"Non-denominational Christian" ?

[MillTownCath]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

 

[EternalJade]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

To me “non denominational” just means Protestant. I’ve been in quite a few Protestant churches and they were all mostly alike, with subtle differences. Being non denominational has just as much value as being any other kind of protestant, in my opinion.

 

[JHow]

“Non-denominational” doesn’t necessarily mean that one’s Christianity lacks defined doctrine, or structure, but rather that what structure there is, is de-centralized. There are branches of protestant Christianity that recognize a church structure only at the congregation level. That is, while they adhere to certain general principles and are loosely affiliated, they lack a hierarchy. An example of this are the Campbellite churches which come from a definite historical movement with an associated belief-structure (often you will encounter them as something like “First Christian Church” or “Cherry Avenue Christian Church”), but are are also independent, autonomous congregations, (financially, especially), with only the local pastor, elders, deacons, church board in charge. These churches lack a denomination, unlike, say the Southern Baptists, whose congregations are also autonomous, but are still members of the larger convention (denomination).

I think “non-denominational” is more about church structure, than do-it-yourself, un-orthodox Christianity.

 

[followingtheway]

To me “non denominational” just means Protestant. I’ve been in quite a few Protestant churches and they were all mostly alike, with subtle differences. Being non denominational has just as much value as being any other kind of protestant, in my opinion.

Yeah Non-Denominational Christians are Protestants believe in Protestant dogmas. They don’t use sacred images, don’t believe in intercessory prayer, don’t venerate Mary as we do, don’t believe in the Marian dogmas, don’t believe in the Eucharist and so and so on.

 

[cmforte]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

I once thought of myself as a non-denominational christian. But eventually one must define their beliefs on baptism, the Eucharist, OSAS or not OSAS, church organization, social issues (like pro-life or pro-choice), and so on…eventually, logically and inevitably turning into organized religion and a denomination, even if it is one in its own right (and not an off-shoot of pre-existing denominations.) In short, being a non-denominational christian and a christian against organized religion is simply illogical.

As to your concern, you may be a little harsh, but that is not for me to judge. While most protestants believe in faith alone and that good works are just a fruit of faith, many also preach that if one does sin, especially greatly, then that person obviously did not really “encounter Jesus” or really “accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior,” and are not really “saved”. In other words, avoiding sin and doing good works to some protestants is not only a fruit of faith, but evidence of faith. This also goes back to the Calvinist view of predistination and double predistination, an issue too complicated and convoluted for me to explain. So,in short, (too late!), a non-denom christian is still expected to avoid sin and not “do whatever they want.” And I would argue that I agree with that, that a person who really loves God will at least ***try ***to obey him.

Btw, I am now a Catholic.

-Chris

 

[Corki]

“Non-denominational” doesn’t necessarily mean that one’s Christianity lacks defined doctrine, or structure, but rather that what structure there is, is de-centralized. There are branches of protestant Christianity that recognize a church structure only at the congregation level. That is, while they adhere to certain general principles and are loosely affiliated, they lack a hierarchy. An example of this are the Campbellite churches which come from a definite historical movement with an associated belief-structure (often you will encounter them as something like “First Christian Church” or “Cherry Avenue Christian Church”), but are are also independent, autonomous congregations, (financially, especially), with only the local pastor, elders, deacons, church board in charge. These churches lack a denomination, unlike, say the Southern Baptists, whose congregations are also autonomous, but are still members of the larger convention (denomination).

I think “non-denominational” is more about church structure, than do-it-yourself, un-orthodox Christianity.

Exactly. We even have a non-denominational Baptist Church in our town. It is Baptist in its basic beliefs and its structure of worship but does not align itself with any of the large Baptist conventions.

A person who calls themselves non-denominational does not always mean they attend a non-denominational church.

Some people call them selves non-denominational meaning they are Christian but not affiliated with a Church. That is a common but inaccurate use of the term.

Most people, in my experience, who belong to non-denominational Churches call themselves Baptists, pentecostals or evangelicals.

 

[shadowlily]

My friend attends a non-denominational church… she’s actually one of the most devout (Christian) people I know.

It basically means that they don’t want to have a specific ‘denomination’, because they think it detracts from the spirit of the universal Church and reduces Christianity to fights about un-important minor matters out of loyal to your particular faith.

 

[Hail_Linus]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

There is only one non-denominational Church and that is the Catholic Church. In my opinion, these people have taken the word “catholic” (universal) and created a synonymous term “non-denominational”. The amazing thing is that the non-denominational churches are the most denominational. Each non-denominational church is actually a separate denomination.

In one sense you can call them Protestants since they descend from the reformers. I personally look at them as the churches protesting the Catholic Church and the true Protestant Churches, i.e. Presbyterians, Lutherans.

Some of these churches can get pretty whacky. I’ve met some believe just looking at a painting of Jesus is idolatry. I’ve met others who tell me Baptism is a work and therefore to get baptized is sinful because it is like trying to earn salvation. Others have told me the water Jesus refers to (born of water and spirit) actually means amniotic fluid.

