What do you think of Denominations within the Christian church?

[Maeglin]

I want to know what everyone's view of the Christian Denominations is. I am Christian, and I for one cannot stand all of the division. We are supposed to be one body of Christ but instead we are divided into countless parts. I am disgusted by it, and it is the reason why I prefer non-denominational churches now. What do you guys think?

[Athelas]

People should be able to be any kind of Christian they want to be. Look what life was like when there was only the unquestionable authority of the Catholic church. Get branded a heretic, and you're history. Diversity like this is really the only way to keep peace in this kind of religion

[Maeglin]

Yes, but we are supposed to be one body, as the Bible says....therein lies the problem....we are disobeying and clear and direct command from scripture. But then again, everyone does whenever we sin....so I guess it is to be expected.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Glorfindel1187
Yes, but we are supposed to be one body, as the Bible says....therein lies the problem....we are disobeying and clear and direct command from scripture. But then again, everyone does whenever we sin....so I guess it is to be expected.
The denominational splits are because of two basic things: interpretation of doctrine and conservative vs. liberal ideas neither of which is easy to reconcile.

There are some organisations that believe, "Doctrine divides, Christ unites!" and want to do away with it all and "just love each other". However, you cannot do away with doctrine and if we all had open minds and explored the scriptures with an open heart, we'd probably be less divided on doctrinal issues.

Though there is some disunity among Christians, I believe that Christ was mostly talking about unity in terms of our foundational beliefs and how we conduct ourselves one to another. Whether I believe if my soul goes to heaven or stays in the ground should not effect the foundational belief that Jesus' death has given us eternal life whenever we believe it comes to fruition. A lack of unity like the Bible mentions are like those "Christians" who believe that Jesus didn't do any miracles and wasn't resurrected after his death, as opposed to those who believe that He was the son of God, or those who pooh-pooh the whole Bible away (and there are some Christians who do basically do this).

[Eriol]

A piece of Christ's prayer for his disciples (John 17):


17 Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

19 And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

20 And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me.

21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.

23 I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

No one can read that and not be deeply grieved at the disunity of Christians. I know I am. For many reasons, and perhaps the closest to my heart is the simple psychological reason "there is so much they are missing!".

So much.

:(

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
No one can read that and not be deeply grieved at the disunity of Christians. I know I am. For many reasons, and perhaps the closest to my heart is the simple psychological reason "there is so much they are missing!".
So much.
:(

Exactly. Which is why the Protestants split from the Catholic Church. There was so much that they were missing. ;) (Thought I'd just throw that in for Eriol)


I think the bigger deal is not the split of Protestantism and Catholicism, but all the different divisions in the Protestant faith alone.

To be really honest, there is no reason why most of the churches can't be one. They basically believe in the same major things: Sunday worship, eternal hell, immortality of the soul, grace by faith, the ten commandments (though many churches are abandoning them - I think this might be a thread on its own I'll have to start). What could truly be so different that dozens of denominations are needed?

I know with my own faith (as many of you know) there are many different views that differ from the traditional sense of some things, though all are biblical. Extinction of the wicked, conditional mortality, different apocalyptic interpretation, and Sabbath worship to name a few. So there should be some different faiths, but can anyone really tell me the major divisions of these groups? I would be interested in knowing why they can't become one?

Methodist
Mennonite
Baptist
Presbyterian
Lutheran
Evangelical

What serious doctrinal differences are there that they can't put aside to be together?

[Feanorian]

What serious doctrinal differences are there that they can't put aside to be together?

I do not think the 'dis-unity' (if you can call it that) is so bad. It would be nice if everyone went to one denomination but nothing in this world is perfect not even our churches. However, denominations have matured and can relate to eachother peacefully. My church is non-denominational and we have worked along side Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. I dont think the difference between these religions and those between say these three and Mormanism (not meant to offend) is a much greater gap.

A Catholic who loves and trusts in Jesus is no more a Christian (or a sinner) then say a Baptist or Protestant.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Feanorian
A Catholic who loves and trusts in Jesus is no more a Christian (or a sinner) then say a Baptist or Protestant.

