I
Ignatius
Guest
The Catholic Church is one and the same undivided Church that Jesus founded 2000 years ago. It is pre-denominational.
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
Non denominationals tend to deny Tradition, and Magisterium, play any part, but just Sola Scriptura. They are unlike Lutherans and Anglicans, for instance, who do place much emphasis on Tradition, tracing their own continuous tradition to way before the Reformation, in ideas at least. The problem for non denoms is accounting for the guidance of the Bible. Where did the NT canon come from? If they say the Spirit was guiding the Church on that issue, back then, it’s hard to concede the Spirit would inspire the Church, abandon the Church for many centuries, then return just in time to guide the non denoms.
Actually of course, the non denoms are just as tradtional as the Lutherans. The difference is that the Lutherans have a clear path of historic documentation, which you may agreee or disagree with, but at least you can see it. Non denoms are like the “man behind the curtain”, obedient and limited by many possible influences historic and social, but denying all those influences; so they are hidden, even to themselves.
Actually of course, the non denoms are just as tradtional as the Lutherans. The difference is that the Lutherans have a clear path of historic documentation, which you may agreee or disagree with, but at least you can see it. Non denoms are like the “man behind the curtain”, obedient and limited by many possible influences historic and social, but denying all those influences; so they are hidden, even to themselves.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Brilliant. Thank you for sharing!
C
Contarini
Guest
You are using “denomination” to mean something like “tradition.” This is a common usage among Catholics–and probably among other folks too.I always wondered how there could be non-denominational religions since their denomination is “non-denominational”.
But a “denomination” is more properly defined (as in this is how both ecclesiastical muckymucks and scholars of religion use the term) as an organization. Presbyterianism is a tradition including a number of denominations. And so on.
Non-denom churches are non-denom because they are independent. They do not belong to any larger organization that has authority over them.
However, it’s also true that they tend, often, not to identify themselves explicitly with any tradition either. But obviously they are part of a tradition–or many traditions. Everyone is.
As for the origins–the first question to ask is about the origins of denominations. After all, until the Reformation and for some time after that, in Western Christendom it was assumed that there was only one Church. Divisions within the Church were political as well as religious. This territory over here might be Catholic and the next one Protestant, but if you had Protestants in a Catholic territory or vice versa, they were seen as subversives and the situation was regarded as irregular–hence the persecution we all know about. Dissenters typically weren’t trying to establish parallel “denominations” but to establish their version of Christianity as the true, established version.
But in some areas–particularly in England and the Netherlands–by the seventeenth century a situation clearly existed in which there were, in fact, rival churches as a permanent presence. (The Dutch were more intentional and accepting about this–the English tried hard to keep the “one church for the whole nation” idea much longer–indeed, in some sense one could say that it’s still not dead.) In England, which I know best, these “dissenting” Protestant groups (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, Quaker, and later Methodist) came to see themselves as not necessarily the one true Church, but as particular expressions of a broader orthodoxy. The idea developed, alongside political liberalism and capitalism, that maybe it was a good thing for people to have multiple choices in religion. This idea, of course, took root and flourished in America, where Anglicans and Catholics also came to function as denominations, although back in Europe the Anglicans insisted that they were the one Church for England and the Catholics insisted that they were the one Church everywhere. (Not that Catholics didn’t keep claiming this in America, but the claim couldn’t be enforced politically.)
Of the Protestant denominations, some, like the Presbyterians and later the Methodists, did have well-developed church organizations that went beyond the local church. But the Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists who derived from them, insisted that each congregation was basically autonomous. They still had structures of fellowship and identified themselves with a larger group, so they could be called “denominations,” but congregational polity is the root of the “non-denominational” concept. In America, congregationalism became very popular, though the Presbyterians and Methodists flourished as well with their much more developed bureaucracy (the Methodists in particular gloried in their “connectionalism”). The new denominations that sprouted like mushrooms in the fertile soul of the Great Awakening tended to have a basically congregationalist polity–that is, the local church had a very high degree of self-government. It was the basic unit, and the denomination was a fellowship of local churches for purposes of more effective ministry.
