s/o Episcopal Church--how do you make religious decisions?

[maize]

I've only skimmed the Episcopal thread, but find it interesting that different people seem to have very different ideas of what one should look for in a church or religion, and how religious decisions (such as joining a church) should be made. If people are up for it I would like to explore these ideas more. 

 

I personally belong to a church (LDS) with a strong emphasis on seeking true doctrine and also true authority from God. The idea of looking for a church to fit my needs or desires is foreign to me--if I were to change churches or religions it would be for doctrinal reasons, because I had determined the new church's doctrine to be more correct and its authority more authentic. I've heard similar thoughts from members of Catholic and Orthodox churches. 

[Joker]

I've only skimmed the Episcopal thread, but find it interesting that different people seem to have very different ideas of what one should look for in a church or religion, and how religious decisions (such as joining a church) should be made. If people are up for it I would like to explore these ideas more. 

 

I personally belong to a church (LDS) with a strong emphasis on seeking true doctrine and also true authority from God. The idea of looking for a church to fit my needs or desires is foreign to me--if I were to change churches or religions it would be for doctrinal reasons, because I had determined the new church's doctrine to be more correct and its authority more authentic. I've heard similar thoughts from members of Catholic and Orthodox churches. 

 

I started the other thread and I do feel a need to point out that it wasn't a search for a church that fit our needs or desires. It's about a church that fits our beliefs. It's about following where I believe God wants us to go. I listened to Him and encouraged my dh and he is now a believer instead of an atheist. I have zero reason to believe He is steering me wrong now. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I seek Truth, and after that, Comfort/Familiarity/Really Good Church Services

Edited May 18, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[eternalsummer]

I think that my lack of religious belief is why I could never belong to a church (or attend as more than an observer or participant in a wider event, like a funeral or wedding), even though I love some aspects of various churches/temples.  

 

We had some Mormon missionaries visit us regularly for a couple of months several years ago; they were lovely and their faith seemed completely sincere.  I agree with many of the cultural/social beliefs of many Mormons and really respect their positive sense of community and ethics.  If only I believed in the same concrete supernatural structure they do, I think I'd be a relatively happy member of that church.

 

However, for me the specifics of Christian supernatural belief are a dead hypothesis (except as metaphor), so I can't be a part of that community.

 

All of that to say, for me, what I would require first in a religious community or belief system is Truth.

 

 

That said, I think there are many members of many churches who probably don't believe literally in the party line, or even many of the doctrinal (is that the right word for things like "did Jesus actually physically turn water into wine?" etc.?) beliefs of their church.  They believe in it as metaphor and participate with that understanding.  I imagine this is easier to do if you've always been a member of that particular church/sect, or if everyone around you is a member (like the national churches of northern Europe, right?)

 

In that case it is kind of like being an American without necessarily agreeing in welfare or drone attacks or whatever.  Maybe.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

That said, I think there are many members of many churches who probably don't believe literally in the party line, or even many of the doctrinal (is that the right word for things like "did Jesus actually physically turn water into wine?" etc.?) beliefs of their church.  They believe in it as metaphor and participate with that understanding.  I imagine this is easier to do if you've always been a member of that particular church/sect, or if everyone around you is a member (like the national churches of northern Europe, right?)

 

 

There are also some churches that leave large areas of doctrine up to the individual under a single umbrella.  Traditionally the Church of England has been like that.  This is partly for historical reasons: after a history of religious persecution, the church settled, I believe, into Elizabeth's view: "I would not open windows into men's souls".  

[eternalsummer]

Yes, that makes some sense especially if you're trying to establish or maintain a national church, where you'd (ideally) like most of society to be able to be a member but must bridge at least some gaps in specific doctrinal beliefs.

[Guest]

I guess I said my piece in the original thread.

[egao_gakari]

I'm a recent "convert" (not the right word I think but it's the one everybody uses) from non-denom Protestantism to Catholicism. I was primarily raised in an Episcopalian home, but refused Confirmation at 15 because the confirmation class hadn't really convinced me why I should be Episcopalian rather than anything else. I agree with OP that authority--how we can trust that Truth is Truth--was a big issue for me in the choice not to be an Episcopalian, and eventually in the choice to become a Catholic. Rather than searching for a church that agreed with what I believed about God, I looked for a church that proclaimed hard truths in the face of danger and could show me evidence that it had never changed those beliefs since Jesus. In the end, I felt I had no choice but to join the Catholic Church. But it was a loooooong process.

 

Religious decisions are very personal and many people (I definitely include myself here) have very emotional, defensive reactions toward people who began with different assumptions about how to make the decision, or even more so toward people who followed the same decision-making process and wound up at a different conclusion. I certainly hope my kids remain Catholic, and I do believe that if they base their decision on authority, they're likely to do so, or become Orthodox. My prayer is that if they wind up elsewhere, God will grant me the grace not to take it personally, or alienate them with my defensiveness. It's so hard when it's about capital-T Truth.

