Denominations

There's been a lot of denomination talk lately...

I'm non-denom. Born and raised. Though the only churches I've been attending since I left America are Anglican. There's not a lot of options in the UK. At least not in the tiny Welsh town I live in. If I did choose to go to church here in Cyprus, I'd probably have to go to the Greek Orthadox. I'm not sure there's anything else here aside from the mosque.

I'm anti-denominational myself but I attend a Southern Baptist church.

I think the SBC has a lot of good, solid doctrine and a God honoring future focus but what I hate is their "close the ranks, let no outsiders in" mentality. Its very much a mindset that if you don't bleed SBC then you aren't good enough for leadership or partnering with.

But I guess on the flip side I love their consistency. You won't find a SBC church that allows women pastors, agrees with homosexuality, is hardcore Calvinist or strays from the belief that salvation is through Jesus alone.

I lean towards Reformed. Reformed comprises different denominations.

My church isn't technically a denomination because the churches in it are very autonomous and as we have no central leadership or creeds, we are united through our common beliefs, traditions, and heritage. It also is technically a denomination because we have commonality.

It is fairly theologically opened, it doesn't really matter about YEC vs evolution or your stance on homosexuality or most other hot-topic issues. The only thing that really someone would find issues fitting into theology is that we are very intellectual/factual oriented (services are more services are focused on learning something than a "spiritual experience" or whatever), we are also very anti-Calvinistic, and very much take revelation as symbolism (no Antichrist, tribulation, etc...Christ will come back and that's it).

Raised and confirmed United Methodist (as my mom's family is Methodist going back a generation or two), even though there were all kinds of inconsistent and non-Wesleyan things that we were exposed to as children because my dad listened to all manner of fundamentalist nonsense (my only guess is as rebellion from his Catholic upbringing) and then repeated it back at us. This is precisely the reason that Dispensationalism makes me froth at the mouth the way it does; it has no place in Wesleyan theology, or dare I say, in Christianity at all. Our family never got into the legalism, thankfully.

During my teen years I developed an interest in theology and philosophy and Church history, and this was important because it was so inconsistent growing up that I was honestly confused about these things. Developing that interest allowed me to sort it out, purge the fundamentalist parts, realize the anti-Catholic stuff we'd been told was wrong, and approach the difference in theological traditions in an honest manner. When I finally got back around to looking at Methodism, it was a rather pleasant surprise that my personal convictions had developed in very much the same manner. I can't completely say that it did, but it's as if the environment at St. Luke's while we were growing up instilled itself deep down and couldn't be displaced by all that other conflicting stuff.

The primary points that impress me about Methodism are the Wesleyan focus on grace and the Quadrilateral, as these then inform the rest of the personal theology; that it provides an exemplary focus on things such as the Beatitudes (which, granted, is also shared by other Mainline Protestant denoms and Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions); and in general provides a link to ancient Christianity because Wesley was inspired by the Eastern Orthodox, particularly on the topic of Sanctification. Also that the UMC contains a broad spectrum, so that there's a place for low, broad, and high church, and because it doesn't discourage intellectual and scientific query. A good portion of this is due to its Anglican heritage, and in truth I have sometimes seen people doubt whether Methodism should really count as 'Protestant', the same way this kind of doubt is expressed for Anglicanism. I'd be lying if I said the uniqueness (quirkiness?) wasn't a bit endearing.

Non denominational primarily for theological reasons - that have to do with Gospel vs some (not all) Pauline teachings. Former Lutheran.

I am non-denominational, because after sloshing in the denomination pool, I found I was either categorically against the doctrine, or questioning some of the doctrine.

I think the sabbath should be followed, I think all law is to be followed, I think the tribulation, anti-christ era, and 1000 year kingdom have yet to come. I believe "once saved, always saved" is a paradox. I think marriage mean sex. I think Paul is on a fine line between being confusing, and contradiction of God's word. I think some apocryphal books are useful. (Et cetera.) I generally fringe on agreeing and disagreeing several denominations.

I am just a Christian. I am trying to follow the Bible and the Lord Jesus/Yeshua as best as I can. But I am depending on His works and His grace to save me as my works are as filthy rags before Him and I will never be anyone more than a fallen sinner aside from Christ.

