Non-Denominational - What is it?

[jim1130]

Orionthehunter:

Singing, thank you for this post. It is actually one of the most lucid explanations I’ve ever heard (trying to focus on the core teachings of Christ) for the rationale of being non-denominational. This is a natural human desire- to reduce the complex to the simple. We focus our attention and priorities all the time in our temporal life. We join a political party based on its core principles to simplify the complexity of the political issues. We join a service club (Rotary, Lions etc.) based on its core priorities to simplify our charitable efforts. We join a social circle based on its core interests to simplify our leisure time and emotional commitments. In all cases, we also aspire to be active in these organizations because they feed our need for social interaction with like minded people and allow us to not be overwhelmed.

But rhetorically I ask, is this the intent of Jesus Christ when He bound together the Jewish people under one faith or told the Apostles to be leaders and go forth and bring people to the Father? IMHO, this is contrary to Christ’s intent. He didn’t want us to form cliques of like-minded people who focus on their own inspired determination of His “core teachings.” He wanted us to look beyond ourselves, become dead to ourselves and find new life in Him.

The process of “finding the church right for me” is about finding a home for where I am today. I’ll stay as long as I agree w/ my Pastor and my fellow members of the congregation. If I grow or change, I’ll go find a new home. Where is the idea of Universal Truth? Where is the idea of Universal Teaching? By definition, it can’t exist in this environment. Its adherents basically believe in a Magisterium of one-themselves. Is this Christ’s intent? Doesn’t it seem that the individual is assuming a role exclusively the prerogative of the Holy Spirit?

Isn’t it ironic that they accept the Bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit but reject the Magisterium that He worked through?

Continued in Part 2

I can appreciate some of the explanations and definitions for the non-denominational churches, but from my perspective such details are inaccurate. Non-denominational churches began in the 1990s although I suspect that some surfaced in the 1970s. The non-denominational churches are also unique to America, and with that come the typical biases and tunnel-vision of our country and its citizens who embrace freedom as an absolute. The arrival of the non-denominational churches, from my perspective, coincides with the aging Baby Boomer population. For years, Baby Boomers put career first and family second with religion a distant……well, very distant. Now, the Baby Boomers have taken the approach: “I feel religious. What is out there?” Subsequently, like most pursuits in their lives, they are looking for that which directly benefits and appeals to them. Because they have been independent and self-serving for so long, they do not feel the need to subscribe to any particular creeds or beliefs because they know more than anyone else. Since they feel they contributed to the progress of the country, they want a progressive and hip environment that teaches salvation is one sentence and sins are forgiven through a telepathic connection to God, rather than a stodgy old ritualistic Church that has been around, and unchanged, for 2,000 years. Also, status is also important so the larger and more glamorous church, as well as charismatic pastor, the better, too. I suppose the non-denominational church fills a void, but, in my opinion, with the individual pastors acting as their own Popes and Magesterium, and a church lineage dating back to that lone pastor, the congregation is fed a fattening diet of nonsense and misguided interpretation. The non-denominational churches are not going anywhere, but we can pray that when the members open their eyes to realize there is more to God then modern rock music and charismatic orator that they will then come to the Catholic Church.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Hello all!

Thank you for the questions and I will try to answer each and every one of them, though there is a lot of ground to cover.

I can only answer for myself because ultimately we don’t know where eachother’s hearts are or what path other’s thought processes take them on. I can only tell you how I have come to the conclusion I have because I know what brought me to this point. So here we go…

LittleDeb:

So WHAT is man-made and what is God-made? For a Catholic we believe Jesus set up a structure and a visible Church which we could look for authority. We are the first to acknowledge that corruption and evil exist, even within Catholicism.

And it is good to recognize the evils and the corruption that festers within. It is within ALL organized religion. Especially when it is organized by man. We can’t help it. We’re human. I guess one area that I see man-made traditions trying to disguise itself as God-made is worship. The word ‘worship’ appears in the bible about 498 times. And everytime it’s mentioned there are no stipulations as to HOW we worship God yet there are so many limitations in most denominations (if not all) on how we are to worship God. The closest thing I came to that discusses regulations in worshiping God is that if a man’s testicles are squished or his genitles are cut off he is not to be included in the assembly of God (Deuteronomy 23:1) in verse 2 it also says that those of illegitimate birth or their next 10 generations are not to be included either. The rest of the time worship is mentioned it is God saying Worship Me and no other or someone saying that they fell down and worshiped God but it doesn’t say how. I think that the reason for this is because God wants us to worship Him how we need to. By limiting our worship to certain ways and practices we may start to focus on HOW we are worshiping God and not WHY. The God-made worship, to me, would be us worshiping Him with all of our hearts, minds, and souls (no hesitation) without rules regulating what we should be doing, how we should be contorted within worship, or what we say. Worship comes from the heart and to say my way of worshiping is wrong compared to yours just doesn’t seem right…