As much as I disagree with Protestants I think it is unfair to group them with these so-called “non-denominational” churches.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I see this on Facebook all the time. I frankly don’t like it, because it is too general and sometimes leads to the belief that one can do whatever they want as long as they “believe in Jesus.”

Frankly I don’t really see the value of being a non-denominational Christian.

Am I being too harsh? Thoughts?

The vision I get in my head, (and I can’t help it folks…sorry), when I’m confronted with the tag “non-denominational Christian”, is that of a person who has at least partially succumbed to the cult/heresy of the “new age movement”, which isn’t so ‘new’ anymore, and it’s hard to nail down into a neat, small definition. Some loose affiliation of people who find some kind of value in varying degrees of the ‘teachings’ of Jesus, and who enjoy getting together for fellowship and perhaps worship, though nothing too dogmatically defined. I am sure I’ll be roundly beat around the head and shoulders for conjuring this image, but as I said, that is what comes into my mind when I hear, or see someone self-identify in that way. A semi-Christian “friendly”, non-dogmatic person without a specific creed. Mega churchers, health and wealth Christians, personality following general Christians like those who are into Olsteen or some such thing. Really hard to nail down.

I find it a bit of a disappointing trend.

Christ’s love to all,

Steven

 

[Bran_Stark]

It basically means that they don’t want to have a specific ‘denomination’, because they think it detracts from the spirit of the universal Church and reduces Christianity to fights about un-important minor matters out of loyal to your particular faith.

Or maybe they just can’t find any existing denomination whose beliefs match their own.

 

[shadowlily]

Or maybe they just can’t find any existing denomination whose beliefs match their own.

Not necessarily. I think they’re a lot like Catholics, actually, except they don’t want to commit to one denomination among many, as they recognize Catholicism to be.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

There is only one non-denominational Church and that is the Catholic Church. In my opinion, these people have taken the word “catholic” (universal) and created a synonymous term “non-denominational”. The amazing thing is that the non-denominational churches are the most denominational. Each non-denominational church is actually a separate denomination.

In one sense you can call them Protestants since they descend from the reformers. I personally look at them as the churches protesting the Catholic Church and the true Protestant Churches, i.e. Presbyterians, Lutherans.

Some of these churches can get pretty whacky. I’ve met some believe just looking at a painting of Jesus is idolatry. I’ve met others who tell me Baptism is a work and therefore to get baptized is sinful because it is like trying to earn salvation. Others have told me the water Jesus refers to (born of water and spirit) actually means amniotic fluid.

As much as I disagree with Protestants I think it is unfair to group them with these so-called “non-denominational” churches.

haha… I love it. I have heard on CAF that we Catholics can call ourselves born again Christians… now I’m going to start using the “non denom.” line too!

Peace,
Phil

 

[BrianH]

It could be that many of their churches are huge, advertise well, and have dynamic services that usually feature contemporary music.
That might not be my cup of tea but it is for a lot of people.

 

[grandfather]

Jesus commanded unity of His followers, His Church. The Protestant phenomenon of denominationalism within Christianity is the opposite of what Christ commanded. Various denominations are identified by their unique doctrines that separate them from one another. Disunity is the very essence of what denominationalism is, various groups split apart from one another by doctrinal differences, different beliefs.

The heresy that triggered the fragmentation of Christianity is sola scriptura, a doctrine devised by Luther that says scripture is the only authority in matters of faith. The Church, any church, has no authority to teach if scripture has all authority.

This doctrine gives license to anyone with a Bible to break away from his church and start a new one with doctrines based on his personal interpretation of scripture, claiming it is correct, because he or she found it in the Bible.

The result is many thousands of denominations that began fracturing from one another as soon as Luther proclaimed his novel doctrine, which of course is the opposite of what Christ commanded in scripture.

Scripture says Jesus founded His Church by giving authority to men, His apsotles, commanding them to teach and promising them He would in heaven guarantee their teaching on earth. He said He would be with them until the end of time and send the Holy Spirit upon them to lead them into all truth, according to scripture.

Denominationalism is confusing. Within Protestantism there can never be a doctrine that is settled that might not someday be questioned. It does not matter that the Church believed some doctrine from the beginning. History shows no doctrine is immune from attack and change. The Trinity was immediately challenged with Baptists and Unitarians splitting centuries ago. How many sacraments are there? Luther said two, George Fox said none. Some Protestants say salvation can not be lost while others say it can.

To escape this confusion and endless argument and division of doctrinal disputes some Protestants finally said they are not part of any denomination. All they want is to be Christians, non-denominational. But like all the others they claim their local decentralized church’s beliefs are based on the teachings of the Bible as the only authority. Their authority to exist, for individuals to set up a new church apart from others is the Bible, as all other Protestants claim.

