I don’t exactly mean this as advice, since I can’t imagine you being happy there, but I think it’s interesting to note that the Unitarian Universalist Association does not ask its members to subscribe to a creed, for very much the reasons you’ve described (as far as I understand it—I imagine Neil would know more than I do). Some Googling reveals that this may also be true of the Quakers, though I know even less about them.

Okay, “Spiritual Ronin”? Best term ever. I may have to begin self-describing as such, partly because it’s accurate (albeit in a very different way than for you) and partly because, as I say, awesome.

Martin: I must fairly give all the credit to Mr. Donn Johnson on that one. I’m glad, however, to have been the bearer of good news. I like my feet being blessed.

Moss: I was actually looking at the website for the Mt. Vernon Unitarian church only yesterday. I really should try it out. I have a fair amount of fear about it, honestly. So many Unitarians I’ve known have given me bad experiences: they’ve tended to be some of the people the least interested in argument or actual progress toward truth out there. Or, to be fair, maybe it’s that I’m less willing to pardon it in them. But, seriously, who’s less interesting? Someone who believes he knows the truth entirely or someone who believes there’s no truth knowable? Neither will really engage in dialectic with you. Either might go and get his feelings hurt in a gorram second.

The biggest thing to be said in favor of most of the Evangelicals I know is that they don’t get their feelings hurt easily.

Anyway, Moss, if it sounds like I’m making excuses, I probably am. I feel like I’m bound and determined not to believe in anything, to feel happy about anything, or to commit to anything these days.

I really think I will go to a service at Mt. Vernon.

Dear Nate; How cool of you to respond so quickly and perceptively to my musings. I value someone taking issue with what I say, if only to make me further clarify where I was going. In regards to your first objection about oaths, you are on-target. I think it is incumbent on pastors to not administer loyalty oaths to local institutions or denominational distinctions, but to Jesus and the Word. I even edit our rite of membership to include loyalty to our local church as we seek to be kingdom people. One your second concern about membership being a modern concept I think you are right in an organizational sense, but not in an organic sense. Families have had always had a strong sense membership as have tribes. I don’t think membership has to separate me from others but bind me to others. If we look at the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John I think he does equate the church with christianity (but then, he never uses that term and maybe that term is best discarded because of imperial colonial uses). I disagree with objection number 3 because a healthy church (key ingredient) must have honest self-criticism and openness to questions. Rigid apologetics is dead. If faith can’t stand up to good scrutiny and questions, of what value is it? I’m not sure about the implied agreement argument. I’ve seen it happen over time, but I think you have a good point that it’s there. But is that a reason for not connecting?
I bless your honesty. thaks for allowing me the chance to respond.

I would suggest exploring why Judaism doesn’t accept Jesus as Messiah.
Try a Reform Judaism synogogue one Friday evening.

“But, seriously, who’s less interesting? Someone who believes he knows the truth entirely or someone who believes there’s no truth knowable?”

I went to a Unitarian church service over the summer and I can honestly say that I have never had such an empty experience. Obviously I have no idea how representative this one service was of the entire church, but it confirmed feelings I already had about the church. At the end of the sermon, I had nothing to say or to disagree with because nothing was said. At least there is SOMETHING to disagree with in the Christian church.

I’ve been going to a Unitarian church for a year or so basically for the same reasons Moss describes. I can’t agree to doctrine, but I wanted the community that a church provides, so I chose the Unitarian church. It’s worked out fairly well. The best part by far is the covenant groups: these are small groups which meet monthly for a talk on spiritual matters. I wouldn’t say we debate vigorously, we are indeed a bit too polite for that, but there’s definitely a healthy exchange of views.

I would say if you’re looking for community without the demand of doctrine, the Unitarian church is a good bet. I know this varies among Unitarian churches, but mine isn’t Christian at all, which disorients some people at first. The Bible is merely one of many sources for inspirational quotes. Though this might be a deal breaker for you, since as you mentioned in your last post, the questions are important, and your questions sound like Christian questions.

I think the most important part of the services is taking seriously what needs to be taken seriously (birth, death, illness, etc. ) and celebrating what should be celebrated. It’s more about people, and about their relationships to one another, than it is about any theological abstraction. I do wish that the sermons were more challenging sometimes: as Tim mentioned on his blog, we heard a radio preacher who gave a long uplifting lecture on integrity, and we wondered why my church seems to be unable to express those values. But, I don’t know, any church is imperfect, and not having to swallow doctrine is a big deal for me.

