Non Denoms.... an honest question

[altNoise]

This is my first post here, and I apologize if I am only repeating what has been previously stated. I am trying to get into the conversation.

I attend a non-denominational church. I would classify my official affiliation with the Church of God out of Anderson Indiana. It is a movement but one can pretty much call it a denomination. I have attended and been a part of many churches from Baptists to Methodists to Pentecostal.

Some people say that people who go to a non-denominational church are 'daughters of the great harlot', and just plain unbiblical or selfish centered. This is nonsense. Wasn't it Paul who stated that some of you follow Apollos, some of you follow Cephas, some follow Paul and others follow Christ? He wanted to make a point that we are most importantly to follow Christ and whomever shows us the way is just a fellow brother.

This is the appeal of non-denomination.. It is to get back to saying that Wesley, Luther and Calvin are all great brothers, but I am following Jesus at the end of the day.

To say that all or even most non-denomination is me-centered is misleading and hurtful to our faith. My current church stems from the holiness movement which is literally the opposite of selfish pursuits, but it still is non-denominational and without creeds.

Is is for everyone? I wouldn't say so, but if you are tired of the baggage that many denominations have to carry and follow then you might want to consider a non-denominational church.

I would say that you might have to be a little more conscientous when it comes to their theology. They can have some really bad beliefs, but a careful study should be able to help you determine the ones that are questionable. This problem isn't only problematic to non-denominations either. All churches no matter the denomination can fall prey to beliefs that go against their theological backgrounds.

A church name is basically a book cover. How do you judge it?

 

[Luther073082]

This is my first post here, and I apologize if I am only repeating what has been previously stated. I am trying to get into the conversation.

I attend a non-denominational church. I would classify my official affiliation with the Church of God out of Anderson Indiana. It is a movement but one can pretty much call it a denomination. I have attended and been a part of many churches from Baptists to Methodists to Pentecostal.

Some people say that people who go to a non-denominational church are 'daughters of the great harlot', and just plain unbiblical or selfish centered.

Its worthwhile pointing out that it was a person that was not Lutheran that stated that. I don't think most of us hold that view.

This is nonsense. Wasn't it Paul who stated that some of you follow Apollos, some of you follow Cephas, some follow Paul and others follow Christ? He wanted to make a point that we are most importantly to follow Christ and whomever shows us the way is just a fellow brother.

Yes but Paul, Apollos and Cephas all carried the same message about Christ. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley carried very different messages about Christ.

This is the appeal of non-denomination.. It is to get back to saying that Wesley, Luther and Calvin are all great brothers, but I am following Jesus at the end of the day.

You act like they all carried the same message. For the most part what Luther taught was the true apostolic message about Christ. Wesley and Calvin preached and taught many false doctrines which are not part of the message that Christ gave.

To say that all or even most non-denomination is me-centered is misleading and hurtful to our faith. My current church stems from the holiness movement which is literally the opposite of selfish pursuits, but it still is non-denominational and without creeds.

Then it believes nothing. A creed is simpily a statement of belief. If you are non-creedal, you belive in nothing. Also that ignores the importance of tradition in the church. . . The Nicene Creed is a creed that was universal to all Christians in one form or another from 325 AD until the late 1500's.

Is is for everyone? I wouldn't say so, but if you are tired of the baggage that many denominations have to carry and follow then you might want to consider a non-denominational church.

What baggage? A consistant doctrine?

A church name is basically a book cover. How do you judge it?

I have never seen a single non-denominational chruch that does not preach many false and clearly heterodox doctrines.

Find me one church that labels itself as non-denominational that even subscribes to the unaltered Augsburg Confession. Much less the entire Book of Concord. These things are complete and true witnesses to scripture. Non-denominational chruchs reject many of these true and orthodox doctrines that the church has taught since Pentacost!

 

[altNoise]

Thank you for pointing out that I am not a Lutheran. I posted this from seeing "today's post" and then it was only after that I saw it was in the Lutheran category.. still learning the system

Yes but Paul, Apollos and Cephas all carried the same message about Christ. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley carried very different messages about Christ.

No, Paul and Cephas/Peter did not carry the same message. Paul wanted to preach the gospel to all people from the beginning. Peter was reluctant to do this at first. He caved but he still continued a Jewish centered construct of faith. They were very different.