LittleDeb:

My other question as has been addressed a little already: how is every church a “non-denominational?” If even two groups profess the same things and use the same name (ie. Calvary, or Vineyard in my local area) didn’t they just ‘denominate’ themselves that way? Meaning, that denomination at its most basic definition really means “name” doesn’t it? Does escaping the name of a group really change anything?

In esscence, yes, any group who has a common ‘denominator’ is a denomination. The hope of the non-denoms is that we get back to that common denominator being Jesus and Him alone. Not how we worship or arguing non-salvation issues. The reason we choose Non-denomination as how we describe ourselves is because there is no actual name for us. Too many of the denominations out there have such evil and corruption attached to their names that I think if we attach a name we lose our focus. It doesn’t matter what name we choose because our focus is on Him. Does this make sense?

LittleDeb:

How do these groups decide what is God’s work? As humans we have to have something resembling structure don’t we? Scripture shows the set-up of the bishopric, why do ‘Bible-believers’ not follow it?

Oh but we do… We have our pastor, the deacons, and the congregation. This coincides with what we see in the bible in regards to the structure of the church.

 

[Singinbeauty]

ben_dy:

I want to try to understand your position but I admit that I have a difficult time in understanding what you mean when you say that you - and, I’m assuming, members of your church and other non-denominational churches - “can get back to the core understanding of what Christ is talking about”. In saying, as well, “we follow Christ, alone, and try to adhere to His words as best as we possibly can”, I seem to get a sense that, as a ‘bible’, for those who are non-denominational, the Gospels alone are sufficient to as a sort of ‘only canon’ of the New Testament and that the titles, structure, laws (or instructions) from the Apostles that make up (for the most part - excluding the Apocalypse for the moment) the remainder of the NT are superfluous to “ecclesia”?

What I got from this was that you think that people of the non-denom faith believe in ONLY the 4 gospels of the NT and nothing else in the bible. I do not understand where you got this assumption but it simply isn’t true. When I say we follow Christ and Christ alone is that we follow His words and since the rest of the bible coincides with what He spoke of then we follow the rest of the bible also. He is also God so since God spoke in the OT then we follow God’s voice out of the OT. Did I answer your question?

ben_dy:

do you have a printed or oral common creed which declares basic communally shared beliefs?

Sure, we do have the Apostles Creed that we follow.

ben_dy:

If, for instance, I believed in an historical Jesus and wanted to pattern the moral structure of my life around the words which Jesus spoke BUT I did not believe Jesus to be divine or of divine origin but only a man who was killed for his teachings - not even a prophet or messenger of God - would there be others in your congregation who might also believe the same or, if not, are the basic beliefs of others in the congregation broad enough so that I would, at least, be ‘allowed’ (that’s not quite the word I’m looking for but will have to suffice for now!) to call myself a Christian and to be fully accepted into the congregation (and trusted enough to count the money after bingo )?

To be a christian, by definition, you have to believe that Jesus was and is who He said He is. So you can’t have differing opinions on whether Jesus was divine or not and be christian. You MUST believe to be a part of His church.

ben_dy:

The way you’ve expressed your experience is dissimilar to what I’ve heard from my limited circle of friends and it seems that your explanation is much more ‘liberal’ than that which I have experienced or been told of. I hope you don’t think my intention is to send flaming arrows of accusations your way - I’m just trying to achieve a better understanding of what ‘non-denominational’ means outside of my little circle of friends.

That’s what I am here for. I want those of different ideas to understand where I am coming from so they can stop making assumptions that simply aren’t true… Huh, sound familiar?

 

[Singinbeauty]

asquared:

Non-denominational, as I have gathered from people who classify themselves with this term, means that you have rejected the notion of professing any creed or doctrinal formulation, and that you will listen to any preacher or pastor because of his personal qualities and charisma, without any concern about his training, education or orthodoxy.

We do not reject anything that is Christ centered and of Christ Himself. If we can REALLY prove that something is directly commanded by Christ then we follow it.

I hope I have been able to answer at least SOME of your questions. Let me know if you need further explanation!