[Mergath]

I'm an agnostic Buddhist-Pagan, for the record. My beliefs are about me becoming a better, happier person and doing what I can to make others happier, better people. It isn't about possessing some ultimate cosmic truth; that's a recipe for pain and conflict, imo. My religious beliefs and practices are "true" in the sense that they make me a better person and help me see things now more clearly when I follow them. 

[Bluegoat]

Realistically, I think most people join to a church or religion that fits their beliefs.  No one becomes Catholic if they think it is teaching something really incorrect - ultimately we are the individual arbiters of where we stand.

 

I do think, and this may be a little controversial and is certainly a generalization, that people who feel they are looking for a group that is "true" rather than one that fits their personal beliefs, are often people who are willing to re-examine their own thinking within the context of a group's teaching.  They are willing to be convinced, or consider that their internal impressions/feelings/thoughts might be wrong.  THat can play out in different ways. 

 

When people go looking for a group that fits pretty much what they already think, in my experience they are often not really looking to be challenged about that.

 

And even then, most people have a few deal-breakers as far as things that would go so far outside their experience or perception of the true and good they wouldn't consider it, and many people have periods where they are more inclined one way than the other and it changes in other stages of life. 

 

But there do seem to be some people who just aren't all that interested in thinking about what they believe.  Many people are quite happy to go with the flow of their dominant social and family culture, and accept is basic moral and metaphysical positions.

 

This is I think part of the reason people born into a religion, or non-religion, will often just stay there, even if it doesn't quite agree with their thoughts.  They ay be happy with the outcomes even if the details don't totally line up.  They may value the social or community aspect.  They may not be interested in rocking the boat of the family culture.  They may see value in things even if they don't see the reasons the same way.

 

For myself, I tend to be very interested in a system of thought that is metaphysically and epistemologically coherent - it really bothers me when that doesn't happen.  I'm generally willing to look at things from a different perspective - I don't get offended if someone says something that at first glance seems far out or even retrogressive.  I also however want one that confirms or acknowledges certain things I think are true and a very visceral level - historical integrity, some of my basic observations about human nature, my basic observations about nature, and so on.  I also don't tend to put much stock in ways of thinking that assume that all my thoughts and feelings are good or true, so that doesn't tend to drive my choices.

 

 

[PrincessMommy]

As a non-denom Protestant Christian I personally looked back at the historical information and documents and that led me to the Orthodox church.  That shapes my beliefs.    I don't plan to ever leave the Orthodox faith, but I may need to change parishes at some point in my life.   Deciding on a new parish will, in large part, be based on mine and my dh's personal preferences.

[Scarlett]

I was raised from about four in my mothers religion....she converted around that time....actually baptized when I was about 7....it was a long process for her. She walked me through her thinking at that time of her life. For myself I closely examined the religion over a period of several years of my youth and then I asked myself this question: if everyone I knew was dead or abandoned my faith would I still believe this way. My answer was yes to me. And in fact my Xh did abandon my faith which made my life hard, but I never wanted to follow him out. And my brother too although I believe he is mentally ill.

 

I have met IRL and here on line, some really ugly acting people who claim to be good people either bcause they believe or because they don't. So I try to avoid being that way about my beliefs. I know I have failed sometimes, but I try to live my faith with humility not arrogance.

[HeWillSoar]

Although there are things that don't work for me with my church (too big, etc), what keeps me there are the beliefs.  They are not legalistic, and I believe the pastor preaches the truth based on what the Bible says.  I also like the delivery of the message.  Having ADHD tendencies, I can't deal with listening to rambling, take forever to get to the point pastors.

[Zinnia]

We joined a church about 5.5 years ago that was going through a shift (as an entire church) from non-denominational to Anglican.  At first, the new parts of the Anglican denomination were good for us.  We liked the reliability of the church calendar, the liturgy-lite that the church adopted, the emphasis on the Bible reading in the book of common prayer.  All of these things added to our understanding of our faith, and we enjoyed them immensely.  The theology of the church remained essentially unchanged, just added the trappings/traditions of the Anglican church.

 

There was a shift from the African communion to the mainstream communion of Anglicans about 2-3 years ago.

 

Over the last year, the actual theology of the church has started shifting (perhaps it was shifting before; it became obvious both in preaching and in the trickle down to the congregation) away from some of what we believed.  Some of the teachings began to get a bit weird, honestly, and there came a point where we could no longer agree with them, and especially, we did not want our kids taught this stuff in Sunday school week after week.  

[DawnM]

I am not sure I can explain this exactly.

 

We are of a certain denominational preference that is not as prominent in this area of the country.  There are only two of these churches close enough to go to.  We went to one for almost a year.  The kids really didn't care for it.  It was not that well run (kids program) and honestly we didn't like some other things about it and didn't feel we were connecting well.

 

But, we met several people from a particular church that was NOT our denomination and not 100% our doctrinal bent, but we visited and after quite a bit of consideration, we joined.  WHY?  Because the kids loved it, and the kids WANTING to go to church was important to me.  And because it was large enough that we knew we could find out niche somewhere in the larger group.

