Do most Protestants find Non-Denominationalism a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter christcnection1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christcnection1

Guest
Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?

I personally believe its main intent is good: to foster greater unity. In many instances I believe this is achieved. But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?

Thanks for your thoughts. (Be nice everyone 🙂 )
 
Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?

I personally believe its main intent is good: to foster greater unity. In many instances I believe this is achieved. But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?

Thanks for your thoughts. (Be nice everyone 🙂 )
As a former protestant, I think non denominationalism makes the most sense if we don’t think a single true church exists.
 
I’m not a Protestant but I find non-denominationalism a confusing idea. Doesn’t it make the interpretation of the individual pastor the final arbiter about what is true? Or have I misunderstood it?
 
I’m not a Protestant but I find non-denominationalism a confusing idea. Doesn’t it make the interpretation of the individual pastor the final arbiter about what is true? Or have I misunderstood it?
Yes and no.

It could mean that we need to stick to basics and join together in Christ without labels.

I don’t hold this view, but I see the logic.
 
Yes and no.

It could mean that we need to stick to basics and join together in Christ without labels.

I don’t hold this view, but I see the logic.
Sadly, there is little agreement on the “basics”. If you ask some non-denominational, fundamentalists, the basics include no smoking, no drinking, and no cutting the hair for women. Other non-denominational sects find no problem with one, two, or all of those.

Therein is the huge problem. Without a God led hierarchy and body of tradition and canon law, there is no foundation other than arbitrary, personal, interpetation.

Paul
 
I’ll speak as a non-denominational Protestant here.

I mentioned in another thread that the heart of Jewish law and “the greatest commandment” are the same. Love the Lord with every ounce of your being and love your neighbor as yourself. Everything else is a derivative of that.

The problem I personally have with a church hierarchy is that it inherently removes the Spirit from individual guidance into a “Read the catechism” mode. Paul wrote of the individual guidance in 1 Corinthians 8, when he warned to
“Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”
I know in the church that I last regularly attended, there was a pretty good amount of diversity of every type. There were those who would wear their best clothes, and there were college kids who would have shorts and sandals. There were those with short hair and were clean-shaven, and there were those with long hair, piercings, and an abundance of facial hair. There were women that wore no makeup and men that did. And in worship, there were those who would jump around and dance and those that would quietly stay where they were. And afterward, everyone would gather together for a nice Sunday dinner with a great mixing among the flock. And I’ll tell you something…the Spirit was alive in that place.

In 2 Chronicles, Israel suffers under a succession of idolatrous and apostate kings, resulting in the fulfillment of the covenant curses. Keep in mind that Israel’s civil and criminal law was Mosaic law and violation by an individual could also bring trouble to the entire country. But when Hezekiah was king and he implemented reforms that resulted in the restoration of Passover, the law of celebrating Passover was openly and actively violated. But it clearly says that:
Since many in the crowd had not consecrated themselves, the Levites had to kill the Passover lambs for all those who were not ceremonially clean and could not consecrate their lambs to the LORD. Although most of the many people who came from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun had not purified themselves, yet they ate the Passover, contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, “May the LORD, who is good, pardon everyone who sets his heart on seeking God—the LORD, the God of his fathers—even if he is not clean according to the rules of the sanctuary.” And the LORD heard Hezekiah and healed the people.
Ultimately, this is the litmus test:
  1. Do I, by a particular action, cause a brother or sister who is weaker in their faith or even a non-believer to sin?
  2. Do I, by a particular action, cause a breach in my relationship with the Almighty?
To address the first point, why do I not (nor will I ever) display Christian bumper stickers on my car? Because if I do something on the road that causes someone else to become annoyed, I’d rather be the object of scorn. If I have a bumper sticker, I may cause them to curse God and thus bring trouble upon themself. Others don’t feel that way, and that’s fine. The Spirit has led me to go sticker-less.

