Does this denomination exist?

[Alessandra]

Some Anglo-Catholic churches would fit the bill.

[ktgrok]

It also is occurring to me, the more I think about it, that the worship style of the church I'm in is problematic for me not just because I don't like the music -- to me, the worship style misses the mark in what it communicates about the Lord and about faith. I'm finding it hard to worship in that environment because it feels incomplete, somehow. Not sure if that makes any sense.

 

OH wow...this just screams to me that you need to find a church that serves the eucharist. I feel the same way as you describe if I'm not at a liturgical church with the Eucharist. Anglican (not episcopal), Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. ASAP!

 

Oh, and most Roman Catholic churches have a full service on Saturday afternoon/evening.

[chiguirre]

I don't want to change churches because my family is happy in this one -- but I would like to find a non-Sunday morning alternative for myself. I'm really desiring something more traditional and maybe even liturgical. But when I've looked at some more traditional churches (i.e., Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, the Congregational Church), their beliefs are very different from mine. And I'm not looking for a new belief system -- I'm looking for a worship environment that is, well, more contemplative or at the very least more "traditional." (Think "hymns." ;))

 

RC parishes have daily mass. They're much shorter than the Sunday masses and may not have an organist or pianist. You can find the schedule on their website. If you've never been to a mass, you might want to watch EWTN first so you know what to expect. There are usually not many people at these services, so a newcomer will stand out much more than they do at weekend masses. You can't receive communion if you're not Catholic, but you can line up with everyone else a get a blessing if you want or you can stay in the pew during communion.

[Parrothead]

Okay -- I'll try to define what I mean by the terms "conservative" and "evangelical." And these aren't meant to be official, authoritative definitions -- they're the way that I personally define those words.

 

Conservative = a traditional stance on social issues such as life (e.g., abortion), the role of women in the church, marriage, homosexuality, etc.

 

Evangelical -- this one is trickier. I don't want to step on anyone's toes by saying that "x" = evangelical when they believe in "y" and consider themselves evangelical. I'm not debating anyone else's interpretation of the word, just trying to communicate what I'm looking for. When I think "evangelical," I think of a church that believes that Jesus is who He says He is, that He means what He says, that the Bible is the Word of God and is as true today as it was when it was written (I believe in Biblical inerrancy -- I also believe there are parts of the Bible that don't make sense to us but that it's our problem, not the Bible's). *However* -- I don't believe that the gifts of the Spirit should be a litmus test of one's faith (which I think rules out AG churches, but I could be wrong on that).

 

I know that finding a church shouldn't be reduced to a formula (The Right Beliefs + The Right Worship Style = Living Happily Ever After :D). I'm just realizing that I'm uncomfortable with the worship style in our church, and it's occurred to me that every church I've attended which is a comfortable fit with my beliefs is not a comfortable fit for me in terms of worship. I don't want to change churches because my family is happy in this one -- but I would like to find a non-Sunday morning alternative for myself. I'm really desiring something more traditional and maybe even liturgical. But when I've looked at some more traditional churches (i.e., Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, the Congregational Church), their beliefs are very different from mine. And I'm not looking for a new belief system -- I'm looking for a worship environment that is, well, more contemplative or at the very least more "traditional." (Think "hymns." ;))

 

It also is occurring to me, the more I think about it, that the worship style of the church I'm in is problematic for me not just because I don't like the music -- to me, the worship style misses the mark in what it communicates about the Lord and about faith. I'm finding it hard to worship in that environment because it feels incomplete, somehow. Not sure if that makes any sense.

Well in that case you might want to look at the RC or the EO church.

[Parrothead]

It does not have a separate branch, but as a former Pentecostal there was nothing I had to give up or change in the regards to those specific beliefs.

 

Beliefs specific to my former denomination....yes, but not the idea of speaking in tongues in general.

 

Hope that makes some sense. ;) Feel free to pm if you have further questions. :001_smile:

Thanks.

[Parrothead]

OH wow...this just screams to me that you need to find a church that serves the eucharist. I feel the same way as you describe if I'm not at a liturgical church with the Eucharist. Anglican (not episcopal), Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. ASAP!