That's right, but Catholics have a more complete worship than Protestants. Just as a Protestant who does go to church has a more complete worship than a Protestant who does not go to Church (or a Catholic that does not go to Church, for that matter). The nonChurch-goer is missing on a great deal; so is the Protestant church-goer, compared to the Catholic church-goer.

This is probably not the most important reason for me to deplore the division; I suppose the most important reason is Christ's discourse, quoted above. He wants us to be one.

But even so the feeling that Protestants are missing out on a wonderful thing is very close to my heart.

[Maeglin]

Originally posted by Eriol
That's right, but Catholics have a more complete worship than Protestants. Just as a Protestant who does go to church has a more complete worship than a Protestant who does not go to Church (or a Catholic that does not go to Church, for that matter). The nonChurch-goer is missing on a great deal; so is the Protestant church-goer, compared to the Catholic church-goer.

But even so the feeling that Protestants are missing out on a wonderful thing is very close to my heart.

How are we (or how am I), as a Protestant, missing out on something that is so much better? What makes the Catholic Church so much more complete? I do not mean to stereotype, but it has been my experience that most Catholic's I meet are not true Christians. Sure they go to church, but do they really believe in God? Many seem to be very liberal (mind you, there are Protestants that are the same). One thing I see in the Catholic Church that makes the worship much less complete is that many just stop going to church altogether when they are "confirmed." They think they are automatically saved and just stop going to church, and thereby they stop serving God, and forget who/what God is (if indeed they ever really knew).

On the other hand, I have met and know of many Catholics that aren't like this (2 of my best friends for example, as well as the Pope!! He's not like that! Though I've never met the Pope).:D

But anyway, what makes our worship so much less complete?

[Eriol]

Well, of course non-church going Catholics are missing much more than church-going Protestants :).

What you are missing is The Eucharist. The Real Presence of Christ.

Let me repeat that for emphasis. The Real Presence of Christ.

I've discussed that with some Protestants on TTF... you think that the eucharist is symbolic, a representation of Christ, or something like that. The Eucharist at a Catholic mass -- bread and wine -- ARE Christ.

That's what you are missing -- The Real Presence of Christ.

:(

[Maeglin]

Okay now.......

I have discussed that with my Catholic friends, and they both dislike the the whole Eucharist deal. How can the bread and the wine possibly turn into a real being within you? The presence of Christ is already there if you are a true believer!! The Catholics that go to church and don't really believe do not have Christ in them just because they drink the cup and eat the bread! Also....if we are missing it as you say, why is it that your church will not allow us to take part in it if we visit? Protestant Churches allow all Christians to take part in communion....but at the Catholic church I am not allowed to take part. And so basically if I'm not taking part the Catholic's also believe that I'm going to Hell. My friends disagree with this idea and feel bad when I can't take part if I go to there Catholic Church but they can at mine, so they often joke that I'll be fine cause it'll be dry heat, and they joke because they don't like that aspect of their faith.

[Eriol]

As for why you can't take the Eucharist without proper preparation, I guess 1 Corinthians is the best answer.

As for the doctrine of the Real Presence, John 6 would be the best answer.

(It is fun to use the Scripture to defend Catholic claims against Protestants :) ).

I can't explain the views of your Catholic friends -- they seem to miss the significance of the greatest miracle on earth, that happens at every mass. Not only Protestants are missing on that, as you see :(. They don't really believe the Real Presence, even though this is probably the most explicit doctrine ever uttered by Christ (check John 6). Odd.

By the way, the bread and the wine do not turn into Christ "within us". They are Christ as soon as they are consecrated -- at the altar.

Christ is present in every Christian, yes. But Christ is present in a much more special way in the Eucharist.

If I told you that Christ is physically, materially present in my Church at every mass, and that I can relate in a very intimate way with Him, wouldn't you agree that you would be missing a lot?

You can disbelieve in the doctrine of the Eucharist -- I suppose this is a subject for another thread. But what I was expressing above was my own feelings. I believe that Protestants, and many Catholics, are missing on that real, physical, material presence of Christ.

It means a lot to me :(. I wished you (and every other person on earth) could partake of this bread.

[Athelas]

Could it be that what is most sad about the disagreement between denominations is the time wasted in spiritual one-upmanship?

