Church has not become part of my social network

[Dillon]

Two years ago I went back to an Episcopal church that I was a member of before (20 years ago). The sermons and the clergy are very progressive, very trans affirming. I've gotten friendly with some people there, but I never see them outside church. There is not even one gay person who is out. I'm the only out queer person there. I find that odd. I am very out, so anyone who is out in their general life would have shared that with me by now, especially since a lot of people know me now and are friendly at coffee hour etc. This is not how it was before at this church or another progressive Episcopal church I attended about fifteen years ago. I made friends in those places, regular part-of-my-life friends, and there were always several gay people who were out. I don't drive, and I have a fairly severe fatigue situation (fibromyalgia), so public transportation is out. I did try going to one place on public transportation, but it was too much for me physically. 

 

I've thought a few times of moving to a different area of Queens that has a large lgbtq population. I know the area--I lived in a neighborhood bordering it for a few years--and I know how much walking it takes to get from one place to another there. I'm no longer physically capable of that. But then a woman at the LGBT seniors center (which is in that neighborhood) mentioned that she lives walking distance from the center but takes cabs. There is an Episcopal church there, and I'm thinking of checking it out in the summer.

 

I'm wondering if other people here find that the open lgbtq membership in their churches has decreased over the last 20 years or so? Other than pandemic changes, which is not the issue at my church. There were no out lgbtq people there in the recent years before the pandemic.

[VickySGV]

I am still attending my parish where I came out 12 years ago after having been a member there for about 20 years at the time.  At that time the new Priest was a woman who had a married Lesbian daughter, and we had a Gay organist / choir master. Both the Priest and O/CM have moved on to other places although I am friends with both now. At the minute the parish is basically "on Hospice Care" from the Bishop with a Sunday Supply Priest (male).  I am the ONLY Trans/LGB person there now and while the people are inclusive during church services, at 75, I am one of the younger people. 

 

I have many LGBTQ friends at the Diocesan level and am part of the Bishop's Commission on LGBTQ ministry as a lay person, thus the friends I do have are largely Parish Clergy, and I do travel a bit to their parishes where I am warmly welcomed, this includes our Cathedral in Downtown Los Angeles.  This is one of the things I have noticed though is that while we are welcomed, our specific culture as LGBTQ is accepted but not always embraced or looked into by Cis/Het people in any parish.  We participate in the Liturgy and the educational and even ministries, but our lives and experiences are not what leads to close relations outside of the services.  It is really pretty understandable since I admit I am not interested or involved with the Cis/Het lives they lead as a focus of sociability.  I do have one parish near me where there is a larger LGBTQ group and those are mostly L & G although we do meet socially through an LGBTQ Center nearby where numbers swell with non-TEC folks who are invited to social events at that Church in non worship activities such as speakers and panel discussions.  That parish has hosted TDOR events in the past and I got a "feeler" from them if I would help them this coming November, but nothing firm just yet. 

 

Look beyond the Parish level and see if there is a Diocese wide LGBT community you can join with.

[Dillon]

Just adding a thought that is coming up while I think about my current parish. In those earlier years, people would say oh you have to meet the other gay couples here or so and so is gay too and we all bonded. Granted, no one was out about being trans, but the absence of cis lesbians and gays now is a big change. 

[Dillon]

32 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

This is one of the things I have noticed though is that while we are welcomed, our specific culture as LGBTQ is accepted but not always embraced or looked into by Cis/Het people in any parish. 

This. Years back, the cis lesbian and gay members were supported in being a subgroup socially but also socially somewhat integrated with the general straight membership. That is gone. BTW I hid that I identified as bi in some of those years because I knew it would be excluded and/or trashed. (Later discovered that the various bi years were about wanting to be the men and confusing that with attraction.) So the community's support was narrowly lesbian and gay, but I would have expected some steps forward, not backward.

 

People have told me that some of the Roman Catholic churches in Manhattan have large lgbt membership. 

[Marcie Jensen]

2 minutes ago, Dillon said:

This. Years back, the cis lesbian and gay members were supported in being a subgroup socially but also socially somewhat integrated with the general straight membership. That is gone. BTW I hid that I identified as bi in some of those years because I knew it would be excluded and/or trashed. (Later discovered that the various bi years were about wanting to be the men and confusing that with attraction.) So the community's support was narrowly lesbian and gay, but I would have expected some steps forward, not backward.