Each new group was trying to be like the New Testament church, and many of them denounced “denominations” and claimed to be restoring pure Christianity in which denominational differences didn’t matter. But, of course, each group created its own unique “brand” of Christianity which came to function as a “denomination.”
What we call “non-denominational churches” are an attempt to prevent this from happening. If you don’t identify yourself in any way except as “Christian,” and if you don’t have any larger organization to which you belong, then (so the thinking goes) you have a better shot at practicing pure New Testament Christianity and “just following the Bible.”
Of course it doesn’t work. they all have traditions that shape their beliefs and practices, and by refusing to acknowledge it they just create a muddle for themselves and others. It’s very hard to teach students who have no sense of where their church’s teachings come from or how they differ from other Christians. They think that they are being very broad-minded by refusing to identify themselves as anything but Christian, but in fact it creates a mentality in which their brand is “just Christianity” and everything else is a superfluous add-on.
Also, many younger people these days have changed churches so often that they really don’t identify with any particular one.
Edwin
H
Horton
Guest
S
spedteacherita
Guest
While some of these churches have problems there are beautiful, loving Christians in each one. They teach Christ crucified and look forward to His return. Many of these churches have risen out of cultural differences based on the areas in which they live and grouped also according to races.Rather than continually put them down, why not get out there and show them the truths you all have? This country is ripe for a mission field!
God bless,
Rita
L
ltwin
Guest
This is an overstatement. Many non-denominational churches are Pentecostal or charismatic in theology or practice. There are many differences between Baptist and charismatic practice.I new it! Baptist every one of them LOL!!!1
In addition, there is the problem of polity. Baptist churches are not simply “churches that practice adult baptism.” There are other things that go into being a Baptist. One is congregational polity. Members of Baptist churches VOTE on congregational business.
This may or may not occur in non-denominational churches. In many churches, the pastor is completely unaccountable to the congregation. In others, a self-appointed board makes decisions and is led by the pastor.
Polity is variable in non-denominational churches, and while this may not seem important it is. A church’s polity reflects its ecclesiology.
B
benhur
Guest
and could we not all be that , non-denominational , and united by the creed ? or is denominationalism a result of going beyond the creed ?
C
Contarini
Guest
A traditionalist Anglican is no more likely to be fair to the non-denominational perspective than a Catholic is–maybe less, in fact, because he probably has more anxiety about distinguishing Anglicanism from such “less respectable” traditions.
Many people in free church circles use the term “Baptistic” to describe the ways in which lots of American evangelicals are Baptist-like without identifying themselves as Baptist.
I agree that the line between non-denominational churches and Baptists is pretty thin. Many Baptists eschew any kind of denominational hierarchy, and many churches that call themselves non-denominational do have some kind of loose fellowship to which they belong, or were founded as “franchises” of some popular megachurch. And while Itwin’s right that many non-denom churches are Pentecostalcharismatic, many others are doctrinally pretty much indistinguishable from Baptists. Still, the fact that a church chooses to identify itself as Baptist or does not so choose is significant, and their self-identification should be respected when possible.
Edwin
E
exnihilo
Guest
Another issue that I believe is discussed both by liberal and conservative Baptists is the dropping of the word Baptist from the church name. Many apparently non-denominational churches were Baptist and even had the word in the church name. For various reasons they thought it worthwhile to drop the word. They might still maintain associational with Baptist organizations but they want to downplay that.
C
Contarini
Guest
True, and it’s not just Baptists who do this. I’ve known a number of evangelicals, especially younger ones, who had no idea what denomination their local church belonged to, because it wasn’t something publicly advertised. Even United Methodist congregations sometimes don’t display the denominational symbol or put it in very small print.
Edwin
I
Ignatius
Guest
Denominationalism is the result of churches (or split offs from them) started by men who broke away form the undivided, predenominational Church that Jesus Christ founded when He was incarnate on the Earth. You can generally tell a denominational church by tracing it’s chief pastors back to when it started. Here are a few examples:
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk who left the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in the 1960’s
If you worship in the non-denominational tradition, your faith tradition was started in the 1970’s.
