Non Denoms.... an honest question

[Lost Squirrel]

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.

Now that's exactly what I would LOVE to put on their windshields while they are in church!

Thank you folks for keeping the discussion civil - I know it is difficult to defend ones faith without sounding well... you get the gist.

Sooo.... what are their tools for successes in "recruitment"? I don't question retention, as another poster already confirmed my revolving door theory.

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

Now that's exactly what I would LOVE to put on their windshields while they are in church!

Thank you folks for keeping the discussion civil - I know it is difficult to defend ones faith without sounding well... you get the gist.

Sooo.... what are their tools for successes in "recruitment"? I don't question retention, as another poster already confirmed my revolving door theory.

Biggest thing they do is make you feel ultra welcome...at first. They get in and treat you like you are a big deal for a while then after they've indoctrinated you...you are last week's news and just another one of the crowd, then they move on to someone else they want to make important for a while.

 

[Bryne]

I don't think that is unique to non-denominational churches, though.

 

[lux et lex]

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.

So are you anti music then?

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

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.

Maybe you don't mean to say this, but it sounds like you are suggesting that any song that invokes an emotional response is mysticism and wrong, and I would not say that is correct. Luther himself praised music for its ability to stir the emotions. I mean, what distinguishes that from the Calvinist view on music and musical restrictions because too much takes away from the words themselves?

Sounds to me that the music is not so inappropriate as the way one would use it. One certainly does not need "praise" music to try to in some way validate oneself or ascend to God.

 

[ContraMundum]

I think the definition of "denomination" is changing anyway. I know of three independent Lutheran churches in my area, none in fellowship with any other congregations or larger church bodies. Each one can not be said to be a "denomination" though because of their unique status, yet their emphasis (Lutheranism) is traditionally "denominational", and their adherence to traditional Lutheran practice certainly leads one to think of them denominationally.


What I find interesting is the notion that according to their reading of the BoC, their independence from other congregations (which they consider to be heterodox on one point or another) is their scriptural right, therefore, by their understanding, Lutheranism was never meant to be a denomination anyway, but rather this developed over time with agreement on doctrine between independent congregations. Interesting, no?

While I know that many other Lutherans would disagree with this assessment of the Confessions and Lutheranism in general, those who do think congregationally would have to admit that non-denominational Christian fellowships are still valid expressions of the Church, and each should be assessed according to their doctrine without sweeping generalizations.

 

[ContraMundum]

Maybe you don't mean to say this, but it sounds like you are suggesting that any song that invokes an emotional response is mysticism and wrong, and I would not say that is correct. Luther himself praised music for its ability to stir the emotions. I mean, what distinguishes that from the Calvinist view on music and musical restrictions because too much takes away from the words themselves?

Good point. Luther loved the way music could stir the soul, and decent congregational singing comes out of the Lutheran stream of the Reformation.

The Calvinist idea (based on the Regulative Principle of Worship) is that music should be restricted to the acapella singing of the Psalms only!

Sounds to me that the music is not so inappropriate as the way one would use it. One certainly does not need "praise" music to try to in some way validate oneself or ascend to God.

Bingo!

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

What I find interesting is the notion that according to their reading of the BoC, their independence from other congregations (which they consider to be heterodox on one point or another) is their scriptural right, therefore, by their understanding, Lutheranism was never meant to be a denomination anyway, but rather this developed over time with agreement on doctrine between independent congregations. Interesting, no?

While I know that many other Lutherans would disagree with this assessment of the Confessions and Lutheranism in general, those who do think congregationally would have to admit that non-denominational Christian fellowships are still valid expressions of the Church, and each should be assessed according to their doctrine without sweeping generalizations.

Actually the independence in the Book of Concord is more meant towards authority, not doctrine. In fact the BoC was written to tack down the doctrine that lutherans believe in (hence the name concord). Aberrant churches with no formal doctrinal training tend to want to distinguish themselves from the rest of christendom in general. A true non-denominational church would consider themselves catholic, as lutherans and others do. Denominations aren't a bad thing when viewed that they are just another expression of worship. If you view denominations as a difference in doctrine then you are only stating the same issues that have been happening since the apostles have set up the first churches with the different "christianities" present at the time.

 

[LilLamb219]

Maybe you don't mean to say this, but it sounds like you are suggesting that any song that invokes an emotional response is mysticism and wrong, and I would not say that is correct. Luther himself praised music for its ability to stir the emotions. I mean, what distinguishes that from the Calvinist view on music and musical restrictions because too much takes away from the words themselves?

Sounds to me that the music is not so inappropriate as the way one would use it. One certainly does not need "praise" music to try to in some way validate oneself or ascend to God.

Luther did not intend the stirring of emotions to mean that the Holy Spirit was present as you'll hear from so many other denoms who claim that they feel the Holy Spirit when they have good music. Luther had stated before that where the Word of God is, there you find the Holy Spirit.

 

[mwood30]

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?

The appeal of non-denominational churches is simple: It allows people to learn about Christ without the burden of doctrines. Many of the traditional doctrines have been shown to be false in light of the Koine Greek papyri discovered in Egypt, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Aramaic documents found in Wadi Murabbat. None of these documents invalidate the Bible, just doctrines.