To address both points, I’ll give an example using sex. I got married fairly recently (within the last year), so there’s still some amount of passion;) . The Roman church is very clear on what constitutes “permissible” sexual activity. Contraception is out, oral sex is out, “finishing up outside” is out, self-stimulation is out, and so on. Depending on how strict of an interpretation you want, most positions that involve intercourse are out as well.

Now, there are certain things that would violate both questions from above. If I pleasure myself while fantasizing about someone I’m not married to, it would both damage my relationship with my wife and with the Almighty. If I pleasure myself while fantasizing about my wife who works different shifts than I do (limiting our time together), does that damage either? The Spirit has not convicted me on that. If I “finish up outside”, does that damage my relationship with my wife or the Almighty? She hasn’t stated that it negatively affects her, and the Spirit has not convicted me. If we go without contraception and I “finish up inside”, it most certainly would negatively affect her relationship with me, and my justifying with “God says I have to” may also cause her to curse the Almighty.

I can accept difficult teachings; the Bible is full of them. I can accept difficult circumstances; it’s a part of life. What I can’t accept is a micromanagement of what is supposed to be a Spirit-guided life by a church hierarchy. If it helps some on their journey, great. If it keeps others down, that’s not so great. This isn’t a slam on the Roman church, it’s more or less a slam on every established denomination that maintains their own absolutes on really anything beyond what is laid out in Scripture.
 
christcnection1;:
Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?
The theory is that by uniting in essentials, one can overlook the non-essentials that would otherwise divide them.

Unfortunately, what is an “essential”, and what is a “non-essential” differ from person to person. Thus, either nothing is laid down as a hard and fast rule, for fear of offending somebody, or else hard and fast rules are laid down, and another denomination is created. (In the worst case scenario, hard and fast rules that directly violate the Ten Commandments are laid down.)
But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?
This is most likely to happen in a non-denominational mega church.

Small groups drive growth, and retard spiritual maturity.

xan

jonathon
 
I’m a former evangelical Protestant who was never involved in non-denoms, although I have known many friends who are. One of the men I grew up with was a pastor in the Conference Baptist denomination for over 20years, and he just left to start up a non-denominational church.

There are certain advantages to a non-denominational church.
  1. ** Home control of liturgy (or non-liturgy!)**. Some denominations, even the Baptist ones, still use a “liturgy” or “schedule” of worship service provided by their denominational headquarters. The Scripture readings are given out a year in advance. A non-denominational church pastor is free to use whatever kind of worship service he/she wishes, and to use whatever Scripture the Holy Spirit leads him/her to preach about.
  2. Home control of Christian education curricula. Many denominations produce their own Sunday school, adult education, church children’s club, and VBS materials. This may or not be appropriate or timely for a local church. In a non-denominational church, the pastor and lay leaders are free to select curricula, or to use no curricula and just allow their teachers to use their own materials.
  3. ** Home control of foreign missions**. In a denomination church, the members are expected to contribute to the missionaries approved by the denomination, and the CHURCH is generally not allowed to give money and support to missionaries outside of the denomination. This means that support-raisers like Campus Crusade for Christ, Wycliffe Bible Translators, etc. cannot receive funds from many denominations (although individual members are free to contribute to their support). In an non-denominational church, the CHURCH is free to select whatever missionaries and agencies they wish to support, including local missions like the Rescue Missions, the Pregnancy Life Care Centers, various charitable outreaches (e.g., flood relief for the community), etc.
  4. ** Home control of MONEY.** THIS is one of the biggest reasons why people enjoy non-denominational churches. Denominational churches are required to support the denomination by sending off a chunk of cash to some headquarters somewhere in the U.S. to some people that the church members don’t even know! Much of the money is used to support the bureaucracy (the office building, the secretaries and receptionists, the media specialists, the Denominational Magazine staff, etc.) A lot of Christians have hard time with this. They want their money to go directly towards the ministries in their own church, not to be sent away to another church that is in financial straits, or to pay for the President of the Denomination to fly around the world for a goodwill tour of his churches.
  5. **Home control of ordination of pastors and elders. **Denominations have requirements that their pastors and sometimes their elders must complete. These requirements generally include post-high school education, generally a Bachelor’s Degree and seminary. Usually there is some kind of examination, often written and oral, to make sure that the pastor/elder is in agreement with the teachings of the denomination. In non-denominational churches, the requirements for pastors, elders, and teachers are up to the local body of believers. Many of these churches require only a “relationship with Jesus Christ” and a “proven leadership or teaching ability.”
  6. **Home control of “vision.” **This one is harder to describe. My friend’s new non-denominational church is a “Purpose Driven” church, and everything revolves around the Purpose Driven Life teachings of Rick Warren. The Conference Baptists are not opposed to PDL principles, but they do not build an entire church around this “vision.” My friend wants to build his church with the PDL philosophy permeating everything. A non-denominational church is free to implement or discard whatever “vision” or “mission statement” they wish.
  7. ** Control of doctrine**. Several posters above have alluded to this. I honestly don’t think this is the main reason why pastors start or work at non-denominational churches. Most of the non-denoms have written Statements of Faith that include all the fundamentals of the denominational churches. (Virgin birth, Bible Word of God, literal resurrection, Trinity, etc.) Some of the non-denominationals promote a “practice”," e.g. no drinking of alcoholic beverages. But this isn’t the main reason why non-denoms start up.
 
