Does Non-Denominational mean No Name and No Definition?

[Digitonomy]

one of the functions of denominational leadership is church planting, and what they do is they raise money from existing congregations, train up leadership, and go into communities where they haven’t yet got a presence to build up a new church.

This is all true, but it does not preclude churches from joining already-established denominations. However, I did overstate it when I said that non-denom’s “usually” use this method when they choose a specific, rather than generic non-denominational name (which is a vague and subjective distinction anyway). Here’s one such occurrence I pulled up within 5 seconds on Google:

In the early 20th Century, a non-denominational church joined the EUB, which merged with the UMC in 1968. Now the congregation wants to be independent again, and keep its building…
Source

jmcrae:

Even the recent experiment with this idea in the United Church of Canada ended up going to a committee of the Moderator of the General Council, which apparently is still trying to figure out what “the United Church of Canada” actually believes - and the end result is going to be what they think members of the United Church of Canada ought to believe, rather than what the members who were polled actually do believe.

Amusing story about the UCC.

jmcrae:

In the case of the Catholic Church, Christ gave the teachings of the Church to the Apostles, and they in their turn passed them on to us.

In no case does either the Catholic Church nor any Protestant church ever start with the already-existing beliefs of the lay people and then “make them dogma.” That just doesn’t happen.

It’s always best to qualify statements like this, because if there is even a single case where this occurs, then your statement is wrong. If I can find any cases where new dogma was declared, all I must then do is show that this belief was present among church members beforehand. I think that’s pretty easy to do. I notice that you put “start” in italics - that could be the wiggle room that I’ve missed. Perhaps you can clarify if I’ve misread your statement.

Regarding the Catholic Church, there were a variety of issues such as the Assumption, homoousios vs homoiousios, etc, which were not handed down in any clarity from the Apostles. Doctrine was later declared on these issues, which certainly matched the beliefs of many Catholics beforehand.

As to Protestant churches, there are innumerable cases where new doctrine has been declared, or old doctrine chucked. Certainly the church members have some role in this, particularly in the case of non-denominational churches, where a church without a written statement of doctrine may find itself without a pastor from time to time. If you really want I can try to track down a specific case of this, but it seems pretty self-evident that it happens from time to time.

 

[toaslan]

Ah, now we’re getting back to my real argument. Since the doctrine stated by Church B may be cursory at best, and since the arbiters of doctrine are the congregation and the pastor, then what the congregation believes in many cases IS that church’s doctrine, even though it’s not spelled out on paper.

don’t you mean, *"…then what the congregation and the pastor believe in many cases IS that church’s doctrine…" *

Don’t know if an emphasis on the people leads to leaving out the pastor. We wouldn’t want to do that–we all have heard the conversion stories of the pastors who end up taking all or part of their congregation with them into Catholicism. The people came to believe what the converting pastor believed.

(from Digit regarding a person’s opinion on a matter of faith) What if it cannot be shown to contradict the CCC, but one could reasonably draw a different conclusion than the one you drew? Does your belief suddenly become just an opinion?

Good question. It remains what it always was, a speculation, an opinion. If I know the content of my faith, I am aware when I am speculating, opinionating; and when I am holding something explicitly taught. I am free within limits to speculate on undefined matters until/unless they reach definition. We should all know when we are speculating, and when we are bound. Is it not a minimum responsibility when engaging in doctrinal debate?

There is also the issue that the CCC is incomplete, so you can’t very well believe only what is found in it - there are many other sources of doctrine.

OK. Well, the CCC is a collection of the infallible conclusions (from extended theological reasonings from encyclicals, councils, etc.) the Church has reached to date. It is, if you will, a (fat) list of the minimum and most basic propositions. There are deeper levels holding further defined truths which, by holding the propositions in the CCC, we implicitly hold. We may or may not ever grasp more deeply what we hold basically. I don’t know of any infallibly defined proposition, either from the ordinary or extraordinary magesterium, which is not in the CCC in some form or degree.

Do you know one?

So, this statement still needs re-stating, in my humble opinion:

Digitonomy:

Just as every individual Catholic has a unique collection of beliefs, and every parish priest likewise, so too do non-denominational Christians, and likewise each non-denominational church. The question is which of those beliefs the church decides to make dogma.

jmcrae:

No, this is backwards.

jmcrae, you are on to something!

 

[jmcrae]

This is all true, but it does not preclude churches from joining already-established denominations. However, I did overstate it when I said that non-denom’s “usually” use this method when they choose a specific, rather than generic non-denominational name (which is a vague and subjective distinction anyway). Here’s one such occurrence I pulled up within 5 seconds on Google:

Notice how in both the process of joining and in the process of separating, it’s not just a matter of changing the sign on the front lawn. There is a whole procedure that they have to follow that conforms to the regulations of the denominational body. Ultimately, it is a matter of a large number of individuals (who just happen to be affiliated with one another) each making an individual choice.

Regarding the Catholic Church, there were a variety of issues such as the Assumption, homoousios vs homoiousios, etc, which were not handed down in any clarity from the Apostles. Doctrine was later declared on these issues, which certainly matched the beliefs of many Catholics beforehand.

