This is what I want (even need) in a church and it's part of the reason why I'm UU. Yes, my fellowship does have our "purists" as well, who tend to push a more or less secular humanist agenda for Unitarianism, but they are becoming more accepting of our growing diversity of theologies.

That said, my impression from hanging out here and from visiting a couple of the more "progressive" UCCan churches around London is that inclusiveness and support for theological and spiritual diversity can be found in your church as well.

However, my family United Church was not quite as inclusive. They didn't hunt "heretics" or send people with divergent views packing or anything, but you definitely got funny looks if you proposed anything that challenged a centre-right, rather vanilla brand of faith and works-based Christianity. That's probably why I drifted away from the UCCan and embraced UU'ism quite enthusiastically once I discovered it.

Why do I prefer a church that is a diverse, inclusive community rather than a collection of like-minded, doctrinally pure folks? Because I don't find that you learn and grow in that environment, at least not in the same way that you do in a world of diversity. I believe in the value of questioning, of exploring, of encountering the "other" and learning from that encounter. It's how my spirituality has been shaped and developed over the past 30 years or so. A speaker at a business conference I attended years ago talked about how innovation takes place, not in the secure centre but on the boundaries where diverse interests and experiences meet and have a chance to learn from each other and apply that learning (WC is great for this, BTW). Spiritually, this is what I am after.

Mendalla

The UC I went to was more like a private social club.  You could go there but you weren't allowed to be a fully participating part of it.

Kay, have you had any other church experiences than that one united church.  I understand that it was hurtful, not helpful, etc; however, I'm curious if you have had any other experiences since then?

Yes to the original question.

Most churches are communities with webs of relationships and supports with the possibility of entering or leaving by birth, immigration, emigration or death.

Most churches are cults with one or a few key beliefs that identify the congregation, often not related to theology.  The challenge for newcomers is figuring out what the key belief is, because it is often not outwardly identified.  Being open to diverse theological points of view could be a key belief.  When a ongregation gives up its key belief, it usually fades away.

Hi redbaron338,

Since when is a cult not a community?  It may not be the ideal community for a number of reasons that doesn't make it not a community.  I think the reasons why some cults have excelled in attractng members is because they are able to quickly attain community vibe with new members.

which fits both community and cult.

which fits both as well.

It could be just you.  I suspect that it isn't just you though.

Compassion and Hospitality can become doctrine which is to be kept pure.  Sometimes I hear doctrine denigrated as being too intellectual which just tells me that articles of faith might differ from context to context.  In one context articles of faith might look like belief statements while in other contexts articles of faith might look like belief actions.

Varied.  In NL it was more spiritualized.  Rules and process often took a back seat to feelings.  Here in Hamilton Conference I see a more institutionalized approach where rules and process trump feelings.  There are attempts to bring some balance into play.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Just thought I'd bring this thread back into play.  I did-- and do-- appreciate the experiences and the wisdom from a year ago, and I still am of the same opinion that I mentioned above.  If I had to do it again, though, I'd avoid the words 'community' and 'cult', and use what I believe is more accurate language, 'inclusive' and 'exclusive,'

Some among us seem to believe that we must all think alike, agree with each other, be homogenized into one belief system; those who don't fit into the mold don't truly belong.    Others appreciate a much wider scope of faith, practice and belief, where everyone may find a place to belong.  Seeks to me to be a timely topic here these days.  Quite a diversoty of opinion.

Your further thoughts are welcome.

some commetaries for consideration.

Question: "What is the definition of a cult?"

Answer: When we hear the word “cult,” we often think of a group that worships Satan, sacrifices animals, or takes part in evil, bizarre, and pagan rituals. However, in reality, most cults appear much more innocent. The specific Christian definition of a cult is “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” In simpler terms, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to remain unsaved if he/she believes it. As distinct from a religion, a cult is a group that claims to be part of the religion, yet denies essential truth(s) of that religion. A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.