 

Is it perfect?  Nope!  There are things that bug me.....but overall, we are happy with it.  We have connected.  We have close friends who we know we can count on and who share our core beliefs.

And ultimately for us, it comes down to our core beliefs (the non-negotiables that pertain to our beliefs about salvation) and not the issues that we refer to as "not issues of salvation."  

 

Pretty much in the South, for Protestant denominations,  the choices are Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Presbyterian.  Yes, there are a lot of other churches, but those three dominate.

[ktgrok]

I've only skimmed the Episcopal thread, but find it interesting that different people seem to have very different ideas of what one should look for in a church or religion, and how religious decisions (such as joining a church) should be made. If people are up for it I would like to explore these ideas more. 

 

I personally belong to a church (LDS) with a strong emphasis on seeking true doctrine and also true authority from God. The idea of looking for a church to fit my needs or desires is foreign to me--if I were to change churches or religions it would be for doctrinal reasons, because I had determined the new church's doctrine to be more correct and its authority more authentic. I've heard similar thoughts from members of Catholic and Orthodox churches. 

 

Did it occur to you that that is EXACTLY what Joker and her family are doing? That they think the Episcopal Church is the one with the truth on this issue, that their doctrine is right and that is why they are changing???

 

All boats have holes, we choose the one we think has the least, and that will be the best vehicle to get us to God. For her, she thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on this issue, and the Episcopal Church is right. That sounds exactly like what you were saying,t o change for doctrinal reasons, because the new churches doctrine is more correct. 

[Zinnia]

 

Pretty much in the South, for Protestant denominations,  the choices are Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Presbyterian.  Yes, there are a lot of other churches, but those three dominate.

 

In high school, I remember a teacher asking us what the main two religions of the world were.

 

We all responded...."Methodist and Baptist, of course." 

 

Bwahahahaha

[Pam in CT]

These are among the Great Conversations of the millennia, maize!...  :001_smile: ... and I think to a great extent, the spiritual path we take is very much primed by where we happen to start, whether we carry on mostly consistently with the circumstances and teachings of our birth / upbringing, or conversely if through some process we take a turn in opposition to our starting point... 

 

... and it's also mighty hard to reduce such questions and spiritual journeys to internet-sized sound bytes.  But here are a few critical junctures in mine (weighing in as a member of ever-deepening commitment to a minority faith tradition... but I'll stick here to my more Universalist junctures; there are many others specific to Judaism but those ones are less on point to your question of how and more to a different question of what).  

 

 

re deed v. creed:

I've only skimmed the Episcopal thread, but find it interesting that different people seem to have very different ideas of what one should look for in a church or religion, and how religious decisions (such as joining a church) should be made. If people are up for it I would like to explore these ideas more. 

 

I personally belong to a church (LDS) with a strong emphasis on seeking true doctrine and also true authority from God....

 

 

To start at starting points: Not all individuals start with such an emphasis on True Doctrine; and not all faith traditions do either.  

 

Way back in my surly-rebellious-rationalist high school phase, my (really-truly brilliant) best friend and I stayed up into the wee hours one night noodling over Great Universal Imponderables, and she said something that has stayed with me for over thirty years, something to the effect of I don't think any religion gets it quite right -- I mean, if God is truly infinite and eternal, and humans are finite and limited, how could any of them be exactly right, you can't fit an infinity into a finite container.  I think of religious frameworks as like physics equations -- a type of reductive language that tries to describe our best current understanding of underlying forces and relationships.  The equations are tremendously helpful, but they are only pointers to the forces and relationships, not the relationships themselves; and the equations we have today are not frozen -- they will and should be revisited and revised and reframed in later generations as we learn more.    

 

She was 17 when she said this (!!!) , and I basically blew her off at the time since I was not myself nearly mature enough to receive it; but it has been slow-detonating ever since.  (FTR, as a sidebar, she and her husband settled into a UU community in their mid-twenties and have raised three kids within that framework, which is all about living an ethical and richly spiritual life and not at all about True Doctrine.  She didn't get there because of "fit" with her "desires."  Its analytical framework, which cannot possibly be described as 'doctrine,' aligns with her understanding that no true doctrine is possible.)

 

 

Another lightbulb moment for me was when another dear friend of mine who is good friends of Shelby Spong, then the Episcopal Bishop of Newark, introduced me to him, which led me to Spong's (many) books.  In one of them, he exhorts readers to conduct an experiment, something along the lines of: For a week, as you go through your daily life, every time you see an act of kindness or compassion or love, however small, label it.  Say: that is God in action.  Say it every time.   I rolled my eyes, but I happened at that juncture to be in a restless-questing phase (lots of phases in my life, lol), so I gave it a whirl.

