What does "Non-denominational" mean??

[ViaCrucis]

It definitely sounds like a Baptist congregation to me, and their file article on Baptism seems to suggest that as well. Can one therefore suggest that non-denominational "Bible churches" are Baptist in disguise? But what would be the purpose of then being non-denominational if they are essentially Baptist??

They are frequently Baptist-like, but saying they are "Baptist in disguise" is probably not fair.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

It sort of sounds like the agenda for making oneself non-denominational is to maximize funding, since in given areas perhaps a church could not fund itself from its denominational identification. Perhaps the same could be said by colleges competing for funding. But it seems to give the impression of insincerity etc.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they're genuinely looking to attract more converts -- that it's not for funding. But I guess I don't see why dropping the word "Baptist" or "Methodist" is an effective way to attract converts who will stay in the church long-term.

I may start another thread about this so that I'm not derailing this one.

 

[apogee]

This is not so much an attempt to provide a different definition than any offered so far, but rather to amalgamate them.

Roughly speaking non-denominational churches:
- Are generally either ecumenical, or in the very least universal in their idea of 'the church'

- Place a greater emphasis on a direct/experiential incarnation of Christianity, rather than an abstracted/formalised description of it.

- Tend to shy away from expressing any explicit form of ecclesiology

- Tend to reject the notion of specifically 'ordained' leaders, favouring a 'priesthood of all believers' approach, but generally still have the person(s) at the front, leading the show.

- Aspire to be more like the early church, and reject the idea that Christians should be divided by anything as arbitrary as theological beliefs.(which Ironically, is a pretty good description of the early Church)

- Tend to have an extremely low view of sacramentology, rejecting all but perhaps the ones Jesus instigated, i.e. 'baptism', 'the Lord's Supper', possibly even 'foot washing' (which to be fair pretty much no-one bothers with, unless some preacher randomly decides to include it as a practical session in their sermon about 'serving one another')

- have no formal statement of belief - but would still generally say they ascribe to the Nicean Creed to avoid being called a cult (unless they actually are a cult, in which case you might as well ignore everything I have said so far and just accept that they are the only valid expression of the church, and you are currently decieved)

- have no overarching governmental body.

- have a "what we believe" section on their website and might even pay subscription fees to the Evangelical Alliance, so that no-one thinks they are a cult.

- have emerged from either a charismatic individual or a dynamic movement, and either die out within the first 30-50 years of their existence, or else go through a phase of formalising their ecclesiology, sacramentology, and soteriology, to the point that they effectively become a denomination of their own. (this could be used to describe the emergence of Christianity itself, as a Jewish sect)

I consider myself a non-denominational Christian (i.e. i tick 'Christian' rather than 'Methodist' on forms), although I currently attend a mainstream denominational church (and really I'm just a 'born again' ex-Catholic, whatever that means)

Clear as mud

 

[Haramis]

But how do they accommodate the serious theological and doctrinal differences among denominations

Our salvation comes through Christ alone. I am not aware of any denomination that differs from this. Seek God and follow His will. This is a consistent theme of every denomination. This is also the entire core of Christianity.

Most of the differences between the denominations are actually pretty minor. There are bigger cultural differences than there are doctrinal ones.

If someone thinks that their interpretation of Revelation is what defines them as a Christian, they're fundamentally misunderstanding the most basic element of the faith.

 

[Duvduv]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

 

[tampasteve]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

The public is generally ambivalent to the doctrinal differences between denominations and most believers just find a pastor and church they like, regardless of the denomination, at least this is the case with many protestants in the USA . The main differences at that point are if the church has communion weekly or not, how long the service is, and if the worship band is good. Many believers do not care what a denomination believes (even if they attend weekly) and just go their own way, or follow the pastors word, for better or for worse.

 

[W2L]

I consider myself as non denominational. I dont get hung up on what teachers say or divide over, i instead follow the Holy Spirit teacher who guides us as individuals.

 

[apogee]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

Doctrinal and Theological differences are not unique to Christianity.

Jewish religious movements - Wikipedia

They are by no means irrelevant, they are just less relevant.

 

[ToBeLoved]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

The point is that a denomination is a church body that Chooses to align themselves with that denomination.

So it is official. That church has made a choice in that association and the denomination has made a choice to accept that church as part of their denomination.

It’s an official position of beliefs and a following of the official theology of that governing body.

 

[ToBeLoved]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

The point is that each denomination publishes their beliefs and theology, so in essence it is never hidden in that sense.

That is why churches are in denominations, because it clearly lays out the theology and beliefs they follow.

 

[apogee]

Another thing to bear in mind is that to some degree denominations are often vestiges of very specific, social, cultural and dare I say spiritual contexts.

In many cases those contexts that gave rise to various differences, are simply no longer there, so all that is left is the structures and traditions, of those groups and the memory that at some point there was a divergence.

