Do non-Christians label as "other denomination"?

[Hank77]

Wouldn't it be interesting if religious gatherings were replaced by mandatory community gatherings and participants had to walk rather than ride?

I am very shy and anti-social, so I would hate something like that, but wouldn't it be interesting? Rather than Christians driving on the freeway to be with like-minded Christians on Sunday, everybody who lives within walking distance would be forced to gather together in a celebration of community.

No, I don't think that would be a good idea to force people to gather together.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I don't think that would be a good idea to force people to gather together.

That's probably the only way it could be accomplished. People prefer to associate with like-minded. The pope actually noted this problem - that the internet allows people to ONLY associate with like-minded and thereby develop extreme ideas that are untempered by criticism. (Sorry I can't find the link. It was a thread here on CF that linked to it.)

I think a core goal of Christianity is to gather all kinds of different people together - rich and poor, educated and uneducated, liberal and conservative. That was why Jesus went to the lepers and other outcasts. That goal is not achieved when people drive on the freeway to a distant church that has people they like and music they like and theology they like.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It must be difficult for a non-denom church to operate without a common doctrine or standard form of worship beyond the most basic set of common beliefs. I'm assuming here that the members of a non-denom church come from a variety of Christian backgrounds.

Isn't there a real danger that, over time, the church will begin to develop its own doctrines, rites and rules and become just another one of the denominational divisions?

OB

Well, non-denom churches do operate with a common doctrinal standard and form of worship, many have official "what we believe" statements, which is really just a creed by another name. And so there really isn't a functional difference between a non-denominational and a denominational church; it's just that the non-denominational church is a denomination consisting of only a single independent congregation.

In fact, I'd argue more than even that; I've never encountered a non-denominational church whose beliefs and practices aren't, in essence, broadly "Baptistic".

As an example, the first church I was part of was the church my mom grew up in, and where my parents met. It called itself "Independent Bible Church", known more informally as IBC. It was a non-denominational church, but if one looked at its beliefs and practices it'd be pretty hard to tell the difference between it and a lot of modern Baptist churches. They practiced single immersion-only baptism of only professing believers, they subscribed to a broad mish-mash of Arminian and Calvinistic ideas in the vein of many 20th century Neo-Evangelical teachers incorporating elements of 19th century; i.e. human beings must make a deliberate personal choice and professed belief in Jesus, His atoning work, and resurrection as the means by which to become saved; a rejection of (or at least minimalist use of) traditional ecclesiastical worship and practice, such as a subscription to a memorialist view of the Eucharist which they prefer to call Communion, and so on and so forth.

I'd say that, at least in my own experience, one of the few things that really distinguishes different non-denominational churches is whether or not, or to what degree, the 20th century charismatic movement(s) have influenced it. The church I mention above, IBC, they were pretty staunchly non-charismatic. And as far as I know, continue to be as such.

But there is generally going to be a pretty strong trend toward the Neo-Evangelical tradition, and thus with strong Baptistic and Revivalistic influences.

This of course is not going to be universally true (though I am unaware of any exceptions to what I've described above), but my overall observations over my lifetime indicate that, at the very least, this is generally true.

In fact I thought my childhood church was a Baptist church, until I discovered differently only in my teenage years long after my family had left.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Occams Barber]

Well, non-denom churches do operate with a common doctrinal standard and form of worship, many have official "what we believe" statements, which is really just a creed by another name. And so there really isn't a functional difference between a non-denominational and a denominational church; it's just that the non-denominational church is a denomination consisting of only a single independent congregation.

In fact, I'd argue more than even that; I've never encountered a non-denominational church whose beliefs and practices aren't, in essence, broadly "Baptistic".

As an example, the first church I was part of was the church my mom grew up in, and where my parents met. It called itself "Independent Bible Church", known more informally as IBC. It was a non-denominational church, but if one looked at its beliefs and practices it'd be pretty hard to tell the difference between it and a lot of modern Baptist churches. They practiced single immersion-only baptism of only professing believers, they subscribed to a broad mish-mash of Arminian and Calvinistic ideas in the vein of many 20th century Neo-Evangelical teachers incorporating elements of 19th century; i.e. human beings must make a deliberate personal choice and professed belief in Jesus, His atoning work, and resurrection as the means by which to become saved; a rejection of (or at least minimalist use of) traditional ecclesiastical worship and practice, such as a subscription to a memorialist view of the Eucharist which they prefer to call Communion, and so on and so forth.

I'd say that, at least in my own experience, one of the few things that really distinguishes different non-denominational churches is whether or not, or to what degree, the 20th century charismatic movement(s) have influenced it. The church I mention above, IBC, they were pretty staunchly non-charismatic. And as far as I know, continue to be as such.

But there is generally going to be a pretty strong trend toward the Neo-Evangelical tradition, and thus with strong Baptistic and Revivalistic influences.

This of course is not going to be universally true (though I am unaware of any exceptions to what I've described above), but my overall observations over my lifetime indicate that, at the very least, this is generally true.

In fact I thought my childhood church was a Baptist church, until I discovered differently only in my teenage years long after my family had left.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you again VC for another excellent explanation.

@Hank77 Is your church a closet Baptist - or does it really do its own thing?

OB

 

[Tiburon]

I agree. I think the meaning of the word is actually changing through usage.

I tend to think of the classic ('we can't know') agnostic as a 'hard' agnostic and the 'I don't know' agnostic as a potential convert to atheism.

I think that makes me an evangelical atheist.

OB

I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. By that I mean both together not that I am Agnostic about Atheism.

 

[Jok]

I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. By that I mean both together not that I am Agnostic about Atheism.

If you’re not agnostic about atheism then why not just call yourself an atheist?

 

[Tiburon]

If you’re not agnostic about atheism then why not just call yourself an atheist?

Agnosticism is about knowledge.
Atheism is about belief.
So I'm Agnostic because I don't think it's possible to "know" there is a God.
And I'm Atheist because I don't "Believe" there is a God.
Generally speaking I do just call myself an Atheist.
It's only when people try to frame it as either or, that I get pedantic.

 

[Jok]

Agnosticism is about knowledge.
Atheism is about belief.
So I'm Agnostic because I don't think it's possible to "know" there is a God.
And I'm Atheist because I don't "Believe" there is a God.
Generally speaking I do just call myself an Atheist.
It's only when people try to frame it as either or, that I get pedantic.

I guess if you spend a lot of time around people making precise arguments and/or spend time around epistemology you can get the terms knowledge and belief mixed up into synonyms, so your wording looked confusing. But now that I think about it we would all be a planet full of Spocks if our beliefs always matched up with our knowledge lol.

 

[FireDragon76]

I just identify as "other religion" because I cannot identify as an atheist. Even though I don't believe in a personal God anymore, I simply don't have a materialist metaphysics. My personal approach is more akin to Mahayana Buddhism, the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, or various ideas that some Evangelicals might consider "New Age".