C
commenter
Guest
This post is good.
There are wonderful Christians in these churches. From my experience, the limited doctrine they teach is usually pretty compatible with Catholic and other Protestant churches, just incomplete, IMHO. They focus on practical needs - survivors group for sex abused persons - single parents - teens - young adults, especially.
Most Catholic parishes have religious ed for children, if you are lucky they might have a struggling youth group, and lots of programs for Seniors. In my area, many organizations that started out serving all adults turned into totally Senior organizations. There is very little specifically aimed at persons 18 - 35 or so. The Church’s position has always been, well people tend to drift apart when they are 18 or so, but they come back when they get married and have children, in their early 20s. The reality is that Catholics, like most other groups, are not getting married or having kids as young as they formerly did. That twentysomething generation is either permanently unchurched, or else recruited by non denominationals where they feel far more welcome than at the RC church.
I would much rather see ecumenical activities with non denominational churches than continuing with Protestant churches that are now pro abortion and pro gay marriage. But we need to start asking why so many Catholic and other young adults are going there, and why we are not trying to recruit them ourselves.
M
Mirza19
Guest
Well, first you need to realize the “non-denom” is a modern term with roots in older religious behavior.
“Anabaptists” in the Reformation might anticipate contemporary “non-denoms,” since they didn’t affiliate with either Lutheran or Catholics (mostly). Anabaptist and even Calvinist were eventually adopted as titles after being used in a derogatory fashion.
I think what we know as “non-denominational” began more accurately with the origins of Evangelical Christianity, in the eighteenth century (see: Mark Noll, Martin Marty, and a few other scholars of American/Transatlantic Christianity). “Evangelical” was first used as a term meaning “not-Catholic” that eventually referred to a specific “style” of Christianity emphasizing a personal conversation, emotional worship, revivals, and converting others. Self-identifying Evangelicals in North America in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century might have associated with Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians (which were white denominations - Enslaved and Free Blacks sometimes had their own, like AME) but had more in common across lines because of an “evangelical” identity.
Discussions around Christianity in Scotland/England and the United States eventually began to question the whole purpose of “denominations,” and thus you get a new set of “non-denominational” Churches. One of these, Joseph Smith’s, becomes the Church of JC of LDS (Mormons) and grows apart from then-mainstream Christianity; but others, like Joseph Campbell (the Campbellites, also “Church of Christ”) eventually become accepted, formally “non-denominational” Evangelical churches.
The Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Assemblies of God, Foursquare Gospel, and other primarily Evangelical/Pentecostal denominations all have a lot of self-professing “non-denominational” Christians who identify more by style than by doctrine; and even though they are “sects” in a traditional sense, their history closely follows that of the growth of “Non-denominational” or Evangelical Christianity.
As other posters have identified, since the 80s (and especially the 90s) a sort of Christian counter-culture has existed that is mainly non-denominational but also focused on Modernizing worship (like the magazine, Relevant; but there are also conservative equivalents, such as the "emerging conservative’ movement) that prefer to organize around religious style and the “basics” of Christian faith (which are largely Protestant creeds). They are easily confused for Evangelicals, and I’d think many would identify as both.
As a sociologist of religion, religious identify isn’t a matter of choosing a doctrine and practicing it. A Catholic scholar at Northwestern, Robert Orsi, summarizes in a lot of his articles the “lived religions” example: religion is a matter of geographic, temporal, and social context. You believe and practice only what has been filtered to you. That’s why identities like “non-denominational” and “evangelical” – which are more behavioral – and coexist amongst themselves but also other “denominations.” It’s always why most non-denominationals have no problem seeing themselves as apart from Protestants and Catholics: while to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, claiming that church tradition is “outside” the fundamentals is clearly a marker of Protestant identity and thus denomination, for non-denoms this isn’t the case.
“Anabaptists” in the Reformation might anticipate contemporary “non-denoms,” since they didn’t affiliate with either Lutheran or Catholics (mostly). Anabaptist and even Calvinist were eventually adopted as titles after being used in a derogatory fashion.