 

[Matt16_18]

Singinbeauty:

We do not reject anything that is Christ centered and of Christ Himself. If we can REALLY prove that something is directly commanded by Christ then we follow it.

How does your nondenominational church “prove” that the Catholic Church isn’t correct in her understanding of these verses of scripture:Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

John 6:53-55 Why should any Catholic accept the authority of the Protestant preachers who interpret these verses in ways that the earliest Christians would consider to be rank heresy?

 

[RCCDefender]

Singinbeauty:

Worship comes from the heart and to say my way of worshiping is wrong compared to yours just doesn’t seem right…

But, by forming your own church apart from every other church is, in essence, saying just that. You may not be saying it through your words, but you are saying it by your actions.

I had another comment, but I can’t remember it now…

 

[LittleDeb]

Singinbeauty:

And it is good to recognize the evils and the corruption that festers within. It is within ALL organized religion. Especially when it is organized by man. We can’t help it. We’re human. I guess one area that I see man-made traditions trying to disguise itself as God-made is worship. The word ‘worship’ appears in the bible about 498 times. And everytime it’s mentioned there are no stipulations as to HOW we worship God yet there are so many limitations in most denominations (if not all) on how we are to worship God. The closest thing I came to that discusses regulations in worshiping God is that if a man’s testicles are squished or his genitles are cut off he is not to be included in the assembly of God (Deuteronomy 23:1) in verse 2 it also says that those of illegitimate birth or their next 10 generations are not to be included either. The rest of the time worship is mentioned it is God saying Worship Me and no other or someone saying that they fell down and worshiped God but it doesn’t say how. I think that the reason for this is because God wants us to worship Him how we need to. By limiting our worship to certain ways and practices we may start to focus on HOW we are worshiping God and not WHY. The God-made worship, to me, would be us worshiping Him with all of our hearts, minds, and souls (no hesitation) without rules regulating what we should be doing, how we should be contorted within worship, or what we say. Worship comes from the heart and to say my way of worshiping is wrong compared to yours just doesn’t seem right…

Thank you for your response! This is the only part I actually have trouble with. From studying and attending non-denominationals with my friends I have truly been bothered by this statement when made by dear friends. Mind you, I am not offended, just very bothered.

You see this statement is a misperception by non-Catholics. I see (and Catholics see) the other groups being very limited in their forms of worship. I also struggle when I have watched people worship in a way that The Holy Spirit told me was not of God. Since there is no one in these groups with real authority, any type of “worship” is allowed. As one with the gift of interpretation I have heard people speaking in “tongues” that were not of God. No one around them has the authority to call Satan out of their midst. If we know what is of God then we don’t just follow the current popular way to pray. We can follow God’s way.

My body MUST follow my spirit in worship. For those who believe that it is possible to separate their body and their spirit are NOT enjoying the fullness of worship. That form of limited worship is man-made not God-made. There are so many ways to pray. Only the Catholic Church embraces them all. Every form of prayer is covered in a 1 hour Mass. So there must be more ways to pray than just spontaneously and through music. If not then God is a liar. He says “pray without ceasing.” Since no one can pray spontaneously forever and the song does end, there must be other ways to pray. Either we can “pray without ceasing” or God didn’t mean what he said. I will remain Catholic where I have unlimited forms of worship and am allowed to pray without ceasing, God’s way.

 

[ben_dy]

Singinbeauty:

What I got from this was that you think that people of the non-denom faith believe in ONLY the 4 gospels of the NT and nothing else in the bible. I do not understand where you got this assumption but it simply isn’t true. When I say we follow Christ and Christ alone is that we follow His words and since the rest of the bible coincides with what He spoke of then we follow the rest of the bible also. He is also God so since God spoke in the OT then we follow God’s voice out of the OT. Did I answer your question?

Yes, you did - my assumption about the gospels comes from a small church that was (and still may be) in a neighborhood in which I lived who were very doctrinally ‘open’ and expressed their ‘Christianity’ in saying a few things which were in your message, e.g. “We follow Christ, alone, and try to adhere to His words as best as we possibly can” and “By taking out man’s titles and laws and leaving it up to Christ (this is how we view it) we feel as if we can obtain a closer relationship with Him. Christ did not call His church catholic or baptist or anything else. We were just His CHURCH in His own words.” Their ‘doctrine’ had little form save for the social justice and “love one another” which Christ taught - not too keen on the ‘hard sayings’ of Christ and most definitely not seeing the Eucharist as Sacrifice but as a genuine, ever Sunday, shared meal with bread to be broken, a communal cup, spaghetti, tuna casserole, vegetable lasagna, etc. I was invited and attended one of their services and there was a female leader who explained to the visitors why they only used and adhered to the Gospels (and lamented that the Q Gospel had not yet been ‘found’ as it was what Jesus said and not really what He did or what others said or did after He had left them that was important. They were non-denominational and your phrases and the phrases I heard then (early 1970’s?) sound similar. Glad to know they only ‘sound’ that way!