I am not a Protestant (or a Christian for that matter), but I can see an advantage to the non-denominational model. The Church can change to suit the people attending it. This is beneficial because you won’t have ugly disputes like say in the Episcopal Church. In that case, you have 2 cultures at conflict because they differ in 1 or 2 ways as a result of political and geographical characteristics. A non-denominational church is not likely to have this same problem both because it is in one geographical location and because it will tend to have one overwhelming culture.

Another benefit is that there is no need to worship at the feet of tradition. Chesterton spoke of the democracy of the dead, but that vision conflicts with American ideals of democracy and, while many will say Christianity is not a democracy, others will speak up and say why not. I guess it’s good that there are many choices for people to find a match in Christianity.
 
I don’t think it’s confusing at all. The Pastor reads scripture gives his opinion of what he read then you go home think about it prove it or disprove it, talk about about it with God, talk about it in Bible study. What is confusing? Does the fact that your hair is long or short matter, Does the clothes you wear matter? Does God care if you drink coffee? NO!! ALL GOD WANTS IS FOR YOU TO LOVE HIM AND TELL OTHERS OF HIS LOVE FOR THEM…We need to quit worrying about religions and worry about relationships. No middlemen, thats already been taken care of by JESUS. Jesus is our bridge to take us to life eternal, our savior. We need to talk to GOD everyday, every way, everywhere, morning, noon, and night. GOD is never to busy for us. I don’t think we need to join a club (religion) to worship God. God knows our walk of life. God takes us as we are, and and loves us.
I’m not a Protestant but I find non-denominationalism a confusing idea. Doesn’t it make the interpretation of the individual pastor the final arbiter about what is true? Or have I misunderstood it?
 
It always bother me to define yourself as what you are not. IN being non-denominational, does it not make you a denomination?
 
I’m a believer in Jesus…So I guess that make me of The Jesus denomination
It always bother me to define yourself as what you are not. IN being non-denominational, does it not make you a denomination?
 
I’m a believer in Jesus…So I guess that make me of The Jesus denomination
Well, hopefully we all are. 😃

It just seems like when we say what we are not, we are not always saying what we are.

They say that they are not Catholic or baptist or Methodist or Lutheran or Anglican or whatever. From that sentence, what is their theology?
 
Which “Protestants” or “Non-Catholic Christians” find Non-Denominationalism a good thing? Why or why not?

I personally believe its main intent is good: to foster greater unity. In many instances I believe this is achieved. But in the process, aren’t many profound truths lost? Isn’t a lot seriously watered-down?