I think what we know as “non-denominational” began more accurately with the origins of Evangelical Christianity, in the eighteenth century (see: Mark Noll, Martin Marty, and a few other scholars of American/Transatlantic Christianity). “Evangelical” was first used as a term meaning “not-Catholic” that eventually referred to a specific “style” of Christianity emphasizing a personal conversation, emotional worship, revivals, and converting others. Self-identifying Evangelicals in North America in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century might have associated with Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians (which were white denominations - Enslaved and Free Blacks sometimes had their own, like AME) but had more in common across lines because of an “evangelical” identity.
Discussions around Christianity in Scotland/England and the United States eventually began to question the whole purpose of “denominations,” and thus you get a new set of “non-denominational” Churches. One of these, Joseph Smith’s, becomes the Church of JC of LDS (Mormons) and grows apart from then-mainstream Christianity; but others, like Joseph Campbell (the Campbellites, also “Church of Christ”) eventually become accepted, formally “non-denominational” Evangelical churches.
The Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Assemblies of God, Foursquare Gospel, and other primarily Evangelical/Pentecostal denominations all have a lot of self-professing “non-denominational” Christians who identify more by style than by doctrine; and even though they are “sects” in a traditional sense, their history closely follows that of the growth of “Non-denominational” or Evangelical Christianity.
As other posters have identified, since the 80s (and especially the 90s) a sort of Christian counter-culture has existed that is mainly non-denominational but also focused on Modernizing worship (like the magazine, Relevant; but there are also conservative equivalents, such as the "emerging conservative’ movement) that prefer to organize around religious style and the “basics” of Christian faith (which are largely Protestant creeds). They are easily confused for Evangelicals, and I’d think many would identify as both.
As a sociologist of religion, religious identify isn’t a matter of choosing a doctrine and practicing it. A Catholic scholar at Northwestern, Robert Orsi, summarizes in a lot of his articles the “lived religions” example: religion is a matter of geographic, temporal, and social context. You believe and practice only what has been filtered to you. That’s why identities like “non-denominational” and “evangelical” – which are more behavioral – and coexist amongst themselves but also other “denominations.” It’s always why most non-denominationals have no problem seeing themselves as apart from Protestants and Catholics: while to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, claiming that church tradition is “outside” the fundamentals is clearly a marker of Protestant identity and thus denomination, for non-denoms this isn’t the case.
C
Cake_or_Death
Guest
The idea is that whereas various denominations will have their own issues to bicker over (altar calls are an infamous one) the non-denominational stand aside.I always wondered how there could be non-denominational religions since their denomination is “non-denominational”.
The idea is rather simple; so long as you worship Jesus as Lord you’re pretty much on the right track. Everything else is “fluff”, extras that don’t matter. Denominations that claim sole authority like (in their eyes) Catholics and Mormons are often disliked primarily for that reason alone rather than being pagans or heathens.
It’s an attractive proposition from an ecumenical perspective hence why it’s been so popular in some quarters. It won’t ever take off outside America and Africa though, state churches may no longer have power but they’re too deeply embedded for people to consider anything but their country’s (or in the case of immigrants family’s) traditional denomination.
C
commenter
Guest
There is no such thing as a genuinely non denom church, or non denom Christian individual. That’s like saying I live in a city in the US with no latitude or longitude.
Non denoms are closest to Evangelicals, but more “evangelical lite” in terms of doctrine. Like other Christians, they are informed, or “bound up” in man-made traditions. But they are unaware of their heritage and how it influences them. They have blinders, or blind spots, but they are unaware of them. That’s why people who rely supposedly exclusively on the same Scripture can come to contradictory conclusions.
Actually some non denom churches are not really independent; there are a few chains of churches, some mega churches, usually based in the South or Southern California. They tend to be build around or loyal to a big name media preacher, though he may have begun as a pastor. If you watch them on TV, there is not much I would disagree with; “spend time with your children”; communication is important to marriage; be a loyal friend; be sensitive to the needs of the poor; be an encourager; spend some quiet moments with God". They don’t say anything that people would disagree with. But they are very vague about God, about dogma, about the Natural Law, etc. I’m not saying they’re bad. They probably do scoop up some young adults who have drifted away from other churches, who would not otherwise attend any church. I don’t think it’s a good place to be in long term, but for now, for some, it’s non denom or nothing for a few years.