Singinbeauty:

Sure, we do have the Apostles Creed that we follow. To be a christian, by definition, you have to believe that Jesus was and is who He said He is. So you can’t have differing opinions on whether Jesus was divine or not and be christian. You MUST believe to be a part of His church.

Well, the acknowledgment of and doctrine contained within the Apostles Creed has always been **my/b] ‘minimum requirement’ for considering others Christian - some like these folks) considered that a legalistic and constraining judgement on my part.

Singinbeauty:

That’s what I am here for. I want those of different ideas to understand where I am coming from so they can stop making assumptions that simply aren’t true… Huh, sound familiar?

I do try - and sometimes fail - not to make assumptions when it comes to other’s religious beliefs. Before someone here suggested a book which discussed the differences in doctrine amongst the MAJOR protestant religions, I had very little knowledge of the actual differences between, for instance, a Baptist and a Methodist. And with all the varieties of churches with ‘Baptist’ in the name of the church who are (or are not) affiliated with a larger Baptist denomination, I confess that it is unlikely that I will ever have the time to learn the differences in those churches. So when confronted with a church which is “non-denominational” I have no clue as to what doctrines may or may not be held - my first 1970’s ‘experiences’ with “non-denominational” (I can ALMOST pin a year - 1972 - as the time I first began hearing the term non-denominational) churches represented churches so dissimilar in doctrine (you can read about another non-denominational experience in the “Proliferation of Mega-Churches” thread) that I decided that “non-denominational” can mean virtually anything and may only be ‘Christian’ to the point of believing that Jesus was a good guy who had some nice things to say about how we should live with one another.

I honestly don’t think I could ever be but what I am - Catholic. I have certainly spent much, much more time studying non-Christian religions than I have spent studying, for example, the different protestant religions but in using the faculties which God gave me - and which I hope that I have put to some use in a way that would be pleasing to Him - I keep coming back yo the truth of the Catholic Church as evidenced by faith and reasoning. I am human, as well, however, and do acknowledge that my feelings - my emotions - play a part in that which I believe. I confess, too, to private revelations of such stunningly small proportion to what others have received so as to be totally insignificant to anyone but myself so that they need no disclosure as they would mean nothing to anyone but myself.

…continued…**

 

[ben_dy]

…continued…

So if you look at my message #3 here you’ll see that I’m really just repeating myself - that in my experience non-denominational can mean just about anything and, although you’ve said that you recite the Apostle’s Creed in your service, I would imagine that there must be other doctrines or practices which differentiate your non-denom (rather sounds like a soup du jour!) from the one two miles down the road?

I’m not sure - without some sort of mission statement, articles of faith, etc., how you begin defining what those attending a non-denominational church believe: as the original poster said, she grew up non-denom and she doesn’t know what it means and now, as a Catholic (with denomination with 2,000 YEARS of experience in attempting to describe doctrine in ways that can be understood by all!) she wishes to share her faith but is unsure of where to begin because she’s unsure of what beliefs they may or may not share.

To get back to the original poster - if you were approached by a Catholic relative who wished to discuss faith, what would your reaction be? Immediately positive or negative or willing to discuss your faith (and, likewise, giving your relative a chance to discuss his or her faith as well)?

 

[Singinbeauty]

ben_dy:

You see this statement is a misperception by non-Catholics. I see (and Catholics see) the other groups being very limited in their forms of worship. I also struggle when I have watched people worship in a way that The Holy Spirit told me was not of God. Since there is no one in these groups with real authority, any type of “worship” is allowed. As one with the gift of interpretation I have heard people speaking in “tongues” that were not of God. No one around them has the authority to call Satan out of their midst. If we know what is of God then we don’t just follow the current popular way to pray. We can follow God’s way.

