Why Non Denominational is best.

[LJSGM]

I think that has more to do with the church polity model (how it is organized and run) a church uses, rather than a denomination. There are basically three types of church government.

Episcopal (authority in a bishop) is a top-down hierarchy, seen in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican denominations, and some Lutheran and Methodist ones. While churches may have elders or clergy who speak to the higher-ups, the top of the hierarchy makes policy decisions and sends them down the chain to the congregations.

Presbyterian (authority in elders) is more of a representative democracy model, in which each congregation is run by elders, who send representatives to the presbytery (group of churches in a particular area), which then sends representatives to the synod (policy-making meeting of the whole denomination). Most Presbyterian denominations (obviously) have this sort of model, as do some other Reformed denominations. Most denominations have some sort of elders or lay leaders in place, but they do not have the same sort of representation to an assembly of central authority that this model uses.

Congregationalism (authority in the congregation) is the third, and many denominations embrace this form of government. Each congregation is an autonomous unit. Though they may send representatives to a denomination-based association (like the Southern Baptist Convention), the rulings of the association do not have binding control over its members.

There are a great number of denominational churches that are congregational in polity. This church polity, in and of itself, is not specific to non-denominational churches.

What about home groups? You can be non denominational and be apart of a home group as well. Which catagory do they fall in since we just love labelling?

 

[LJSGM]

For me, I more often say I'm a christian, but if someone asks "What denomination are you?" I would say non denom as a statement of belief. I would still consider myself non denom even if I attended a baptist church or anything else. They're all just labels, in which we in Christ CANNOT go without:o . Instead of challenging each others beliefs in love, we choose to seperate ourselves from them that hold different side beliefs because we are easily offended, and often unkind in the way that we deal with each other (and sometimes you just have agree to disagree and still love each other). I think only in Christ is there a way around this.

 

[JAS4Yeshua]

I think that has more to do with the church polity model (how it is organized and run) a church uses, rather than a denomination. There are basically three types of church government.

Episcopal (authority in a bishop) is a top-down hierarchy, seen in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican denominations, and some Lutheran and Methodist ones. While churches may have elders or clergy who speak to the higher-ups, the top of the hierarchy makes policy decisions and sends them down the chain to the congregations.

Presbyterian (authority in elders) is more of a representative democracy model, in which each congregation is run by elders, who send representatives to the presbytery (group of churches in a particular area), which then sends representatives to the synod (policy-making meeting of the whole denomination). Most Presbyterian denominations (obviously) have this sort of model, as do some other Reformed denominations. Most denominations have some sort of elders or lay leaders in place, but they do not have the same sort of representation to an assembly of central authority that this model uses.

Congregationalism (authority in the congregation) is the third, and many denominations embrace this form of government. Each congregation is an autonomous unit. Though they may send representatives to a denomination-based association (like the Southern Baptist Convention), the rulings of the association do not have binding control over its members.

There are a great number of denominational churches that are congregational in polity. This church polity, in and of itself, is not specific to non-denominational churches.

Thanks for that explanation. I had heard those terms before (except for Congregationalism) and just associated them with denominations.

The point that I tried to make (don't know if it was in this thread or another) is that we should look past denominations, and not see one form of "religious worship" as better than another. Each has its faults and errors. We need to still remain united in Christ, and not divided among our "religious preferences."

 

[synger]

What about home groups? You can be non denominational and be apart of a home group as well. Which catagory do they fall in since we just love labelling?

*grins* Very true. I consider a home group, or house church, to be congregational in polity. Just... smaller than you normally think a "congregation" would be.

 

[marshgreencohen]

genius

 

[Svt4Him]

Please remember that the non-denominational area is an area where others may ask questions, but debate and answering of those questions can only be done by non-denominational members.

[rule1.4]

 

[whateveristrue]

What's the difference between "non-denominational" and "Inter-denominational" ?

 

[Nadiine]

I think that has more to do with the church polity model (how it is organized and run) a church uses, rather than a denomination. There are basically three types of church government.

Episcopal (authority in a bishop) is a top-down hierarchy, seen in the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican denominations, and some Lutheran and Methodist ones. While churches may have elders or clergy who speak to the higher-ups, the top of the hierarchy makes policy decisions and sends them down the chain to the congregations.

Presbyterian (authority in elders) is more of a representative democracy model, in which each congregation is run by elders, who send representatives to the presbytery (group of churches in a particular area), which then sends representatives to the synod (policy-making meeting of the whole denomination). Most Presbyterian denominations (obviously) have this sort of model, as do some other Reformed denominations. Most denominations have some sort of elders or lay leaders in place, but they do not have the same sort of representation to an assembly of central authority that this model uses.

Congregationalism (authority in the congregation) is the third, and many denominations embrace this form of government. Each congregation is an autonomous unit. Though they may send representatives to a denomination-based association (like the Southern Baptist Convention), the rulings of the association do not have binding control over its members.

There are a great number of denominational churches that are congregational in polity. This church polity, in and of itself, is not specific to non-denominational churches.

Interesting info, thanks alot

 

[andross77]

yeah, i'm non-denominational, but i really despise the whole idea of this thread to be honest. there isn't a "best" system with God. i really think this is one of the attitudes that causes the most division in the church overall...it's prideful, it's holier-than-thou, and it doesn't set the best example for non-believers....​

Great insight ! And from such a "youngin" .

Denominations would fall under the "non-essentials" category of faith. If you want to argue why a certain view of Christ is best, that would be more appropriate.

I am non-denom but one thing i feel is lacking in my church is showing emotion. That was one thing i appreciated at my ex-girlfriends church (Assemblies of God). They would wave their arms and be in the aisles and stuff praising God. I think at times, that's VERY appropriate. After all, Jesus Rocks!