What does it mean to be "non-denominational"?

[Zooey]

Is this based on your having attended non-denom churches? I’ve gone to several (around the country), and NONE of them supported speaking in tongues. So you can’t broadbrush them that way.

Yes, it is. All the non-denom churches in this area are charismatic. And the "independent’ churches are not. (In fact, one local church that had been called non-denom since forever, just changed their name to “independent Baptist” precisely because they wanted to clarify that).

 

[descout]

Non-denominational may mean a person agrees with the doctrines and teachings of their church, which styles itself “non-denominational”.

But when I say I’m non-denominational, I mean there isn’t any particular denomination that I identify with. I am a member of a church, which is an Assemblies of God affiliate, and I’m happy with it. But if I were seeking a perfect doctrinal match, it would be roughly 30% AG, 25% Lutheran, 25% Anglican, 10% Catholic and 10% Orthodox.

Great that = 100% Catholic since all were born from the Catholic

When you mention doctrinal match…I am curious what you mean? Do think that you are going to find a match that you can just fit right in and that Jesus designed the church to fit every doctrine that you believe in? I guess what I am getting at is that I did not always believe in every doctrine that the CC teaches and still dont, but that since I feel the true church is the CC I must learn to believe the doctrines and live my life with the doctrines Jesus wants and I am doing just that. Meaning I cant search for a church based on doctrines I want the church to have. I must look and see where the church started and what early church fathers and christians did in history. And in my opinion the CC prevails in that history.

 

[Chi_Rho_Joe]

Wowsa!

From each of our non-denom’s (name removed by moderator)ut, obviously there are as many different definitions of “non-denominational” as there are denominations!
Nobody can tell me that Christ intended this (doesn’t pass the ‘giggle’ test, does it?)

Talk 'bout self-revealing proof!!

Catholic: Universal. :extrahappy:

Peace,
CRJ

 

[AmateurPianist]

Non-denominational=believes in speaking in tongues. Not OSAS, or noncommittal on the subject.
Independent=does NOT believe in speaking with tongues. Very much OSAS.

Otherwise? Pretty much alike.

Actually the term 'non-denominational" tells you nothing concerning the theological makeup of the church.

Simply put, a non-denominational church is simply a local church that is affiliated with a parent organization. The buck stops at the pastor and governing board of the local church.

Glad to clear up misconceptions on the subject.

 

[JAGCath28]

Yes, it is. All the non-denom churches in this area are charismatic. And the "independent’ churches are not. (In fact, one local church that had been called non-denom since forever, just changed their name to “independent Baptist” precisely because they wanted to clarify that).

non-denominational does not mean exclusively that they believe in speaking in tongues or that they are charismatic.

I used to go by the term non-denominational until I became Catholic. Here is why I used that term. I did not belong to a church of any of the mainstream denominations such as: Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, 7th Day adventist, Episcopalian, etc. Because I did not belong to any of these types of churches, I considered myself non-denominational. I wasn’t Baptist or Methodist or any of the others. It just so happened that in my particular case, we followed a TV preacher who was not affiliated with any of these denominations either. We did not go to church on Sundays but instead watched this preacher or joined other followers of this preacher for Bible Studies. That is non-denominational. And, the TV preacher we followed was not charismatic in the speaking in tongues way. I would consider his church to be an independent church, but since I was not a member of ANY church I was non-denominational.

Now I’m Catholic. And happy.

 

[simspt]

Most non-denominational Churches I have attended were led by biblical fundamentalists and interpereted the Bible very literal and held that private interpretation is all that is necessary thanks to the Holy Spirit. They placed strong emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus. They provided many opportunities for Bilbe study and performed quite a bit of outreach type programs to help others as well and placed sharing their faith with non-Christians of fundamental importance. Many of these Christians are very committed, others not so much as with any Church. They all have implicit hierarchial systems (eg Saddleback = Rick Warren, Calvary Chapel = Chuck Smith) that influence their Theology but most of there members are ignorant of this. My personal view is that many Catholics could benefit from incorporating some of these practices. These include the stress these Christians place on learning and studying the Bible (not their false exegesis), stressing their personal relationship with and love for Jesus (not their deemphasis of the importance of the Church) as is stressed by the Gospel of John and there desire to evangelize. I have never had a Catholic share their faith with me, I cant count how many times I have had these Christians share their faith with me. Im not sure if this is due to lack of resources or lack of focus by the Catholic Church. Unfortunately most of the people I know who attend these Churches are completely ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches and of the History of Christianity. They tend to have a genuine Faith in Christ based on a naive understanding of the Bible (in my opinion). I hate to stereotype but Im speaking from the perspective of being in one of these Churches on and off for 15 years.

 

[timorage]

Non-denominationalists reject authority of any kind, except the one whose turn it is to “teach” at their bible study meeting, and nobody has to agree with them either. They are essentially anti-Protestant, but agree with most Protestants that the Catholic Church is unbiblical. Non-denominationalism is a denomination in itself, with each group having its own agenda. None of them, to my knowldege, have ever built a school or hospital in the third world.

