Try to change an existing church or split?

[Wandered Off]

A family member attended a church that called itself Methodist, but it was more like a UU congregation. In support of gay marriage, for example, the staff decided that it would perform no weddings of any kind until the larger Methodist church body ends its official stance against gay marriage.

That got me thinking... If I were a traditional Methodist, I might well resent an attempt by some members to change longstanding policies or my beliefs.

(Thread note: This thread isn't about debating gay marriage... I'm just using that scenario as one example, so let's not start that debate again here. There are tons of other threads for that.)

So if the church you belong to has some policies or beliefs with which you disagree, do you think it's better to try to change the church or to find one more compatible?

On the one hand, it seems a bit arrogant to try to change everybody else to conform to your own thinking, but on the other hand, I'd love to see some tolerance movements arise from within some of the more rigid religions, and I think injustice should be challenged everywhere. What's the right balance?

[a_student]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't all Christian sects trace their roots back to the Catholic Church? In other words, all denominations spawned Catholicism but came about as different people disagreed with various teachings. For example the Lutheran Church came about when Martin Luther took a different stand in regards to justification. Without these many disagreements, there would only be one Church.

[Charity]

If your church doctrine doesn't go along with your belief then it is better to find another place to worship....Trying to bring change would only create confusion and disrupt the church.....There is enough turmoil in every day life and bringing it to the one place where we are suppose to have peace will not prosper anyone....I personally would just move on and feel free to find someplace where I felt content. That is the reason you need to investigate and find out the doctrine and beliefs of a Church before making it your home church.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by a_student

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't all Christian sects trace their roots back to the Catholic Church? In other words, all denominations spawned Catholicism but came about as different people disagreed with various teachings. For example the Lutheran Church came about when Martin Luther took a different stand in regards to justification. Without these many disagreements, there would only be one Church.

All Protestant sects have their roots in the Catholic church. IIRC, the other Orthodox churches (Greek, etc.) are as old as Catholicism.

[fire]

Couldn't we just start a new church that accepts almost everything and also rejects everything? We could call it the online church of Religious Forums.

[a_student]

Originally Posted by Storm

All Protestant sects have their roots in the Catholic church. IIRC, the other Orthodox churches (Greek, etc.) are as old as Catholicism.

Ah, thank you for clarifying for me. My point is that differences have always come up in the Church. Even in the formation of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches there was a disagreement along the way, that's why they both exist. As is the case with all religions. However, I disagree with the idea of starting your own sect. If you are going to follow a religion, then follow it. Follow the whole of it not just the parts you like and neglect the parts you don't like. To leave and find a new way is one thing but to start your own I believe you would have to be some sort of prophet. Keep searching and ask G-d to guide you.

[ayani]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

So if the church you belong to has some policies or beliefs with which you disagree, do you think it's better to try to change the church or to find one more compatible?

On the one hand, it seems a bit arrogant to try to change everybody else to conform to your own thinking, but on the other hand, I'd love to see some tolerance movements arise from within some of the more rigid religions, and I think injustice should be challenged everywhere. What's the right balance?

i kind of face the same issue with my church.... they are very much against the teaching / study of the theory of evolution, their politics are very much more conservative than my own, and their theologically Southern Baptist background influences them in being quickly dismissive of many other Christian branches / world faiths.

but i wouldn't go any where else. some members have their own views / approaches to what is important to share with others, and i have mine. the church is tiny and struggling, and i love the people there very much. if one reads the apostolic letters, one sees that the early church faced the same issues- and that the response to these in-church divides was to encourage prayer on the issue, brotherly dialog, and fostering a spirit of unity and humility in Christ. if someone was seriously sinning or causing others to sin / suffer, the issue was addressed firmly, and the opportunity for the person to repent of his / her selfishness / destructive attitude was given.

but there are so many contemporary issues that come to light, and talking about them is complicated, especially in a large church... and these issues are not just in the church but of course through the news, through public discussion, legislative debates, etc.

injustice, self-righteousness, and cruelty need to be challenged- Jesus certainly challenged these things. are the decisions / attitudes of the church preventing it from ministering / worshiping / serving as Christ commanded and demonstrated? do you feel spiritually like there's something fundamentally "off" about the way the church is doing / teaching things, or is it more a matter of difference of opinion?