Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?