My worship can beat up your worship. Good grief.

We're all equal in the eyes of the Lord, except some are more equal. Right.

[Maeglin]

ohh I partake of the bread in my church...and I believe just as strongly in my faith as you do in yours....but this is a topic for debate in another thread...which we will have to start.;)

Edit: Athelas I was posting at the same exact time as you. And you are right about this spiritual one-upmanship, I won't deny it. This is why I hate the division...but even so I will defend my faith if it is, (as I see it), attacked, even though the attack wasn't intentional (I don't think).

[Eriol]

I wasn't attacking your faith, Glorfindel... I was just describing mine. Inherent in this description of my faith is the fact that it involves the Real Presence of Christ in our worship; since I know you love Christ, I conclude that you are missing on a very great thing; and you probably would agree with me if you agreed with the doctrinal issue. Why would that be an attack?

:confused:

As for Athelas, I'll repeat what I said earlier -- the most important reason for grieving over the disunity of Christians is simply the fact that Christ does not want it. I truly don't know about "one-upmanship". I've talked with many Protestants here on TTF without any feelings either of superiority or inferiority, either from me or from them.

Open discussion is not "one-upmanship".

[Maeglin]

I didn't mean that I see it as an attack so much as that....I just thought it was strange when you said that we are missing something, when we feel we are missing nothing. But anyway, I have great respect for you and your church, and we shall discuss this elsewhere, on an appropriate thread for it. (I'll make one...or you can beat me to it if you want, since I might not be on again for a couple of days).;)

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
I was just describing mine. Inherent in this description of my faith is the fact that it involves the Real Presence of Christ in our worship; since I know you love Christ, I conclude that you are missing on a very great thing; and you probably would agree with me if you agreed with the doctrinal issue.
Hmmm.....I think I am going to open a new thread on this....

[Athelas]

>Open discussion is not "one-upmanship".<

>Catholics have a more complete worship than Protestants.<

THAT is one-upmanship.

[Ciryaher]

Eriol, this is one of the few times I find myself disagreeing with you, and strongly at that.

"Missing out on something"? You are gravely mistaken if you think that eating a cracker and drinking some alcohol or going to a building to listen to an old man in fancy robes babbling about who is and isn't going to Heaven is giving you some spiritual advantage. My entire paternal family is Catholic, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of them went to hell when the time came. They go to church and take the Eucharest, but they certainly don't get any closer to Christ. They are hateful, underhanded people and by your standards, they are closer to Christ than I, because I do not go to church and I do not and WILL not take the Eucharest in a Catholic Church. *stops before he says something rude but true by his experiences with Catholics* I am offended that you think you and your practices are superiour. Pointless ceremonies won't get your name in the Good Book; it's what's in your heart, not what's in your stomach.

At any rate, I think that denominations are unwise and pointless, but all worship in their own way, so I suppose they are inevitable.

[Eriol]

No, Athelas, it is not one-upmanship; unless you think that claiming that "I am a Christian" is one-upmanship on nonChristians. Obviously, then, to claim "I am not a Christian" is one-upmanship on Christians; and when Aulë and Idril claim that they believe that there is nothing after death (on another thread), they are showing "one-upmanship" against all believers. Of course there is something wrong with that line of reasoning.

To state your faith is not one-upmanship.

According to my faith, non-Catholics are missing on a big thing when they don't partake of the Eucharist. Sorry if that offends you, but it is what I believe.

Ciryaher, I never said that the Eucharist saves. I never said that eating the Eucharist is a guarantee of sanctity, or of salvation. Just as meeting the real Christ in Palestine when he was around was no guarantee of that.

I said simply this: Christ, the real Christ, is materially present in the wine and bread of the Catholic mass. Anyone who loves Christ can see that, if I am right, non-Catholics are missing on a great miracle. You can all believe I am wrong about that, and keep on thinking that you are missing on no big deal, just "crackers and alcohol" :D. BUT, if you believed in what I believe, you would agree that you are missing on a great deal.

I don't understand the violent reaction. You guys simply don't believe that Christ is materially there, so what you should be doing is shaking your heads and saying "poor, deluded Eriol", not getting angry.