 

People have told me that some of the Roman Catholic churches in Manhattan have large lgbt membership. 

Interesting points here by everyone. While I'm not Episcopalian in either church membership or theologically (I'm a staunch Calvinist--which means I'm both a theology nerd and a believer that humanity is so depraved, as Calvinput it, that we manage to corrupt everything we touch including the institution of the church) I did attend a small Episcopal church for years in MD. Currently, I'm working on my DMin dissertation on th4e church inclusive and your insights are very helpful. Thanks @Dillonand @VickySGV.

 

Frankly, my experience and research have shown me that there are a couple of constants with regard to congregations and their inclusivity. These are just general observations and shouldn't be taken as, pun intended, "Gospel." First, congregations change over time and are almost  always a reflection of the pastor and the session. Second, support by any given congregation of any marginalized group is usually lip service and is directly proportional to the average income/educational level of the congregants with poorer congregations being more inclusive. 

 

IDK about Roman Catholic churches being more accepting, but as these congregations are subject to the views of the parish priest, it could be so. 

 

The bottom line is that as Jesus sat among the prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors of His day, it seems to me that the church ought to reflect this with today's marginalized communities.

 

 

[Dillon]

6 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

First, congregations change over time and are almost  always a reflection of the pastor and the session. Second, support by any given congregation of any marginalized group is usually lip service and is directly proportional to the average income/educational level of the congregants with poorer congregations being more inclusive. 

Your DMin dissertation sounds very interesting. I've always wondered how much the pastor affects the makeup of the congregation. The point about poorer congregations being more inclusive is very interesting. My late wife told me that the reason we felt alienated from our prior parish was because it was in a wealthy neighborhood and, she felt, this resulted in a sort of indifference. 

 

Just my impression as a cradle Roman Catholic, and following my parents' experiences long after I left: the priest at an RC church seems to have less impact on the congregation. There is a wider gap between the priest and the members. There is definitely some impact, but imo not as much.

[VickySGV]

1 hour ago, Dillon said:

but also socially somewhat integrated with the general straight membership.

 

At the minute, the parish I am in is dying literally from old age of the parishioners and the fact we are in an ethnically diverse neighborhood where the diversity has not been celebrated and encouraged as far as new membership is concerned. We have not retained the once very active children (now adult children of the current members) due mostly to the fact they do not live close to the Parish.  I am always fully welcome at all the now limited social functions and am an official member of the Episcopal Church Women's group,* which is not as active as it had been either.  I was on the Vestry until I was termed out a few years ago, and a Diocesan Convention Delegate during those times, which is how I became fully active at the Diocese level of things. Thanks in part to my being Trans I have a much younger attitude than the Cis women, which is also a factor in things at the minute.

 

* @Marcie Jensen FYI, Episcopal Church Women's groups were practically a shadow governing body to the male run and membered Vestry (equivalent to your Session) of the days before restrictions on women clergy and women's participation in Parish governance were changed.  Male Priests were very mindful of how their job could go badly by not paying attention to the unofficial ruling body that the women presented since they effectively ran the community ministry functions. 

 

[Marcie Jensen]

Hi @Dillon, Thanks for the kind words. Where a pastor/priest affects congregational make up depends on the denomination more than anything else. For example, in the PCUSA (my denomination) pastors aren't members of the congregation and technically have no say in church governance. HOWEVER, the session (deacons and elders) almost never goes against what the pastor states she or he wants. Among Methodists, the pastor is supposed to move every three years or so, but that doesn't always happen. I personally know of a Methodist mega church in Leawood KS that has over 15000 members and provides more than 30% of budget for the entire denominational presence in the state who refuse to give up their pastor and threatened to leave the denomination when it was suggested he leave. (Additionally, that particular congregation is very wealthy and tends to throw money at causes they support instead of getting their hands dirty by actual involvement.) In most episcopacies, ie: those churches governed by bishops, the vestry or its equivalent typically rubber stamps what the priest desires.

 

Poorer congregations tend to be more inclusive due to not being able to solve problems with money, and have to rely on a more hands on approach within their communities. Or so my research seems to indicate. Your late wife's observation rings true, BTW. And, yes within the RC church there is a wider gap between the priest and the parishioners for a number of reasons. Again, each congregation is different and my comments here are no more than  a very broad overview.