Wesley and Calvin preached and taught many false doctrines which are not part of the message that Christ gave.

I greatly respect what Luther did, but are you saying he taught completely everything what Jesus had taught? We all should be thankful for Luther's message of Sola Scriptura, but there are many parts of scripture he had problems with. He was known to have a disdain for the book of James since it had appeared 'at that time' to go against what he had taught. I wouldn't say that Lutheranism today and the book of James are incompatible today. That would be silly, but it definitely was a struggle in the beginning.

Find me one church that labels itself as non-denominational that even subscribes to the unaltered Augsburg Confession. Much less the entire Book of Concord. These things are complete and true witnesses to scripture. Non-denominational chruchs reject many of these true and orthodox doctrines that the church has taught since Pentacost!

I think you prove my point about creeds and baggage. I did not realize that the Augsburg Confession nor the Nicene Creed held primary placement over Scripture. The Augsburg Confession only came about after the passing of Luther. Wasn't it Luther who wanted to point out that nothing is above scripture?

I also want to point out that I'm not against the Nicene Creed, but it has changed from when it was originally formed. In its original, it did not include the part of the apostolic church, resurrection of the dead, and life of the world to come.

I can say that I respect and agree with the Creed but I do not have to say my faith must conform to it. My faith comes God alone which is based on Scripture. You may ask me, 'Do I believe in the parts of the Nicene Creed?' I would reply that I do.

I do want to reiterate that I am not Lutheran. I do not want to create a stir and I apologize for not really considering the location of the topic before I posted. Yet, I feel Luther073082 as though somewhat resembles what I mean when it comes to baggage. I believe a faith rested on God backed by Scripture alone. Do I have my belief constructs and theological pinnings to determine how I understand scripture? Of course I do, but I don't put those at the same weight as Scripture.

Isn't it Christ who we follow? Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Non-denominational is all a man created organization to understand the Holy God. Not one is perfect but Jesus. Every instution and organization is going to grab root to a culture that describes itself. This includes non-denominational churches. We just must be aware that at the end of the day it is Christ we are worshipping and not doctrine itself.

*I am not saying that Lutherans worship doctrine. I think members of all church backgrounds can fall into this trap.

 

[Bryne]

Thank you for pointing out that I am not a Lutheran. I posted this from seeing "today's post" and then it was only after that I saw it was in the Lutheran category.. still learning the system

He was pointing out that the person who called non-denoms "daughters of the great harlot" wasn't Lutheran and Lutherans don't believe that.

 

[altNoise]

ha, thanks for clearing that up Bryne. That makes sense.

 

[Bryne]

I think you prove my point about creeds and baggage. I did not realize that the Augsburg Confession nor the Nicene Creed held primary placement over Scripture. The Augsburg Confession only came about after the passing of Luther. Wasn't it Luther who wanted to point out that nothing is above scripture?

A couple of things.

Debate against Lutheran doctrine is not allowed in this forum. It is fine that you ask questions or give input and such...but be careful not to cross the line into debating doctrine.

I do want to clear up a few things about the above statement.

First, we don't place the Augsburg Confession or the Nicene Creed over Scripture. We believe them to be an accurate reflection of what Scripture teaches.

Second, the Augsburg Confession was written in 1530. Luther died in 1546. It did not come about after Luther's passing.

 

[altNoise]

First, we don't place the Augsburg Confession or the Nicene Creed over Scripture. We believe them to be an accurate reflection of what Scripture teaches.

Second, the Augsburg Confession was written in 1530. Luther died in 1546. It did not come about after Luther's passing

I must've gotten my dates crossed. I don't know where I picked up that it was the other way around.

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. I only wanted to give a defense for non-denominational churches. It seemed as though they were being portrayed negatively and put all in the same construct.

Anyway, I hope to converse with you all on the other parts of the forum.

 

[Luther073082]

Thank you for pointing out that I am not a Lutheran. I posted this from seeing "today's post" and then it was only after that I saw it was in the Lutheran category.. still learning the system

As Byrne pointed out I was pointing out that it was a non-Lutheran that referred to Non-denoms as the daughters of the great harlot.