 

Oh, and most Roman Catholic churches have a full service on Saturday afternoon/evening.

At most RCs Mass is said every day.

 

 

ETA: I almost forgot. MM if you have questions or are simply interested in reading some info you can follow the link in my sig line to our social group. And the EO contingent of the Hive has a social group for those interested in EO. I think it is called Exploring Orthodoxy.

[Ellie]

The Catholic Church. Really. :)

[sahm99]

Yes, you really are describing the Catholic Church.:)

[Sheila in OK]

I agree with the other poster who said Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod). We attend one and it is very, very similar to what you just described.

 

Okay -- I'll try to define what I mean by the terms "conservative" and "evangelical." And these aren't meant to be official, authoritative definitions -- they're the way that I personally define those words.

 

Conservative = a traditional stance on social issues such as life (e.g., abortion), the role of women in the church, marriage, homosexuality, etc.

 

Evangelical -- this one is trickier. I don't want to step on anyone's toes by saying that "x" = evangelical when they believe in "y" and consider themselves evangelical. I'm not debating anyone else's interpretation of the word, just trying to communicate what I'm looking for. When I think "evangelical," I think of a church that believes that Jesus is who He says He is, that He means what He says, that the Bible is the Word of God and is as true today as it was when it was written (I believe in Biblical inerrancy -- I also believe there are parts of the Bible that don't make sense to us but that it's our problem, not the Bible's). *However* -- I don't believe that the gifts of the Spirit should be a litmus test of one's faith (which I think rules out AG churches, but I could be wrong on that).

 

I know that finding a church shouldn't be reduced to a formula (The Right Beliefs + The Right Worship Style = Living Happily Ever After :D). I'm just realizing that I'm uncomfortable with the worship style in our church, and it's occurred to me that every church I've attended which is a comfortable fit with my beliefs is not a comfortable fit for me in terms of worship. I don't want to change churches because my family is happy in this one -- but I would like to find a non-Sunday morning alternative for myself. I'm really desiring something more traditional and maybe even liturgical. But when I've looked at some more traditional churches (i.e., Methodists, Presbyterian Church USA, the Congregational Church), their beliefs are very different from mine. And I'm not looking for a new belief system -- I'm looking for a worship environment that is, well, more contemplative or at the very least more "traditional." (Think "hymns." ;))

 

It also is occurring to me, the more I think about it, that the worship style of the church I'm in is problematic for me not just because I don't like the music -- to me, the worship style misses the mark in what it communicates about the Lord and about faith. I'm finding it hard to worship in that environment because it feels incomplete, somehow. Not sure if that makes any sense.

[Maverick_Mom]

Some Anglo-Catholic churches would fit the bill.

 

I know what Anglican is and I know what Catholic is, but ... what would Anglo-Catholic be? (besides a hybrid :D)

[Maverick_Mom]

OH wow...this just screams to me that you need to find a church that serves the eucharist. I feel the same way as you describe if I'm not at a liturgical church with the Eucharist. Anglican (not episcopal), Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. ASAP!

 

Is there a difference between the Eucharist and Communion?

[Parrothead]

Is there a difference between the Eucharist and Communion?

Catholics use the terms interchangeably, but there is a difference in Protestant Communion and Catholic Eucharist.

 

ETA: the EO church and the Lutheran church also have Eucharist. I think the Anglicans too.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Parrothead

[Donna A.]

Reformed Baptist. We didn't like the music that much! We prefer a mix of hymns and contemporary music. But, we go for message first. (We move a lot and have been to many different types of churches. We try to find the closest Biblical church where we don't dislike the music, but will go for message over music in a pinch, especially if it is expected to be a short stay.)

 

:iagree: We've moved a lot and have been to many different types of churches, as well. For us, we've determined that worship style is secondary to the message, BUT it needs to reflect what we think biblically and theologically. So while it's not our main focus, it CAN be a distraction from the message, which makes it important.

 

Earlier I linked to a church directory within one Reformed Baptist denomination so that you might look for that type of church in your area. Generally speaking we only sing hymns *during the worship service*, but we also believe that some people have different convictions and are not opposed to contemporary worship, and do so in their personal worship time at home.