[Marcie Jensen]

2 minutes ago, VickySGV said:

* @Marcie Jensen FYI, Episcopal Church Women's groups were practically a shadow governing body to the male run and membered Vestry (equivalent to your Session) of the days before restrictions on women clergy and women's participation in Parish governance were changed.  Male Priests were very mindful of how their job could go badly by not paying attention to the unofficial ruling body that the women presented since they effectively ran the community ministry functions. 

 

I get it. I served on the vestry at St. George's Old Spesutia in MD when I was stationed at Aberdeen Proving Ground and was actually a licensed chalicist and at one point was a junior warden. And, yes indeed, a wise parish priest NEVER EVER messes with the altar guild!!

 

There's a lot that I like about Anglicanism, BTW, and in fact I almost considered going that route when I felt God's call to seminary and ordination. I had some theological issues though, mostly over authority of Scripture and pastoral hierarchy; what a mentor of mine who is an Episcopal priest jokingly called "popish fripperies."

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I'm not part of a mainline denomination.  My community is very close, and has grown quite a bit since I started attending.  People are very much a part of each other's lives, almost like we're a huge extended family.  I enjoy it. 

 

I think there's a balance between a church that is too small and one that is too large.  Small has the advantage of being easier to maintain close relationships, but the disadvantage of being kind of closed off.  Large tends to be a bit more impersonal, but with the advantage of possibly having more LGBTQ+ people attending.  Big generalizations, obviously. 

 

 

[Marcie Jensen]

Interesting viewpoint, @awkward-yet-sweet and one I can appreciate. And, in Matthew 18:20, Christ says that where two or more people gather in His name, He is there with them; the very definition of what church is.  A bit of a dichotomy, isn't it?

 

That said, you're spot on about large congregations as opposed to smaller ones. A case in point is my ex wife--she preferred large congregations because in her words, "it's easier to hide there." By which she meant not having to become fully involved. I would add that in some ways it's easier on a pastor, too. For example, while in seminary, I did an internship in a moderately sized church (about 600 congregants). I'm terribnle with names, and after services on Sunday while standing in the "grip and grin line" following the benediction, I found that it was uch easier to call everyone "sister" or "brother" than remember names.

 

I found that smaller congregations are more intimate, and in many ways more accepting, but often lack the needed funding to thrive in today's world. It's a trade off, I suppose.

 

 

Again, thank you everyone. Your perspectives are a great help in my dissertation research.

[Dillon]

I'm thinking of going to Dignity this weekend or another church I know that is lgbtq supportive. I got pretty emotional today when I was talking about my parish to a trans friend, and they asked if there was something I could do for myself. That clinched it.

[Dillon]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:05 PM, Marcie Jensen said:

humanity is so depraved, as Calvinput it, that we manage to corrupt everything we touch

Can't disagree with you there!

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I think that a big factor in churches losing members is whether people under 40 attend.  Some churches seem to have a lot more old folks than youth.  Churches like that will end up closing their doors or merging with other congregations as older members pass away.  Some churches have tried to reverse that by changing music, but it doesn't seem to work once the trend has started.  Especially for young adults, church is a place to find friends and romantic partners.  When visiting a new place, they'll evaluate it based on those possibilities.  Attendance is less about worship and preaching and more about being able to socialize with people who share their beliefs. 

 

I've noticed that my faith community is different from others in the attendance demographics. Lots of young families, and a number of multi-partner families like mine.  Which means there's lots of children and youth.  Perhaps some might consider my community "mid-sized" due to the number of people, but it is close-knit because a good portion of those who attend come from big families.  Even if you don't know the individual well, you know the family.  A couple of groups like my family are large enough to show up in a convoy of vehicles or even a bus.  While there's singing and preaching, a big part of it is letting both adults and youth get together with their friends.  Growing up in that kind of extended family setting helps to retain young adults in the community.

 

Rather than being an add-on at the end of the week, our faith community is center of our lives.  It is the setting for a lot of our life events - births and deaths, marriages and disputes, illness and healing, politics and voting, and even economic things like barter, negotiations, networking, direct charity, and local commerce.  There are holiday celebrations, special activities, and types of service that aren't just "church."  I think it is that level of involvement that can keep faith relevant in the lives of younger people and keeps a community alive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dillon]

13 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Some churches have tried to reverse that by changing music, but it doesn't seem to work once the trend has started. 

I agree. People complain about music, but it doesn't seem to affect attendance either way. Your church sounds like  very dynamic social center.

