Which denomination....

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

BryanW92 said:

That's quite a list. If you had to distill it down to 4-5 items that are absolutely essential, what would they be?

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply.

I would choose numbers: 1, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 24. I know that's eight items, instead of the 4-5 you asked for.

Celticflower said:

Have you tried any non-denoms? Some of the independent Christian churches may be a fit for you.

Click to expand...

I have, but around here, they are all Charismatic/Pentecostal.

circuitrider said:

Given several things on the list I don't think you would be comfortable in any connectional denomination/Church. I think you need a church with a congregational polity.

However a couple of your requirements are almost deal breakers for anything but Quakers. Almost all organized denominations have some title or other for clergy. We can discuss why if you want. Also lay administration of the sacraments is almost only found in congregationalist denominations.

I would suggest a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) or a church in the American Baptist Churches, USA but it doesn't appear they are in your area. Also they might be too liberal for you given that you believe the UMC is liberal (though usually considered pretty middle of the road by most.)

But American Baptists and Christian Church do have titles for their pastors even at that.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for your reply.

You're probably right about the congregational polity. But some Anglican groups allow their local churches to own their property, and they don't financially apportion or assess their churches. The AMiA is one.

The clergy title thing is a preference, not a deal breaker. Lay administration of sacraments is much more important to me.

No American Baptist or Disciples churches near me. I wouldn't consider the American Baptists too liberal; I would the Disciples. There is a CBF church 90 miles away -- too far to attend regularly.

I maybe could be UMC, were it not for the polity and the new baptism statement, "By Water and the Spirit".

Looks like I'm stuck.

circuitrider said:

It sounds like you are pretty well versed in your own theology. I don't know too many lay people who have read "By Water and the Spirit" unless their pastor led a study.

I'm a former American Baptist. I'd say that Disciples and ABC are almost identical on the liberal/conservative scale but since they are congregational your experience might vary quite a bit.

I did not know that any Anglican churches allowed for the local church to own the property. But I don't know as much about the Anglican churches that aren't affiliated with the Episcopal Church.

I don't think you will get lay administration of the sacraments in an Anglican church.

The only churches that I know that have lay administration of the sacraments are Baptists, Disciples, Pentecostals, and some non-denominational churches.

I personally am not against the idea of lay administration of the sacraments, though it doesn't fit my Church's polity, but I'm totally against untrained administration of the sacraments. That is one of the big reasons it has been given as a job of the clergy in most denominations is that you can't just do anything and call it communion and it actually be communion, at least in the minds of many Christians.

Click to expand...

There is a move in the Diocese of Sydney (Australian Anglican) in favor of what they call "lay presidency". But that's the only place I know of.

circuitrider said:

CelticRebel,

Just out of curiosity, what are your objections to "By Water and the Spirit?" I'm not looking to argue. I'm just wanting to understand where you are coming from.

Am I to assume it has to do with believers baptism and immersion? Not common among United Methodists.

Click to expand...

No, not specifically to do with believer's baptism and immersion. It teaches baptismal regeneration, and it is official church policy. It seems this leaves no room to believe otherwise. Is that correct?

circuitrider said:

I'd not say that "By Water and Spirit" teaches baptismal regeneration. Since Methodists view salvation as a journey and not an event someone is not "saved" because they were baptized. Their baptism contributes to their journey with God. But they have to believe in Christ to continue that journey in Christ and also continue to follow Christ throughout their life. If someone was baptized and then chose not to follow Christ they'd not be redeemed.

We believe that we receive God's grace all along the journey, including in the sacraments and in many other means of grace. Our ultimate redemption is in God's hands. It doesn't usually happen in a moment or a specific event. It happens in a life of following Christ. Our ultimate goal is to be sanctified in Christ and not just to get "saved" (avoid punishment.)

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I know that Methodists used to allow for dedication of infants. Is that still the case?

And is it still true that the UMC apportions or assesses their local congregations? Also, local church property is owned by the denomination? I was a member once, several years ago.

circuitrider said:

No, we do not allow infant dedications. I'm not aware that it was ever officially allowed. But now it is specifically forbidden.

Yes, each local church is part of an annual conference. The members of the annual conference (clergy and laity) vote on an annual budget which is apportioned by a formula that evenly divides the support of the conference budget between all the local churches.

The property is held in trust by the local trustees for the UMC but becomes the property of the Annual Conference should the church ever cease to exist or cease to be United Methodist.

The purpose of the "trust clause" for the property is actually more of a protection for the local church. It prevents a group of non-methodists from joining the church and then trying to run off with the property. (This has happened to some Baptist churches.)

Click to expand...

The Anglicans have a service of "Thanksgiving for the birth or adoption of a child". This seems kind of like a dedication. Does the UMC have that?

I don't really care for the apportionment system. I think the amount given beyond the local church should be up to that church. Also, I believe the local church should be able to own their property. The new Anglican bodies such as ACNA and AMiA have that provision in their constitutions.

circuitrider said:

Yes, we have something like that. But it isn't intended to be used as an infant dedication.

For Methodist the Church is the entire body in an Annual Conference and not the single local church. When you become a United Methodist you are a member of not just the local church but the entire UMC.

So what you see as "the church" we see as an individual outpost of the larger Church. For United Methodists the Conference rather than the congregation is the basic unit of the Church.

This isn't really a thread for arguing church structure. The idea of self-governed congregations didn't materialize for hundreds of years after the New Testament period.

Just so you know, in the UMC the local church chooses its own ministries, adopts its own budget, and elects its own officers. So the local church does have a good bit of self governance.

Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing, just stating my beliefs and preferences.

You said, "The idea of self-governed congregations didn't materialize for hundreds of years after the New Testament period." I strongly disagree. I believe the NT affirms that, too.