The two most common teachings of cults are that Jesus was not God and that salvation is not by faith alone. A denial of the deity of Christ results in Jesus’ death not being a sufficient payment for our sins. A denial of salvation by faith alone results in salvation being achieved by our own works, something the Bible vehemently and consistently denies. The two most well-known examples of cults are the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Both groups claim to be Christian, yet both deny the deity of Christ and salvation by faith alone. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe many things that are in agreement with or similar to what the Bible teaches. However, the fact that they deny the deity of Christ and preach a salvation by works qualifies them as a cult. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and members of other cults are “good people” who genuinely believe they hold the truth. As Christians, our hope and prayer must be that many people involved in the cults will see through the lies and will be drawn to the truth of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

-----------------------------------------

Question: "What is a community church?"

Answer: All across America are churches with “Community” in their names. What are community churches, where do they come from, and what do they have in common? That question has no simple answer, but this article will attempt to give a suitable one.

As pioneers spread across the North American continent, they brought along their personal religious beliefs. In some cases, it was their beliefs that directed them to move, like the pilgrims who settled at Plymouth and the Mormons who settled in Utah. In most cases, individuals and families were looking for a new start, whether they were driven by the gold rush, the land rush, or some other factor. These hardy people established communities, and those communities became the home for new churches. Since most “civilized” people attended church in those early days, there were usually several churches established as the towns grew in size. It was not uncommon for a relatively small town to have a Methodist church, a Baptist church, a Catholic church, a Lutheran church, and a Presbyterian church, among others, each one with a congregation of 30 to 50.
 

commetary continued at:

http://www.gotquestions.org/community-church.html

-----------------------

Question: "What is post-modern Christianity?"

Answer: Post-modern Christianity is just as difficult to lock down in a concise definition as post-modernism itself. What started in the 1950s in architecture as a reaction to modernist thought and style was soon adopted by the art and literary world in the 1970s and 1980s. The Church didn't really feel this effect until the 1990s. This reaction was a dissolution of "cold, hard fact" in favor of "warm, fuzzy subjectivity." Think of anything considered post-modern, then stick Christianity into that context and you have a glimpse of what post-modern Christianity is.

Post-modern Christianity falls into line with basic post-modernist thinking. It is about experience over reason, subjectivity over objectivity, spirituality over religion, images over words, outward over inward. Are these things good? Sure. Are these things bad? Sure. It all depends on how far from biblical truth each reaction against modernity takes one's faith. This, of course, is up to each believer. However, when groups form under such thinking, theology and doctrine tend to lean more towards liberalism.

For example, because experience is valued more highly than reason, truth becomes relative. This opens up all kinds of problems, as this lessens the standard that the Bible contains absolute truth, and even disqualifies biblical truth as being absolute in many cases. If the Bible is not our source for absolute truth, and personal experience is allowed to define and interpret what truth actually is, a saving faith in Jesus Christ is rendered meaningless.

There will always be "paradigm shifts" in thinking as long as mankind inhabits this present earth, because mankind constantly seeks to better itself in knowledge and stature. Challenges to our way of thinking are good, as they cause us to grow, to learn, and to understand. This is the principle of Romans 12:2 at work, of our minds being transformed. Yet, we need to be ever mindful of Acts 17:11 and be like the Bereans, weighing every new teaching, every new thought, against Scripture. We don't let our experiences interpret Scripture for us, but as we change and conform ourselves to Christ, we interpret our experiences according to Scripture. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening in circles espousing post-modern Christianity.

---------------------------------------

, i underlined a part just above.

i wouldnt agree with that, or mayb ei dont understand what the writer meant., i dont understand how a : saving faith in Jesus Christ can be rendered meaningless.

that doesnt make sense to me.

i think that there is a tribe/congregation for everyone out there and now it has been proven that organizations, in order to fluorish, don't need to appeal to some imaginary 'average person'

MAKE MISTAKES

FALL ON YOUR BUTT

and come up LAUGHING

my husband would say cult.  he hates that everyone repeats prayers and the stand up, sit down, kneel, repeat some more stuff all together and go home.  he finds it very cultish.