There’s a Mt. Vernon Unitarian Church and a rather large Alexandria one, too. There’s also a liberal Quaker church down near Ft. Belvoir somewhere. I was researching this for vaguely similar reasons at one point. Mandi and I have been meaning to check out one of the Unitarian churches for a while. If you would like to join skeptical forces, let me know.

In my experience, Unitarian churches are great for community and can be good for rigorous examination of one’s faith — but you can’t be assured that the people you talk with have any faith at all. The one I went to as a child had an athiest as the long-serving and respected minister. Quakers eschew all oaths and vows. They don’t ordain anybody, either — probably the most radical form of Protestantism that I know of.

You might be put off by the tendency in both denominations (again, in my experience) to assume that everyone in the congregation shares the same political opinions. (I do, and it still annoys me.)

As luck would have it, I will be stating my intention to the join the Anglican communion this Sunday, as part of my catechumenate. One of the questions is about whether I believe something, to which the answer is “I believe; Lord, help thou my unbelief.”

To me, the Anglo-Catholic movement seems a little bit like the St. John’s of Christianity—freedom within structure. It’s amazing the amount of theological knowledge and rigor most members of the congregation have. That they’re in touch with the real history and thinking of the Church, and not just the last 50 years, is really refreshing. But it’s the fact that they’re not doctrinaire about it, and are in fact an extremely close community, that really makes that place for me. People are comfortable with the whole range of devotional practices—from not kneeling at all to the Marian Society.

I should also mention that the catechumenate classes we’ve been attending have been great for teaching us church history, while allowing for real and substantive theological debate.

John: *sigh* That certainly plays to my worst fears. I’ll have to talk to you after I go to our local Unitarian church, but I worry I’ll have little to add.

In regards to your first objection about oaths, you are on-target. I think it is incumbent on pastors to not administer loyalty oaths to local institutions or denominational distinctions, but to Jesus and the Word.

Donn: this is my problem. I cannot swear loyalty to the Word, when the Bible as an inerrant text is anything but clearly a necessary part of Christianity. Not only do I not believe the Bible is inerrantly true, I do not believe there is a sane way for those who DO believe it to be inerrantly true to view it as an essential aspect of salvation.

But move away from that, and you start getting people who don’t care about asking serious questions about the Bible. Which is why I so often end up as an outsider in more conservative churches.

I think many of you (my non-Donn Johnson commenters) misunderstand me, which is almost certainly my own fault. The parts I hate about church are the empty community, assumption of shared values, and the focus on feelings. It sounds like the Unitarian church is church stripped of the things that make it worthwhile, and left with all the crap that makes it unbearable.

What I want is not a church that is not Christian, but some place Christian that is very unlike a church. You see, I am not a sceptic in the same sense that you are, Cassie: I really am a Christian. I just want a place that will help me grow toward truth… not toward a certain, pre-approved doctrine, nor towards indifference.

I shouldn’t complain: hb makes it abundently enough clear that there are options for those who aggressively search rather than sit in their homes and complain.

I, for one, did understand your original complaint. Nevertheless, UU seemed worth bringing up, specifically because it speaks to the possibility of having a church without a creed. The Society of Friends (the Quakers) may be an even better example, because it so clearly is a church, and a Christian one. But I also don’t know enough about it to say anything useful.

If I wasn’t clear about it before: I don’t think you could ever be a Unitarian. But I’d also urge people not to dismiss them out of hand.

Nate,

There are a lot of immature “Christian” churches out there, and even in “good” ones there are bound to be problems (at least as long as they are made up of humans :-) ). I agree though that the Evangelical Church in general ought to quit borrowing its models from the business world.

One thing I appreciate about the Evangelical Covenant church is that, while it does claim Scriptural authority as central, most of the finer points of doctrine are left alone. (The “Covenant Affirmations,” as they call them, can be found at the Covenant Church website.)

That said, one of the reasons I blog and read blogs and read books is that I do not find much of the kind of discussion I would like to participate in available at my church. I don’t believe that’s completely the fault of my church, though; I can’t expect everyone to be as philosophically inclined as I am. Nevertheless, I have heard said and found personally that, for purposes of corporate worship, receiving the sacraments, and learning to be a part of the body of Christ, “belonging” to a community of believers is essential. (Jollyblogger had some good posts on this awhile back.)

