Ecumenism or Non-denominationalism

[maudman]

Well it's sad that so many can't get along..

Like Christ said to those at Capernaum.. "YOU think you will be exalted unto heaven?" No you are at the very edge of the Pit! A kingdom divided shall not stand? Sandy soil? It seems it happens because people have the freedom to believe what they want.. Oh how you have to love religious freedom.. And hey that is what some of us all do? It is sometimes a choice no doubt.. Often there are those who believe what they want and they look to start something else for those like themselves.. But really and truthfully it's about putting away ourselves to form something new in the beginning in the bibl.. But that was the beginning and that not what it's about in the ending.. It's about those who remain in the fold to the end.. That the problem of picking up the bible and reading for your beginnings.. When were at t a time when it's at its end..

People who claim unity while historically seeking to remain separate when they aren't part of the ecumenical establishment is flawed reasoning.. They suffer delusion in many cases.. but not so much for the second generation of a thing..

One thing I find as a good test for a person, is to take a good look at what you're doing in your conversion process or have done.. If your conversion doesn't require a vast re-education process then Your change or conversion "may" be more of a personal issue.. Often this can be the case where people feelings are hurt for non ecumenical reasons.. Doctrinal reasons can be the best reason for ecumenicalism verses the other.. One is more a social reform in behavior.. If the only real works your congregation has is the things it says and believes and seeks converts for such reasons? A split or a falling away is inevitable usually when such people make up the sheep.. But don't take my word for it.. History is the best teacher..

One can claim to be a bible church all you want but that just means that your starting or joining a church for agreement on your reasoning's and that only works for a while.. The only example in the scripture that I see is people leaving the existing establishment as the ones in greater harm's way.. But that is just one example of a warning.. Plain fact of the matter is people join, convert or revert for reason that have nothing to do with ecumenical concerns..
Often and more truthfully the church only understood certain things as a whole and those that leave for doctrinal reasons don't understand truly the mercy and the grace of God in the church.. In the Bible the truth was never a good reason to abandon the existing establishment.. Only God can do that in a covenant.. So any ecumenical reasons or personal reasons for leaving or joining have to be reciprocating and they would have to point to something that previously existed because in scripture in the end people are falling away..
Peace and God bless..

[Pilgrim]

A new PEW study on religion (I love these studies), indicates a rise in non-denomination churches, and a drop in denominational ones.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...end?source=rss

Which do you think is better for Christianity's future as a whole: Trending toward Ecumenism or Non-denominationalism? Or does it even matter to you.

This is not a new trend. It's been tracking this way for a long time. One thing that seems to be true is that with the non affiliated churches scandals of all sorts seem more prolific. With out the accountability built into a systematic and connectional form of church polity leaders seem to lose their way. I know of course there are counter examples, particularly in the more hierarchical models but this still seems to be at least anecdotally true to me.

[Cow Poke]

This is not a new trend. It's been tracking this way for a long time. One thing that seems to be true is that with the non affiliated churches scandals of all sorts seem more prolific. With out the accountability built into a systematic and connectional form of church polity leaders seem to lose their way. I know of course there are counter examples, particularly in the more hierarchical models but this still seems to be at least anecdotally true to me.

I agree with this, Pilgrim. Even though I'm one of those (in my Baptist role) denominations that prides itself on autonomy, and we operate on a "bottom up" hierarchy, I can definitely see that a lot of the problems in our local (Baptist) churches stem from the lack of accountability of a pastor (who is the head of a local congregation, and, if he can get away with it, is really accountable to nobody but God, as he himself defines that accountability) to anybody "higher up".

When I am involved with Bible Churches, who also claim autonomy, they nevertheless have an elder system that includes elders from other Churches where the pastor is most assuredly accountable to somebody else.

Good food for thought!


ETA: And I am certainly mindful of a certain Dallas/FortWorth Pastor who got into LOTS of trouble shortly after screaming from the pulpit "I AM NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANYBODY BUT GOD!!!!" (I saw that on TV late one night, and I shuddered! Seriously)

[One Bad Pig]

A new PEW study on religion (I love these studies), indicates a rise in non-denomination churches, and a drop in denominational ones.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...end?source=rss

Which do you think is better for Christianity's future as a whole: Trending toward Ecumenism or Non-denominationalism? Or does it even matter to you.

Could you perhaps find a link to the study to post?

[RBerman]

Depends on what particular church you went to I guess. But the ones I have been to, the pastor would probably oblige but explain to you that baptism is not what saves someone....lest we be saved by works.

And I'd agree with him, but ask him why he brought up that topic, since the purpose of requesting baptism was not to "save my child." At any rate, the churches you've been to aren't like the ones I'm familiar with; I've not met an "independent" pastor who baptized babies on request but doesn't routinely encourage it.

Well the one I sent you doesn't consider themselves a denomination, but rather a fellowship of churches (although we could argue that all day). Although they follow a head-pastor model, from what I know, they would hardly say they believe its the right way to do things. Now obviously, the way particular non-denom churches are run and particular doctrines they might emphasize will end of "lining up" with some denominations...but I think the point is accept the fact that these areas are areas of diversity...and thats OK. Does that make sense? Calvary Chapel (and I think a lot of non-denoms) might hold a view such that they are not opposed to denominations as such, only their over emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ. Now to be fair, when I was at school in Indiana, I went to a "Calvary Chapel" thinking it was part of the fellowship I sent you in the link.....and boooooy was I wrong! To be honest, my spirit felt VERY uncomfortable there, so I never went back.

