First religion you'd convert to?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Thank you for the scare quotes around 'Bishop', BRTD. It's what the man deserves for driving his diocese into the ground. And I've been to church with him. Twice!

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yeah my biggest issue with the guy is that fundamentally he's just a con artist. I don't know if even believes in that vague pantheism he promotes as his "interpretation" of Christianity since so much of it is a pure ass pull, it's like he's only saying that to get attention and sell books. He's about as deep or theologically meaningful as your average "spiritual but not religious" teenager.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?) It sounds all peace and love and kumbaya until you read that attendance at her parish cratered by two-thirds after she removed the Lord's Prayer from the service, and still hasn't fully recovered despite the congregation becoming a mecca for the Ursula Goodenough set.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

UUism or the UCC.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, while not a Lutheran, I attend Lutheran churches often enuf to say you'd probably be best off with an ELCA congregation if you go that path, but it is possible to find theologically liberal churches in any of the main branches of Protestantism, tho obviously not in all denominations. (There's even a liberal Baptist church nearby that I attend occasionally.) Of the major denominations, the UCC is the most liberal and because of its congregational governance each church will be different.

Congregationalism appeals to me a lot as a mode of ecclesial organization, but I fear those Churches might be a bit lacking in terms of cultural distinctiveness/historical depth. At this stage I'd still tend to think that Lutheranism would be my best answer in terms of branches. From what everybody is saying though, I gather that historical branches of Protestantism don't mean much anymore, with each hosting a wide variety of theologies and rites that overlap across branches. It sure doesn't make things simple.

I assume the ELCA has also become quite different from Lutheran Churches in Europe, but I'd be curious to know how much.

Uh, I never said it was. And I don't think any church that organizes pub crawls would think so.

What I'm rejecting is the notion that some sort of shared ethnic identity should matter in a church.

Weren't you recently arguing a lot more broadly against any form on "inherited culture"? Inherited culture is not only ethnic, and I don't think most culturally Catholic American interpret their cultural Catholicism mainly in ethnic terms. In my case I was mainly thinking of a general philosophical outlook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I definitely think a diversity of religious beliefs and practices (as long as they don't encourage immoral attitudes) is highly valuable from a secular perspective. So, if you and your social circle prefer this sort of Church environment, that's perfectly fine and I'm not saying it's bad or wrong. Personally though, I tend to think that a Church should strive to be culturally distinct from the rest of society, and that in particular attending mass should have a very different "feel" from the other activities you engage in your daily life. I'm not sure if my motivations for believing that are mainly philosophical (the idea that religion should not be immersed in the immediate present but instead seek eternity) or aesthetic (being used to a secular lifestyle, I just wouldn't see much appeal in a religion that just adds faith and nothing else to my life), but I'm pretty sure many religious people would agree. It's not just a matter of stereotypes, it's that it takes away a lot of what has tended to make of Churches what they were throughout Western history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yeah, ideally I would love a Church whose theology were fully compatible with a rationalistic view of material reality, but I realize it would be very hard to reconcile such a view with the dogmatic core of Christianity without resorting to sophism or sloppy thought - and sophism and sloppy thoughts aren't things I'd have much patience for. I guess I'd be OK with a theology that's compatible with a rationalistic view of material reality in most respects (or at least in those with practical implications). Of course, the hypothetical me who would choose to join a Church might be a very different person, and as such maybe he wouldn't care much about that either, who knows.

[afleitch]

Quaker.