No, Paul and Cephas/Peter did not carry the same message. Paul wanted to preach the gospel to all people from the beginning. Peter was reluctant to do this at first. He caved but he still continued a Jewish centered construct of faith. They were very different.

No you are talking about the way they approached the same message. They may have had different approaches, but their teachings where consistant with one another. Paul and Peter would not have taught a doctrine that outright contradicted the other, they both taught the same doctrine.

I greatly respect what Luther did, but are you saying he taught completely everything what Jesus had taught? We all should be thankful for Luther's message of Sola Scriptura, but there are many parts of scripture he had problems with. He was known to have a disdain for the book of James since it had appeared 'at that time' to go against what he had taught. I wouldn't say that Lutheranism today and the book of James are incompatible today. That would be silly, but it definitely was a struggle in the beginning.

Back at Luther's time there was still no consistant defintion of what what canonical and what was not. Debating that something should not be in the cannon was not that out of the ordinary. Lets not forget that the RCC considered and still considers several books to be canonical that are not in the common cannon.

Its useful to note however that Luther did translate James and put it in the Cannon.

I think you prove my point about creeds and baggage. I did not realize that the Augsburg Confession nor the Nicene Creed held primary placement over Scripture.

Those creeds are derrived entirely from scripture. If you reject those creeds you reject scripture.

The Augsburg Confession only came about after the passing of Luther.

No it was penned during Luther's lifetime.

Wasn't it Luther who wanted to point out that nothing is above scripture?

He did. . . the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg confession and the Book of Concord are complete and true witnesses to scripture. Rejecting them is rejecting scripture. This may be hard for some non-denominationals to understand but it is common in churchs with a history and tradition to write the teachings of scripture into more concise forms so that it is easier taught and understood. Hence we have the catechism's Luther's small catechism and Luther's Large Catechism. Plus further documents which teach what scripture teaches, the unaltered Augsburg confession (the altered Augsburg confession contains reformed heresies), the smalcald articles, and the formula of concord.

I also want to point out that I'm not against the Nicene Creed, but it has changed from when it was originally formed. In its original, it did not include the part of the apostolic church, resurrection of the dead, and life of the world to come.

And those things are also in keeping with scripture so they where added.

I can say that I respect and agree with the Creed but I do not have to say my faith must conform to it. My faith comes God alone which is based on Scripture. You may ask me, 'Do I believe in the parts of the Nicene Creed?' I would reply that I do.

If you do not belive in ALL of the Nicene Creed then you reject God and scripture.

I do want to reiterate that I am not Lutheran. I do not want to create a stir and I apologize for not really considering the location of the topic before I posted. Yet, I feel Luther073082 as though somewhat resembles what I mean when it comes to baggage. I believe a faith rested on God backed by Scripture alone. Do I have my belief constructs and theological pinnings to determine how I understand scripture? Of course I do, but I don't put those at the same weight as Scripture.

The Augsburg Confession, the Nicene Creed, and the Book of Concord provide a clear and understandable teaching on what scripture teaches. Where these things are rejected, scripture is rejected.

Isn't it Christ who we follow? Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Non-denominational is all a man created organization to understand the Holy God.

And they all have different teachings. In the case of confessional Lutheraism it is the true, catholic and aposotlic teaching of the church since the day of Pentacost.

In the case of Methodist, Baptist, and Non-denominational teachings they are all heterodox where they do not agree with the true catholic and apostolic teachings of the church.

We're not all the same, its not the same thing at all. True doctrines are true, false doctrines are false. Baptists, Methodists and Non-denominational churchs teach false doctrines as well as non-confessional Lutheran churchs. True doctrine in its entirety can only be found in churchs which teach the doctrine commonly known as "confessional Lutheranism"

Not one is perfect but Jesus. Every instution and organization is going to grab root to a culture that describes itself. This includes non-denominational churches. We just must be aware that at the end of the day it is Christ we are worshipping and not doctrine itself.

Paul told us to have nothing to do with teachings that are counter to the one's received from the apostles. Those who teach false doctrines teach doctrines that are counter to those that Christ taught. If we worship Christ we must be consistant with his teachings and doctrines. Where we fail at that we fail to be Christ's church on earth.