Thanks for your thoughts. (Be nice everyone 🙂 )
Most non-denominational congregations are very bible-oriented. Kinda like a cross of a baptist and evangelicalist. 🙂
 
The problem I personally have with a church hierarchy is that it inherently removes the Spirit from individual guidance into a “Read the catechism” mode.
That is just not the case.

To truly follow the spirit of truth, we should be led into all truth.

Jesus promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

If we follow them, then we are following the spirit.

What if we reject them?
 
That is just not the case.

To truly follow the spirit of truth, we should be led into all truth.

Jesus promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.

If we follow them, then we are following the spirit.

What if we reject them?
The Spirit can lead two men to different conclusions on the same issue or topic; our prayer is “thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” King David set his heart on building a temple to God, but he was told through the prophet not to do it and that Solomon would. Using the logic of “follow those closest to God and that’s following the Spirit”, Solomon would have said “You know, my father wasn’t even judged worthy enough to be the one to build the temple. How on earth could I, a new king who’s just started his reign, possibly be worthy enough to undertake such a project? How could I basically publicly declare myself more worthy than my father, recognized throughout Israel as a righteous man?”

Simply following a Spirit-led individual isn’t in itself being led by the Spirit any more than parroting and following the orders of an imam or cleric makes one a “true Muslim”.
 
The Spirit can lead two men to different conclusions on the same issue or topic; our prayer is “thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” King David set his heart on building a temple to God, but he was told through the prophet not to do it and that Solomon would. Using the logic of “follow those closest to God and that’s following the Spirit”, Solomon would have said “You know, my father wasn’t even judged worthy enough to be the one to build the temple. How on earth could I, a new king who’s just started his reign, possibly be worthy enough to undertake such a project? How could I basically publicly declare myself more worthy than my father, recognized throughout Israel as a righteous man?”

Simply following a Spirit-led individual isn’t in itself being led by the Spirit any more than parroting and following the orders of an imam or cleric makes one a “true Muslim”.
Well said.
 
The problem I see with this sort of division is that you have hundreds of thousands of followers guessing at what is good doctrine and what is bad doctrine.

I’ve seen many Protestant web sites which explicitly state that each person should not depend on anyone else’s interpretation of the bible, no matter how persuasive, but their own, and then proceed to give them* their *interpretation as the true interpretation of the Bible.

How are we suppose to know the truth which is to set us free with all these varying interpretations? How do we know which doctrines are essential or not? How do we know if there is such a thing as a non-essential doctrine?

I believe that non-denominationalism has done nothing but confuse the Body of Christ.
 
The problem I see with this sort of division is that you have hundreds of thousands of followers guessing at what is good doctrine and what is bad doctrine.

I’ve seen many Protestant web sites which explicitly state that each person should not depend on anyone else’s interpretation of the bible, no matter how persuasive, but their own, and then proceed to give them* their *interpretation as the true interpretation of the Bible.

How are we suppose to know the truth which is to set us free with all these varying interpretations? How do we know which doctrines are essential or not? How do we know if there is such a thing as a non-essential doctrine?

I believe that non-denominationalism has done nothing but confuse the Body of Christ.
I’ve been told by a handful of non-denom Protestants that they believe they are being led by the Holy Spirit and that’s how they know their bible interpretations are true.
 
I’ve said it before several times, and I will doubtless say it several more times:

There is simply no such thing as a non-denominational church.

It might simply be a denomination of only one congregation, but most likely will be found to fit quite nicely with one or the other existing denominations (which is probably where most of the people started, anyway).

I know of one local pastor who started off in a medium-small conservative Protestant denomination. He moved to a more liberal denomination, but left when it began moving in a more structured direction (both liturgically and theologically). He now heads an independent congregation that has pretty much shed all vestiges of Christianity.

That’s the direction it leads.

(That this pastor is the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral is another of his endearing qualities, but doesn’t help matters.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top