I do have a question for ya… why would you put worship in quotes? No where in the bible does it say specifically how you should worship. So if I worship with all of my heart, mind, and soul how can you call that wrong? It may not be how you want to express your love to God but if it does not violate anything in the bible that God commands of us why is it wrong? As for the tongues comment I do not attend a church where this is happening so I couldn’t answer you on that one. From what I understand tongues is a part of christianity that very little is known about. It’s not something to mess with though from what little studying I have done of it.

ben_dy:

Well, the acknowledgment of and doctrine contained within the Apostles Creed has always been my ‘minimum requirement’ for considering others Christian - some like these folks) considered that a legalistic and constraining judgement on my part.

So, does that mean that those who followed Christ weren’t Christian before the Apostle’s Creed was put together? To be Christian you have to accept that Christ was divine and that He died for our sins to bridge the gap between us and God. If you truly believe this you will do your best to seek out God and follow Jesus’ words. This is what I believe…

ben_dy:

To get back to the original poster - if you were approached by a Catholic relative who wished to discuss faith, what would your reaction be? Immediately positive or negative or willing to discuss your faith (and, likewise, giving your relative a chance to discuss his or her faith as well)?

I am constantly asked to discuss my faith with my ‘relatives’ here on this forum (we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ! ) and I hope that I am seen as open and kind in our discussions… Ok, I know that wasn’t your question … I have relatives who USED to go to a catholic church, some that are JW’s, some are baptist, and some are not christian. I am ALWAYS open to a discussion of faith. If someone comes to my door I am open to a discussion of faith. (my dad used to invite mormons and JW’s in and pull out his bible to discuss faith and God) I am understanding the catholic faith more and more and really enjoy my time here. I had a roomate who claimed catholic but she is the one who took me to my non-denom church and in our discussions she really didn’t know catholicism or anything about the traditions within that church so our conversations couldn’t really go very far…

 

[Egg4christ]

John Paul III:

I am also a new convert, and I grew up southern baptist, went to an independant baptist church for awhile, as well as a non denominational or bible church.

Non denominational churches are the most popular, and fastest growing churches in the United States today. They bring in ussually a high income audience, and they do a lot of singing in the worship and have really good speakers preaching their gospel.

These churches build big buildings, have an active youth program, many are active in their communites. They remind me more of a country club or social club than a church to me.

I drove by a huge church in Dallas, it at an athletic complex, swimming pool, baseball fields and so forth within its huge campus.

I forgot his name but he has several books out and he preaches in Houston TX in the old compact center, his father was an ordained minister but he is not.

In a nutshell these churches will motivate you in your current life using a Christian moral and ethical base. Many are counselors rather than dedicated ministry serving Christ.

Bottom line they are run like a business. They have to bring in an audience to recieve money, so they are trendy you could say, meeting the needs of its members.

JP3, you seem to have quite a bit against the Non-denom churches. Everywhere i see you, you have something to say against them.
My church is one of those. We’re not quite a megachurch, but we’re pretty big. And yeah, we strive to have excelent and up to date children’s facilities, and a neat little gym. But i have a problem with you calling it a country club. If it was that, first of all, our church would be exclusive, and secondly, all those things would be strictly for our use. But they’re not. These things are in place to draw in new people. It’s easier to invite your friend to church if they think it’s fun. It’s near impossible to get a high schooler to go anywhere they don’t think is fun, and even worse to get someone who doesn’t want church in the first place to go. Please, don’t knock these things, and not even understand their purpose.

As for the “bring in an audience to get money” crack, our church is absolutley against that. Yes, the church needs the giving of the congregation to run. However, we start off each service by telling people where we stand. Whoever is relating that weeks announcments will end with… “if you are new here, we welcome you to sit back and enjoy God’s presence. And if you are one of our regular attenders, we thank you for your continued giving and there is a tithe box in the back for your convenience”(we don’t pass anything around, that might be contradictory to us telling the new people to put their wallets away.)

 

[ben_dy]

Singinbeauty:

I do have a question for ya… why would you put worship in quotes? No where in the bible does it say specifically how you should worship. So if I worship with all of my heart, mind, and soul how can you call that wrong? It may not be how you want to express your love to God but if it does not violate anything in the bible that God commands of us why is it wrong? As for the tongues comment I do not attend a church where this is happening so I couldn’t answer you on that one. From what I understand tongues is a part of christianity that very little is known about. It’s not something to mess with though from what little studying I have done of it.

Uh - that’s not my quote - that’s from message #27 from LittleDeb: not sure how it was attributed to me but I’ll not take credit for what I’ve not written and I’ll allow her to respond should she wish.