 

IOW, we don't believe contemporary music is a sin unless the words are just flat out biblically incorrect, but hymns are all we sing in our formal worship time. We believe the words of the songs we sing are just as important as the sermon. Which is why we sometimes (not always) sing the Psalms, and we always sing the Gloria Patri before the start of each service. The Gloria Patri sums up exactly what we believe as Christians, so it's like making a pronouncement of the reason we're meeting together.

 

So while we don't do a "full" liturgical service like Catholic or Episcopalian would do, we do a "partial" liturgy. We also try to stay very close to the Scriptures for the reasons we do what we do... we definitely believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and the holiness of the Word of God.

 

I think as far as worship style goes, probably the closest other denomination I can think of to what we do would be Missouri Synod Lutheran or PCA Presbyterian. (Except those denominations baptize babies, and we don't.)

 

That said, not every Reformed Baptist church is exactly alike, as they can vary in certain areas depending on the leadership of each local church, so you'd have to visit and find out if the one(s) near you is a good fit.

 

 

 

In the Bible Belt, the United Methodist churches would fit the bill, we went to a United Methodist church in Alabama that was like that, we went to a contemporary service but they had a more traditional service as well. Outside of the Bible Belt, the United Methodist churches may or may not fit the bill for you.

Probably OT, but could someone explain the "Bible Belt" to me? When we lived in the Chicago area, the Southern Baptists we were associated with there claimed they were in the Bible Belt. When we were in El Paso, TX, the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists there claimed they were in the Bible Belt. I've heard people in the south and southeast make this claim, too, as well as people in Ohio. What exactly IS the Bible Belt? And really, for Christians who claim the Bible as their standard, shouldn't we ALL be in a so-called "Bible Belt"? I've always been confused by this. :001_rolleyes:

[Donna A.]

Is there a difference between the Eucharist and Communion?

 

Yes. In the Eucharist, I believe they would believe that the bread you eat makes a literal transformation into the body of Christ, and the blood makes a literal transformation into His blood. It's called Transubstantiation. (I might have that spelled wrong.)

 

ETA: the EO church and the Lutheran church also have Eucharist. I think the Anglicans too.

 

Anglicans (I believe) are nearly identical to the Catholic church. In fact, I'm not sure what the differences really are. Maybe someone can enlighten me. ;)

 

The Lutheran church will vary a lot from one Synod to another, so one can't make a general statement like that about Lutherans. For example, the Lutheran chaplain (Missouri Synod) that my dh worked with in the Army did NOT believe in Transubstantiation (the literal transformation of the Eucharist as described above).

 

I do think, however, that some people use the terms "Eucharist" and "Communion" interchangeably because they don't know the difference. Communion is also often referred to, by denominations or individuals, as "The Lord's Supper" or "The Lord's Table".

[ktgrok]

RC parishes have daily mass. They're much shorter than the Sunday masses and may not have an organist or pianist. You can find the schedule on their website. If you've never been to a mass, you might want to watch EWTN first so you know what to expect. There are usually not many people at these services, so a newcomer will stand out much more than they do at weekend masses. You can't receive communion if you're not Catholic, but you can line up with everyone else a get a blessing if you want or you can stay in the pew during communion.

 

For this reason I'd advise a Saturday afternoon/evening "vigil" mass instead. It is a normal Mass (service), just like on Sunday for the most part, but you could attend and still make your normal Sunday morning church with your family.

[ktgrok]

I know what Anglican is and I know what Catholic is, but ... what would Anglo-Catholic be? (besides a hybrid :D)

 

An Anglican church that by external factors is very Catholic "feeling" and looking, to the point where some Anglican churches are more traditional than some Catholic churches.

[ktgrok]

Catholics use the terms interchangeably, but there is a difference in Protestant Communion and Catholic Eucharist.

 

ETA: the EO church and the Lutheran church also have Eucharist. I think the Anglicans too.

 

Yes, Anglican's and Episcopal's have a Eucharist/Communion and believe it is the Real Presence. They believe that the Catholic and Orthodox also have this. The Catholic and Orthodox do not necessarily believe that the Anglican's and Episcopal church have it though.