 

At first I felt perfectly ridiculous.  It could not have been more artificial: a cheap linguistic trick, a sort of divine marketing campaign slapped over human behavior that could be understood in a million other ways without reference to the supernatural.  But I carried doggedly on.  And over the course of the week I noticed two things.  First, however artificial the name game might be, the structure of the experiment had the effect of rendering "God" visible.  Forty, fifty times a day, as I witnessed small acts of love and kindness, I was saying: there is God.  And whether or not I "believed" that God really "was" the "true" source of those examples of human behavior, using the label softened the struggle I was experiencing.  And second: explicitly looking for, and noticing, and marking, small acts of human love and compassion had a sort of Observer Effect.  Once I started noticing kindness and compassion in the public domain, particularly between strangers and particularly-particularly unacknowledged / unreciprocated acts, I had a sort of well, duh! recognition click into place: well, if there were a wholly-loving God like Spong imagines, this is what such a God would call for.  

 

 

 

The teacher who probably influenced my journey the most is a person I've never met, the religious historian Karen Armstrong.  She too has written a bazillion books, and I've read all of them.  In her youth she was a Catholic nun; she left in her early twenties and now describes herself as a "freelance monotheist," which cracks me up; but she is a student and scholar of all the major faith traditions and has written deeply and respectfully about Islam and Buddhism in particular.  (Her sister is a practicing Buddhist.)  Anyway, two themes that run throughout her work are that 1. our sacred texts and traditions are large, and contain multitudes; and have the capacity both to call us to our best selves, but also to justify and provide cover for our worst selves; and that therefore 2. it is up to us to develop the capacity to discern the difference, and choose the elements of our tradition that lead us to compassion over a long list of historically-religiously-sanctioned other elements including Other-ization, judgment and violence.

 

 

And the final experience that Rocked My Spiritual World was an interfaith group that met for six years... which was instrumental in both helping me to clarify and deepen my own relationship with Judaism, and also opened up innumerable pathways to understanding human truth (little t) through the stories, practices and traditions of other faiths.

 

 

 

... The idea of looking for a church to fit my needs or desires is foreign to me--if I were to change churches or religions it would be for doctrinal reasons, because I had determined the new church's doctrine to be more correct and its authority more authentic. I've heard similar thoughts from members of Catholic and Orthodox churches. 

 

... and now I have to go, before getting round to this part of your framework, which also sparks a million mental fireworks  :lol: ... but I'll go for now.

 

Peace....

 

[MercyA]

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's responses here. Great thread, maize! 

 

I wouldn't join a church which taught doctrine contrary to Scripture, although I've attended churches with which I disagreed on some minor points. Truth in line with Scripture is the most important thing to me. I've felt very emotionally drawn to churches I could not join because of doctrinal disagreements.

 

We currently attend a very small non-denominational Bible church. We enjoy feeling of part of a church family with genuine love and concern for each other. I trust that my child is being taught truth, and that's very important to me. Honestly, I'd like some different music (more hymns, less Gaither!) and weekly communion (once or twice a year is NOT enough!), but we're thankful for and glad to be part of the church. 

[LucyStoner]

To my view what people find to be true doctrine is a personal need or desire. Probably more than some people are willing to consciously admit.

[Bluegoat]

To my view what people find to be true doctrine is a personal need or desire. Probably more than some people are willing to consciously admit.

 

You could really say that about anything - it isn't confined to religion or spiritual beliefs at all. 

[Guest]

Well I will honestly say in our case it isn't the doctrinal issues that prevent us from finding a church. It's the leadership that has caused far more issue for me. Maybe it's our area, but I've yet to look into a church where the leadership didn't feel compelled at some point to weigh in on political issues and that bothers me. If you want to help me understand the Bible, help me understand the Bible, but you don't need to tell me how to vote. Then it seems leadership as a whole is lacking.

 

I almost converted to Catholcism about 15 years ago. But after a critical look at the sex scandals, I couldn't do it. I couldn't trust the leadership.

 

Here, we are knee deep in mega churches (which have run the smaller traditional churches out) and many politically motivated pastors who have three houses and lots of exotic cars. I can't do that either. Not that I don't think people of God can have bounty from successful choices and lives, but I would be very honest in saying that it makes me uncomfortable when it's the leader of a massive, multi million dollar church.

 

So we haven't found a church yet. We would like to, but we haven't. To find a biblically based, non-political church, which is welcoming without diluting the Word is harder than I ever imagined. So we read our Bible at home.

[MercyA]

To my view what people find to be true doctrine is a personal need or desire. Probably more than some people are willing to consciously admit.

 

If I based my religious beliefs on my personal needs and desires, I'm pretty sure they would be different than what they are now. (And I wouldn't wear these kinds of things on my head, either. ;) )

 

IDK, I suppose all of us have subconscious things going on of which we're not aware. I do try to be honest with myself, though. 

[MercyA]

So we haven't found a church yet. We would like to, but we haven't. To find a biblically based, non-political church, which is welcoming without diluting the Word is harder than I ever imagined. So we read our Bible at home.