Yet many people are so in love with their doctrines that they do everything in their power to avoid the conclusions drawn from modern discovery. They are defending doctrines instead of using everything available to truly learn about the original Christian faith. If you belong to a non-denominational church, you have no doctrines to defend, and you are free to accept everything that is discovered regarding first century Christianity.

 

[Melethiel]

The appeal of non-denominational churches is simple: It allows people to learn about Christ without the burden of doctrines. Many of the traditional doctrines have been shown to be false in light of the Koine Greek papyri discovered in Egypt, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Aramaic documents found in Wadi Murabbat. None of these documents invalidate the Bible, just doctrines.

Yet many people are so in love with their doctrines that they do everything in their power to avoid the conclusions drawn from modern discovery. They are defending doctrines instead of using everything available to truly learn about the original Christian faith. If you belong to a non-denominational church, you have no doctrines to defend, and you are free to accept everything that is discovered regarding first century Christianity.

Funny how most non-denoms reject the fundamental tenets of the original Christian faith, namely, the Sacraments. If they even teach doctrine at all...you act like "doctrine" is a bad word, but without doctrine, you believe in nothing. Paul sure wrote a lot of doctrine.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Non-Denomination is a denomination all on its own, even though it denies it. My ex and I went to a non denom church for a while...it's all very contemporary and me me me (in my opinion).

That's true. Most tend to be Baptist with a fancier name.

 

[ContraMundum]

Actually the independence in the Book of Concord is more meant towards authority, not doctrine. In fact the BoC was written to tack down the doctrine that lutherans believe in (hence the name concord). Aberrant churches with no formal doctrinal training tend to want to distinguish themselves from the rest of christendom in general. A true non-denominational church would consider themselves catholic, as lutherans and others do. Denominations aren't a bad thing when viewed that they are just another expression of worship. If you view denominations as a difference in doctrine then you are only stating the same issues that have been happening since the apostles have set up the first churches with the different "christianities" present at the time.

I agree with this. Very well put and informed.

 

[LilLamb219]

The appeal of non-denominational churches is simple: It allows people to learn about Christ without the burden of doctrines. Many of the traditional doctrines have been shown to be false in light of the Koine Greek papyri discovered in Egypt, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Aramaic documents found in Wadi Murabbat. None of these documents invalidate the Bible, just doctrines.

Yet many people are so in love with their doctrines that they do everything in their power to avoid the conclusions drawn from modern discovery. They are defending doctrines instead of using everything available to truly learn about the original Christian faith. If you belong to a non-denominational church, you have no doctrines to defend, and you are free to accept everything that is discovered regarding first century Christianity.

Do you know the definition of "doctrine"?

Doctrines are teachings. God's Word teaches us many things. Paul told Timothy to hold on to pure doctrine, but I guess non-denoms don't want to hear that. They would rather have an anything goes type of attitude?

 

[Luther073082]

Do you know the definition of "doctrine"?

Doctrines are teachings. God's Word teaches us many things. Paul told Timothy to hold on to pure doctrine, but I guess non-denoms don't want to hear that. They would rather have an anything goes type of attitude?

They don't get that and they don't want that. They only want a church that teaches something about Jesus. Doctrinal purity is not any of their concerns.

 

[Zecryphon]

Do you know the definition of "doctrine"?

Doctrines are teachings. God's Word teaches us many things. Paul told Timothy to hold on to pure doctrine, but I guess non-denoms don't want to hear that. They would rather have an anything goes type of attitude?

To them words like doctrine, tradition, Sacraments... all these are bad words and must be avoided at all costs. They do have an "anything goes" type of attitude and that's how they approach worship. It's all good as long as it makes YOU feel good. Yeah they'll quote some Scripture in their sermons, but then they twist it. That's how heresy works, take a truth, then change it just a little bit, so it still looks and sounds Biblical, but when compared against the Scriptures is proven to be false. Non-Denominationalism is cafeteria Christianity. Grab your tray and select what YOU will believe. This church, the ND church, is fine with that.

 

[jonathan1971]

The doctrine of no doctrine.....

 

[jonathan1971]

Many of the traditional doctrines have been shown to be false in light of the Koine Greek papyri discovered in Egypt, the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Aramaic documents found in Wadi Murabbat. None of these documents invalidate the Bible, just doctrines.

I'm curious what doctrines have been proven false by the discovery of these documents? Can any of these documents invalidate any of the three creeds found in the Book of Concord?

 

[Zecryphon]

The doctrine of no doctrine.....

Must be really quiet in a Non-Denom church then. However in my experience it never was.

 

[mwood30]

Funny how most non-denoms reject the fundamental tenets of the original Christian faith, namely, the Sacraments. If they even teach doctrine at all...you act like "doctrine" is a bad word, but without doctrine, you believe in nothing. Paul sure wrote a lot of doctrine.

And Paul wrote to make sure doctrine is based on scripture. Scripture first, doctrine second. That's all.