You're correct that I see "We're not a denomination, we're a fellowship of churches" as waffling about what a denomination is. If it really wasn't important to them, they would just say, "Are we a denomination? Are we a fellowship? Who cares? We work together to do things we couldn't do alone. Call it what you will."

[Phat8594]

And I'd agree with him, but ask him why he brought up that topic, since the purpose of requesting baptism was not to "save my child."

Well, I know I would probably ask the question, because believe it or not...a lot of people think that way...and to be fair, I wouldn't ask it as cut and dry as I wrote...but rather would bring it up through discussion such as "So why do you want to baptize your baby?"....from there one can usually tell where a person is coming from.

And I am sure that you, being involved with ministry, understand that there are a lot of people who think things like "I need to say this prayer to be saved", or "I need to be baptized, because if not I will go to hell." I like to think that its never a bad idea to emphasize the simplicity of the gospel. If the person already understands these truths, then great..we can both be thankful for what Christ has done...but if not, I am glad that I made sure, lest they continue in their error.

Speaking of which...we actually just baptized a new believer in our home Bible study this past week....the fact that we even had a pool to do it, is a testament to God's providence...

You're correct that I see "We're not a denomination, we're a fellowship of churches" as waffling about what a denomination is. If it really wasn't important to them, they would just say, "Are we a denomination? Are we a fellowship? Who cares? We work together to do things we couldn't do alone. Call it what you will."

Well I also find it a little ironic that the fellowship of churches is essentially a loose denomination whose calling card is essentially "we aren't big on denominatialism and overemphazising differences" yet all the while having particular distinctives that allow them to call themselves a "fellowship"...perhaps thats just me though.

And I agree, it would be better to say "We work together to do things we couldn't do alone. Call it what you will."

[Scrawly]

I consider myself non-denominational but reformed in theology. I basically consider myself non-denominational because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what denomination you belong to, as long as you are born again/regenerated. At that point you are family.

[One Bad Pig]

Depends on what particular church you went to I guess. But the ones I have been to, the pastor would probably oblige but explain to you that baptism is not what saves someone....lest we be saved by works.

Interesting. It seems to me that independent churches would tend more toward believer's baptism. I don't know that non-churchgoers would pick an independent church to call. I know a Baptist pastor who frequently fields calls requesting infant baptism; it seems that people see "Baptist" in the title and assume they baptize babies.

[maudman]

Well its even stranger at times for some because not all goes well for some startups.. I don't think you would disagree with that statment to much..


Often it is the problem of regression of some believers.. Not realizing that when people pick up a bible and read it? They are reading and infancy of a beginning for the most Part.. non-Denominationalism is often that.. I'm not being judgmental here.. It just the way things are.. Because it is a first generation of a thing and not anything new in and of itself.. It's a repeat but of what.. People hearing something for the first time and not realizing that they think this book the bible is talking to them so to speak.. When they are actually reading a story of Something communicating something to a something, and they don't have a good understanding of either one communicating..

In the case of infant baptism.. A man's house was his possessions, and he could command and demand his whole house to do his will. And the faithful do as the fathers commands because it is keeping the commandment of honoring your Mother and your Father. Baptism was symbolic act in the cleansing of original sin and the entrance into the presence of God.. A mother often washed her children to remove the stains..

Baptisms wasn't the receiving of the 7 spirits of God into the convert.. That was something that happened on Pentecost and was years after the Baptism even for the apostles.. Of which we call the sacrament of Confirmation.. The Anointing of the Holy Ghost.. or a baptism of Fire.. It confirms Gods selection of the elect of God..

I'm not saying these things to discourage others beliefs but to point out differences that Ecumenical has in a tradition.. Especially when passed down from generation to generation.. The traditions are the foundations upon which the truth sits or builds.. They are also the works of the Church in their preservation..

Peace and God bless

[shunyadragon]

A new PEW study on religion (I love these studies), indicates a rise in non-denomination churches, and a drop in denominational ones.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/...end?source=rss

Which do you think is better for Christianity's future as a whole: Trending toward Ecumenism or Non-denominationalism? Or does it even matter to you.

Ecumenism was a naive illusion of the 1950's and 1960's. No hope there to many power agendas and egocentric world views in Christianity.

Non-denominationalism is marketing shell game and simply creates more churches.

The old mainline Protestant Churches are fading because they went for reform, liberal and humanist leanings with an ancient Book that does not fit. The more evangelical fundamentalist churches (including many so-called non-denominational churches) have boomed and dominate Christianity today (because they fit the ancient book as meaning what it says) competing with the Roman Church for being top dog.

In the Roman Church the naive romantics pinned their hopes on the Vatican II for reform and Ecumenism, which turned out to be blue smoke and mirrors disguising the Vatican I as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In reality it was the original Vatican I establishing the absolute authority of the church and one universal Catachism from Rome for everyone.