Non denoms avoid the word Protestant. But then all the Protestant churches in the last few decades avoid that term. No one uses that word other than Catholics and Orthodox.
Perhaps it is one more word that has been over used, since it now can mean almost anything, therefore it means almost nothing.
Non denoms are closest to Evangelicals, but more “evangelical lite” in terms of doctrine. Like other Christians, they are informed, or “bound up” in man-made traditions. But they are unaware of their heritage and how it influences them. They have blinders, or blind spots, but they are unaware of them. That’s why people who rely supposedly exclusively on the same Scripture can come to contradictory conclusions.
Actually some non denom churches are not really independent; there are a few chains of churches, some mega churches, usually based in the South or Southern California. They tend to be build around or loyal to a big name media preacher, though he may have begun as a pastor. If you watch them on TV, there is not much I would disagree with; “spend time with your children”; communication is important to marriage; be a loyal friend; be sensitive to the needs of the poor; be an encourager; spend some quiet moments with God". They don’t say anything that people would disagree with. But they are very vague about God, about dogma, about the Natural Law, etc. I’m not saying they’re bad. They probably do scoop up some young adults who have drifted away from other churches, who would not otherwise attend any church. I don’t think it’s a good place to be in long term, but for now, for some, it’s non denom or nothing for a few years.
Non denoms avoid the word Protestant. But then all the Protestant churches in the last few decades avoid that term. No one uses that word other than Catholics and Orthodox.
Perhaps it is one more word that has been over used, since it now can mean almost anything, therefore it means almost nothing.
S
sallybutler
Guest
I would say that they probably began in the late 1800’s with the publication of Strong’s. Many churches then gelled into what we now consider denominations.
C
Contarini
Guest
Again, you’re defining “denomination” to be the same as “tradition.”
And to be fair, many non-denoms do indeed think that they have no tradition.
But insofar as they’re claiming not be part of a larger institution, they’re claiming something quite coherent and frequently accurate.
They are almost all evangelicals.
Unless your use of the capital letter indicates that you’re using a stricter, more Reformed definition of “Evangelical” than I am. In which case you would be right. But I resist that definition of the term–it’s a partisan move by the Reformed.
That’s a fair point.
Those are the ones you hear about. It’s unfair to generalize from them to all non-denominational churches, some of which are very small and low-key.
Yes, this is true of many of them–that their teaching has been watered down to moralism and sentimentalism and a vague appeal to Scripture as the source of all knowledge and goodness, without much of a clear doctrinal framework. But again, it’s dangerous to generalize about non-denoms.
That’s quite untrue. I hear people use it about themselves all the time.
You’re right that there’s a trend away from using the term. But it’s very far from universal.
You’re making some valid points but overgeneralizing quite wildly.
Edwin
E
eatpraylove11
Guest
I really like your description of the non-denominational Christian churches. Though I wish the Catholic church focused on young people a little more (like how you stated), it is the ancient roots that keep me tied to it.
Similarly to how you stated that the non-denominational church is too flexible, I always personally felt like they made it up as they went along. I understand relating to people on a personal, modern level. It feels like the sacred experience of the Catholic church is washed away when people are baptized in blow up pools at these nondenominational churches instead of by a priest.
On a side note, I noticed that lots of non-denominational Christian churches do baby dedications instead of baptism (since it is one’s own personal decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior). I sort of felt like, isn’t this practically the same idea? I mean I know baptizing a baby is more sacred, and I’d much rather do that. I guess I didn’t exactly understand what or whom they were dedicating their babies to…Christ? The church? Anyway, I thought it was an interesting adaptation of the non-denominational churches.
T
TruthBearer
Guest
My thoughts exactly.I always wondered how there could be non-denominational religions since their denomination is “non-denominational”.
Maybe they call it that because they accept you regardless of what you personally believe.
Who knows???
- Status