The question was not “Does Aunt Mathilde believe in this?” and therefore we will make it dogma. Rather, the question was “Has the Magesterium been teaching this to Aunt Mathilde, and is that why she believes it, or did she come up with this on her own?” When it turned out that Aunt Mathilde in fact learned it from her Bishop, who learned it from his Bishop, going back as far as they could go, until they figured out that the belief was first taught to the ancestor Bishop by an Apostle or Bishop of the first century Church, then it became dogma. But Aunt Mathilde can’t just make something up and then have it become a dogma of the Church.

As to Protestant churches, there are innumerable cases where new doctrine has been declared, or old doctrine chucked. Certainly the church members have some role in this, particularly in the case of non-denominational churches, where a church without a written statement of doctrine may find itself without a pastor from time to time. If you really want I can try to track down a specific case of this, but it seems pretty self-evident that it happens from time to time.

But again, it’s not Aunt Sally or Uncle Joe just making something up and saying “We ought to believe this, because it’s what makes sense to me.” It’s the Session of Elders or the Board of Deacons getting together in a conference and figuring out, “Is this Biblical?” (From their point of view, of course.) “Is this compatible with what we’ve been teaching before?” They might consult Aunt Sally or Uncle Joe to find out whether the thing was taught at their Church back when those two were in Sunday School, but Aunt Sally and Uncle Joe would not have the final say. The Deacons or the Elders would have the final say.

 

[Digitonomy]

Notice how in both the process of joining and in the process of separating, it’s not just a matter of changing the sign on the front lawn. There is a whole procedure that they have to follow that conforms to the regulations of the denominational body. Ultimately, it is a matter of a large number of individuals (who just happen to be affiliated with one another) each making an individual choice.

Smaller denominations may not have the same level of red tape. It could be as simple as a congregation voting to affiliate with a 2- or 3-church denomination across town. The pastor of one of the churches may be the informal leader of the denomination, and could simply give the nod after talking with the applicant congregation.

jmcrae:

The question was not “Does Aunt Mathilde believe in this?” and therefore we will make it dogma. Rather, the question was “Has the Magesterium been teaching this to Aunt Mathilde, and is that why she believes it, or did she come up with this on her own?” When it turned out that Aunt Mathilde in fact learned it from her Bishop, who learned it from his Bishop, going back as far as they could go, until they figured out that the belief was first taught to the ancestor Bishop by an Apostle or Bishop of the first century Church, then it became dogma. But Aunt Mathilde can’t just make something up and then have it become a dogma of the Church.

It depends on what Aunt Mathilde makes up. The major issues of some of the early Ecumenical Councils were not taught by the Apostles or bishops in the first century Church. Rather, as theologians delved into some of these more high-brow topics that the Apostles had never considered, they had to establish a new framework of ideas. The later theologians would put forward competing conclusions on Christology and Mariology, based not directly on what the Apostles said (else there would be little dispute), but on the logical ramifications of those statements. So you had a situation where Church members would put forward new ideas, and the Church would have to determine not whether it had been taught since way back (clearly it hadn’t), but whether the new teaching could be logically reconciled with earlier teaching

But again, it’s not Aunt Sally or Uncle Joe just making something up and saying “We ought to believe this, because it’s what makes sense to me.” It’s the Session of Elders or the Board of Deacons getting together in a conference and figuring out, “Is this Biblical?” The Deacons or the Elders would have the final say.

This is usually the case in larger and more established churches and denominations. But since we’re talking about non-denominational churches, you may just have a collection of 10 or 12 families in a recently-established church.

 

[Digitonomy]

don’t you mean, "…then what the congregation and the pastor believe in many cases IS that church’s doctrine…"

No, the point I was making was not that the pastor alone or the pastor in combination with the congregation determine doctrine (which is certainly true in the majority of cases), but that in some cases, where there is a weak or absent pastor, the congregation or leaders within the congregation determine doctrine. They select a new pastor based on conformity to that doctrine, and on occasion oust a pastor for deviating from the doctrine. Such churches are surely in the minority.

toaslan:

Good question. It remains what it always was, a speculation, an opinion. If I know the content of my faith, I am aware when I am speculating, opinionating; and when I am holding something explicitly taught. I am free within limits to speculate on undefined matters until/unless they reach definition. We should all know when we are speculating, and when we are bound. Is it not a minimum responsibility when engaging in doctrinal debate?

In general, your advice is well-taken when engaging in doctrinal debate. However, I’m not convinced that even Aquinas thought he was just venturing opinions on the nature of Holy Orders, rather than stating his beliefs that reflected what he’d been explicitly taught. In addition, leaving aside the difficulty of apologists in determining with precision whether a position falls a shade outside or inside the realm of established dogma, what we have mostly been talking about is church members in general. In the case of both Catholics and non-Catholics, the members know what they believe, and in most cases the churches know what the members should believe. But they ain’t always the same.

 

[jmcrae]

In the case of both Catholics and non-Catholics, the members know what they believe, and in most cases the churches know what the members should believe. But they ain’t always the same.

And in these cases, we are looking at a failure of catechesis; not doctrinal diversity.