 

I hear you.  :grouphug:

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Before I found the Orthodox Church, I visited and attended a good number of churches. At that time in my life, a period which spanned 20 years, I considered myself a mixture of Daoist/Pagan/Spiritual but not religious. I was looking for fellowship with people who believed in God and Jesus Christ, but would be open and accepting of me and my lack of belief. I found that in the UU Church and the Friends Meetings but neither of those congregations were particularly focused on spirituality and the soul. They were more focused on human rights which was nice but secondary to what I was after. I wasn't looking for the true church when I found the Eastern Orthodox Church, so I find it infinitely ironic that I was able to easily slough off my old cobbled together belief system and embrace this very clear and explicit doctrine of Christianity.

[Guest]

Determining the authority of doctrine....it has to jive with the conclusions you have come to about the world, through your personal experience. So I do not see much differnce between that and choosing what is appealling.

 

That said, religion is often as much about the people you end up associating with, as about the dictates of the authorities of any given religion.

 

So, I can find myself in complete or near-complete doctrinal agreement with someone, but because i am uncomfortable with them (or, enough of them are uncomfortable with me!) Still consider myself under a different religious branch than them.

[gypsymama]

I wouldn't go to a church that I was uncomfortable at so personal choice does play into decisions but doctrine/beliefs are the main factor. I am another one with spiritual/pagan beliefs that has found the Orthodox church. I followed the information and this is where it ended. I haven't yet joined because of personal stumbling blocks but I know if I were to become Christian that is the church. It's the church because of doctrine and truth. We had a great local church and a wonderful priest before we moved. I need to bring myself to start reading again and check out the local parish since we moved. I just haven't done so. Regardless.... doctrine. That's how I would decide because if I can't believe in what you're selling then I can't back it up.

[FaithManor]

There are also some churches that leave large areas of doctrine up to the individual under a single umbrella.  Traditionally the Church of England has been like that.  This is partly for historical reasons: after a history of religious persecution, the church settled, I believe, into Elizabeth's view: "I would not open windows into men's souls".  

This.

 

We believe in the Apostle's Creed, and while we have some things we believe well beyond that, we don't think these are deal breakers or that every person we worship with on Sunday has to believe them too. One example that comes to mind is that we don't ascribe to any one doctrinal thought on end times eschatology. That has been a deal breaker here for a lot of churches that believe pre-tribulation return of Christ and will throw out attendees and members if the leadership finds out these individuals do not adhere.

 

So what we have been looking for in a church is one that adheres to that basic doctrinal position stated within the creed, but allows people to disagree in love over other things, and who is not judgmental running a practical caste like system/pecking order amongst the congregants or politically minded.

[LucyStoner]

You could really say that about anything - it isn't confined to religion or spiritual beliefs at all.

I totally agree.

[Zinnia]

This.

 

We believe in the Apostle's Creed, and while we have some things we believe well beyond that, we don't think these are deal breakers or that every person we worship with on Sunday has to believe them too. One example that comes to mind is that we don't ascribe to any one doctrinal thought on end times eschatology. That has been a deal breaker here for a lot of churches that believe pre-tribulation return of Christ and will throw out attendees and members if the leadership finds out these individuals do not adhere.

 

So what we have been looking for in a church is one that adheres to that basic doctrinal position stated within the creed, but allows people to disagree in love over other things, and who is not judgmental running a practical caste like system/pecking order amongst the congregants or politically minded.

 

What is it with the eschatology?  We also don't ascribe to one doctrinal thought on that, but lots and lots of preachers/churches/denominations feel the need to preach as if they have it all figured out, and what they think must absolutely be the right way.  And "the one true interpretation" just gets me all upset and doesn't work for me.  Especially if it's about something so mysterious.

[FaithManor]

What is it with the eschatology?  We also don't ascribe to one doctrinal thought on that, but lots and lots of preachers/churches/denominations feel the need to preach as if they have it all figured out, and what they think must absolutely be the right way.  And "the one true interpretation" just gets me all upset and doesn't work for me.  Especially if it's about something so mysterious.

I think they take these hard lines due to "evangelism by fear". They feel the need to convince everyone that Jesus is just right around the corner and everyone is about to be sent straight to hell so "get saved ye losers now" is the mindset. At least that is what I think is going on because if the church isn't "growing" due to the Gospel, then they need a back up message, and one really scary "you don't want to be left behind for that tribulation" ala Tim LaHaye/KirkCameron style is their go to method of trying to win souls. I have never met anyone personally who was scared witless into becoming a believer. On the contrary, I've met many who were turned off to the church because of this methodology. It is very divisive and based on wild claims based on profoundly allegorical and symbolic language too. That's a pretty big turn off to people who value rational discourse and debate.

 

Now that said, I've not picked the brains particularly of those that preach that because we are in the run away now crowd, so I can't say for certain what their motivation is. This is just an educated guess, take it with a grain of salt if need be.

[LucyStoner]

If I based my religious beliefs on my personal needs and desires, I'm pretty sure they would be different than what they are now. (And I wouldn't wear these kinds of things on my head, either. ;) )

 

IDK, I suppose all of us have subconscious things going on of which we're not aware. I do try to be honest with myself, though.