Actually, the non-denom church that my parents are attached to is rather active in South and Central America. Not sure if that counts for second or third world, but they’ve worked on schools, churches, and some civil-engineering projects (building small bridges or digging wells) for small, isolated villages.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Would it be right to say that if the church had carried out like the CC believes, One True Church, that denominations would really not exist? Since it seems the non denomination people I come in contact with firmly believe that denominations are unbiblical. Hence one reason why the CC is not biblical. Which I could post in a whole other post.

The more I thought about it the more I could agree to disagree because if only one True Church existed then there would be no need for denominations. Hence how Jesus wanted it. No denominations, just one True Church. Now I have not gone and researched to see if actually the Bible warrants against denominations.

The Catholic Church is never ever a denomination, she has always been the body of Jesus Christ since he began building her upon Peter Mt.16:14-18 and the apostles.

Colossians 1: 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 He is the head of the body, the church./B] 9 He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
19 For in him all the fullness 10 was pleased to dwell,
20 and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross 11 (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven.
21 And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind because of evil deeds
22 he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, to present you holy, without blemish, and irreproachable before him,
23 provided that you persevere in the faith, firmly grounded, stable, and not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, am a minister.
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I would suggest that the first community split into denominations rather quickly. There were tensions in the Jerusalem community, such as the feeding and care of widows in Acts, chapter 6. Then in chapter 10, the vision of Peter indicates that the question of whether one had to be a Jew first was one of the early questions that would create other denominations, such as the Ebionites. Peter is then challenged by the Judiazers, to borrow a term from Paul in chapter 11. And then in chapter 15, we find two sets of doctrine agreed upon. The differences are greater than those of most modern denominations. All this is against and extra-Biblical context of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and many other groups that also would have considered themselves Christian. And the believers in John the Baptizer were around, as witnessed by the report on Apollos, who only knew the baptism of John. In fact, in the 19th century Catholic missionaries to Mesopotamia found them still active. I forget the name they go by now, but an article I read last year indicates that there are still around 40,000 in the world.

 

[BrianH]

Yes, it is. All the non-denom churches in this area are charismatic. And the "independent’ churches are not. (In fact, one local church that had been called non-denom since forever, just changed their name to “independent Baptist” precisely because they wanted to clarify that).

The two largest non-denominational churches in my city do not speak in tongues. The third does however.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would suggest that the first community split into denominations rather quickly. There were tensions in the Jerusalem community, such as the feeding and care of widows in Acts, chapter 6. Then in chapter 10, the vision of Peter indicates that the question of whether one had to be a Jew first was one of the early questions that would create other denominations, such as the Ebionites. Peter is then challenged by the Judiazers, to borrow a term from Paul in chapter 11. And then in chapter 15, we find two sets of doctrine agreed upon. The differences are greater than those of most modern denominations. All this is against and extra-Biblical context of Gnosticism, Marcionism, and many other groups that also would have considered themselves Christian. And the believers in John the Baptizer were around, as witnessed by the report on Apollos, who only knew the baptism of John. In fact, in the 19th century Catholic missionaries to Mesopotamia found them still active. I forget the name they go by now, but an article I read last year indicates that there are still around 40,000 in the world.

We never have denominations, what we have are Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, etc… who are different communities and all part of the same body of Jesus Christ.

Your Gnostics, Marcion’s and many others who taught a different gospel, become labeled public heretics and heresies by the Apostolic Catholic Church very early on, because they refused to repent from their false teachings. If you call these Protestant communities, you will have a very hard time sellling this to your Protestant Fathers who don’t come on the scene for another 1700 years.

There is only One faith, One baptism and One Lord in one body, his Catholic =universal Church which includes all Jews and Gentiles from every nation and people.

 

[Berean2]

Yes, it is. All the non-denom churches in this area are charismatic. And the "independent’ churches are not. (In fact, one local church that had been called non-denom since forever, just changed their name to “independent Baptist” precisely because they wanted to clarify that).

Interesting, Zooey. After I posted at this thread last time, I rummaged around in my memory, and in fact one of the non-denom churches I attended (many years ago) DID turn out to be charismatic (tho not charismaniac), and as soon as that became clear, I fled out the door!)

They all have implicit hierarchial systems (eg Saddleback = Rick Warren, Calvary Chapel = Chuck Smith) that influence their Theology…

Exactly: all pulpiters “come out” of (or “root in”) some sort of theology, which is why before I go to any new church (when I travel), I always try to find out beforehand where the head hancho got his training, bec. if for example it’s a place like Oral Roberts U. or Union Theological (not that most UT guys would be heading up a non-denom church, lol), I won’t even bother going there. (Ditto if he’s just a self-appointed preacher, meaning he never got any formal training at all.)