Doctrinal diversity is what occurs when official statements of faith are at odds with each other; not when individual Christians believe something different than what they should have been taught in Sunday School.

 

[toaslan]

And in these cases, we are looking at a failure of catechesis; not doctrinal diversity.

Doctrinal diversity is what occurs when official statements of faith are at odds with each other; not when individual Christians believe something different than what they should have been taught in Sunday School.

what he said!

I love that you brought up Thomas Aquinas, Digit!:

digitonomy:

I’m not convinced that even Aquinas thought he was just venturing opinions on the nature of Holy Orders, rather than stating his beliefs that reflected what he’d been explicitly taught

See, Thomas had several times occured to me as a good example of what *I *was trying to articulate. Even his most tightly reasoned treatises he submitted to the Church for correction; he stated that it was his intention to put no idea forward, and teach nothing, that was not totally in line with Church teaching. That giant, angelic intellect was humble; and such a great example for anyone trying to sort out some faith-related matter.

Following him, we submit all we think and do to the Church for correction–Thomas taught not in his own name, but always in that of the Church, and his effort was always explicitly and deliberately subordinated to the Church. He considered his work tentative, and he offered it to the Church as his gift, and it was up to the Church to take what of it seemed good. He made statements to these effects.

Now, if you would like me to back this assertion up, it will take me some time. I’ll have to resort to others, and I’m going out of circulation for two weeks any minute now; but if you would like to see such a statement from Thomas, I will rustle it up for ya’.

 

[Digitonomy]

Doctrinal diversity is what occurs when official statements of faith are at odds with each other; not when individual Christians believe something different than what they should have been taught in Sunday School.

Generally true. However, if that were completely true, denominations that have no official statement of faith (e.g. Church of Christ) would by your definition not be doctrinally at odds with Catholics or other churches.

 

[jmcrae]

Generally true. However, if that were completely true, denominations that have no official statement of faith (e.g. Church of Christ) would by your definition not be doctrinally at odds with Catholics or other churches.

The Church of Christ certainly does have a statement of faith. I was asked to sign it when I attended Bible studies there, as a visitor - this is years ago, before I had encountered the Catholic Church, yet.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Church of Christ certainly does have a statement of faith. I was asked to sign it when I attended Bible studies there, as a visitor

Curious. Being that the churches within that denomination are rather autonomous, your particular Church of Christ may have disagreed on this point with that stated on this website:
church-of-christ.org/who.html

Does the church of Christ have a creed?
No. At least, there is no creed in the usual sense of the word. The belief of the church is stated fully and completely in the Bible. There is no other manual or discipline to which the members of the church of Christ give their allegiance. The Bible is considered as the only infallible guide to heaven.

Of course, that paragraph is in the middle of a page of various statements of faith. But apparently not formal ones; the webmaster claims no authority for his list except the Bible.:bible1:

 

[jmcrae]

Curious. Being that the churches within that denomination are rather autonomous, your particular Church of Christ may have disagreed on this point with that stated on this website:
church-of-christ.org/who.html
Of course, that paragraph is in the middle of a page of various statements of faith. But apparently not formal ones; the webmaster claims no authority for his list except the Bible.:bible1:

So, they don’t call it a “creed” - it’s still a summary list of “Bible essentials” that all “Bible Christians” ought to believe, in their opinion.

 

[Digitonomy]

So, they don’t call it a “creed” - it’s still a summary list of “Bible essentials” that all “Bible Christians” ought to believe, in their opinion.

Yes, but again, you were holding out for official statements of faith (your bolding). I don’t think the opinion of the webmaster qualifies. Your particular Church of Christ notwithstanding, it seems safe to assume that not all Churches of Christ have an official statement of faith. It also seems safe to assume that the statements may vary slightly from one Church of Christ to another, among those that do have them.

If that’s the case within the Church of Christ, which is a fairly cohesive denomination despite the autonomy of individual churches, it seems even more likely you may encounter such a situation among the umpteen thousand non-denominational churches.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, but again, you were holding out for official statements of faith (your bolding). I don’t think the opinion of the webmaster qualifies.

His opinions don’t count, but his unbiased reporting of the facts does.

Your particular Church of Christ notwithstanding, it seems safe to assume that not all Churches of Christ have an official statement of faith.

What do you think you were looking at? That was a statement of faith, right there.

It also seems safe to assume that the statements may vary slightly from one Church of Christ to another, among those that do have them.

They will have elements in common, though, and it’s the common elements that give us the distinctiveness of the Church of Christ.

If that’s the case within the Church of Christ, which is a fairly cohesive denomination despite the autonomy of individual churches, it seems even more likely you may encounter such a situation among the umpteen thousand non-denominational churches.

Do you have any experience with them? My experience of them is that they are zealous to promote their official statements of faith.

Just to give one example kind of at random, “Fresh Hope” which is the at-home ministry of a lone middle-aged woman named Cindy, has a three page long official statement of faith, and you don’t get any more “non-denominational” than “Fresh Hope” - it is a “church” of one. “Fresh Hope” is very typical of the non-denominational mode of thinking - perhaps the extreme end of things, but what she is trying to do is very much what other non-denominational groups try to do.