[dani3boys]

I'm part of the Covenant too! My son is headed off to CHIC this afternoon.

 

That sounds like my church. We recently joined the Evangelical Covenant conference. (Did I say that right?) Hmm, I can't find a link on my church's website. Maybe you can Google it?

[PeacefulChaos]

I am only using your post as an example, as it illustrates something I am becoming confused on. I understand what contemporary means and I thought I understood what traditional was, but in my mind neither of those were liturgical. I was under the impression that liturgical had to do with a specific repeating "ritual" type service (sorry I am lacking in a better term right now), and observing a yearly liturgical cycle, both in scripture readings (sermon subjects) and celebrations (feasts and fasts of some sort.)

 

Regardless, I am not sure how the OP is interpreting the term, but I have found some of the suggestions very interesting. :001_smile:

Yeah, when I made my suggestions I thought she said liturgical wasn't what she was looking for, but I may have read it wrong. :)

What I have *heard* (and I could be wrong) is that in the AG church, speaking in tongues is considered proof that you are filled with the Holy Spirit. No tongues, no Holy Spirit. I do believe that the gift of tongues and the other gifts as well are alive today, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that one *must* possess that particular gift.

 

Not so much for the normal parishioner. Before someone can be on the deacon board, they have to meet certain qualifications (age, marital status/history, faithfulness, etc) which includes 'filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues.' In the 16 fundamental truths that we believe, it is one of them, however it isn't something that is ever taken into account or that anyone even knows about (regarding each individual) in a general church setting.

So I guess that yes, what you are saying is the case. ( 8.WE BELIEVE... The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘Speaking in Tongues,’ as experienced on the Day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles. Copied from ag.org) In general practice, however, no one has any knowledge of whether anyone else speaks in tongues or not.

I do understand if having the doctrine in itself makes you uncomfortable. :)

[Maverick_Mom]

:iagree: We've moved a lot and have been to many different types of churches, as well. For us, we've determined that worship style is secondary to the message, BUT it needs to reflect what we think biblically and theologically. So while it's not our main focus, it CAN be a distraction from the message, which makes it important.

 

Earlier I linked to a church directory within one Reformed Baptist denomination so that you might look for that type of church in your area. Generally speaking we only sing hymns *during the worship service*, but we also believe that some people have different convictions and are not opposed to contemporary worship, and do so in their personal worship time at home.

 

IOW, we don't believe contemporary music is a sin unless the words are just flat out biblically incorrect, but hymns are all we sing in our formal worship time. We believe the words of the songs we sing are just as important as the sermon. Which is why we sometimes (not always) sing the Psalms, and we always sing the Gloria Patri before the start of each service. The Gloria Patri sums up exactly what we believe as Christians, so it's like making a pronouncement of the reason we're meeting together.

 

 

Oh, wow -- I had forgotten the Gloria Patri! When I was growing up and my parents attended an American Baptist church (just for a while when we lived in NY State), we sang the Gloria Patri every week at the beginning of the service. In the Southern Baptist church, we started the service with the Doxology.

 

I'm not opposed to contemporary worship. I was raised in a (nominally) Baptist home but became a sincere Christian in my early 20s in a Church of the Nazarene, and the first non-hymn songs I learned were Gaither choruses. :D The service was a mix of hymns and praise choruses; later, the church went to two services -- an earlier contemporary service and the "regular" traditional service. Even at the contemporary service, there were still some hymns.

 

Fast forward to today, and it seems like every church I've visited has adopted the "praise & worship team with electric guitars and raise-the-rafters volume" model. ;) Granted, we've visited a lot of churches that are non-denominational (and are attending one), and that seems to be more common there. Which makes sense, in a way -- I think that non-denominational churches are often reaching out to young people, and hence the emphasis on contemporary music, but the church we're attending now has a lot of middle-aged people in it (like dh and me) and by all appearances, they're perfectly content to rock out with the younger folk. :D (ETA: just to clarify, I'm not opposed to rock music, either, and do my best housecleaning when I'm listening to the B-52s. :D)

 

Like I said, I'm not opposed to contemporary worship / music (although a more moderate volume would be nice ;)). I just feel like the tradition has been tossed out. For some reason, I take it personally (:confused:) when I hear people say, "Oh, those old hymns are too stodgy -- people can't relate to them these days -- they were fine for their time, but people need to be able to worship in their own vernacular." Personally, I think there's a lot of vital theology and inspiration in "those old hymns." To make an analogy, does the existence of Shel Silverstein render William Wordsworth obsolete? Or: have modern churches, in planning their worship, thrown out the baby with the bathwater? (Rhetorical question, posed as I try to figure out what it is that leaves me feeling disconnected every Sunday in church.)