I value what Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to say about truth being found within a community of believers, which is very briefly summarized in a post I wrote on the preface of his book, Christ the Center. (oops — looks like your comment server won’t accept the link)

I wish you the best in your search. Thanks for visiting my blog. I appreciate the sincerity and graciousness of your comments. You have helped remind me of the reason I blog :-).

Moss:

I did not mean to malign your comment—I appreciated your suggestion and very much acknowledge the relevance of the UU church to my complaints and desires in an institution. Forgive me if I made too broad a criticism.

Bonnie:

Thanks for stopping by Monadology; I hope you enjoyed your stay.

The E.Covenant church certainly does have a lot of strengths: I relucantly come back to it relatively often when searching for an acceptable compromise in Evangelicalism. If only it did not base itself on the inerrancy of scripture! But even as I say this, I worry that any church that doesn’t immediately loses some of the intellectual backbone that makes the Covenant appealing. (But, even as I say this, I worry that I don’t have a damn clue about the realities of churches I never go to, whose publications I never read.)

The sacraments are perhaps the greatest reason to go to church, which is why I am drawn to worship services structured around communion. Oh, to be a catholic!

I look forward to your continued thoughts on C.S. Lewis and the like—I’ll stick around any place someone is considering things in such a sedate, contemplative, and (most importantly) serious manner.

Ah yes. To be Catholic. To anonymously wander in any Catholic church in the world and know you belong, yet be able to keep your distance as much as you’d like and leave as silently as you came (no contracts, “loyalty oaths,” or the dreaded little old lady with the freshly baked “friendship loaf” and a sign-up sheet so she can call you when you don’t come back). Or you can get as involved as any other church (ever hear of Catholic Charities, the largest and most effective charitable organization on earth?). To have the most beautiful art, the most intelligent and logical philosophers known (as opposed to just charismatic ones), and the most consistent of all philosophies (my summary: if some part, any part of your life does not feel consistent with the other parts, you must examine why and fix it. Happiness is only consistent with a life of goodness. Goodness is only consistent with the understanding that you are nothing, and yet loved unconditionally, which we will only understand through sacraments.). As you said, Nate, you cannot expect for everyone to be as philosophically driven as you are, but you should be able to expect that there will be a place for those like you. No church can be universal without a place for all.

I feel compelled to point out that the label of Catholic is far from the sole property of Rome. This is not an attack on Rome (or Rachel!), but simply a clarification. Since you used that word as an explicit statment of your wistful desire, I thought it might be useful to flesh out what it means.

I’ve been learning recently, in a very diletantish fashion, I’m afraid, about the differences among the Eastern church, Rome, and the Anglo-Catholic movement. The Eastern church seems the most theologically coherent, to be honest, but no one should take my word for it. Rome has a lot of baggage, not least of which is the bishop thereof, for protestant-raised folks like me. I find at present that the Anglo-Catholic movement is a good place to begin. Its claim to unity with the church through time and space seems grounded in the material world (viz. the apostolic succession and physical devotions), which demonstrates the seriousness with which it takes the sacraments. It also benefits from not having been in a position of power, which makes its claim of unity much less defensive. But it’s true, you can’t find as many of its churches as you can Rome’s.

Do you have to swear loyalty to the Word or the Logos, Nate? After all, it might as well be ‘ratio’ or ‘reason.’

Andrew and Rebekah would always point out to me when I was arguing-catholic, that the Episcopal church has all the best parts of sacrement while no necessity of believing anything in particular. Down with potpourri, up with the freedom of a christian.

Rachel, you mount a beautifully confident apology for the life of Catholicism. Certainly, your description for the possibility of anonymity inside a greater community is something new to me. I can see—for maybe the first time—how strangely megalomaniacal individual protestant churches must seem to Catholics.

That said, I worry most about that “most consistent of philosophies”, for I have that most protestant of afflictions: a profound unwillingness to base doctrine on any human authority.

Mary: three cheers to that. I wrote an entry in response to your question about how the “Word” can be taken, at least in the Covenant.

As to church, though—how far is your church from where you live? Is it metro accessible?

Nate, I’m way flattered. I’m working on thinking up something good to say to your entry. Meanwhile, my church is on 12th and Mass Ave NW—we can take one of two buses to get within two blocks of there, and so far it’s been working out. We used to take the Metro to Mt. Vernon Square/Convention Center, which is about 5? blocks away from it. Website ascensionandsaintagnes dot com. The sermon from Feb. 27 2005 is pretty good.