Singinbeauty:

So, does that mean that those who followed Christ weren’t Christian before the Apostle’s Creed was put together? To be Christian you have to accept that Christ was divine and that He died for our sins to bridge the gap between us and God. If you truly believe this you will do your best to seek out God and follow Jesus’ words. This is what I believe…

First you’re being flippant and then you’re making my point? There’s no need for the former at all. The non-denominational group of which I had written, as I said, thought the beliefs found within the Apostle’s Creed too constraining - requiring one to believe in fanciful notions of God made flesh, a virgin birth, sin atonement by death, resurrection from death etc. That - I cited - was one of my first encounters with a non-denominational ‘Christian’ church: had they been disciples in Jesus’ time they would likely have been at the head of the pack of those who fled when Christ told them that they must eat His flesh. Let me put in boldface the more salient points of my comment, I can make it clearer: "the acknowledgment of and doctrine contained within the Apostles Creed has always been my ‘minimum requirement’ for considering others Christian. Now, having said that again, I will clarify that it is the doctrine contained within and not the phrasing that is important. Not all of Christ’s disciples stayed with Him, recall, when he spoke the ‘hard saying’ of what would become the Eucharist. (John 6:22-70)

Singinbeauty:

II am constantly asked to discuss my faith with my ‘relatives’ here on this forum (we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ! ) and I hope that I am seen as open and kind in our discussions… Ok, I know that wasn’t your question … I have relatives who USED to go to a catholic church, some that are JW’s, some are baptist, and some are not christian. I am ALWAYS open to a discussion of faith. If someone comes to my door I am open to a discussion of faith. (my dad used to invite mormons and JW’s in and pull out his bible to discuss faith and God) I am understanding the catholic faith more and more and really enjoy my time here. I had a roomate who claimed catholic but she is the one who took me to my non-denom church and in our discussions she really didn’t know catholicism or anything about the traditions within that church so our conversations couldn’t really go very far…

But how would you - as a member of a non-denominational church - advise the original poster in approaching her relatives who might not be as open to discussion or - even worse - be in the state of the original poster who attended non-denominational churches and found, as she said, that “every church we went to was different”? At least with Bishop Paulk in Atlanta (whom I wrote of in the ‘mega-churches’ thread) has books in which he discusses his “Kingdom Theology” (a very, very strange mixture that dabbles in some LDS beliefs, something that appears to be Catholic hierarchy and liturgy, etc.: an admixture that produces a quite unorthodox Christianity). Is there, for instance, on the back of your Sunday bulletins a basic statement of beliefs generally held in common? Where - in your church - would the originator of this thread go to discover what her relatives are being taught? I’m not asking for my sake nor am I asking to be argumentative (and if I have seemed argumentative at all it’s only because I recognize, from my limited encounters with members and leaders of non-denominational churches, just how frustrating it can be to obtain a basic understanding of shared beliefs. I can imagine that the frustration is even greater for the original poster as she is discussing the situation within her own family.

 

[LittleDeb]

Singinbeauty:

I do have a question for ya… why would you put worship in quotes? No where in the bible does it say specifically how you should worship. So if I worship with all of my heart, mind, and soul how can you call that wrong? It may not be how you want to express your love to God but if it does not violate anything in the bible that God commands of us why is it wrong? As for the tongues comment I do not attend a church where this is happening so I couldn’t answer you on that one. From what I understand tongues is a part of christianity that very little is known about. It’s not something to mess with though from what little studying I have done of it.

Yeah, that was a hard choice to make to put worship in quotes. You see my experience with non-denominational churches seems to be the complete opposite of your experience.

Of the many, many I have attended with friends through the years their forms of worship have been very limited. One of the best examples I can give is in my husband’s former church. (He’s now Catholic.) In his particular group, you had to pray in tongues or you were not really Christian. Most of the groups I have seen are not open to any form of prayer that is not spontaneous. In fact, except the Lord’s prayer, I have yet to see a non-denominational group which allows a written form of prayer UNLESS it is set to music. (Another exception: “The Sinner’s Prayer.” Who wrote that?)

I can respect that you say that your worship with your whole heart etc… But the question is, what does that mean? Not addressing this to you personally, but how would I know from your form of worship that you are in fact worshipping ONE Triune God? I have experience seeing people who claimed to be worshipping God, but upon examination were not. They said the things that were said by other people in their non-denominational church and those things sounded and looked right by their own congregation. Later it was found out that it was not God whom they were worshipping. That was why I put worship in quotes.