Edited July 14, 2012 by Maverick_Mom

[Little Nyssa]

Orthodoxy might be what you are looking for. :)

[Juniper]

This is the first time I've seen this site but I thought it was a good general definition of the term from the Protestant perspective. IMO at least.

http://www.crivoice.org/whatisliturgy.html

 

That was interesting, and quite a bit closer to what I was thinking. :001_smile:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I have *heard* (and I could be wrong) is that in the AG church, speaking in tongues is considered proof that you are filled with the Holy Spirit. No tongues, no Holy Spirit. I do believe that the gift of tongues and the other gifts as well are alive today, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that one *must* possess that particular gift.

 

Maybe I can clarify this for you. Speaking in tongues in considered the INITIAL......PHYSICAL....evidence of the baptism of the holy spirit. (more commonly known as being filled with the Holy Spirit.)

 

Think of it like first physical evidence as opposed to second physical evidence. It is also different than say first emotional evidence or first spiritual evidence.

 

In the more traditional AG churches, yes you would at least have to have tongues in the sense of a "personal prayer language" to be considered baptized in the holy spirit. In the more contemporary churches it has become a bit looser except where Senior leadership is concerned.

 

Up until a few years ago, even though we were on staff at a contemporary one, when we took youth or kids to camp we would have to fill out a form documenting how many were "saved" or "baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues" and return it to the district. We also had to fill out this form once a year to the district, although dh pretty much ignored it or made something up, because that was not something we personally tracked. ;)

 

 

By liturgical, I mean scripted prayers and readings that occur at particular times. That's not a requirement for me -- I just mentioned it because it represents the degree of tradition that I'd consider. See, I have run into people who say that liturgy is for the lazy believer -- that you just recite the words unthinkingly instead of being truly inspired when you pray. (Wonder if they'd say the same thing about the Pledge of Allegiance?) I'm not buying that. I think that traditional prayers and readings can actually help one focus and reflect.

 

This podcast from the Circe Institute talks about that very issue. The speaker did a wonderful job! Andrew Pudewa – Reflections on Redeeming Repetition: Rut, Routine, and Ritual http://circeinstitute.org/free-audio/

 

 

This is exactly what I'm doing right now. I've found several books at my library and am writing down the recommendations you and others have given me. :)

 

Thanks so much to everyone for your suggestions and thoughts. I have a longer list of options than I thought possible!

 

This is a great podcast about Orthodoxy theology. http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

 

Enjoy this journey!

Edited July 14, 2012 by Juniper

[Maverick_Mom]

At most RCs Mass is said every day.

 

 

ETA: I almost forgot. MM if you have questions or are simply interested in reading some info you can follow the link in my sig line to our social group. And the EO contingent of the Hive has a social group for those interested in EO. I think it is called Exploring Orthodoxy.

 

I already joined the CTT social group, which I found after reading about the book by the same name at Amazon and coming here to see if anyone had read it. ;) I'll check the other group out, too. Thanks. :)

[Parrothead]

I already joined the CTT social group, which I found after reading about the book by the same name at Amazon and coming here to see if anyone had read it. ;) I'll check the other group out, too. Thanks. :)

It is a little quiet right now but we can rouse the group if there is a need.

[Maverick_Mom]

Yes. In the Eucharist, I believe they would believe that the bread you eat makes a literal transformation into the body of Christ, and the blood makes a literal transformation into His blood. It's called Transubstantiation. (I might have that spelled wrong.)

 

 

I thought that there was some "middle ground" between Transubstantiation and the "it's-purely-symbolic" view other churches have of the elements, but I could be wrong. Not that I need a middle ground -- I'm okay with different ways of viewing it -- but I thought I heard somewhere that there was a third view.