 

[Sketcher]

Non-denominational just means it's not part of a larger conference of believers, while still being connected to the Church Universal in Christ. There are non-denominational churches that were planted by Baptists, and non-denominational churches that were planted by Pentecostal sects, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were non-denominational churches that were planted by others. They are not organized with each other in any way, if you want to know what a given non-denominational church teaches, look up their Statement of Faith. The tendency is to insist more on the essentials of the faith than on a given stance on more debatable matters (such as when the Rapture will occur within the End Times).

In my experience, even the non-strict Baptists are stricter about certain doctrines and practices than non-denominationals. But on the core teachings, there is agreement.

 

[Duvduv]

Do the preachers teach the attendees that none of the disputed doctrines matter? If they are unaffiliated aren't they uninformed and misled into thinking that the differences are unimportant? Wasn't Billy Graham non-denominational, but told people to decide themselves on which church to belong to even though he was a Baptist?

 

[ToBeLoved]

As far as I understand your view the doctrinal and theological diffrrences among denominations should be covered over. That would suggest that you consider them irrelevant. But should the greater public be misinformed about these matters?

The point is NOT what do other Christians think of denominations but what does Christ think.

The fact is that most denominations follow the teachings of Christ. Period. So even if we see the differences and think they are huge, I'm not sure Christ see's it that way when all these millions of people have a relationship with Him and are growing in their walk.

I think instead of looking at it from our human perspective, often it is better to try to look at it from Christ's point of view.

 

[tampasteve]

Do the preachers teach the attendees that none of the disputed doctrines matter? If they are unaffiliated aren't they uninformed and misled into thinking that the differences are unimportant? Wasn't Billy Graham non-denominational, but told people to decide themselves on which church to belong to even though he was a Baptist?

Some do teach that they don't matter. Most don't even delve into the disputed issues and if they are asked about them they tell you to pray about it and read the Bible. Those issues just are not the focus of their ministry. That said, on a whole, they don't believe in the real presense or sacraments other than baptism and will be up front about this in their statements of beliefs.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It sort of sounds like the agenda for making oneself non-denominational is to maximize funding, since in given areas perhaps a church could not fund itself from its denominational identification. Perhaps the same could be said by colleges competing for funding. But it seems to give the impression of insincerity etc.

I'm not sure how you think that saying a church is non-denominational would increase funding. I would think it would be just the opposite. A church does not have a denominational affiliation to fall back on.

Can you explain further your reasoning behind this 'funding' thing and how you see the advantage?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Some do teach that they don't matter. Most don't even delve into the disputed issues and if they are asked about them they tell you to pray about it and read the Bible. Those issues just are not the focus of their ministry. That said, on a whole, they don't believe in the real presense or sacraments other than baptism and will be up front about this in their statements of beliefs.

Huh?

I think you use the word 'Most' very liberally here. And the word 'on a whole'. This is why people are so confused and not to be rude, but how as a Lutheran do you feel so qualified to say what non-denominational churches believe?

I find all your labels and inaccuracies very Please explain how you are qualified to make these statements or is it just your opinion that you have added words like 'most' and 'on a whole' to strengthen your own credibility to some affect.

I have been non-denominational my entire life and this is so off.

 

[tampasteve]

Huh?

I think you use the word 'Most' very liberally here. And the word 'on a whole'. This is why people are so confused and not to be rude, but how as a Lutheran do you feel so qualified to say what non-denominational churches believe?

I find all your labels and inaccuracies very Please explain how you are qualified to make these statements or is it just your opinion that you have added words like 'most' and 'on a whole' to strengthen your own credibility to some affect.

I have been non-denominational my entire life and this is so off.

I was raised in a nondenominational nominally Baptist home and went to a Baptist school k through 8th.

So you would say that most non denominational churches do teach on why that disagree with denominations and what makes them different? That they preach on why they do not believe in the sacraments, Tradition, liturgy, creeds, etc. Or would you say that most do not teach on these issues but rather focus on the "basics and fundamentals" of beings follower of Christ?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I was raised in a nondenominational nominally Baptist home.

So you were raised in one non-denominational belief system and now you are the expert on what MOST non-denominational churches believe?

Can you share the entire scope of why you think you are an expert to make classifications such as 'most'.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So you would say that most non denominational churches do teach on why that disagree with denominations and what makes them different? That they preach on why they do not believe in the sacraments, Tradition, liturgy, creeds, etc. Or would you say that most do not teach on these issues but rather focus on the "basics and fundamentals" of beings follower of Christ?

If you consider the Bible to be the 'basics and fundamentals' of being a follower of Christ, rather than sacraments, tradition, liturgy and creeds, then I would say that it all is about following Christ.

But then I have to wonder, why that is not your focus too. Since it is God made flesh, perfect and Holy, why would you not be about that but instead be interested in sacraments, tradition, liturgy and creeds.

Seems like your focus is a little off, IMHO.