i do too, i guess.  i like the teachings and interpretations, but i hate the formality.  i don't "do church" much.  my husband and i are both nature lovers and find the spirit there mostly.  i am also not a traditional prayer.  i truly believe that god knows me, therefore knows my needs and wants better than i do, so i mostly thank.  i thank god when i hug and kiss my kids, when i lay next to my husband at night, when i sit down to eat, when i enjoy something beautiful and ask for strength and courage when facing difficulties.

i wish church was more like jesus' sermons.  outdoors, breaking bread perhaps, talking and questioning.  pondering. reflecting.  i also love the "praying in your closet" analogy from the bible.  those moments, when i am alone, pondering, reflecting, is when i am closest to the spirit.  those are the moments i stop and pray.

unlike stephenbooth, the word cult doesn't conjure up images of satan, but crazy, fanatical christians (or insert other fundamental denomination follower here) who think everyone that doesn't believe as they do are doomed so they need saving.    the westboro baptists, david koresh, polygamist "communities", doomsdayers who can't wait for the day that gnashing of teeth and redemption bestow the earth, etc.  conjure up scary cultish images.

i don't deny that the church is a community and do good works, i would just do it all differently.  my "guide" would live a married life, with children outside of the church and we would meet within the community and perform god's work.  i love the idea that we are god's body, mind and spirit and we can perform god's work.  these meetings could happen at the park for clean up, the food bank for sorting, a shelter to serve meals or an elderly home to visit.  church kinda feels like a red carpet gala to me sometimes.  we all show up, talk "good" for a few minutes and pat ourselves on the back for it, leave and end up doing something stupid and in the tabloids the next minute.

EVERYONE deserves to belong.  if we truly believe that we were all created in god's image and that image is good and perfect, exactly as it is and was intended, we all DESERVE love and ACCEPTANCE.  jesus felt that way.  he preferred to chill with the sinners and casted out the self righteous.  some people are just too closed minded to realize that you shouldn't throw stones at people who "sin" differently than you do.  if god intended everything to be "perfect" it would have stopped at one tree, one flower, one body of water, one animal, one human.  we were born to be great, we were born to make mistakes.  we were born to learn and grow.   it's a shame that some people can't get past their own noses or step off their soapboxes.

btw, not intended toward you redbaron.  just giving my thoughts on the post :)

To discuss what the church is "supposed to be," don't we need to reflect on what the bible says on the subject? I have read that the bible uses over 100 different images of the church, so the discussion could still be quite wide-ranging!

For example, "God's household" is one way the bible describes the Church. Your household might seem like a community. My household might seem like a cult (though I very much hope not). The Church is not described generically as "a household" but specifically as the household "of God,"  and that surely is a vital part of making this image work.

Despite many differences in how they are administered and interpreted, Baptism and the Breaking of the Bread are prominent practices of the New Testament church and also of the 21st century church (with very few exceptions that I know of). To practice any such formal religious rituals is already to be "cultic"--a "cult" in one sense of the word.

No doubt that is not the sense you intended, but the other senses seem to imply that a "cult" must be an "extremist or false" form of religion. I am confident the bible does not say the church is supposed to be a "false" form of religion.

Whether or not the bible says/suggests the church is supposed to be an "extremist" form of religion is more debatable. Is it "extremist" to "take up your cross" and endure suffering, persecution and death, as did some members of the New Testament church? (The book of Acts offers examples that come readily to mind.)

Original Post:

"..........   The door is open to all, there is no 'entrance exam', the church is somewhere where all may find a place, where all may belong.

As I look inside myself, I find myself leaning more toward an inclusive community, where doctrinal purity is less important than compassion and hospitality, but maybe that's just me."

I would fail the entrance exam if there was one.

It is important to me, if I am going to belong to a church, that it be inclusive and welcoming and tolerant.  My beliefs lean to the left, so rigidity would not work for me.   It has not in the past, (RC and fundamenalism) which is probably why I have never engaged in any significant form of participation.  So I suppose that I do need to be with like -minded individuals in that regard.  

Whether you seek community (Inclusivity and hospitality) or cult (exclusivity based on adherence rules and regulations) is up to the individual to decide, however, for myself,  I choose community.