[afleitch]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

I really would have much more sympathy for Vosper's way of doing things if it hadn't led to the near-collapse and subsequent decidedly anemic recovery of her parish, which indicates (to me) a strong objection on the part of most of her original parishioners to seeing this happen to their community. I don't in principle object to religious naturalism, not nearly as much as I used to anyway--it's valuable to have on the religious scene, and it provides a great deal to a great many people. A number of atheists--therapists, physicians, teachers, friends--have provided me with invaluable advice and comfort over the years and I really resent the implication that my lack of desire to see overtly (id est, non-Unamunoish) non-Christian entryism into Christian ministry indicates a lack of interest in or understanding of the important work that non-Christians and non-religious people do elsewhere. Would you have reacted this way if I'd said that it was inappropriate for a Christian minister to convert to Buddhism (or to have covertly been a Buddhist all along; I've read conflicting things about which is the case with Vosper) and turn her church into a zen-dō over the objections of a supermajority of the congregants?

[afleitch]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

I really would have much more sympathy for Vosper's way of doing things if it hadn't led to the near-collapse and subsequent decidedly anemic recovery of her parish, which indicates (to me) a strong objection on the part of most of her original parishioners to seeing this happen to their community. I don't in principle object to religious naturalism, not nearly as much as I used to anyway--it's valuable to have on the religious scene, and it provides a great deal to a great many people. A number of atheists--therapists, physicians, teachers, friends--have provided me with invaluable advice and comfort over the years and I really resent the implication that my lack of desire to see overtly (id est, non-Unamunoish) non-Christian entryism into Christian ministry indicates a lack of interest in or understanding of the important work that non-Christians and non-religious people do elsewhere. Would you have reacted this way if I'd said that it was inappropriate for a Christian minister to convert to Buddhism (or to have covertly been a Buddhist all along; I've read conflicting things about which is the case with Vosper) and turn her church into a zen-dō over the objections of a supermajority of the congregants?

She's led the church since 1997. Congregations come and go for a variety of reasons, particularly in countries where Christianity is in flux and general decline. She has a congregation and from what I've read they are happy with her. Who is to say it would have been higher had she not been there? She is good for her congregation and they are the ones that matter.

[TDAS04]

I definitely like the ELCA, and my congregation is almost a perfect fit for me.  My pastor believes even non-Christians go to heaven, and strongly supports the LGBT community.  At the same time, the church services are pretty traditional.

I could never be a LCMS or WELS Lutheran, however.

Among other churches, the PCUSA Presbyterians seem pretty good (but not the PCA Presbyterians; they seem scary).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's like that openly-atheist United Church of Canada pastor who's getting breathless write-ups in hyper-liberal 'Christian' media lately. (Have you seen any of this stuff?)

I'm sure Gretta Vosper has provided counsel to countless many over the past 19 years. I'm sure they are thankful for her advice. I know you struggle to understand how an atheist can do that (often, dare you imagine it 'better' and for more humanist, dignified reasons than those who are devout) and why indeed so many atheists are attracted to 'professional ministry' or continue in it after their faith leaves them. Maybe you should actually go and 'see this stuff.'

I really would have much more sympathy for Vosper's way of doing things if it hadn't led to the near-collapse and subsequent decidedly anemic recovery of her parish, which indicates (to me) a strong objection on the part of most of her original parishioners to seeing this happen to their community. I don't in principle object to religious naturalism, not nearly as much as I used to anyway--it's valuable to have on the religious scene, and it provides a great deal to a great many people. A number of atheists--therapists, physicians, teachers, friends--have provided me with invaluable advice and comfort over the years and I really resent the implication that my lack of desire to see overtly (id est, non-Unamunoish) non-Christian entryism into Christian ministry indicates a lack of interest in or understanding of the important work that non-Christians and non-religious people do elsewhere. Would you have reacted this way if I'd said that it was inappropriate for a Christian minister to convert to Buddhism (or to have covertly been a Buddhist all along; I've read conflicting things about which is the case with Vosper) and turn her church into a zen-dō over the objections of a supermajority of the congregants?

She's led the church since 1997. Congregations come and go for a variety of reasons, particularly in countries where Christianity is in flux and general decline. She has a congregation and from what I've read they are happy with her. Who is to say it would have been higher had she not been there? She is good for her congregation and they are the ones that matter.

