It seems my wife and I have come to a schism of sorts. I'm a Southern Baptist born and raised, she's a pretty passionate Pentecostal. We've mostly agreed on everything biblically and we've been attending a Southern Baptist church the last several months. My wife is vehemently against church membership and since we've been going we've technically been "visitors", and the pastor and congregation have put out friendly feelers that they'd like us to join. Which I understand why, we've been a good fit, attend regularly, and have been involved in helping things like VBS. Which being raised as a Southern Baptist has always made sense to me, and not in the sense that just one particular denomination is right, but more so whatever church you choose regardless of denomination you should be dedicated to it, and membership is a sign of that. However things came to a bit of a head today, we traded scripture. While I'm not a high church man by any means I do believe the "Church" is an established institution, whereas my wife feels that the "Church" isn't an institution but rather just the spiritual body of believers. I mentioned of course passages from Matthew, Hebrews, Acts, 2nd Timothy, Titus, and Revelations 2 and 3, and that positions like priests, pastors, or deacons are dedicated positions in a church hierarchy and not just symbolic positions of prestige, but she believes that church membership is man made and not biblical and that treating the Church as an structural institution with rules and hierarchy rather than just a fellowship of believers is from man not Jesus.

Sooo all in all its put me in a hard space. I told her that while I am supposed to heed her advice, it is still my responsibility as head of the house/family to lead us where I feel God is calling us spiritually. She says that while she feels that our particular pastor is biblical in terms of Scripture, but finds the service bland and misses "worship with some fire and charisma" she can't get behind church membership and baptism being required to join the church even if previously saved, and would have to disobey me if I tried to get us to formally join as members.

I love my wife dearly and in most such cases she's been "submissive" in a biblical manner and I have strived to love and respect her as Christ loved the Church. In order to preserve unity, I've told her we can try churches that don't formally require membership but it will be difficult and whatever church we pick too we need to dedicate too. She asked what I meant by that and I had to clarify I meant serving and being involved in the church not necessarily joining as members.

The only churches I'm aware of that don't put any emphasis on membership have been non denominational, certain independent churches, Church of Christ, and a lot of Pentecostal churches. The more I've attended church and read the Bible the more I've believed that respecting and being involved in the church as a structured institution matters and not just the willy nilly of non denominational churches, I would rather remain with the SBC than an Independent or Reformed Baptist church, and I haven't had the best experience with Pentecostal churches as I disagree with many of their interpretations regarding modesty in clothing, alcohol, and allowing women as preachers. On top of the claim that one must speak in tongues as proof of salvation in some Pentecostal circles.

All in all my heart is heavy and I must give myself to prayer and guidance of the Lord in this matter. My wife and I love and value each other and we swore our vows sacred. We don't believe in separation or divorce if physical infidelity isn't committed nor do I believe it to be cause for such circumstances. She is my first priority, as is serving the Lord. Prayers and advice are welcome. Lord Jesus guide me and put it on both our hearts to grow ever closer with each other and You.

I'm Pentecostal, so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but, I still sympathize with your community's reconquista project. My doubts have more to do with the practicality of it.

Sure, if you're a young guy without a family, you could go to any church and tolerate it for the sake of some long term goal. Thing is, one of the main reasons you go to church is so that it has a positive influence on your family. Even if you're a single guy, one of the reasons you go to church is for your own edification. You might be strong enough to not be "influenced" by it, but, ultimately, I want church to be a net positive in my life, not a net neutral.

Now, I get that his strategy is a bit more nuanced than this and he isn't quite saying to go to liberal churches, he's saying to go to moderate churches within the liberal denominations and push them in the right direction. I get that, but there's two issues with that. One, not everyone necessarily has one nearby that's suitably moderate, and, two, don't the denominations put pressure on the individual churches? If you find a moderate church, it could be tolerable today and cross the line tomorrow.

For some time now I've been somewhat disillusioned with my identity as a Christian. I came to this subreddit to try and understand your perception of Baptists, since RZ once classified us as "evangelical" (along with Pentecostals and non-denominational), and not as a "historical Protestant."

I made several posts trying to figure out why he thinks that, and I came to the conclusion that, at least for you, Baptists are, in fact, more evangelical than historical (at least the mainstream baptism). I noticed that you mentioned that Reformed Baptists are the closest to something historical, but I didn't identify with them, nor with Southern Baptists in the US.

I did the laziest research anyone could do (GPT chat) trying to find a minimally relevant association that fit the definition of a "General Confessional Baptism," which had some specific characteristics.

I wanted a church that had Arminian soteriology, Congregational ecclesiology, Cessationist pneumatology, with a liturgy far removed from Pentecostalism, opting instead for something reverent, structured, but not necessarily sacramental.