[Maverick_Mom]

It is a little quiet right now but we can rouse the group if there is a need.

 

:lol: I'm envisioning the troops being ready to mobilize on a minute's notice. :D

[Parrothead]

Yes, Anglican's and Episcopal's have a Eucharist/Communion and believe it is the Real Presence. They believe that the Catholic and Orthodox also have this. The Catholic and Orthodox do not necessarily believe that the Anglican's and Episcopal church have it though.

Anglicans joining the Catholic church.

[Parrothead]

:lol: I'm envisioning the troops being ready to mobilize on a minute's notice. :D

What can I say. We are quite bored since so many joined the church at Easter. We haven't had any takers since then. :D

 

Come on over and give us something to do. :lol:

[Parrothead]

I thought that there was some "middle ground" between Transubstantiation and the "it's-purely-symbolic" view other churches have of the elements, but I could be wrong. Not that I need a middle ground -- I'm okay with different ways of viewing it -- but I thought I heard somewhere that there was a third view.

Yes, I think the term is consubstantiation.

[Juniper]

I thought that there was some "middle ground" between Transubstantiation and the "it's-purely-symbolic" view other churches have of the elements, but I could be wrong. Not that I need a middle ground -- I'm okay with different ways of viewing it -- but I thought I heard somewhere that there was a third view.

 

I am not sure about a middle ground, but Orthodoxy does not use the term Transubstantiation. The Eucharist is one of the great mysteries. We do believe it becomes the literal body and blood, but we do not know when exactly it happens. Is it when the grain and grape first grow? When they are made into bread and wine? Is it when the Priest prays over them? We chose to leave the answers in the realm of mystery, which is something I appreciate. ;)

 

Edited: Ah! That is right, consubstantiation. Again, not quite the EO view, but I completely spaced that little theological option was out there ;)

Edited July 14, 2012 by Juniper

[Maverick_Mom]

 

Like I said, I'm not opposed to contemporary worship / music (although a more moderate volume would be nice ;)). I just feel like the tradition has been tossed out. For some reason, I take it personally (:confused:) when I hear people say, "Oh, those old hymns are too stodgy -- people can't relate to them these days -- they were fine for their time, but people need to be able to worship in their own vernacular." Personally, I think there's a lot of vital theology and inspiration in "those old hymns." To make an analogy, does the existence of Shel Silverstein render William Wordsworth obsolete? Or: have modern churches, in planning their worship, thrown out the baby with the bathwater? (Rhetorical question, posed as I try to figure out what it is that leaves me feeling disconnected every Sunday in church.)

 

Just want to expand on this a bit, at the risk of beating it to death ;). It's not just about the music. It's about ... something I can't quite articulate about the service. (I've typed out several things and then changed them because they just don't capture it.) The music is either setting this tone or it is reflecting it -- I don't know which. And I don't mean this to sound like I think the people with whom I'm in church on Sunday aren't committed believers just because they worship in a way that isn't my preference. I'm not doubting their faith. I'm just looking for something that is a better expression of my own.

[Rockhopper]

Take a look at this!

 

We moved from a lifetime as low-church Southern Baptists to Anglican a couple of years ago. It was a huge deal as my dh is in full-time ministry.

 

But we're oh-so-glad we did. Anglican worship is meaningful and "filling". Good preaching, evangelical but not in the ways that always made me squirm as a Baptist, focused on the doctrine of grace.

 

And I love Anglican liturgy. We have lots of extemporaneous praying in our services, but I love the richness of liturgical prayer -- being able to call out to God when I don't have words or even "the feeling".

 

Did you know that most of the prayer book is directly from Scripture? The Book of Common Prayer is "praying Scripture" old-school!

[ktgrok]

I thought that there was some "middle ground" between Transubstantiation and the "it's-purely-symbolic" view other churches have of the elements, but I could be wrong. Not that I need a middle ground -- I'm okay with different ways of viewing it -- but I thought I heard somewhere that there was a third view.