Anonymity is one of the nicest things about ritual-based/sacremental churches—now, since I was raised Catholic, I definitely feel more anonymous in an Episcopal church, which is of course all about me and not the Church. However, the music played in the Bishop of Rome’s churches since VatII tends to ask more sentiment and immediate emotion of the listener, which for me takes away from the anonymity. I want my mind lifted to the divine, and rites properly done lift one away from particularity.

I think it’s extremely nice of the Episcopal church not to mind me being a member, despite my belief in the non-oneness of God (I think holiness is one, but gods are many.)

I should perhaps mention that I’m supposed to be studying for my Critique of Judgement exam, which is today.

I went to a Catholic College but was raised Protestant (E. Cov). I found Catholicism enticing because of its consistancy of message such as pro-life. And by pro-life I do not be specifically reproductive rights. Catholics are against War, the Death Penalty, Abortion, etc. They are consistantly on the side of life. Even though I’m a pro-choice supporter, I found that consistancy quite appealing.

As for Unitarians, they don’t really believe in anything. It’s sooo anything goes, I don’t know what “truths” if any they hold. And if you don’t share beliefs, it’s just a glorified quiet time, singing time, thinking time followed by coffee time. [side note: i hang with quakers. they’re pretty similar.]

I personally dance a fine line. I hunger for the deep religeous logic Augstine and St. Thomas brought to the Catholic church without the rigidity of the Catholic church (I can never believe that contraception is immorral nor can I subscribe to an organization that believes in excommunication). I can’t stick with my local Cov church because I can’t stand the politics (im a lefty and supporter of equal rights for everyone (incl GLBT’s)). And I can’t stand to sit in spiritual solitude (it gets lonely here).

Perhaps, and this is an open suggestion - someone aught to make a website that categorizes denominations/churchs by their tenants and people can then find one that “fits”.

Also, as for evangilism, which I too cringe at. My former church held great music concerts for free. Some were barber shop quartets, boys choirs, and even some bands. They figured (and i agree), the best kind of evangelism is that not of pulling people in, rather opening the doors and letting them come in on their own.

NATE! Long time, no see or talk. Rachel directed me to your site.

As you can imagine I could say an aweful lot about this thread. I’m up way past my bedtime, though, so I’ll have to keep my remarks short.

First, as to the title Catholic. I note that neither Nate’s “o to be Catholic” remark or Rachel’s reply mentioned Rome and yet they were immediately taken to refer to Rome. I think that says something in itself. One may call oneself Catholic, but when Average Joe uses or hears the word everyone knows what it means …

Nate, it seems to me that all of your comments about “the church” reveal both a profoundly Protestant ecclesiology as well as a profound dissatisfaction with it. It is misleading yourself however to look at all churches through that lens. For instance, you are unwilling to base doctrine on any human authority. Fine! So are we Catholics. Where we disagree is on whether the authority of the Catholic Church is merely human or divine. Christ’s authority, of course, is both human and divine, since he himself is both. Catholics believe that Christ personally founded a single Church to which he passed down his authority along with the guarantee that the gates of hell would not prevail against it—that is, not that it members would never sin or fail in judgement but that the Church itself would never fall away from Christ and his teaching. We beleive then that the Church and the Pope teach only what was revealed by Christ, on his authority; the Pope does not and cannot invent new doctrine of his own, but rather is the faithful guardian of the deposit of faith which he has received into his care. Now, whether or not you accept that claim is one thing, but it is a mistake to think that Catholics themselves see themselves as submitting to a human authority or believe humanly invented teachings.

Finally, I am pretty confused about the attitude towards doctrine in this thread. It seems like a lot of people are happy not to have to believe anything, and this strikes me as bizarre. There’s a very ancient Christian motto, lex orandi, lex credendi, that is, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. You can tell what you believe by what and how you pray: thus Christian doctrine is expressed in the celebration of the Sacraments, the most profound public form of prayer, in the scriptures which are read or chanted or sung in every service, and in the wealth of other official prayers amassed over the ages. The teachings of fathers, councils, popes, theologians, are elucidations of these wellsprings of doctrine, not further sources of it.