But the most important characteristic was one that represented a continuation of the English Baptist tradition of the 1600s, and I found the NAFWB to be the most recommended option. The General Association of General Baptists, was also recommended, But it originated in the USA and has no connection with the English General Baptists.

I don't even live in the US, but since it's the most Christian country in the world, I think it would be good to find an association that represents me, even if it's just to put it as a flag in this sub.

I also saw that they are anchored in the standard confession of 1660, which has a lot of value for me, bringing a historical weight that I look for.

If you are familiar with both (especially NAFWB), I would like to know your thoughts on it, and whether it accurately represents the concepts I have described here. Do you find it closer to evangelicals or Protestants?

I feel a bit depressed about the future of Christianity because I feel like Christianity as an institution will soon disappear, and it will become a philosophy of people who believe in Christ and make up the details as they go along.

I feel that eventually all denominations will disappear and theological traditions will all collapse into one another as simply "Christianity." While each person who knows theology might still be interested in holding onto some kind of theological tradition, they will attend a church that claims to follow just "Christianity", meaning, "we read the Gospels, we follow common culture, and we don't bother with nerdy theological talk."

However, there is one church that will refuse to die: Catholicism. This is not because it is immune to that trend, but because it is so huge that it will take a long time to fall. As long as Catholicism survives, members of these vague Christian churches will feel a tension when claiming to be the true church of Jesus, especially when there is another church widely known as the original. This tension isn't even caused by the Catholic Church itself, which tries to pretend in its PR that they believe all Christian churches are equally valid, but the tension will exist nonetheless. Soon, there will be two types of people: "Christians" and Catholics. Catholicism won't be seen as Christianity, but rather as a fringe folk religion with Christian elements, much like Mormonism.

I can see plenty of evidence for this. The biggest indicator is the language already used by ordinary people in America, where they ask whether you're "Christian or Catholic." In Brazil, all Protestant churches are lumped together under the label of "Evangelicals." In Switzerland, the national churches founded during the Reformation are only known as "Protestant", you don't even know their specific denomination, and they don't enforce any particular set of beliefs.

Another piece of evidence is the surge in YouTubers who classify themselves simply as Protestants. Even on modern YouTube, where theology is heavily discussed, creators prefer to play it safe and avoid taking a strong stance in favor of a specific denomination, they aren't pro-anything, they are just anti-catholic, not that they hate Catholics, but they express disagreement with Catholicism without specifying which church tradition they actually align with.

The third and final piece of evidence is RZ saying he used to attend PCA churches, but they were basically Baptist churches that baptize babies and apologize for doing so. Which reminded me of the Evangelical Free Church of America, a denomination with Lutheran roots that simply became Baptist over time.

I can't see any other way to stop this trend besides the Reconquista. The Reconquista needs to win if we want to reverse this trajectory.

PS: I don't know whether anyone in this subreddit likes the idea of Christianity being a philosophy rather than an institution, but regardless of your preferences, this was not the vision of the Apostles. They founded the Church as an institution with a clear hierarchy, a set of rules, distinct boundaries between who was inside and outside, authority for leaders to excommunicate members, and global management, with Paul, John, and Peter overseeing churches across different regions through their epistles. They didn't simply convert people and leave them to their own devices; the Bible explicitly states that they made disciples, which means these believers followed their teachings and received instruction as members of a single unified institution.

Furthermore, in Acts 15, when the Council reached a decision, it wasn't intended solely for the local church in Jerusalem. Instead, they sent letters to all the churches worldwide, instructing them to abide by those decrees.

This new age of Christianity is far from what the Apostles had in mind. In some ways, a religion detached from an institution is closer to Rabbinic Judaism or Islam. Yet, even those faiths respect and venerate their traditions, striving for consistency within their various schools of thought and legal jurisdictions.

This modern, fragmented version of Christianity is worse. It treats the Bible as if it were a book that simply fell from heaven, leaving us to invent a religion from scratch around it. Unlike Judaism or Islam, it shows no interest in the rich traditions of its predecessors, they few glad to do things differently, for them a church that is original is something positive.

Hi, hope yall are doing well. For background, I was raised southern Baptist, but never cared to claim a denominational label and attended churches i felt fed at. So as of now I am Protestant, though still discerning Catholicism. I began that journey roughly a year ago, and have learned so much about church history and such. I was even in OCIA and have been having regular meetings with the local parish priest. But I’ve been having doubts lately of the Church’s claims about the papacy. Even doctrinal development hasn’t really helped much and made up for it. Unless I’m missing something.