I think my experience is just so completely different that I don’t know that I can ask the questions in a way that we will be on the same page. Please understand that The Early Church tried to allow spontaneous worship through the entire celebration. What develops is people shouting out things that are NOT praises to the Lord.

Also understand that I have worshipped with people with Touret’s syndrome. Even though they don’t “say the right things” they are still worshipping God. On the other hand I have stood near people who were “saying the right things” and yet not worshipping God. Within Catholicism we can know the difference. My non-denominational friends have all suffered some form of evil infiltration in their churches. Since they have to accept all forms of “worship” it can be months or years before it can be stopped. When I have worship in quotes here it is because it is still worship, but it is not worship to God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. It is worship to other things.

How do you know that what is happening around you is in fact worship to God? When I ask my non-denominational friends they say they get a “feeling from The Holy Spirit.” The problem comes when their “feeling” and the “feeling” of another non-denominational person do not match. So which non-denominational person is “feeling The Spirit” and which one isn’t? Who really has authority in a non-denominational setting? Who defines worship to God vs. worship to something (or someone) else? What defines a non-denominational person other than rejecting a denomination?

For a Catholic, we reject the idea that Jesus ever intended us to be separated and therefore denominated in the first place. Catholic was not considered a denomination until Luther broke away. We didn’t change. He did.

Sorry for the length. I hope I clarified more instead of muddying it up.

 

[jim1130]

LittleDeb:

Yeah, that was a hard choice to make to put worship in quotes. You see my experience with non-denominational churches seems to be the complete opposite of your experience.

Of the many, many I have attended with friends through the years their forms of worship have been very limited. One of the best examples I can give is in my husband’s former church. (He’s now Catholic.) In his particular group, you had to pray in tongues or you were not really Christian. Most of the groups I have seen are not open to any form of prayer that is not spontaneous. In fact, except the Lord’s prayer, I have yet to see a non-denominational group which allows a written form of prayer UNLESS it is set to music. (Another exception: “The Sinner’s Prayer.” Who wrote that?)

I can respect that you say that your worship with your whole heart etc… But the question is, what does that mean? Not addressing this to you personally, but how would I know from your form of worship that you are in fact worshipping ONE Triune God? I have experience seeing people who claimed to be worshipping God, but upon examination were not. They said the things that were said by other people in their non-denominational church and those things sounded and looked right by their own congregation. Later it was found out that it was not God whom they were worshipping. That was why I put worship in quotes.

I think my experience is just so completely different that I don’t know that I can ask the questions in a way that we will be on the same page. Please understand that The Early Church tried to allow spontaneous worship through the entire celebration. What develops is people shouting out things that are NOT praises to the Lord.

Also understand that I have worshipped with people with Touret’s syndrome. Even though they don’t “say the right things” they are still worshipping God. On the other hand I have stood near people who were “saying the right things” and yet not worshipping God. Within Catholicism we can know the difference. My non-denominational friends have all suffered some form of evil infiltration in their churches. Since they have to accept all forms of “worship” it can be months or years before it can be stopped. When I have worship in quotes here it is because it is still worship, but it is not worship to God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. It is worship to other things.

How do you know that what is happening around you is in fact worship to God? When I ask my non-denominational friends they say they get a “feeling from The Holy Spirit.” The problem comes when their “feeling” and the “feeling” of another non-denominational person do not match. So which non-denominational person is “feeling The Spirit” and which one isn’t? Who really has authority in a non-denominational setting? Who defines worship to God vs. worship to something (or someone) else? What defines a non-denominational person other than rejecting a denomination?

For a Catholic, we reject the idea that Jesus ever intended us to be separated and therefore denominated in the first place. Catholic was not considered a denomination until Luther broke away. We didn’t change. He did.

Sorry for the length. I hope I clarified more instead of muddying it up.

I suppose we should feel fortunate that at least people are working to keep God in their lives, at least on Sunday mornings, but my concern is that all of these non-denominational churches use the Bible as the crutch to promote their opinions and perspectives when, in fact, the Bible is not self-interpreting. So, in the end, what you have is a pastor who has assigned to self the role of pope and magesterium then sermonizes while the congregation sits passively in their seats while the worship (?) is horizontal rather than vertical. The other irony, for me, is talk of “clear and precise scripture” (a phrase used on the radio this morning by a non-denominational pastor advertising his church), but this only exists to defend their viewpoint. When confronted with Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist, the non-denominational pastors and their congregation are quick to dismiss it as allegorical, figurative, and symbolic. Funny how that works.

