Non-denominational churches and dividing issues

[Palinator]

Trying to achieve "non-denominational" status means that any inter-denominational disputes cannot be decided. While I suspect that most non-denominational groups are happy to take sides when it comes to rejecting Catholic and Orthodox teachings, they can't go too deep in their theological beliefs without taking sides in issues that separated protestants into denominations in the first place.
I read the above quote and was wondering what others thought about it. What do you think?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I read the above quote and was wondering what others thought about it. What do you think?

I think we've reached the point where non-denom is pretty much becoming its own denom.

[dizzle]

I think we've reached the point where non-denom is pretty much becoming its own denom.

That is exactly what I was thinking. I have attended numerous non-denom churches and they all seem to have non-Calvinist, pre-trib, premill, dispie in common. I just think we have a group of folks that don't want to be directed from a larger organization that may not have the knowledge of local conditions etc. I do not have an issue with non-denoms - in fact my views right now are leaning towards thinking the house church is the Biblical model (but just like in the case of theonomy, I can't throw my hat definitely in that ring due to lack of time to thoroughly study)

[Anoetos]

My opinion is:

1. Inter-denominational disputes cannot be decided by denominations and will only be resolved at the parousia (The RCC and the EOC do not "resolve" such disputes so much as crush them and eject their proponents).

2. Intra-ecclesial or intra-denominational disputes can be handled at the congregational or denominational level and resolved by the authorities pertaining thereto.

The idea that there should be no such disputes and that visible unity is such a singular and manifest bonum that it warrants all manner of precipitous and ecclesially authoritative condemnation of all opposing views is entirely foreign to me.

[Kenite]

I read the above quote and was wondering what others thought about it. What do you think?Some say that the word denominations is a misspelling of 'demon nations'. I think that for some, the word 'denomination' is code for 'establishment religion', i.e. a clergy controlled, devitalized version of Christianity, one that the world and its governments find acceptable. The move away from denoms is often a move toward independence and democracy, though it does not always succeed.

[smaller]

I read the above quote and was wondering what others thought about it. What do you think?

What you or I think doesn't mean much when it comes to this reality:

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

All believers believe they are immune from this open assault by satan but they are not. It's just a fact and that fact is attested to by the separation of denominations and hallmarked by other openly notable features.

God's Word should come with warning labels such as "if you read this you may no longer be able to love your neighbor as yourself" or "God may send a demon upon you if He allows you to see too much." (2 Cor. 12:7)

enjoy!

smaller

[Bill the Cat]

I read the above quote and was wondering what others thought about it. What do you think?

Hey Joan,

I now attend a non-denominational church after years of being affiliated with the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. Why do I now go to a non-denominational church? Because I feel at home there. The church could have any label it wanted, or be affiliated with any denonminational group it wanted (Christian only though), and I would still attend. I go because the Word is taken seriously and taught with respect. My wife goes because she learns from the messages and enjoys the fellowship of the other families. My kids go because the youth program is also Bible centered, and not a babysitting service, and they have to 'cause I said so :wink:.

I really don't care what label or leadership structure is associated with my church, as long as Christ is the head, the Word is preached faithfully, and the believers are true to their brotherly love. We feel at home and loved by our church family, who just so happens to be non-denominational.

As far as the quote goes...

Trying to achieve "non-denominational" status means that any inter-denominational disputes cannot be decided.

This is an existing problem in denomination based Christian groups too.

While I suspect that most non-denominational groups are happy to take sides when it comes to rejecting Catholic and Orthodox teachings,

This is a sweeping generalization. We do not reject the Catholic and Orthodox teaching of Jesus, the trinity, the future resurrection of the saints and the future judgement. We only reject things that are peripheral to the Christian faith.

they can't go too deep in their theological beliefs without taking sides in issues that separated protestants into denominations in the first place.

So? Big deal. We all take sides on these issues. What is the gripe there? That we as protestants (but not under a denominational heirarchy) get to make up our minds ourselves on issues that do not affect our standing as Christians?

[Palinator]

Gee Kenite, tell me what you really think?

What's a parousia?

[themuzicman]

The one thing I took from the LOTR series which I think is fairly accurate is that men desire power.

Which is what large denominations represent. The reason the RCC (and probably EO) and many of the larger denominations are fairly ineffective and why there is so much fighting going on between them is that they want to hold power over their domain. Thus, the other denominations must somehow be bad or wrong.

Honestly, a non-denominational church can fall into the same trap, and probably frequently do. A classic example is that church in Houston led by that Joe Feel-Good (what's his name again? Oopsteen?) where his one church is probably larger in number than some denominations out there, thus becoming a defacto denomination by himself.

I've even seen signs of this in my own church. We "planted" a church about 20 miles from our original campus, but rather than having their own preacher, the pastor of the original campus is recorded on DVD, and his sermon is played there.