I am very cautious about all the teachings and doctrines of churches today. The original Bible is my guide, and I am trying to truly understand it for what it is, in its entirety and with a proper perspective. I believe God has revealed many truths to me over time and it's all slowly making more sense. I am also careful not to let my personal feelings interfere although I certainly doubt and question things at times (which I think God is OK with - after all, Israel means "those who wrestle with God").

The way I see things is that, there is truth to be found. We cannot know it all as we are but truth will support itself and does not rely on covertness or force to sustain itself. And when you start to label yourselves as a particular denomination or sect, you may tend to associate yourself with that sect/denomination/religion more than Christ Himself.

Bristecom said:

The way I see things is that, there is truth to be found. We cannot know it all as we are but truth will support itself and does not rely on covertness or force to sustain itself.

Click to expand...

*nods*

And, I would go even far to say the Truth convicts - shines light on the acceptor of the Truth, and exposes the acceptor. The exposition could be good, bad, or ugly. For Josiah, I imagine when the Truth exposed him, it was bitter-sweet. John's revelation was literally described as sweet as honey, then bitter when he takes the Truth in (the little book.) For Adam and Eve, the Truth was good for them (the salvation plan for Adam, and his children to come.)

Lollerskates said:

*nods*

And, I would go even far to say the Truth convicts - shines light on the acceptor of the Truth, and exposes the acceptor. The exposition could be good, bad, or ugly. For Josiah, I imagine when the Truth exposed him, it was bitter-sweet. John's revelation was literally described as sweet as honey, then bitter when he takes the Truth in (the little book.) For Adam and Eve, the Truth was good for them (the salvation plan for Adam, and his children to come.)

Click to expand...

True... it doesn't just bend to everyone's will. We can't all be right unfortunately. Some feelings and egos will be hurt in the pursuit of truth. But as Jesus said, "The truth will set you free."

technically I'm a Baptist, but here in Ontario the Baptist churches are not what many consider to be Baptist as is understood in the US (confusing, yes). I think we are a lot more liberal than American Baptist churches.

So, I guess I could say...I'm a non-denominational? I dunno, if I agree with the mission statement of a church, I'm open to attending it...it's not that big a deal to me

Non-denominational. While there are many denominations out there, and it is therefore possible that there is a denomination with all my Christian beliefs, I haven't seen it yet. It seems that denominations define themselves around a list of beliefs, many which are actually Biblical, and others which aren't really strongly stated in Scripture, if they're even in there at all. The attitude of my family and church on the other hand, is to stick to what Scripture strongly declares as truth, while allowing room for interpretation for some of these other beliefs that people hammer home but Scripture does not.

Another advantage of non-denominational churches is flexibility. If the Spirit moves somebody to do something unconventional, in the same manner that he led people in the book of Acts, then you're generally free to do it. This doesn't mean you don't lean on your small group, pastor, or elders for confirmation and guidance. But it does mean that once you have their backing, somebody from another church or from a regional office can't shut you down because it bucks the tradition that they're used to. This is important as I have a low tolerance for bureaucracy, and there wasn't very much of it in the New Testament either, btw.

The only advantages that denominational churches have that I can see are pooled resources and branding. Jump through the right hoops, and you can get money to fund a missions trip. And if you're closed-minded enough, it's easy to tell new converts or would-be converts to go to any Brand X church because they will have the truth unlike all those other churches out there. But that's not an argument that I could make with integrity, even if I went to a denominational church.

Now, I'm not saying I never would attend a denominational church, but this is why I prefer the non-denominational approach.

I'm not even non-denominational.

I've been shunned by every church I've ever attended. Rogue, outcast. I remember attending church when I was younger and finding out that the single young women were told to stay away from me because I was a heretic, a wolf. Very disheartening.

I still attend church regularly, because I love my fellow sheep, but there is no place for me in the visible church organization.

KingCrimson250 said:

For those of you who are non-dom, why?

Click to expand...

Keeps things simple.

Well I attend an Alliance church but I am more Messianic in my denomination. I don't even think that Messianic Judaism is a denomination. I would then have to say I am non-denominational. For a while I was Mennonite but that was a disaster and I am not thankfully part of that movement anymore.

I'm not protestant, so I don't belong to a denomination and I'm not 'non-denominational'.

nick garai said:

I don't even think that Messianic Judaism is a denomination.

Click to expand...

It's a branch of Protestantism with it's own particular beliefs and practices, so it would be appropriately called a denomination.