I never said that Catholics are morally superior (they aren't :(), or more liable to salvation because of their worship, or any of the things you are angry about. I just said that I believe that Christ is really present in the Catholic mass, materially present (as opposed to spiritually present -- Christ is spiritually present in every Christian).

That's all.

[Athelas]

"Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all who still oppose him"~Haldir

[Mrs. Maggott]

In the year 1054 A.D., the once united Christian Church went into schism. In the West, the Church was under the Patriarch of the only Western Apostolic See, Rome. In the East, were the remaining four Apostolic Sees, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. That was the beginning of the fragmentation of the Church. Who was to blame? Frankly, there was blame enough and to spare on both sides. However, while the Eastern Church has remained unified (although it presents itself as "national" Churches - Greece, Russia, Japan, Finland, Serbia, Syria, Albania, Bulgaria, America, etc.). The Western Church went through an even further breakup first through the actions of Henry VIII of England and later in the Protestant Reformation. And, of course, the Protestants themselves have further broken up into more and more "denominations", some large and some as small as house churches.

Interestingly enough, however, until the 1960s, no matter how great the various theological, creedal and liturgical differences among the various Christian groups, their moral doctrines were quite uniform. In fact, not only were Christians united morally, but so were Jews, Muslims and most other recognized religious groups. Unfortunately, that claim can no longer be made and this has caused even greater and more bitter divisions among Christians in this the beginning of the 21st century.

[Feanorian]

they seem to miss the significance of the greatest miracle on earth, that happens at every mass

That my friend is not the greatest miracle on the earth. Jesus dying on the cross, seperating the gap between God and Man is the greatest miracle on earth. The fact that we can live in God's presence and be loved by him is probably the next biggest miracle. God is totally pure, we are totally dirty. God's presence cannot tolerate sin, Jesus had to seperate himself from God which is the hardest thing ever in order to die on the cross and take our sins on himself.

That's right, but Catholics have a more complete worship than Protestants. Just as a Protestant who does go to church has a more complete worship than a Protestant who does not go to Church (or a Catholic that does not go to Church, for that matter). The nonChurch-goer is missing on a great deal; so is the Protestant church-goer, compared to the Catholic church-goer.

Once again I must disagree. At my church we take communion and it has the same significance to us. Jesus is with us "phyically" every day, how else do you explain you breathing right now?

When you say the Protestant church-goer is missing out there is not really anything I can say except that that is foolish to think. One does not need something blessed by the priest to remind him of God, that is why Jesus died on the cross, we are not bound to 'sacrifices' like those in the Old Testament who lived before Jesus came to earth.

[Mrs. Maggott]

And yet, we are told that we are "saved" in the Church; the early Christians built and maintained the Church as a community of believers; they did not go off and worship alone or merely in family groups. Men were appointed to lead the various Churches established by the Apostles which existed in different places after the expansion of the Faith beyond Jerusalem. This was necessary because there were only 12 Apostles and they could not be everywhere nor could they do everything - or live forever for that matter. The Twelve "laid hands" upon those chosen to lead in their absence and thus the structure of the Church was established. The Acts of the Apostles speak clearly of the role of "deacons" and "bishops" and the fact that there was indeed a "hierarchy" in the Church. Furthermore, liturgical worship in the early Church was based upon the worship in the Temple complete with the burning of incense and communal prayer. Only the act of sacrifice was omitted since the Great Sacrifice had already been accomplished. In its place, however, was the Eucharistical Banquet, so even that aspect of worship was observed.

It is also necessary to remember that the Church compiled Scripture - or at least the New Testament - and not the other way round. The great Councils of the Church established a uniform creed of belief as well as addressing the heresies that continued to arise with each new generation. Alas, far too many Christians are ignorant of the history of the Church prior to the Middle Ages or the Protestant Reformation. Furthermore, the history of the Church as it has oftimes been presented in the West is less than credible - or accurate.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Feanorian
[B]That my friend is not the greatest miracle on the earth. Jesus dying on the cross, seperating the gap between God and Man is the greatest miracle on earth. The fact that we can live in God's presence and be loved by him is probably the next biggest miracle. God is totally pure, we are totally dirty. God's presence cannot tolerate sin, Jesus had to seperate himself from God which is the hardest thing ever in order to die on the cross and take our sins on himself.