To answer the original post, non-denoms to a limited extent have to show why the EO church isn't "the" Church (same for RCC, too, I guess), and to that extent they may engage in some protestant doctrine, but I think the non-denom movement isn't so much a break away from anything as it is an attempt to find the roots of Christianity.

Not that it's always successful, mind you.

Michael

[Howie]

The one thing I took from the LOTR series which I think is fairly accurate is that men desire power.

Which is what large denominations represent. The reason the RCC (and probably EO) and many of the larger denominations are fairly ineffective and why there is so much fighting going on between them is that they want to hold power over their domain. Thus, the other denominations must somehow be bad or wrong.

Honestly, a non-denominational church can fall into the same trap, and probably frequently do. A classic example is that church in Houston led by that Joe Feel-Good (what's his name again? Oopsteen?) where his one church is probably larger in number than some denominations out there, thus becoming a defacto denomination by himself.

I've even seen signs of this in my own church. We "planted" a church about 20 miles from our original campus, but rather than having their own preacher, the pastor of the original campus is recorded on DVD, and his sermon is played there.

To answer the original post, non-denoms to a limited extent have to show why the EO church isn't "the" Church (same for RCC, too, I guess), and to that extent they may engage in some protestant doctrine, but I think the non-denom movement isn't so much a break away from anything as it is an attempt to find the roots of Christianity.

Not that it's always successful, mind you.

Michael
I have been researching Jesus teachings on prayer “proseuchomai”. It is always associated with privacy in one way or another - especially when Jesus taught us to pray (Mt 6:6). Is it possible that this (denominational conflict) is one of the reasons that Jesus eschews public and group prayer?

[President-Elect $cirisme]

Trying to achieve "non-denominational" status means that any inter-denominational disputes cannot be decided.

This part is kinda weird. The author hints that no dispute can be resolved because there is no binding authority to make a decision between denominations. If my interpretation is correct, then he's not saying anything unique about non-denominational churches. If a dispute arose between, say, Methodists and Presbyterians, there is no (earthly) authority that can make them come together.

While I suspect that most non-denominational groups are happy to take sides when it comes to rejecting Catholic and Orthodox teachings

Of course. Non-denominationalism is definately Protestant, and Protestants definately reject certain Catholic and Orthodox teachings. (the authority of the Pope, the Church, etc)

If a non-denom church upholded the things Protestants are against, they would be a Catholic or an Orthodox church, not a non-denominational church. (if you wonder why, non-denoms are that way because the church leaders for one reason or another do not wish to be under the authority of a denomination. If a church says they are under the authority of the Catholic church, for example, that would, by definition, mean they are not non-denominational)

they can't go too deep in their theological beliefs without taking sides in issues that separated protestants into denominations in the first place.

As others have shared, non-denoms are like denominations in the fact that they mostly share the same beliefs. So, there's a contradiction. Either the majority is united in their theological beliefs or they are divided, just like why Protestants separated into denominations in the first place.

You can't have it both ways. Personally, I think they're quite united. (except, of course, for those few wacky churches that call themselves non-denominational but have non-Christian beliefs.)

Why are they united? Well, if you look at the people described, like DDW said, they share a lot of similar beliefs. You could argue that they therefore share mostly the same interpretation of scripture, and part of that interpretation is the government of the church. Most non-denominationalists will argue, among other things, that the local church is accountable directly to God and not to large denominational organizations. This is exactly the same thing you will find in any other denomination in the world. Catholics will argue for their views on doctrine... which includes a view they all share about the authority of the Church and of the Pope.

So, yes, of course, non-denominationalists will share many views. The very fact they are not denominational comes from the way they view scripture, and they apply this to other areas in scripture and frequently come to similar conclusions. It's pretty Well, DUH! if you ask me.

But I think it's kind of retarded to call it a denomination, because you then mischaracterize the reason they are non-denom because you show that you view denominationalism through one narrow dimension. You give the impression that denominations are about one thing only: doctrine. Meaning, you give the impression that you think the only reason a church is a certain denomination is because of their views on baptism, for instance. You miss, completely, the nuance of church leadership. I say it's a nuance because, yes it comes from doctrine, but there is also the secondary aspect that has nothing to do with doctrine, and that's the people invovled.

A church's doctrine may fall completely within the Methodist view. They may agree entirely, even about church leadership. But the church may not join the Methodist denomination because they feel the Methodist leaders themselves would not rule their church well. This may not be a position of doctrine, so I think that lumping denominations together solely based on doctrine is a severe misunderstanding.

In the dimension of doctrine, sure, many non-denoms act like denoms. But in the dimension of church leadership, they most certainly are nothing like denominations. And I think that's the whole point.