But it works the other way around—if you have no rule of belief, no creed, nothing specific to hold onto, how will you know how to pray, or what to pray for, or even who to pray to? What is to prevent you from having a “spirituality” that consists in nothing more than feelings? The doctrine of the Trinity is not an “abstraction” with no relation to Christian life, but the wellspring of all our thoughts and actions as Christians. If God is not both three and one, how to make sense of the Incarnation? Will we throw out the Incarnation too, or refuse to define it? If we don’t believe that Christ is man and God at once, how will we understand the work of redemption? You can’t love, believe, trust in, depend on, pray to someone you admit you know nothing about for certain.

One more thing, about the Bible. There are more options than believing in the verbal inerrancy and plenary inspiration of Scripture and descending into complete relativism. As a Catholic I believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet had a human element in its composition in its particular details; and that its teaching is infallible when correctly understood, in matters of faith and morals and everything that pertains to our salvation, but not necessarily in for instance cosmological or “scientific” facts. The Holy Spirit meant to teach us about God and our relationship to him, not about physics or biology, and we shouldn’t look to the Bible for facts of that kind.

Well, I’ve already gone on much longer than I intended, so I’ll stop here. Happy to say more if anyone’s interested.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ is a great site for anybody who wants an unbiased description of the beliefs and practices of most all religions and their denominations.

I suspect Michael and I agree on a lot of things; I certainly liked your defense of doctrine and discussion of scripture. And I definitely don’t want to get in an argument about which denomination is more universal (though that would be funny).

But your point about how the word Catholic was taken isn’t exactly fair. First, Rachel mentioned Catholic charities, which while cool, is pretty clearly Roman. And second I should explain that I mentioned those other churches precisely because the Average Joe in America uses the term to refer to the Roman church, without likely understanding that there are other sects that maintain the apostolic succession and don’t muck around with sacraments (e.g. making the eucharist out to be a symbolic act). I grew up attending an evangelical church, the son of a minister, and I really just figured that out. I certainly hope that other readers of this thread are not all as ignorant as I was, but I thought I would still mention these other non-Protestant sects out there that might be of interest to someone expressing a desire for seriousness and sacrament.

Anyway, gotta work. Good to hear from you again.

hb, I’m not entirely sure who you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the anglo-catholic movement in the Episcopalian church, they certainly make the claims you mention, but Rome would deny e.g. that they maintain the apostolic succession as Rome understands it. Not so for the various kinds of Eastern Orthodoxy, the validities of whose Orders Rome does acknowledge, and who certainly make the claim to be catholic, but do as you say much around with sacraments—the same ones as Rome. The anglo-catholics I believe do take themselves to practise all the sacraments as well, even penance, I gather, though more as a theoretically possibility rather than something they actually do. I don’t know of a group that claims to be catholic, claims to maintain the apostolic succession, and at the same time doesn’t admit to performing the sacraments.

My comment was inspired by something St Augustine said (I can look up the reference if you care). He said that all Christian denominations (in his day, the Arians, Donatists, Pelagians, Manicheans, etc.) claim to be catholic and try to call themselves the Catholic Church, denying this title to Rome. Nevertheless, go into any city and ask any stranger where the Catholic Church is, and they will point to one in communion with Rome. And this is still true today. A member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia may think that he belongs to the only one true holy catholic and apostolic church, that Rome is heretical and apostate, but if you ask him where to find the nearest Catholic Church he will have to show you the one in communion with Rome. The world as a whole has always granted Rome this title and refused it to anyone else. While this is not proof of the validity of claim, it is I think an indication of something that can be intuitively recognized: that the Roman Church, like it or not, really is universal in a way that other sects claiming catholicity cannot show.

Sorry, hb, you said you didn’t want to start an argument about this and here I am provoking one.

On rereading your earlier posts I find myself having a hard time understanding how you view your church. For instance you say that it benefits from never having been in a position of power. Surely this isn’t true of the Church of England, the official religion of what was for a time the greatest empire in the world? Money and influence galore! But perhaps you want to distinguish between the anglo-catholic movement with the Anglican church and that church itself. All well and good, since they are by no means the same thing—still, isn’t the only claim the anglo-catholics have to the apostolic succession through the historical (protestant) English church? A church which as a whole has never accepted the way this movement within it characterizes it? Furthermore I am interested in how you understand your own anglo-catholicism; your comments imply that you do not accept the Real Presence in the eucharist, but as I understand it this is not the position of the entire movement (if the movement can be said to have A position).

I wonder what you think of Newman?