I am not saying that Lutherans worship doctrine. I think members of all church backgrounds can fall into this trap.

If you want to understand and teach Christ you have to have the correct doctrines. So correct doctrine is very important.

Its the non-denominational churchs who have fallen into the trap of believing that doctrine does not matter just as long as the church teaches something about Jesus.

 

[LilLamb219]

To say that all or even most non-denomination is me-centered is misleading and hurtful to our faith.

I challenge you to listen to the music you sing at your church next time you attend. Count how many "me" "I" "myself" you sing in your songs. Now, I can send you a link to the hymnal that we use in the LCMS church I attend and what you'll find there is music taken from scripture and the great majority talks about God and what He has done for us. It is truly Christ-centered.

In other words, who is running the verbs in your songs?

 

[Bryne]

I don't buy that entirely. I attended non-denominational pentacostal churches for years and the songs weren't all me centered. Many songs were scripture set to music. Many were songs sung directly to God. We also sung hymns.

If I sing "Create in me a clean heart, oh Lord". Sure..."me" is in the song...but the song is taken straight from Scripture...straight from the song book of scripture, for that matter. How can that be a bad thing?

Or...what if I sing "I come, O Savior, to your table," That one is from the Lutheran hymnal.

 

[file13]

This is one of the major points of Lutheran Sola Scriptura as adverse to any other denoms sola scriptura. Many protestants denoms only use the Bible as a source with no contextual reference and without Christian forefathers interpretation. Lutherans use both.

I just wanted to mention that many other Protestants have started to differentiate between Sola Scriptura (to describe the doctrine as understood by the Magisterial Reformers) and Solo or Nuda Scriptura (to describe "the Bible and the Bible only" folks) because this has become such a problem.

I run into this problem all the time in the GT forum (thus the outrageous signature).

 

[goldbeach]

I don't buy that entirely. I attended non-denominational pentacostal churches for years and the songs weren't all me centered. Many songs were scripture set to music. Many were songs sung directly to God. We also sung hymns.

If I sing "Create in me a clean heart, oh Lord". Sure..."me" is in the song...but the song is taken straight from Scripture...straight from the song book of scripture, for that matter. How can that be a bad thing?

Or...what if I sing "I come, O Savior, to your table," That one is from the Lutheran hymnal.

Yes some of what you say is true but the "majority" of the songs are about Me, Myself and I. Again I'll mention that the words Sola Scriptura are translated or understood in different terms for different denoms. I'm not going to go into any more details than I have above because the lines blur between all denoms.

 

[LilLamb219]

I don't buy that entirely. I attended non-denominational pentacostal churches for years and the songs weren't all me centered. Many songs were scripture set to music. Many were songs sung directly to God. We also sung hymns.

If I sing "Create in me a clean heart, oh Lord". Sure..."me" is in the song...but the song is taken straight from Scripture...straight from the song book of scripture, for that matter. How can that be a bad thing?

Or...what if I sing "I come, O Savior, to your table," That one is from the Lutheran hymnal.

I did not say that any song that contains the word "me" is bad. Create in me a clean heart o God is a wonderful song.

Who is running the verbs in the songs? That's the point. Is it me doing something or is it our triune God? And I don't mean just one sentence. I mean look at the song in its entirety.

In "I Come, O Savior, to Thy Table", sure the opening line says something I'm doing, but c'mon. Look at the rest of the song. It's about what our Savior has done for us!!!!!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

many non-denoms preach non-gospel. Remember, full pews don't necessarily mean the gospel is being successfully shared. And the whole idea of being "non-denominational" makes them a denomination.

 

[Melethiel]

Lots of feel-good fluff, no meat. My time in the non-denom/evangelical camp nearly ruined my faith.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Lots of feel-good fluff, no meat. My time in the non-denom/evangelical camp nearly ruined my faith.

so many of my friends who came out of a non-denom church feel the same way. It was entirely based on how someone felt during church as opposed to the message that was actually being taught. So if a person didn't feel anything during the service, they were made to believe their faith wasn't strong enough.

I had enough of that crap from my ex-husband, who claimed that I was going to hell because I couldn't understand him when he yelled at me in "tongues".