 

A term you here sometimes is "consubstantiation" where it is both bread and wine AND body and blood. Lutherans and Anglican's often believe this...and honestly, transubstantiation is an old term based on an understanding of physics that was popular in the early church. I think any of the "Real Presence" churches would say that somehow or another Jesus is fully present in the body and blood/bread and wine, but leave the "HOW" question unanswered.

[Maverick_Mom]

Take a look at this!

 

We moved from a lifetime as low-church Southern Baptists to Anglican a couple of years ago. It was a huge deal as my dh is in full-time ministry.

 

But we're oh-so-glad we did. Anglican worship is meaningful and "filling". Good preaching, evangelical but not in the ways that always made me squirm as a Baptist, focused on the doctrine of grace.

 

And I love Anglican liturgy. We have lots of extemporaneous praying in our services, but I love the richness of liturgical prayer -- being able to call out to God when I don't have words or even "the feeling".

 

Did you know that most of the prayer book is directly from Scripture? The Book of Common Prayer is "praying Scripture" old-school!

 

Well, go figure. I was given an old Book of Common Prayer several years ago when my grandmother died; it had belonged to my aunt but for some reason my grandmother gave it to me. I sent it to my aunt because I figured I'd never have any reason to use it. ;) You just never know where life will lead you!

[duckens]

Happy Pamama says:

Christian & Missionary Alliance

This is where I grew up.

 

My parents still follow this type of church. When their CMA church in my hometown was dissolved (politics within the upper hierarchy on a district level), my parents eventually transferred to the Nazarine church in my hometown.

 

http://nazarene.org/

 

Advice not asked for:

Even within a specific denomination, there can be a lot of variation. Although all the CMA churches I experienced and visited as a youth were politically conservative, and "bible based," our specific church frowned mightily on movies of ALL sorts (even G-rated), ALL rock music (even Christian Rock), dancing, mini-skirts, and girls wearing jeans. (Boys, of course, can wear jeans to Sunday morning church).

 

There were two CMA churches within 30 miles of my home church that our church did things with as a larger group sometimes. It was obvious that they were much more tolerant of the items listed above. For example, the choreography (Dancing!!!) in the Christian musicals our college's drama group would perform resulted in several angry letters from our congregation to the college's president.

 

Of course, the other churches had much larger youth groups, too. You will have to make a judgment whether the price of a thriving youth group is worth more tolerance than you may allow in your home...or not.

 

Clarification/Disclaimer: I know that chances are that your family is much more liberal on the subjects listed above than the family/church in which I grew up. I do not intend to imply your beliefs one way or another, and, even as an atheist, I truly and sincerely hope that you find the spiritual home that will nourish the hearts and minds of you and your family.

[Maverick_Mom]

 

My parents still follow this type of church. When their CMA church in my hometown was dissolved (politics within the upper hierarchy on a district level), my parents eventually transferred to the Nazarine church in my hometown.

 

http://nazarene.org/

[/b]

 

I was in the Church of the Nazarene for years, but became disenchanted with them when I learned that sometime in the past ten years or so the leadership has adopted the concept of "limited inerrancy" with regard to the Bible. To me, that's like being a little bit pregnant. ;) Many people in the rank & file Nazarene church have no idea that this change has taken place.

[Hedgehogs4]

One that combines conservative evangelical beliefs (on both spiritual and social matters) *and* traditional (but not necessarily liturgical, though that's okay) worship?

 

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). This denomination has split from the liberal Episcopal church to stand on Biblical truth and evangelical mission. They follow the liturgical model of worship and are traditional, but different congregations have differing levels of contemporary worship mixed in (i.e. not singing only hymns, may have a praise band and a choir).

[Donna A.]

I thought that there was some "middle ground" between Transubstantiation and the "it's-purely-symbolic" view other churches have of the elements, but I could be wrong. Not that I need a middle ground -- I'm okay with different ways of viewing it -- but I thought I heard somewhere that there was a third view.

 

Well, what we believe is not just merely "it's symbolic" OR to be taken lightly, but we don't believe in any sort of literal change to the elements, either. We believe it IS significant and it IS commanded, and that there's something spiritually significant about it.... but NOT a change in what the bread and wine ARE.

 

More specifically, this is what we believe: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bcof.htm#part30