Churches that accept everyone

[nobspeople]

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational) whose doors are open to everyone and preach love and acceptance. They don't teach (again, as far as I can tell based on what those who have attended tell me) sins like many other churches do. For example, they are open to people who have changed genders, gay couples and singles, unwed mothers, those with substance abuse issues and those whom have been in prison and are out, trying to make their lives in to something more than being a felon for example.
They do teach sins like stealing, hating, killing, etc are bad/sinful, however. The churches themselves are in large, old, architecturally significant buildings, but the congregations are small and they bring in little money (aka not a mega church). They seem to be very much like Jesus is said to have been in the current Christian bible.

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

[Difflugia]

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

Back when my wife was still working through her repressive, fundamentalist upbringing, we attended a UCC church that was "Open and Affirming." The problem with that particular church is that there was no real feeling of community. What most of the congregants had in common is that they just didn't fit in anywhere else, but they didn't really fit in well with each other, either. The pastor tried hard to build an active, progressive, Christian church, but I don't think the area has enough progressive Christians to support that kind of vision. The progressives went to the UU church a few blocks away and the Christians wanted something more conservative.

No conservatives would consider them "biblically correct." The pastor was a lesbian and she and I used to discuss which things Paul got wrong and right. She was also a fan of Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose theology sometimes is hard to distinguish from atheism. On the other hand, she was in practice one of the most Christian people I've met. She genuinely believed that God is real, He has a plan for humanity, and it was her job to help others be a part of that plan. She saw the Bible as presenting God's message "in a glass darkly," but worked hard trying to pull together a coherent theology in which "God is love" means something. As far as I'm concerned, she took the only approach to the Bible that could possibly reconcile it with a God that is both real and benevolent, but that meant treating the authors as the people they were rather than the inspired mouthpieces that most Christians imagine them to be.

I enjoyed it because I really liked the pastor and it was a small congregation, so I got more than my share of time to talk to her. My wife found the congregation depressing, though, and we ended up going to the UU church up the street, where we still attend semi-regularly (or at least we did until God rained COVID death down upon the world). A couple of years after we stopped going, the pastor resigned and spent a year in Israel before finding a new congregation. The new pastor has built up attendance quite a bit, but we haven't been back to see what the difference is. I do note that, although the church is still listed as "Open and Affirming," the website downplays that a lot more than it did before. I assume that they've shifted away from the "progressive" end of things to be a bit more toward the "Christian" end.

[nobspeople]

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

Back when my wife was still working through her repressive, fundamentalist upbringing, we attended a UCC church that was "Open and Affirming." The problem with that particular church is that there was no real feeling of community. What most of the congregants had in common is that they just didn't fit in anywhere else, but they didn't really fit in well with each other, either. The pastor tried hard to build an active, progressive, Christian church, but I don't think the area has enough progressive Christians to support that kind of vision. The progressives went to the UU church a few blocks away and the Christians wanted something more conservative.

No conservatives would consider them "biblically correct." The pastor was a lesbian and she and I used to discuss which things Paul got wrong and right. She was also a fan of Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, whose theology sometimes is hard to distinguish from atheism. On the other hand, she was in practice one of the most Christian people I've met. She genuinely believed that God is real, He has a plan for humanity, and it was her job to help others be a part of that plan. She saw the Bible as presenting God's message "in a glass darkly," but worked hard trying to pull together a coherent theology in which "God is love" means something. As far as I'm concerned, she took the only approach to the Bible that could possibly reconcile it with a God that is both real and benevolent, but that meant treating the authors as the people they were rather than the inspired mouthpieces that most Christians imagine them to be.

I enjoyed it because I really liked the pastor and it was a small congregation, so I got more than my share of time to talk to her. My wife found the congregation depressing, though, and we ended up going to the UU church up the street, where we still attend semi-regularly (or at least we did until God rained COVID death down upon the world). A couple of years after we stopped going, the pastor resigned and spent a year in Israel before finding a new congregation. The new pastor has built up attendance quite a bit, but we haven't been back to see what the difference is. I do note that, although the church is still listed as "Open and Affirming," the website downplays that a lot more than it did before. I assume that they've shifted away from the "progressive" end of things to be a bit more toward the "Christian" end.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
Why do you think your wife found it depressing?
The church is larger now, do you think that's because people are looking for something with more structure (this is right that is wrong let's say) than the church was prior? Or what's your thoughts on that?
It's been my experience that these types of churches are usually small (in regards to attendance) or giant (aka mega churches). I don't personally know of any in my area that would be considered average size.

[Overcomer]

I find this a strange question in that all churches should be open to anybody and everybody who walks through their doors. After all, Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors who were the lowest of the low in his day and age. We are all sinners. Nobody has the right to think more highly of himself than of others. In fact, the Bible makes a point of saying that in Rom. 12:3.

However, that doesn't mean that the church is going to accept or agree with everything that everybody says or does. It also doesn't mean that the church isn't going to point out sin and help people overcome sin in their lives. A church fails people if its leaders and congregation members don't make an effort to do that. However, that is contingent on people's acceptance of Jesus which is the end goal for all truly Christian churches -- that everyone should come to a saving faith in Christ.

Certainly there are churches that are not based on the Bible or who take the bits of the Bible that they like and concentrate on them while dismissing everything else in God's Word. They are usually founded by people wishing to promote their own worldview in a religious setting. There is a "church" in Toronto, Canada, with an atheist "pastor" who has assembled a flock of non-believers who get together and listen to a secular humanist "sermon" and, according to the minister, "lift each other up in encouragement".