The first article that I read about her specifically said that two-thirds of the congregation left in one fell swoop at one point. This strikes me as the sort of thing that most people would be willing to characterize as, at the very least, a serious error in responsiveness to the needs of the congregation as it then existed (as opposed to the congregation as it's existed since (ship of Theseus, et cetera), who, yes, matter too, and, yes, seem very happy with her). Granted, there are things that she could have done to cause this outcome that would have been good and even brave (taking a stand for some just but unpopular political or social cause, rooting out some sort of corruption within the parish), but 'de-Christianizing her Christian church' just doesn't strike me, as a Christian, as one of them, and I don't think it's fair to expect me to feel otherwise.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't even know what I'd call my religion at this point.  Kinda Christian?  I'd probably only convert to church going Christian.  But then only reluctantly.

[TJ in Oregon]

Basically the same thing all the other Catholics have said, Eastern Orthodoxy, followed by all the other eastern churches, followed by Lutheranism then all the other types of Protestantism, etc.

After that, I must agree with Realisticidealist and say Zoroastrianism is an underrated option.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Probably some Adventist sect or Mormonism.

[they don't love you like i love you]

After that, I must agree with Realisticidealist and say Zoroastrianism is an underrated option.

Except they don't allow converts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, I read through the Augsburg Confession (or the summary Wikipedia makes of it) to see if there was anything in it I'd find unacceptable. I'm mostly happy with it. XVII is the only article I must reject outright, though I'd be curious to see if some Lutheran theologians have managed to find a way around it compatible with universal salvation (wouldn't solve everything, but it would help). Apart from that, I can accept X under a specific definition of truth, XVIII is a bit confusing and I'm not sure if I can agree (I'd like to understand better how this view differs from the Calvinist one), I disagree with XXIII but not on theological grounds, and I'd argue with respect to XXV that all sins ought to be confessed eventually and that this might be understood as part of the justification/sanctification process. On the other hand, I really like VI, VII, VIII, XIII, XVI, XX, XXI, XXIV, XXVI and XXVIII, which go to the core of why I prefer Protestantism to Catholicism.

[RI]

After that, I must agree with Realisticidealist and say Zoroastrianism is an underrated option.

Except they don't allow converts.

Mostly because it's tied to an ethnicity similar to Judaism (except even more strict), and conservative Zoroastrians (esp. in India) believe only their savior can convert people. Iranian Zoroastrians do sometimes accept converts, but it's a complicated political issue there.  

[Arturo Belano]

I'd probably become a Quaker.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I'd convert from Agnosticism to Atheism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

XVIII is a bit confusing and I'm not sure if I can agree (I'd like to understand better how this view differs from the Calvinist one).

To put it simply, Calvinists and Lutherans both believe in unconditional election, i.e., God selects those who will receive salvation. Where they differ is that Calvinists believe his irresistible grace ensures that while Lutherans believe that we humans are free to resist the freely offered gift of grace. The bit about the Pelagians is rejecting the possibility that by our own unassisted free will we can obtain grace.

[Ronnie]

Jainism

[Antonio the Sixth]

XVIII is a bit confusing and I'm not sure if I can agree (I'd like to understand better how this view differs from the Calvinist one).

To put it simply, Calvinists and Lutherans both believe in unconditional election, i.e., God selects those who will receive salvation. Where they differ is that Calvinists believe his irresistible grace ensures that while Lutherans believe that we humans are free to resist the freely offered gift of grace. The bit about the Pelagians is rejecting the possibility that by our own unassisted free will we can obtain grace.

That makes sense, thanks. Then I can can agree with the Lutheran view on the condition that grace is granted to everyone.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Probably some nondenominational church. I like the cultural identity of Mormons but obviously differ sharply from their theology since I am an LCMS Lutheran.

[Californiadreaming]

Buddhism.

This, I suppose.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Catholicism, due to the fact that most of my family is Catholic and so I am already pretty familiar with the forms and strictures of the faith.