First religion you'd convert to?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've been thinking about that a lot lately, actually. I don't really know the answer yet, but I'm very interested in figuring it out. Having only ever lived in countries and social groups of Christian culture and tradition, I have to assume that, if I returned to faith, it would most likely be a Christian faith. Sorry BRTD, but socialization isn't something you just shrug off. Maybe I'm wrong, though - I'm also very interested in learning more about non-Christian theologies, and if I actually manage to get to it, I might end up changing my mind. Still, I'll go with this default assumption.

I was raised Catholic (Italian normal), but even if I've recently grown to appreciate many aspects of Catholic theology and aesthetics, the issues I have with Catholicism are insurmountable. It's not just the fact that the Church as it exists strikes me - despite the best efforts of many wonderful people in it, including Francis - as a deeply corrupt, self-serving, and oppressive institution that is usually as lenient and accommodating to the powerful as it is ruthless and intransigent in enforcing its reactionary ideology on the powerless. Even if, as I very strongly hope, the Church could reform itself and become a force for good, the fact that a Church can turn into this suggests, in my opinion, a more fundamental problem. I'm not comfortable with such a strongly hierarchical Church. I'd argue that divine authority is something too great, too pure, too absolute to be vested, even if only for specific purposes and in a specific sense, in fallible men (because yeah, as it happens, they're all men - that's a big part of the problem actually). This is also a problem in Orthodox Churches, even if my understanding is that their hierarchy is somewhat less strict.

That leaves the wide, wide world of Protestantism. I wish I knew more about the myriad of Protestant denominations, to get a good sense of which ones would appeal to me the most. At this stage, I only know that I can exclude Evangelicalism and the most typically American forms of Protestantism - because Biblical literalism strikes me as utterly sterile intellectually - Calvinism - because some aspects of its theology are unacceptable to me - Mormonism - again, too hierarchical, and some of its beliefs and rites would be too heterodox to me - or a BRTD-style hipster Church - because what's even the point of a Church if it's functionally equivalent to a music fandom or a tumblr? Of the sects I'm somewhat familiar with, Lutheranism is the one I find most interesting, but I don't know it nearly well enough to tell if it would really be a good fit. I'd be very interested if some of our Lutheran posters (both Germans/Scandinavians and Americans) could share a bit of their religious life.

Generally speaking, the denomination I'd like best would be non-hierarchical Church with a strong sense of community, distinctive cultural practices, and historical depth, that would also be conducive to these basic tenets:
- Believing in universal salvation.
- Believing in free will.
- Believing in the absolute equality of all human beings in worth, dignity, and ability to receive God's grace.
- Paying more than lip service to the "hate the sin, not the sinner" maxim (which entails a particular view of what sin is and how it can be expunged).
- Never taking "because God wants it" as the final trump card in a moral debate - instead inquiring why God wants it, and not limiting us to a literal reading of the Bible to answer the question.
- Not requiring too many beliefs pertaining to the material realm.

I realize I might be asking a bit too much. And I also realize that, for someone who doesn't strictly speaking believe in God, I seem to have a lot of thoughts on how He should be worshiped.

[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.

[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.

[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.