I don't doubt that you try to be honest with yourself. I think you are honest with yourself. I just don't think that you are MORE honest than Joker's family or my brother.

 

I'm pretty sure that the biblical head coverings mentioned by Paul were not lovely, patterned head scarfs which largely don't fully cover the hair. I wear stuff like that because it's attractive and suits my facial structure. Honestly, for me personally I am not sure how lacy or floral or colorful head scarfs paired with the intricate braiding and up-dos on that site are all that different from a different thing Paul admonished against- intricate braids and hairstyles for women which attract men. I don't think that you are wrong to wear them or doubt they are significant to your take on what is biblically right.

 

These ideas have so many different interpretations. Some denominations and Abrahamic faith traditions think that long hair is a woman's covering. Others think that a hat, in church only, is a woman's covering. Still others that hats are necessary all the times. Others that burkas are required. Others that usually unflattering kerchiefs are needed. Others that a full head scarf that covers all the hair and neck is required. Others that women should shave their heads and wear wigs. Others that the requirements were cultural and no longer apply and women's hair does not matter to their faith.

 

We get to decide what is right for us. We don't get to decide that what is right for us is the only right way for all.

Edited May 18, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

Determining the authority of doctrine....it has to jive with the conclusions you have come to about the world, through your personal experience. So I do not see much differnce between that and choosing what is appealling.

 

That said, religion is often as much about the people you end up associating with, as about the dictates of the authorities of any given religion.

 

So, I can find myself in complete or near-complete doctrinal agreement with someone, but because i am uncomfortable with them (or, enough of them are uncomfortable with me!) Still consider myself under a different religious branch than them.

 

Hmm - but I think very often introspection or switching frames can take us to a place where we look at what we find appealing, and realize that it may in fact not be true.  I agree that even then, if the new perspective really seems to clash with our experience, we will probably reject it.  But even within that we can look at ourselves and re-evaluate our experience or how we interpret it. 

[Bluegoat]

What is it with the eschatology?  We also don't ascribe to one doctrinal thought on that, but lots and lots of preachers/churches/denominations feel the need to preach as if they have it all figured out, and what they think must absolutely be the right way.  And "the one true interpretation" just gets me all upset and doesn't work for me.  Especially if it's about something so mysterious.

 

TBH I think a good part of it is just bad theology.  People are taught that it is both the normative, accepted interpretation of the text, and that it has always been important.  If people don't know much about the history of the Church or Christian theology, they just take it as part of the basic teaching.

[Guest]

Hmm - but I think very often introspection or switching frames can take us to a place where we look at what we find appealing, and realize that it may in fact not be true. I agree that even then, if the new perspective really seems to clash with our experience, we will probably reject it. But even within that we can look at ourselves and re-evaluate our experience or how we interpret it.

Sure, but you wouldnt "switch frames" in a way that does not jive with your current sense of yourself and sense of the world, so we end up right back to what i said in the first place.

 

Evolution and outright change doe not negate the fact that you wont do either if they dont appeal to you in your current circumstances for whatever pertinent reason.

 

No one can work with what they dont have and everyone does work with whatever they've got. Which, incidentlly, is why it can be fair to draw conclusions about people based on whatever they deem most important about their faith, in some circumstances. If someone close yo me, for example, all of a sudden became obsessed with the end of times based on their current reading of scripture, i could have cause to worry about them. Because whats up that that is suddenly more important than the other things they find in their tradition? Kwim? This is a complete aside, sorry maize.

Edited May 18, 2016 by OKBud

[Bluegoat]

Sure, but you wouldnt "switch frames" in a way that does not jive with your current sense of yourself and sense of the world, so we end up right back to what i said in the first place.

 

Evolution and outright change doe not negate the fact that you wont do either if they dont appeal to you in your current circumstances for whatever pertinent reason.

 

No one can work with what they dont have and everyone does work with whatever they've got. Which, incidentlly, is why it can be fair to draw conclusions about people based on whatever they deem most important about their faith, in some circumstances. If someone close yo me, for example, all of a sudden became obsessed with the end of times based on their current reading of scripture, i could have cause to worry about them. Because whats up that that is suddenly more important than the other things they find in their tradition? Kwim? This is a complete aside, sorry maize.

 

I don't know - I switch frames every time I learn about another worldview, or at least I try to - I think that is the only way to understand them without bring in your own conceptual biases, and to really understand where other people are coming from too.  Not permaently of course, for the most part - but "how would the world, my experience, seem if I looked at it from this perspective, with these assumptions or premises."  Sometimes it can be really surprising, and it pays a lot of dividends in being able to say - yes, I can see why someone would think that or do that, given the first principles they are working from.

[MercyA]

I don't doubt that you try to be honest with yourself. I think you are honest with yourself. I just don't think that you are MORE honest than Joker's family or my brother.