 

[ben_dy]

jim1130:

I suppose we should feel fortunate that at least people are working to keep God in their lives, at least on Sunday mornings, but my concern is that all of these non-denominational churches use the Bible as the crutch to promote their opinions and perspectives when, in fact, the Bible is not self-interpreting. So, in the end, what you have is a pastor who has assigned to self the role of pope and magesterium then sermonizes while the congregation sits passively in their seats while the worship (?) is horizontal rather than vertical. The other irony, for me, is talk of “clear and precise scripture” (a phrase used on the radio this morning by a non-denominational pastor advertising his church), but this only exists to defend their viewpoint. When confronted with Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist, the non-denominational pastors and their congregation are quick to dismiss it as allegorical, figurative, and symbolic. Funny how that works.

What is different about Bishop Paulk and his (once - and still fighting) mega-church in Atlanta is that he insists, much to other evangelicals displeasure, that ‘Bible interpretation’ is NOT to be left to the layman but is rather an assigned ministry from God (a pretty good article concerning his departure from the standard evangelical line can be found here ).

The question that remains unanswered, for me, is where do you find information on what differentiates one non-denominational church from another? If it’s a question of doctrinal differences, then they are closer to one established denomination than another - and with non-denominational ‘franchises’ what, exactly, makes them non-denominational: with organization, haven’t they become a denomination?

I started reading this thread, and a couple of others which have touched on non-denominational worship and mega-churches thinking that the primary difference from one church to the other was/is the pastor (or perhaps one should say the ‘head pastor’ as some of these churches have other pastors to aid in all the tasks which one man could not accomplish alone) and while it still seems that these churches are pastor-driven, the more I read I see that they are also amenities driven: while one may prefer Pastor Tom at All Saints Chapel, All Souls Chapel has more Bible Studies to choose from and better child-care facilities so although Pastor Bob doesn’t speak to me as Pastor Tom, I attend All Saints because it offers me a more amenities that fit my schedule and lifestyle.

What it seems to come down to is self-satisfaction (“what do I get out of the experience?”) and convenience. Those are criteria I use for choosing a grocery store or in deciding what shopping mall to visit but there’s something missing - for me - when those become the prime criteria for which church to attend(luckily, I’m Catholic and have only once ‘parish shopped’ - I like to make friends with the folks who live nearby and attending the local parish allows that: it doesn’t allow me to choose a pastor, however - you’re stuck with whomever the bishop assigns).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

In my personal experience, if you push hard for a non-denom to say what their beliefs are closest to, they will . . . almost without fail . . . say that they are closest to baptist.

So lets be honest. “Non-denominational” *really * means “baptist without a formal connection or affiliation.”

-Peace

 

[MariaG]

Singinbeauty:

No where in the bible does it say specifically how you should worship.

Paul specifically laid our rules for how tongues were to be spoken.

He also gives specific rules for prophecy.

These two examples I remembered with little effort.

The NT has many examples telling us specifically how we should worship.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[SolaChristo]

Robert in SD:

In my personal experience, if you push hard for a non-denom to say what their beliefs are closest to, they will . . . almost without fail . . . say that they are closest to baptist.

So lets be honest. “Non-denominational” *really * means “baptist without a formal connection or affiliation.”

-Peace

I would disagree. most nonDenominationalists are closer to Pentecostal.

 

[jim1130]

SolaChristo:

I would disagree. most nonDenominationalists are closer to Pentecostal.

Doesn;t matter. The non-denoms like to be differnt so they profess to align more with their interpretaiton of scripture. Everyone wants to be different.

 

[Randb]

A friend is a Baptist, so I gathered info on fundalmental & southern Baptists so we could have a discussion, well , she said oh no I 'm not FB, what kind are you then?? No comment. She also mentioned that their chuch was founded by , she thought John the Baptist. I told her I really didn’t think John the Baptist started your church b/c he is a saint in the Catholic church!

All she knows to say is it’s in the Bible!! You really can’t have a reasonable conversation b/c she quotes everything…I have gotten all the familiar things wrong with the CC, worshipping Mary & saints & calling the Priest Father, etc etc etc.

She told me one day that the nuns in Rome had babies buried under the Vacian----------- I told her that story has been around for 50 years since I was in school about the DC monastery!!! I have a feeling her preacher must have had a sermon on that. The things they try!!! With no documentation!! Only heresay.