[Dillon]

I went to an Episcopal church with a large lgbtq membership today. It's pretty far, and the cab was pricey. But it was worth it. I came out of there feeling good about myself and about society. People were friendly, and a lot of them came up to me and welcomed me. Most stayed and had a fairly long conversation with me. Neither of these things happens at my regular church, and since everyone is cold there, it feels like I'm imagining things there and they all know the real world. No one had a problem with my pronouns. People came back after talking with me and brought someone else for me to meet. And that person also had a conversation instead of hurrying away. 

[Marcie Jensen]

Interesting post, @awkward-yet-sweet.  Church growth, both in terms of the denomination and a particular congregation are determined by a number of factors, of which age demographics and family centered events are but two. This was the topic of my Master's thesis, BTW, which is about 20 years old and I admit times have changed.  You've piqued my curiosity and I would like to ask you a couple of questions. I mean no sort of disrespect nor do I want to give any offense. The plain truth is I am genuinely curious given a number of your past posts. (The theology nerd in me is coming out again.) Feel free to respond or not as you see fit. I will say that any insights will help with my dissertation research, though and would be greatly appreciated.

 

Before I ask them, I do need to provide a couple of definitions for specificity. The first is the term Orthodoxy simply put, orthodoxy comes from the Greek and means "correct thought." In Christian theology, this is defined through documents such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Westminster Confessions, the Canons of Dort, Luther and Calvin's writings and so on. That's how I use the terms.

 

Next is Orthopraxy, which means "correct practice," again from the Greek. I think that's pretty self explanatory.

 

The other term is "polyandry" which refers to polygamous relationships wherein there are multiple male partners with a single female partner or multiple partners that are of multiple genders.

 

Now that I've defined some things, and again I mean no offense nor am I judging, here are my questions:

 

1. Given that based on what you have posted, your faith community doesn't follow traditional orthodox theological Christian practices, does your faith community consider itself Christian? If so, why or why not? (Again no judgment; just curious.)

 

2. Given Biblical precepts regarding marriage and despite such Old Testament examples as David and Solomon, how do polyandrous and polyamorous relationships fit into your community's theological interpretation of Scripture? Particularly as David, Solomon, Ahab, et al paid a pretty high price for this practice.

 

3. How does your community practice what it believes?

 

Again, I am curious as a theology nerd and as a person who strongly believes in the Reformed maxim of "reformed and always reforming."

 

Thanks for listening and any reply you would care to give.

[Marcie Jensen]

2 minutes ago, Dillon said:

I went to an Episcopal church with a large lgbtq membership today. It's pretty far, and the cab was pricey. But it was worth it. I came out of there feeling good about myself and about society. People were friendly, and a lot of them came up to me and welcomed me. Most stayed and had a fairly long conversation with me. Neither of these things happens at my regular church, and since everyone is cold there, it feels like I'm imagining things there and they all know the real world. No one had a problem with my pronouns. People came back after talking with me and brought someone else for me to meet. And that person also had a conversation instead of hurrying away. 

That's one of the strongest points of the entire Anglican Communion, of which Episcopalians are a part. There has been some internal dissention about this though, as @VickySGV  has related extremely well in other threads. 

[Dillon]

@Marcie JensenCan you explain what you are saying is a strong point? It's possible I introduced some confusion and implied that my regular church is not Episcopalian, but it is. So I'm comparing two Episcopal parishes.

[Dillon]

@Marcie JensenAre you counting David as polyandrous because of the married women he slept with? (I probably would have the same question about Ahab and Solomon, but I don't remember enough about them to phrase the question. Off to do some reading.)

[Ivy]

4 hours ago, Dillon said:

Are you counting David as polyandrous because of the married women he slept with?

David may have been a "man after God's own heart" but his attitude toward women, to put it bluntly, sucked.  I will concede that was partly the culture of the time -- which has been pretty misogynistic throughout history.  There are some examples of individual women getting some respect, but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  Women were pretty much seen as property.

If my memory serves me, Luther got in trouble at one point on the issue of polygamy.  He had to backtrack.

Of course Islam allows multiple wives, not sure about husbands though.  And then there are the Mormons.  Seems like it's mostly the men that make up the rules.

Okay, I'm done for now.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@Marcie Jensen IDK if the questions would be better answered via PM, but I'll post here since it seems to be within the (outer) bounds of the topic. 