Of course, Feanorian... You know I agree with you. However, Christ's death happened only once; the Eucharistic transubstantiation occurs every day, in every Mass.

What was the greatest miracle on earth today? Christ's death on the cross? No. It is the eucharistic transubstantiation. Think about it. Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, takes on the appearance of wine and bread; and is touched, moved, and eaten/drank by people like you and me. Is that not a miracle?

The Incarnation was the greatest thing in History; and it happens again, at every Catholic mass. I'll say a bit more after the next quote...

Once again I must disagree. At my church we take communion and it has the same significance to us. Jesus is with us "phyically" every day, how else do you explain you breathing right now?

If it has the same significance to you, you must perforce realize that it is the greatest miracle on earth -- Incarnation of God. However, I don't know of any Protestant denominations that believe in Transubstantiation. So I don't see how it has the same significance to you. Are you saying that in your church, you believe that the bread and the wine are changed into Christ's flesh and blood? Like I do?

That's how it sounds when you say "it has the same significance".

When you say the Protestant church-goer is missing out there is not really anything I can say except that that is foolish to think. One does not need something blessed by the priest to remind him of God, that is why Jesus died on the cross, we are not bound to 'sacrifices' like those in the Old Testament who lived before Jesus came to earth.

It's not about "reminding". The Christian must remind himself, through his own faith. It's about matter; about reality. What is it that I eat at mass? Crackers and alcohol? or Christ's flesh and blood?

I think that I can be the greatest sinner on earth, and even so I'll be blessed to touch Christ's flesh and blood; and by the same token, the greatest saint on earth would feel he is missing a great (nay, a huge, an enormous, a greater-than-life) thing if he bypassed an opportunity to see and touch Christ. It is no guarantee of salvation; it is no guarantee of sanctity; and yet it is a blessing.

The easiest way to grasp what I am saying here (not necessarily agreeing ;)) is to imagine yourself at Palestine 20 centuries ago. I tell you that a rabbi named Jesus is coming into that building over there tomorrow, would you like to meet him? No matter what are your beliefs -- even if you are a saint and a soon-to-become Christian (after His death) -- if you don't go, I think it is pretty clear that you missed the opportunity of a lifetime. Objectively speaking. Perhaps "that building over there" is a house of scandal; perhaps everybody there is a big sinner; perhaps the person inviting you is an even bigger sinner. No matter what the circumstances, you missed the opportunity of a lifetime.

My point is simply that. In the Eucharist, Christ is really, materially present; as he was in Palestine, with flesh and blood. And we can touch him.

We have a thread just for discussing transubstantiation. But I wanted to make it clear (as clear as possible!) that I am NOT attacking any other Christian denomination here. I was asked a question, and I answered what I believe in. I'm not saying that Protestants are "bad Christians", because I know for a fact that they are not; in fact, I would even say that the "average Protestant" is much better than the "average Catholic" (if these things exist...) as regards conscious theological learning, and faith. I wouldn't say as regards salvation, because I have no idea of who's going to Hell or Heaven... Protestants usually are more versed in the Bible, and so on.

Once again, I just said that any Christian would love to touch the real flesh and blood of Christ; and that if I'm right about transubstantiation, all Protestants are missing on that great opportunity. If Catholic doctrine is right about this issue, then it is a major mistake by any Protestant. And, of course, if Catholic doctrine is wrong about this issue, then it is a major mistake by any Catholic...

I can't really see any attack in that reasoning, but if there is one, I offer my apologies.

P.S. Mrs. Maggott, I'm not familiar with Orthodox doctrine on the Eucharist. I think it is very much like the Catholic (perhaps with consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation). Is that correct?

[HLGStrider]

I voted I support them, but that is only under the following circumstances:

My town has a ton of churches. With a very few exceptions, they teach just about the same thing even though they are seperate denominations. I've been to the Baptist church and the Prespyterian Church and the Pentecostal church. . .I'm misspelling those, I know, but it is really late and I'm typing in a hurry. . .they're all about the same as far as doctrine goes.

However, they all have intensely different worship styles, different people, different moods.

