dating across denomination?

[J3thekingofking]

How can a Protestant Christian date when the church is divided, with each group having its own leader and doing its own thing? Sure, they are part of the universal church, but in practice, they don't organize events that involve all churches across all denominations due to disagreements and disputes.

Dating itself is already hard. Now, you'll find very few options—or possibly no options at all—or you might get turned down by someone simply because you aren't in their denomination or social circle. Aren't we all confessing the Nicene Creed? I've seen many Christians eventually give up and marry non-Christians.

 

[jas3]

How can a Protestant Christian date when the church is divided, with each group having its own leader and doing its own thing?

One of the couple, usually the woman, joins the other's denomination. In my experience, most people aren't familiar enough with denominational disagreements to have strong opinions about why one or the other is correct.

Aren't we all confessing the Nicene Creed?

The Nicene Creed is sadly very neglected within Protestantism, which is why you'll see some people denigrating the Creed or its terminology on this forum, particularly when they come from newer, "no creed but the Bible" strands of Protestantism.

 

[The Liturgist]

How can a Protestant Christian date when the church is divided, with each group having its own leader and doing its own thing? Sure, they are part of the universal church, but in practice, they don't organize events that involve all churches across all denominations due to disagreements and disputes.

Dating itself is already hard. Now, you'll find very few options—or possibly no options at all—or you might get turned down by someone simply because you aren't in their denomination or social circle. Aren't we all confessing the Nicene Creed? I've seen many Christians eventually give up and marry non-Christians.

Most Christian churches are similiar enough in doctrine so that this is simply not the problem you think it is.

Even the Eastern Orthodox have established protocols for intermarriage with the Oriental Orthodox in Egypt and Syria. Indeed the ecumenical agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox is sufficiently sweeping to the point where it could no longer be said that the two churches are in any sort of schism, since in Syria, the two churches no longer convert each others’ members.

This is appropriate, since Chalcedonian saints are venerated by the Syriac Orthodox, such as St. John of Damascus, St. Romanos the Melodist and others, and everyone venerates St. Isaac the Syrian, who we now know was not even Orthodox but a member of the Assyrian Church of the East (who in common with most members of the Church of the East in the late First Millenium, believed in apokatastasis, following in the footsteps of Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa).

 

[The Liturgist]

The Nicene Creed is sadly very neglected within Protestantism, which is why you'll see some people denigrating the Creed or its terminology on this forum, particularly when they come from newer, "no creed but the Bible" strands of Protestantism.

That said, the Nicene Creed is part of the official Christian Forums Statement of Faith, so if you do see someone criticizing it, they are violating the rules of the theology forums. Non-Nicene churches furthermore are not regarded as Christian for purposes of participation in General Theology and the other theology forums.

Now, regarding “non-creedal” churches like the Churches of Christ and the Stone/Campbell movement, these groups are accepted on Christian Forums since despite not having a formal creed, they nonetheless agree in doctrine with the Nicene Creed and the rest of the Statement of Faith. Additionally, these groups are of some interest to the Orthodox, since they were among the first Protestants to implement a weekly celebration of the Eucharist and to define their local church ecclesiology in Eucharistic terms. Thus, they belong in the same category as John Wesley and the early Methodists, and the Anglo Catholics, and the early Moravians (the Utraquists) and the Orthodox Lutherans, in that they represent a movement of Protestantism in an Orthodox direction.

It is interesting, by the way, to consider that John Wesley was a contemporary of the Kollyvades Brothers (who were supported by the likes of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth, the compilers of the Philokalia) who worked to promote a return to weekly reception of the Eucharist for the Orthodox laity, a cause that would later be taken up at the turn of the 20th century by St. John of Kronstadt.

Thus the movement for a return to high frequency reception of the Eucharist actually occurred almost concurrently within Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

The difference was that most Protestant churches aside from cathedrals had ceased celebrating the Eucharist weekly, which made things particularly difficult for Protestants wanting to move in this direction.

Conversely, the Orthodox did celebrate the Eucharist weekly - the problem was laity who had grown accustomed to infrequent confession and infrequent communion. A similar situation existed in Roman Catholicism, where most people outside of clergy and the religious orders did not partake weekly.

 

[jas3]

That said, the Nicene Creed is part of the official Christian Forums Statement of Faith, so if you do see someone criticizing it, they are violating the rules of the theology forums.

Indeed, but in practice the only requirement seems to be nominal acceptance of Trinitarianism. I've even seen someone say Satan wrote it and that comment was allowed to stand. Other parts of the Creed people ignore: that the Son is "of one essence with the Father"; that the Son, not just His human nature, "was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man"; that the Church is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic"; and that there is "one baptism for the remission of sins."

This is not specific to CF; it's a widespread sentiment, especially in ecumenical dialogue, that we all agree on the Creed, but the fact of the matter is that most people in all traditions are never catechized on the meaning of the Creed, so they don't even know that they've strayed from what it says on these subjects. It robs Christian children of something that should be a part of their upbringing and preparation for facing the world's challenges to their faith.

Now, regarding “non-creedal” churches like the Churches of Christ and the Stone/Campbell movement, these groups are accepted on Christian Forums since despite not having a formal creed, they nonetheless agree in doctrine with the Nicene Creed and the rest of the Statement of Faith.

While it is a good thing that this movement recognized the salvific value of baptism and the need for the Church to be one, I don't see how any restorationist denomination can be said to believe in the holiness or apostolicity of the Church.