As long as sola scriptura is held it gives anyone license to start a new church (denomination)based on their personal read of scripture and the fracturing and disunity will continue.

 

[exnihilo]

“Non-denominational” doesn’t necessarily mean that one’s Christianity lacks defined doctrine, or structure, but rather that what structure there is, is de-centralized. There are branches of protestant Christianity that recognize a church structure only at the congregation level.

I agree. I see non-denominational as meaning that the specific church is not part of any larger structure. The local church is all that matters to a non-denominational church. Practically speaking this is often reality even within denominational churches. Any given church can be very different from others within its denomination.

The vision I get in my head, (and I can’t help it folks…sorry), when I’m confronted with the tag “non-denominational Christian”, is that of a person who has at least partially succumbed to the cult/heresy of the “new age movement”, which isn’t so ‘new’ anymore, and it’s hard to nail down into a neat, small definition.

I think there are many non-denominational churches like that. But some came about as a result of the liberalizing of mainline denominations. This happened years ago and is still happening today. In these cases the non-denominational church could actually be more orthodox, within Protestantism.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The vision I get in my head, (and I can’t help it folks…sorry), when I’m confronted with the tag “non-denominational Christian”, is that of a person who has at least partially succumbed to the cult/heresy of the “new age movement”, which isn’t so ‘new’ anymore, and it’s hard to nail down into a neat, small definition. Some loose affiliation of people who find some kind of value in varying degrees of the ‘teachings’ of Jesus, and who enjoy getting together for fellowship and perhaps worship, though nothing too dogmatically defined. I am sure I’ll be roundly beat around the head and shoulders for conjuring this image, but as I said, that is what comes into my mind when I hear, or see someone self-identify in that way. A semi-Christian “friendly”, non-dogmatic person without a specific creed. Mega churchers, health and wealth Christians, personality following general Christians like those who are into Olsteen or some such thing. Really hard to nail down.

I find it a bit of a disappointing trend.

Christ’s love to all,

Steven

Well you’re wrong, no offense.

Non-denominational Christians aren’t necessarily not dogmatic, they simply have no hierarchy over them. They are not part of an established group like the Assemblies of God or the Baptists, so in theory it does leave room for heresy to creep in, but it doesn’t mean that it has to be that way. There are plenty of orthodox non-denominational churches, from the Evangelical perspective. Yes, there are some who have presented erroneous beliefs, but then again that also happens within individual parishes in the Catholic Church, too.

 

[yellowbird]

When I was a non-denominational Christian, it wasn’t nearly as complicated or thought out as you’d think. It went more like this… move into town, visit some Christian churches … decide which one best suited our needs (programs for our kids.) Did we like the Pastor? Was the music to our liking? And did the people seem friendly?

That was pretty much it. Didn’t give a hoot about dogma - didn’t even know what that word meant? We didn’t go to Church to identify with a particular group - we simply went to worship Jesus, make some friends, and have our kids involved in church.

I don’t really see that identification much on FB - mostly I see “Follower of Christ” or simply Christian. Sometimes I see “It’s a relationship, not a religion” which makes me As if my Catholic religion prevents me from having a relationship with my Lord? So silly.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Well you’re wrong, no offense.

Non-denominational Christians aren’t necessarily not dogmatic, they simply have no hierarchy over them. They are not part of an established group like the Assemblies of God or the Baptists, so in theory it does leave room for heresy to creep in, but it doesn’t mean that it has to be that way. There are plenty of orthodox non-denominational churches, from the Evangelical perspective. Yes, there are some who have presented erroneous beliefs, but then again that also happens within individual parishes in the Catholic Church, too.

True enough. I’m going to be starting a separate thread, for instance, as I discovered advertisements in our parish bulletin for a couple classes over at our local new age emporium called “Stillpoint”. The class has to do with the “unfolding of the Universe” from a book written by a new age enthusiast, and the class is given by a Urantia Book believer. I need advice on who to go to about this. (Not this thread, I know).

But basically, I know what you’re saying is true. I was just saying what comes to my mind when I hear the term.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[Bran_Stark]

As long as sola scriptura is held it gives anyone license to start a new church (denomination)based on their personal read of scripture and the fracturing and disunity will continue.

Yeah become we all know that schism was unknown before A.D. 1517.

Sometimes I see “It’s a relationship, not a religion” which makes me

Ugh I know. “Religion” is a totally neutral English term used to denote any belief system. Maybe you like to say your pretty phrase about having a Personal Relationship With Jesus, but it’s not very helpful for census-takers.

But I must say that the refusal among some Catholics to call their Church by the equally neutral word “denomination” is just as annoying…

 

[ndismyhome]

As many of you have pointed out, “Non-denominational” can mean almost anything theologically, except on the matter of ecclesiology: non-denom churches must be congregationalist in structure.

Also, please stop equating all Protestants with congregationalist Calvinism. If you don’t M. Luther will smack you. K? Thanks.