People tend to worship in different ways, and the churches being seperate in my town has allowed for that more freely.

Of course, I haven't tried a few of the less mainstream protestant or any Catholic church.

I don't think we'd be united even if we had a universal church. I can get into theological arguements with pentecostals and the whole spirit moving thing (I was raised somewhat as a Baptist),a nd I would never feel comfortable in the pentecostal church due to all that speaking in tongues.

All churches should strive towards finding the truth, but I don't think we'll ever know all of it, and until Christ comes we will be divided.

[Mrs. Maggott]

Well, all I can say is that to begin with, I sorrow at the division among the various Christian denominations not on worship or even theology, but on our once-unanimous moral vision. Alas, that is no longer the case and in many "churches" which present themselves as "Christian", one may find moral (and in some cases, theological) doctrines that are diametric not only to the rest of the community, but that particular church's historical past.

And, of course, that is not the only problem. Far too many "Christians" believe that they can "pick and choose" what they wish to believe. This sort of "cafeteria Christianity" permits people to consider themselves Christians while indulging in behavior that is anything but - especially with regard to the above mentioned moral issues. Many such souls calculate a "scale reading" of moral faithfulness: I am good on nine out of ten moral issues defined by my Church so therefore, I'm "okay". The fact that the "nine" are a given (how many are tempted to murder the kid next door or marry their mother?!) and that the "tenth" is horrendous makes no difference; it is the ratio that counts!

And finally, if we treated each others as Christians (despite our denominational differences), there would be no problems since we would love each other as we are commanded by Christ Himself to do. But the problem is that our love is "conditional" on just how good a Christian we think the other fellow is (we, of course, are perfect!). Well, at least we can take some consolation in the fact that Christ's incredible suffering on the Cross was not just for the sins that had been committed, but for all the sins yet to be committed - of which our shortcomings are surely a part.

[Eliot]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is "speaking in tongues"?

[Mrs. Maggott]

Originally posted by Eliot
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is "speaking in tongues"?
Well, actually, there are two different types of "speaking in tongues". The first happened at Pentecost when the Apostles meeting in the upper room were infused with the Holy Spirit. They were then able to speak in "languages" other than their own: Greek, Latin, Median etc. Indeed, when the crowd first heard them speak, they thought that they were drunk because being Galileans, they would have spoken Aramaic. However, it soon became obvious to the multinational crowd - remember, Jerusalem was a very "cosmopolitan" city and had people within it from many nations - that these simple and unlearned fishermen were preaching in the spectators' own languages - which was itself a miracle!

The other type of speaking in tongues is when someone - ostensibly moved by the Holy Spirit - speaks in some "unknown" language while in an ecstasy induced by the Spirit. St. Paul was not terribly impressed by such utterances since unless there was someone present who understood what was being said sufficiently to translate to the audience, what the speaker said would remain a mystery.

Among Pentecostals it appears that this particular "gift" of the Spirit is particularly well received although it is less so in more traditional Christian groups. However, it is by no means "unknown" within them and many saints of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have manifested this gift.

[HLGStrider]

I believe the Baptist doctrine limits the true kind only to the first. I'm only partially a Baptist, however.

[Eledhwen]

I can't spend too much effort minding that the church has denominations. I am a Christian, and consider myself to be in fellowship with all other Trinitarian Christians. I was singing in a Catholic church the other week, and my friend asked, "why can't we take communion?" and I replied "because the Pope excommunicated us 500 years ago."

I had difficulty understanding transsubstantiation and veneration of saints, etc., until I read Greg Wright's new book on Tolkien. As a protestant, Greg had to consult widely with Catholics so he could understand Tolkien's faith, and being an 'outsider' he asked all the questions I needed answers to. Page 166 describes the history of the world from a Catholic viewpoint - it reads like a synopsis for the Silmarillion.

I am an Anglican by upbringing, and I have married into a Greek Orthodox family, but by choice my husband and I worship at a Charismatic Evangelical church in the New Frontiers stream. I am a creature of free expression, and though I love the great liturgies, my heart is to dance before the lord, and sometimes to fall on my face and worship him, neither of which would be welcomed in the middle of rite B at St Barts!