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

What does that have to do with a liturgy?

When you read through scripture in the NT, you'll see how they worshiped and it was very liturgical in style.

My comment had nothing to do with liturgy.

 

[Tangible]

I did not say that any song that contains the word "me" is bad. Create in me a clean heart o God is a wonderful song.

Who is running the verbs in the songs? That's the point. Is it me doing something or is it our triune God? And I don't mean just one sentence. I mean look at the song in its entirety.

In "I Come, O Savior, to Thy Table", sure the opening line says something I'm doing, but c'mon. Look at the rest of the song. It's about what our Savior has done for us!!!!!

Even a song with good words can wind up being inappropriate. When you take five or ten words of scripture and repeat them over and over again to music designed to produce or intensify an emotional experience, you are still trying to climb the ladder of mysticism up to God.

 

[goldbeach]

Even a song with good words can wind up being inappropriate. When you take five or ten words of scripture and repeat them over and over again to music designed to produce or intensify an emotional experience, you are still trying to climb the ladder of mysticism up to God.

".........vain repetition as the heathen do."

 

[Zecryphon]

I'm not trying to incite a riot or nor do I want anyone thinking that I'm leaving my happy Lutheran home. But I just drove past a non-denom church today that has really been booming in attendance. Then it came to my attention that a LOT of our local non-denoms are really booming.

My question is, what exactly

is the allure of a non-denom to some folks? What is their retention like - How long do members last there before either 1) returning to a mainstream religion or 2) leaving organized religion altogether?

It feels like I'm watching stray sheep wander when I see the car in front of me turn in to their parking lot Sunday mornings. I almost want to pull in to "poach and preach!" What on earth are these guys feeding the many itchy ears and poor souls???? I honestly don't get it. There is NO uniformity from church to church, and the attendee is truly at the mercy of a potential loose canon pastor who may or may not know his butt from a hole in the ground. Am I off base here?

In other words, regarding recruitment, is it the appeal of the "non-religion religion" that gets then in the door, or is it entirely something else?

There's a lot of problems with the Non-Denominational churches. For one thing, they don't take a Scriptural stance on the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and Baptism. They teach these as Ordinances of the church, meaning they are symbolic and while they say Jesus is everywhere, they kick Him out of His supper and the waters of Baptism by denying His Real Presence in these two Sacraments. They teach contrary to Scripture.

They also don't have an official church position on things like the end times, which Bible version to use, whether you need to be in church every Sunday, living together before marriage, etc. They also tend to do topical preaching instead of expository preaching. The minister will stand up front and tell you about his life, or what he recently saw on the news, or what happened at his last golf game or things that are happening in your life instead of teaching you about the life, death and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.

The music is "me" centered instead of Christ-centered and Cross-focused. The youth groups tend to be a joke. I volunteered in one for a year, and the youth pastor didn't care whether or not the kids even showed up or paid attention. He had a few he knew wanted to be there, but he knew that the majority didn't, and didn't really do anything to get those kids interested. The youth gathering room, had all sorts of distractions like video games and a ping pong table and bean bag chairs, and sofas. I'm sorry was this a teen hang-out or a place to study and learn Scripture? Arminian-ism ruled the whole church, you had a free-will choice to make. Baptism was all about YOU. It was an outward display of an inward decision for Christ that YOU made of your own free will, because you had reached the age of accountability.

Plus, since the churches typically don't take firm stances on anything and are very middle of the road, they can attract a great number of people. Once you have an "almost anything goes" attitude, people will flock to your church because they're not going to have to commit to believing something they don't want to believe. It's cafeteria-style Christianity. YOU choose what YOU want to believe, and you don't have to open your Bible if YOU don't want to. At Bible study, no one is ever wrong, because Scripture can be interpreted many different ways, so even though what you believe is good for YOU, it may not be good for your neighbor. They're a complete mess and best avoided.

I wouldn't even know how to begin to sort one out. Well actually I do. Throw out everything they've done up until now, and start with Luther's Small Catechism. Learn the basics. I guarantee these people are just like the common people in Luther's day, ignorant of the basics of Christianity. People need to be properly taught and catechized and the fact of the matter is, that the Non-Denomination church fails at this most basic service to it's body of members.