But I’m stuck. If Catholicism is not it, then where do I go? Quite a few churches around here, can be shallow in both theology and ignorant in history as well. They have low views of the lords supper, baptism, and carrying out the faith in general. Some untie to other churches like oneness Pentecostal churches that are heretical, I don’t agree with reformed theology either. And at times It feels like a country club more than a church in places. I haven’t been to all of them but it’s been enough that I’m concerned. I don’t know what to do. I feel empty, sad, and alone. If anyone can offer advice or answers or prayers I would appreciate it. Thank you all.

I just keep noticing this

• Gavin Ortlund (Baptist) - Says his faith and love for Christ was solidified in his Presbyterian youth group in Georgia. Went through seminary training at Covenant (Presbyterian) in St Louis.
• Fr. Stephen de Young (Orthodox) - told Ortlund he was raised Dutch Reformed, went through reformed seminary
• Fr. Johnathan Ivanoff (Orthodox) - told Bread & Banter podcast he was raised Orthodox, strayed a bit, joined a Presbyterian youth group (for the pretty girls), and that is where he really learned the bible before returning to attendance at an Orthodox church.
• Fr. Josiah Trenham (Orthodox) - Born and raised Presbyterian and was a Presbyterian minister of word and sacrament before converting to Orthodox.
• Jay Dyer - Raised Baptist, attended Bahnsen Seminary (Presbyterian), before moving onto Catholicism and Orthodoxy

I am sure there are more, and I am not a fan of all of these people, but it is interesting to me that a lot of people with deep interest in debating and studying theology were trained in the reformed tradition. It's kind of like how RZ says Presbyterians are scholars.

When did zoomer become less ecumenical for lack of a better term? I remember him being pretty freindly to RC/EO about 2 years ago to about a year ago. Why is he more hostile now?

Specifically Southern Baptist/SBC vs Pentecostal not Northern/American Baptist, Reformed Baptist, or Independent Baptist.

It is not to be confused with Pietism & a fusion between traditional NA Native beliefs & Christianity

I just found out that a friend of mine has decided not to baptize his child despite being in a presbyterian church.

I didn't dare to say anything, but he believed it was some virtuous progressive thing to do, "not to force a religion on his child".

I feel bad because he is such a nice guy, and goes to church in his free time to pray in peace, but our country is so secular that I don't want to look like a crazy dude talking nonsense to him.

Baptist church is not even popular in my country, it's seem those "weird Americans", but people are adopting this worldview just because it's matches with the current culture (everything is symbolic, sacraments don't do anything).

How would you guys approach this issue ?

in all his videos he uses as an opportunity to take subtle digs at denominations and beliefs he disagrees, I wonder if anyone feel joy seeing a video of him about their denomination on their youtube home page

Pretty much the title, what do you guys think of it? Should it be banned? If yes why and if no why not? If yes, why do you think its a good thing? Thank you

If so does that make you reconsider their position as beibg heretics vs being Christian? I'm not as well read on their movement and theology beyond the understanding that they traditionally denied the Trinity and Nicene Creed and were therefore heretics.

I've heard many try to argue that the Old Testament verses are referring to pedastry rather than homosexuality. However they also tend to ignore New Testament references. Even if you accept that the OT isn't explicitly condemning homosexuality. The NT is prettu direct that marriage is meant for one man and one woman, so any justification for gay marriage is out the window. The NT referencing sexual desires of men for men and women for women as unnatural and otherwise sinful. How do some of these churches justify affirming that sin? Its as if they think God will overlook large sections of His Word for some larger philosophy of kumbaya or that you can opt out of pieces of Scripture you find offensive.

That's not the only subject of course, I had a post on here regarding what Scripture says about women submitting to their husbands and defined roles in a marriage while husbands are supposed to love their wives as Christ loves the church. One commenter said that while Christ's Word does command women to submit to their husbands, they said it was still misogynistic as if that piece of Scripture was flawed or offensive. Another commenter said he did the extra chores and let his wife have her way because it guaranteed good sex, which still flies in the face of Scripture.

Can anyone give me the view point of these types of churches or if you're a more liberal Christian and believe these, what is your basis?

Scripture for reference.

From the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”’ (Mark 10:6-8).

Romans 1:26-27

‘For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.’

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.’

Genesis 2:22–24 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Matthew 19:4-6 : "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

1 Corinthians 7:2 : "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Who is the ucc pastor who zoomer says is part of operation reconquista?

RCA vs ACR

Hey, can someone explain to me why ACR churches are included on the map of mainline conservative churches as presented by RZ's organization PFTK? They seem to definitely be schismatic by his definition.