 

I've heard the Ortho... terms before.  Grew up Greek Orthodox.  But it seems to me that what is identified as "correct practice" varies a bit between denominations.  My community exists almost entirely apart from the large denominations, and as such our views are a bit mixed.  There's some things we don't identify with.  For example, we don't refer to ourselves or the building where we meet using the word "church."  We're a community, our worship area is a temple.  We don't have ordained pastors, but instead elect spiritual elders from the older men in the community, among whom the primary leader is referred to as our apostle.  Our cultural heritage is primarily a mixture of Pentecostal, Lutheran, and LDS.  That said:

 

1.  Yes, we identify as Christian.  We are saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone.  Pretty standard Reformation stuff.  Our Bible is usually a KJV/NKJV, although different people use different versions of the 66-book Bible at times.  We don't accept the Apocrypha, the Book of Mormon, or other works as divinely inspired Scripture.  Rather, those works provide context, teaching, and can be historical documents of interest.  As children grow up, they are taught some of the basic doctrines of the faith.  My husband's children memorize the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and use Luther's Small Catechism to explain them as well as other basics like the Ten Commandments. 

 

2.  Polygamy isn't banned in the Bible.  It definitely isn't encouraged either.  Our community believes that "One man, one woman, one lifetime" is the Biblical ideal.  However, because we live in a fallen world, things happen.  Polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is permitted.  Polyandry (one woman, multiple men) is not.  Neither is liberal polyamory or "open marriage."  Our system is patriarchal, and follows the pattern of the Old Testament....sex outside of marriage (and before marriage) is discouraged.  Male homosexual behavior is described as sin, according to Scripture.  Female homosexual behavior is tolerated within the bounds of marriage (ie, one wife with another) as there is only one discouraging reference in Scripture, and that one is ambiguous.  Women live a more lenient life, and there is a high expectation for husbands to love, emotionally nurture, lead, and take care of their wives and kids.  Transgender issues are handled delicately in a quiet and nuanced way, with the idea that we live in a fallen world and not everyone ends up with the body or desires that God would have preferred.  Standard gender roles and gendered apparel are preferred, but not firmly required...and they vary dramatically even within the family.  For example my husband's first wife prefers to wear only dresses, and actually addresses him as "My lord" in the style of Sarah and Abraham.  She firmly believes in staying home and raising kids...and she has a new baby almost each year.  The rest of us...not so much.  😉  She does things her way, and the rest of us do things our way.  There's a lot of room for personal conscience. 

 

Yes, David and Solomon paid high prices for having poor judgement and multiple wives.  So did Jacob...he got traded around by his 4 wives for mandrake roots IIRC.  In our community, a man is usually allowed to have up to 4 wives.  Most have only one, and a few have 2 or maybe 3.  I'm actually my husband's #5...but there was a bit of scandal involved in that.  More than 4 is kind of taboo, as one guy really can't provide support and emotional attention to that many women.  Men who have more than 1 wife face a restriction, though - they are permanently barred from being elected as spiritual elders.  This is in accordance with 1 Timothy 3, the qualifications for the ministry.  The word used can be overseer/pastor/elder/bishop, but the idea is that one who spiritually leads a community can have only 1 wife so they have spare time and attention for community work, and also so they set a good example.  There are also other restrictions for those people - they must be married (no singles), they must have kids, be respected, etc...  Elders are also required to totally abstain from alcohol.  The idea is that marriage and community leadership is an image of God and His people.  Men are held to very high standards, and elders even more so.  Husbands who fail in their duties can be brought before the community for discipline.  I think that's the only aspect of our faith that makes me a bit uneasy...the pressure on husbands and sons is really intense.  Wives and daughters live a much more lenient life.  

 

3.  How do we practice?  Well...with joy!  There isn't a lot of divide between "this is church" and "this is the rest of my life."  While we don't live all together in some kind of compound, we live in a small area.  Families live within 20 miles of each other, and most are actually within about 5-10 miles.  My husband grew up Lutheran, and the different kinds of Lutherans were called "Synods" which meant "walking together."  That's pretty much what we do.  We live close together, lots of us work in the same places, and we gather frequently.  Compared to modern American life, it kind of seems like we're up in each other's business constantly 🤣  If there was no more nation, state, or government, we would be fine.  We have our own internal economy, our own internal charity system, our own rules/laws, and our own security force.  Yet we're also in the world, and we participate in the activities of the county/area beyond our little community. 

