given by members now deceased?

Property purchased with money given to God should remain under the control of the highest level of the organization that is represented, i.e., the denomination. It is much more difficult to move an entire denomination away from its original purpose than it is to move a single congregation.

When a squabble devolves to dividing the spoils it's pretty clear that physical desires have replaced spiritual quests.

 

[CelticRebel]

The property was bought with gifts to God. Many church buildings have been occupied for many generations, so the people who actually gave the money to God that was used to build the church are no longer living. Do current members have the right to take back and confiscate what was already given to God, and often given by members now deceased?

Property purchased with money given to God should remain under the control of the highest level of the organization that is represented, i.e., the denomination. It is much more difficult to move an entire denomination away from its original purpose than it is to move a single congregation.

When a squabble devolves to dividing the spoils it's pretty clear that physical desires have replaced spiritual quests.

No entity beyond the local church should have authority over that church. The local church should have an indefeasible right to own and control its own property. This is a Baptist principle that I hold to. Many Mennonites also hold to it.

 

[Thursday]

I would like to get some thoughts and opinions on something, but first some background on me: I have been looking for a church home for quite some time. I grew up Southern Baptist, but by choice and because of some things that happened to me personally, I left that faith by age 20. I briefly became an agnostic but then began to seriously investigate the claims of all the world's religions. I gradually made my way back to Christianity by way of Quakerism and considered myself a Quaker for years, although there was no Quaker church or meeting anywhere close to me. Then, at about age 30, something else happened that made me see that trying to live as an isolated Christian was folly. I then started visiting various churches. I had a very bad experience in a Charismatic church, and I knew that wasn't right for me. Over the next few years, I joined a Baptist church, a United Methodist church, and the Episcopal Church. I never felt at home in any of them. The SBC by that time had become too fundamentalist for me, although I agreed with them on ethical and moral issues, and the UMC and TEC were too liberal on those issues. Also, I have always had a wide variety of doctrinal views, so much so that I don't seem to fit in anywhere -- in any denomination, that is. I thought I would post a list of my views , and see what people here think about which denomination they would best fit into. I did this some years ago on a fundamentalist Baptist forum and got blasted -- not from everybody but from a lot of members there. Anyway, my choices for churches in my area are rather limited, as I live in a rural part of the southern USA. The denominations around here are: Various Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, the UMC, PCUSA, Southern Baptist and independent Baptist, Nazarene, TEC, SDA, RCC. There is a LCMS church about an hour away, also an AMiA (Anglican Mission) about the same distance, and a Free Will Baptist church about an hour in the opposite direction. So, those are my choices. I feel drawn to the Mennonites, but nearest church is over two hours. I would say the denominations I feel most compatible with are moderate Mennonites, Quakers, Anglicans, and Baptists. Seems like there are no moderates anymore but either far right or far left churches and individuals. Also, my views contain some evangelical and "catholic" elements. Here is my list; I wonder if there is any denomination that these fit into, or would even come close to. I seriously want a church home but feel like an outcast, like I really don't belong anywhere, as my views are too varied:


(1) Christus Victor/Recapitulation/Ransom atonement
(2) Infant dedication allowed
(3) Believer's baptism
(4) No "once saved, always saved"
(5) Prefer baptism by immersion, with exceptions
(illness, disability)
(6) No baptismal regeneration
(7) Liberty of conscience
(8) Church-state separation
(9) Religious liberty
(10) Priesthood of the believer
(11) Freedom of Bible interpretation
(12) Voluntary giving -- no denominational assessments
(13) Church owns its property
(14) Absolute equality of members, including
gender equality--any member, male or
female , may serve the church in any
capacity
(14) Prayers for the dead
(15) Candles in worship service
(16) Vestments acceptable (simplicity desired)
(17) Liturgy desirable/acceptable
(18) Open communion--any believer may
partake; water baptism not a
prerequisite
(19) Occasional readings from the Apocrypha
acceptable
(20) No clergy titles such as "Reverend"
(21) Bible, the final external authority, but
use God-given reason and experience in
interpretation of scripture
(22) The Light of Christ in every human being
(23) Jesus Christ, the criterion by which
scripture is interpreted under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit
(24) Lay-administered sacraments allowed

I think your approach is wrong.

As GK CHesterton said(paraphrasing), don't just find a Church that agrees with you then join that Church.

Figure out which Church is true then decide to agree with that Church.

 

[CelticRebel]

I think your approach is wrong.

As GK CHesterton said(paraphrasing), don't just find a Church that agrees with you then join that Church.

Figure out which Church is true then decide to agree with that Church.

That's what I have been trying to do for 41 years. I don't believe there is any "one true church". I believe there are those which are closer to the apostles' teachings than others.

 

[Thursday]

That's what I have been trying to do for 41 years. I don't believe there is any "one true church". I believe there are those which are closer to the apostles' teachings than others.

I believe that Jesus only started one Church, and like Chesterton, I converted to the Catholic Church because I believe it is the Church.

 

[CelticRebel]

I believe that Jesus only started one Church, and like Chesterton, I converted to the Catholic Church because I believe it is the Church.

If I had to say there is one church that is definitely not "the one true church", it would be the RCC. Too many innovations that are not to be found in either the NT or earliest Christianity.

But if you have found peace, I am glad.

 

[Thursday]

If I had to say there is one church that is definitely not "the one true church", it would be the RCC. Too many innovations that are not to be found in either the NT or earliest Christianity.

But if you have found peace, I am glad.

You are mistaken.

Have you read the writings of early Christians?

 

[CelticRebel]

You are mistaken.

Have you read the writings of early Christians?

I am not mistaken. Yes, I have read their writings. I have devoted four decades to studying this. I have absolutely no doubt that the RCC is not the "one true church."

 

[Thursday]

I am not mistaken. Yes, I have read their writings. I have devoted four decades to studying this. I have absolutely no doubt that the RCC is not the "one true church."

Do you find this belief in any protestant Church?

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Or this,

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

 

[Caretaker]

No entity beyond the local church should have authority over that church. The local church should have an indefeasible right to own and control its own property. This is a Baptist principle that I hold to. Many Mennonites also hold to it.

Hmmm.... aren't Christians to be following Christ? Shouldn't we be searching for principles in the Bible instead of in denominational polity? Note that when questions arose in the early church, it was not each local congregation on its own that decided. Instead the leadership traveled to and met in Jerusalem and considered the question(s) and decided on answers, then sent those answers to all the churches.

With regard to the Mennonites, I'm under the impression that they are organized in the same fashion as the Church of the Brethren with regard to property, at least in most conferences.

The dangers of leaving the property with the local congregation are pretty obvious, i.e., it leaves the door wide open for "poachers" to take over a local church for the property and buildings.

I think it important that the wishes of those who made the original donations that made possible the purchase of the lot and the building of the church be honored. Again, although it is clear that both the thinking of individual churches as well as entire denominations' thinking changes over time, it is much more likely that an individual congregation could change, and change more rapidly, than the entire denomination.

 

[CelticRebel]

Do you find this belief in any protestant Church?

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

Or this,

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

I don't find " the Eucharist" in the Bible. I also don't find all the cultic beliefs about Mary there. There are no popes in the Bible, no indulgences, no papal infallibility, etc. I could go on and on. The RCC is the greatest innovator in Christendom. The RCC is not the church of the Bible or the apostles.