So there are all kinds of churches and some, while calling themselves Christian, aren't Christian at all except in name.

[bluegreenearth]

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational) whose doors are open to everyone and preach love and acceptance. They don't teach (again, as far as I can tell based on what those who have attended tell me) sins like many other churches do. For example, they are open to people who have changed genders, gay couples and singles, unwed mothers, those with substance abuse issues and those whom have been in prison and are out, trying to make their lives in to something more than being a felon for example.
They do teach sins like stealing, hating, killing, etc are bad/sinful, however. The churches themselves are in large, old, architecturally significant buildings, but the congregations are small and they bring in little money (aka not a mega church). They seem to be very much like Jesus is said to have been in the current Christian bible.

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

As an agnostic atheist, I enjoy attending the Unitarian Universalist church in my area. They draw inspiration from a variety of theistic and non-theistic sources to encourage civil discourse and embrace diversity of thought.

As for non-denominational Christian churches that exhibit similarly liberal values, it is difficult to know if their teachings are biblically correct because the contested meanings of various scriptures remain unresolved. As far as I can tell, no hermeneutical method is more reliable than any other. For this reason, it is probably best to not presume whether the teachings at a particular "Christian" church are truly Biblical or truly Christian.

[Difflugia]

Why do you think your wife found it depressing?

At that time, she was feeling like she needed to atone in some way for having been a part of the judgemental Christianity of the past. She began sharing the pastor's idea of a church that was socially active in positive ways, but not enough of the congregants really had their hearts into it and it was a small congregation to start with. Many of them seemed to be pining for the same conservative Christianity that she left, but for one reason or another, didn't feel welcome in those churches.

The church is larger now, do you think that's because people are looking for something with more structure (this is right that is wrong let's say) than the church was prior? Or what's your thoughts on that?

I really have no idea. It's entirely possible that the new pastor, whom I haven't met, is just more charismatic.

[Difflugia]

As an agnostic atheist, I enjoy attending the Unitarian Universalist church in my area. They draw inspiration from a variety of theistic and non-theistic sources to encourage civil discourse and embrace diversity of thought.

Yeah, the UU church has a fun mix. I'm in the minority as an atheist, but I'm not the only one. Several active members are local university professors, but there's also a neo-pagan contingent that coordinates workshops and seasonal rituals. I find those "special" Sundays a bit annoying, but my daughter loves them, so I keep my mouth shut. The pastor asks two or three congregants each week to prepare and deliver a five-minute talk before his sermon, which adds to both the diversity of thought and the overall feeling of being involved.

[bluegreenearth]

Yeah, the UU church has a fun mix. I'm in the minority as an atheist, but I'm not the only one. Several active members are local university professors, but there's also a neo-pagan contingent that coordinates workshops and seasonal rituals. I find those "special" Sundays a bit annoying, but my daughter loves them, so I keep my mouth shut. The pastor asks two or three congregants each week to prepare and deliver a five-minute talk before his sermon, which adds to both the diversity of thought and the overall feeling of being involved.

I completely support that strategy. In fact, I've argued that "Christian" churches should also invite people from different perspectives to speak in front of their congregations for no other reason than dispelling negative stereotypes against outsiders. Some Christian churches have done this to a limited extent but usually in the format of a debate rather than in the interest of dispelling stereotypes.

[Difflugia]

Certainly there are churches that are not based on the Bible or who take the bits of the Bible that they like and concentrate on them while dismissing everything else in God's Word. They are usually founded by people wishing to promote their own worldview in a religious setting.

All churches have to do that. The question is if they're honest about it.

Matthew 7:13-14 and John 3:16 can't be harmonized without doing violence to one or both. Salvation is either a gift or a reward and either Matthew or John was wrong. Pretending that they can both somehow be right is no more biblical than picking a compromise. As far as I'm concerned, the only truly biblical way to understand the New Testament is to recognize that all four evangelists meant exactly what they said, even when they conflict irreconcilably with each other.

[nobspeople]

Where I live, there are several churches (non-denominational) whose doors are open to everyone and preach love and acceptance. They don't teach (again, as far as I can tell based on what those who have attended tell me) sins like many other churches do. For example, they are open to people who have changed genders, gay couples and singles, unwed mothers, those with substance abuse issues and those whom have been in prison and are out, trying to make their lives in to something more than being a felon for example.
They do teach sins like stealing, hating, killing, etc are bad/sinful, however. The churches themselves are in large, old, architecturally significant buildings, but the congregations are small and they bring in little money (aka not a mega church). They seem to be very much like Jesus is said to have been in the current Christian bible.

What's you personal opinion of churches like this?
Are they biblically correct in their teachings?
Have you been to any and if so, did you like it?

As an agnostic atheist, I enjoy attending the Unitarian Universalist church in my area. They draw inspiration from a variety of theistic and non-theistic sources to encourage civil discourse and embrace diversity of thought.

As for non-denominational Christian churches that exhibit similarly liberal values, it is difficult to know if their teachings are biblically correct because the contested meanings of various scriptures remain unresolved. As far as I can tell, no hermeneutical method is more reliable than any other. For this reason, it is probably best to not presume whether the teachings at a particular "Christian" church are truly Biblical or truly Christian.

UUC sounds interesting. I have been thinking about attending something to that effect and may have to look for one in my area.
Thanks for the feedback.