 

We're visible and not isolated.  We don't have a sign by the road advertising our meeting place or worship hours...that's not how evangelism is done.  For us, it is one person to another in the workplace, marketplace, or as neighbors.  Temple is where we meet and recharge for our lives in the world....it is for those who are mostly already believers.  We don't expect people to look us up and wander in to somehow listen to preaching and get saved, as the Great Commission instructs us to "Go."  As in, everybody get outta here and meet folks.  

 

Worship happens on Sundays and Wednesdays.  We're not liturgical, but there's kind of an order to things.  We have songbooks, but don't always use them.  It is normal for some songs to be done in a call-and-response format with a cantor to lead.  Some are a-capella, but we also have a band.  My husband is often the drummer, but has occasionally served as cantor.  Most worship music is based on specific Scriptures.  Often the a-capella songs or those which are call-and-response are based on the Psalms. 

 

Communion is...unique.  Most Protestant groups believe that the bread and wine (elements) are a representation of Jesus' body and blood.  Catholics believe that they become actual body and blood (trans-substantiation.)  We are different.  We believe that they just...are.  Literal presence, but unexplained.  I'm not sure if any other groups besides the Lutherans share this view.  Communion is important and happens frequently, but not exactly during the worship service.  More like at the beginning of a community meal using unleavened bread and a cup of wine.  Yes, real wine...the only time that elders drink alcohol of any sort.  Kids don't partake until they have been baptized and made a statement of faith in front of the community.  There is also a family version of communion.  It mostly happens during Holy Week, as a form of the Passover Seder. 

 

Not sure if that answers all of your questions, but perhaps it is a start.  😄

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dillon]

I'm glad you posted this. It was interesting to learn. BTW, your description of communion in your community sounds close to the Episcopal version, which is also close to Lutheran, with one significant nuance.

[Ivy]

Thanks.  This was interesting.  I was raised Lutheran myself, and do see those elements.

[Marcie Jensen]

@awkward-yet-sweet, first of all, thank you so very much for your thoughtful and detailed response.  I really appreciate it. It also gives me a much greater understanding of what your community believes and why. With some really interesting (theologically) practices, some of which hearken all the way back to the earliest forms of the church. For instance, your community's practice of electing spiritual leaders goes all the way back to the first century AD; with one difference. Then, women were elected as leaders, too.  There were, and are, sound reasons for that practice, but that's a minor thing.

 

The whole issue of communion practices within the different denominations can, and has, filled volumes; especially regarding transubstantiation, the elements of communion (wine v grape juice, for example), whether taking only one element makes it valid, who and how the host is consecrated, and what to do with leftover elements. The latter reminds me of my days as a chalicist at St. George's Old Spesutia (it was Episcopalian) in MD. We were lucky to have 30-35 folks in attendance of a Sunday morning, and our priest always filled the chalice to the brim and consecrated it. The chalice was about the size of a soup bowl. A large one. In the Episcopal tradition, real wine is used, and, after communion, must be consumed by the priest and chalicist. The priest would take a sip, pass it to me and have me drink the rest. Not only was it cheap wine, but I was unable to drive home after dinking it; in short, I wound up with quite a buzz and a wine hangover later in the day. Fun times...

 

In regard to the Lutheran view of the host, that's a bit more convoluted and goes back to the Reformation. There are other denominations that share a similar viewpoint, but it's really nuanced. It's also a point where Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Knox, Zwingli, etc, differed. Fascinating to me that there are so many different viewpoints surrounding this. Again, volume have been written about it.

 

I also want to thank you for explaining your community's marriage practices. That helps my research in a number of ways. Just a note without judgement. They seem to be more in line with Muslim or LDS practices than traditional Jewish or Christian practices. 

Again, I appreciate your insights. Thanks so much.

 

Synod, Presbytery, Diocese, Convention, and so on are all used to define forms of church governance with diverse points of view as well. Here's a piece of scary church trivia--the rules by which the Congress of the United States operates were originally derived from the Presbyterians church, which doesn't get much done either. I think that may explain a lot...  

 

I hope I didn't offend, but I was really curious. Additionally, I didn't mean to be offensive with the terms I used regarding orthodoxy, et al. It's simply that most folks don't use them and I wanted to be sure they were clear and precise.