 

I'm pretty sure that the biblical head coverings mentioned by Paul were not lovely, patterned head scarfs which largely don't fully cover the hair. I wear stuff like that because it's attractive and suits my facial structure. Honestly, for me personally I am not sure how lacy or floral or colorful head scarfs paired with the intricate braiding and up-dos on that site are all that different from a different thing Paul admonished against- intricate braids and hairstyles for women which attract men. I don't think that you are wrong to wear them or doubt they are significant to your take on what is biblically right.

 

These ideas have so many different interpretations. Some denominations and Abrahamic faith traditions think that long hair is a woman's covering. Others think that a hat, in church only, is a woman's covering. Still others that hats are necessary all the times. Others that burkas are required. Others that usually unflattering kerchiefs are needed. Others that a full head scarf that covers all the hair and neck is required. Others that women should shave their heads and wear wigs. Others that the requirements were cultural and no longer apply and women's hair does not matter to their faith.

 

We get to decide what is right for us. We don't get to decide that what is right for us is the only right way for all.

 

Ah, Katie. I had a feeling you'd jump on that. :)

 

First of all, just for the record, I usually wear plain black head coverings, always without intricate braids or up-dos. I used that link because a friend sent it to me recently and it was on the tip of my mind, so to speak. I didn't expect anyone to read so much into it, but you probably have some valid points there.  ;)

 

Yes, I am familiar with all the different takes on the head covering passage, although quite a few of examples you mentioned have to do with other faiths, not Christianity. I would just say briefly that until the past century, the passage was pretty much universally thought to be speaking of a cloth covering worn in addition to the woman's natural covering of hair. I'd be more than happy to discuss the topic in another thread, if any one is interested. 

 

Regardless, I don't see the lack of a head covering in the list of sins that will keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God. 

 

My point was simply that I try to base my religious beliefs and practices on Scripture, not on what makes me most comfortable. (And I'm talking about myself only here, not about anyone else. I don't presume to judge the motives of Joker or her daughters in looking for a new church.) My faith is enormously comforting to me and does meet my needs, but it is not always easy and not always what I would prefer.

 

We do get to decide how to live our lives, and I'm thankful for that. However, I do believe in objective standards of right and wrong, standards that are outside of myself and not defined by me.

 

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" and "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." I believe Him, and believe everyone will ultimately have to make their own decisions about what to do with His words.

Edited May 18, 2016 by MercyA

[eternalsummer]

Maybe part of the distinction is a perception that some people are looking for, in a church, a source of authority, to tell them what is Truth and Not Truth.  They evaluate based not on what the church is saying, but on whether they think the church has demonstrated legitimate authority.

 

Others have decided for themselves (more or less) what is Truth and Not Truth, and are looking for a church to match those beliefs.

[Minerva]

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's responses here. Great thread, maize! 

 

I wouldn't join a church which taught doctrine contrary to Scripture, although I've attended churches with which I disagreed on some minor points. Truth in line with Scripture is the most important thing to me. I've felt very emotionally drawn to churches I could not join because of doctrinal disagreements.

 

We currently attend a very small non-denominational Bible church. We enjoy feeling of part of a church family with genuine love and concern for each other. I trust that my child is being taught truth, and that's very important to me. Honestly, I'd like some different music (more hymns, less Gaither!) and weekly communion (once or twice a year is NOT enough!), but we're thankful for and glad to be part of the church. 

 

What is Gaither?

[Guest]

Maybe part of the distinction is a perception that some people are looking for, in a church, a source of authority, to tell them what is Truth and Not Truth.  They evaluate based not on what the church is saying, but on whether they think the church has demonstrated legitimate authority.

 

Others have decided for themselves (more or less) what is Truth and Not Truth, and are looking for a church to match those beliefs.

 

I feel like I fall in the middle of this. I struggle with the sources of church authority, largely because so many of them have ended up corrupt in instance after instance. But scandal exempt, they're still just people and by default are fallible. I have an easier time with leadership than I do with authority, and there is a difference. At least the way I interpret the two words......I don't want anyone to tell me "this is what it is because it's just RIGHT".  Asking questions demonstrates a lack of faith to many who chose to exercise this position. I disagree. I want a place willing to explain the why, cite the appropriate reference and then let me make my own conclusions. There are definitely black and white issues, but then there are issues that are up for debate. I think things would be so much more simple if some authorities were open to the concept of saying "well, we just don't know. It's not addressed in the scripture. We can try and say blah blah, but we really cannot definitively. This though is how we can try and address it from a Christ like attitude....."

 

On the other hand, I would never ever want to be in a position of being patently wrong about a biblical point, simply because I had never read it for myself, and not be corrected by someone I trust, who possesses a greater amount of knowledge than I do on the matter. I did not read the Bible in its entirety until my 30's. I could quote scripture left and right my whole life, and had read large portions of the text, but never before did I read from cover to cover. It has greatly impacted my understanding of several things and I have in fact drastically altered my stances in some place. It had nothing to do with a doctrinal difference though- it was rather that I simply read it for myself. I might be unique in not reading it all until such a late age, considering I've been Christian my entire life, but I don't really think I am. At least from what I've seen in my personal life. 

 

I do often wish I could go and work on my Masters in Divinity. I have a very close friend who received hers a few years ago from Pepperdine and I love talking to her about the scripture. The nuance of the text and how she can help me with my questions is wonderful. I would really like to have that depth of knowledge on the matter. 

[MercyA]

What is Gaither?

 

The Gaithers are a family of Christian singers, especially popular (I think) in the late 70's and early 80's. They wrote a lot of songs that are now used in evangelical church worship. No offense to anyone, but I personally find their music a little repetitive and syrupy. I'd rather sing "All Creatures of Our God and King," "Be Thou My Vision," "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," or other older hymns. All a matter of personal taste, of course! 

[eternalsummer]

I went  to a Messianic Jewish congregation for a while (boy, was that weird in some ways) and the music was absolutely top notch.  Just great music, best thing about them.

[MercyA]

To the OP, the first thing I look for in a church is whether or not the congregation sings Gaither music...

 

😂😂😂

 

:ohmy: <----- Shock, horror, and disbelief.

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

p.s. You'd love my church, then.

Edited May 18, 2016 by MercyA

[FaithManor]

To the OP, the first thing I look for in a church is whether or not the congregation sings Gaither music...

 

😂😂😂

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Soooooo true! (Shhh...but my husband is an amazing tenor and has done some David Phelps stuff in the past. Nice on a special occasion, but some of the stuff that is pulled out for congregational use is just NUTS!)

[Zinnia]

To the OP, the first thing I look for in a church is whether or not the congregation sings Gaither music...

 

😂😂😂

 

We visited a new church where they sang a Gaither song.  At the end, we looked at each other...."we found home!"  :)

[Lawyer&Mom]

I chose our church because the music was good enough, the liturgy good enough, lots of families with young kids, close to home and easy parking. I also really liked the trees out front.

 

The doctrine? Eh. Close enough. We can agree to disagree on a few things...

[Bluegoat]

Maybe part of the distinction is a perception that some people are looking for, in a church, a source of authority, to tell them what is Truth and Not Truth.  They evaluate based not on what the church is saying, but on whether they think the church has demonstrated legitimate authority.

 

Others have decided for themselves (more or less) what is Truth and Not Truth, and are looking for a church to match those beliefs.

 

That might be a distinction that holds as far as method of working.  It probably comes together in the end as most people, in my experience, even the second type, don't actually believe that things are true only because they have made them so. 

 

Maybe one is a top-down way of thinking, and the other bottom-up?  Probably most people do both but may tend more in one direction than the other.

[Jan in SC]

My point was simply that I try to base my religious beliefs and practices on Scripture, not on what makes me most comfortable. (And I'm talking about myself only here, not about anyone else. I don't presume to judge the motives of Joker or her daughters in looking for a new church.) My faith is enormously comforting to me and does meet my needs, but it is not always easy and not always what I would prefer.

 

We do get to decide how to live our lives, and I'm thankful for that. However, I do believe in objective standards of right and wrong, standards that are outside of myself and not defined by me.

 

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" and "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." I believe Him, and believe everyone will ultimately have to make their own decisions about what to do with His words.

Yes, but you base your beliefs on your chosen interpretation of scripture. My chosen interpretation is less literal. There are probably more churches available to me, based on my beliefs, so I have the ability to choose one based on my level of happiness within the church. There are churches that my beliefs would prevent me from attending on a regular basis. For example, I would not be able to attend an LDS church on a regular basis, but I have many friends who attend. I wouldn't attend a church that encourages (what I consider to be) an extra-biblical lifestyle. Your view of scripture is probably radically different.

 

ETA- please ignore the writing issues- my phone is going crazy

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jan in SC

[MercyA]

Yes, but you base your beliefs on your chosen interpretation of scripture. My chosen interpretation is less literal. There are probably more churches available to me, based on my beliefs, so I have the ability to choose one based on my level of happiness within the church. There are churches that my beliefs would prevent me from attending on a regular basis. For example, I would not be able to attend an LDS church on a regular basis, but I have many friends who attend. I wouldn't attend a church that encourages (what I consider to be) an extra-biblical lifestyle. Your view of scripture is probably radically different.

 

ETA- please ignore the writing issues- my phone is going crazy

 

I know others will disagree, but with the exception of Revelation, I find that most of the New Testament is pretty straight-forward. The epistles, especially, were originally meant to be read aloud in one sitting to groups of mostly uneducated people.

 

Jesus Himself seemed to regard the Old Testament in quite a literal way, so I'm not uncomfortable doing so as well. I do recognize that like most works of literature, the Bible contains metaphors, figures of speech, poetry, etc.

[ktgrok]

I know others will disagree, but with the exception of Revelation, I find that most of the New Testament is pretty straight-forward. The epistles, especially, were originally meant to be read aloud in one sitting to groups of mostly uneducated people.

 

 

 

Yes, groups of people that spoke the language and understood the cultural context.