- Status
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks Itwin, comprehensive as ever. Also appreciate the understanding of the Malaysian situation. I believe there is an informal understanding that NECF covers churches that are not Catholic or Council of Churches so that all churches will be represented in CFM, a necessary part if we were to relate properly with the government.
How then is the NECF different from SBC, making it not a denomination that SBC is? NECF also do have criteria on its membership, which excludes Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, no matter what they call themselves. I believe neither can intervene in internal affairs of member churches but can definitely exclude churches if they fall outside obvious Christian doctrinal areas: eg., denying the Trinity.
Also, interesting to note that some non-evangelical churches are members but they are still represented in the World Evangelicals. Must ask my friends in the NECF leadership that.
L
ltwin
Guest
Well, the NECF is an evangelical ecumenical organization. The goal is to bring different evangelical denominations together for practical assistance and dialogue, but they still acknowledge that there are differences among evangelicals.
The SBC can at least agree on what is presented in its Baptist Faith and Message (its confessional statement): congregational autonomy, soul liberty, a male only pastoral ministry, etc. etc. If you looked at the World Evangelical Alliance or even just a national chapter you would see that the member denominations probably do not share these beliefs in common. Just looking at the members of the National Association of Evangelicals in the US you’ve got Pentecostals, Baptists, Wesleyans, Presbyterians.
Evangelical interdenominational organizations like the NAE intentionally make their statements of faith as broadly applicable as possible. Compare the NAE’s statement of faith to the Baptist Faith and Message (which is 6 pages long) for perspective:
We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.
If you’re referring to mainline congregations that join the NECF on their own, they are evangelical. Even mainline churches can have evangelical movements within them. Historically speaking, all mainline churches were evangelical until the late 19th century anyway.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Ok, I guess it turns on who is an evangelical. One Baptist informed me that technically Evangelicals are not Protestants. Protestants are those who splintered off during the Reformation. Evangelicals are those who splintered off from those groups.
There seems to be so many different definitions. And I suspect the definition differs through time and churches. Is there a definitive definition?
L
ltwin
Guest
Evangelicals are definitely Protestants. David Bebbington, an historian, has studied evangelicalism and proposed the following “quadrilateral” of evangelical distinctives:
Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus
Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity
These evangelical distinctives can be expressed in many different Protestant denominations–even the more liturgical denominations.For example, Wikipedia has a good article on Evangelical Anglicanism.
E
eatpraylove11
Guest
Sometimes it’s like a rock concert sing along.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Thanks Itwin, I think we can agree on three out of four, which isn’t too bad, I guess.
L
ltwin
Guest
What is one you don’t agree on? Just curious?
J
jimkhong
Guest
I think maybe you are referring to pentecostalism. Going by the definition and itwin’s comment that mainline churches could also be evangelicals, then while most evangelicals would be pentecostalists, not all are. I can’t imagine presbyterian church would have a rock concert sing along type of serviceSometimes it’s like a rock concert sing along.
J
jimkhong
Guest
We do not accept that the Bible is the sole ultimate authority. We believe the ultimate authority is the Traditions, defined as the teachings handed down from the Apostles. Which is why the Apostolic Succession is important to us - having the succession means we are teaching the same thing that the apostles taught. The Bible is that part of the tradition that is written, and accepted by the Church to be the basis of doctrine.
After all, the Church existed before the Bible. The Church was set up to safeguard the transmission of the Traditions under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which today the Church exercises through the Magisterium. The Church determined which books of the NT are in accord with the Traditions for its inclusion into the Canon. (OT books are determined in a different manner). This the Church did more by acceptance by the faithful rather than in a committee/council/decree. Therefore it is impossible in the Church to read the Bible without reference to the Traditions safeguarded by the Church, which was the reason how the Bible got there in the first place.
So while the Bible is very important in the life of our Church, we cannot say that it is the ultimate authority. It is subject to interpretations consistent with the Traditions which the Church safeguards which not even the Pope may conflict.
L
ltwin
Guest
Haha. Well, Presbyterians may be a little different in the US than they are in Malaysia. Some (maybe more than some) evangelical Presbyterian churches likely have some form of contemporary worship service, which will have some similarities to Pentecostal praise and worship services. This will be more evident if they happen to be charismatic Presbyterians.
You can search for “Presbyterian Church contemporary worship” on Youtube to get an idea.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Haha too. Malaysian Christians are generally a conservative lot. There is not a single peep of independent opinion among Malaysian clergy to any liturgical decree (or decrees of any other type) emanating from the Vatican, unlike other countries. Until relatively recently, Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed here still seem to be fighting the Reformation. Pentecostalists worship is rather tame in comparison to elsewhere. And the largest church within NECF, whose membership seems to be largely ex-Catholics still retain the Nicene Creed and Sacred Heart pictures, much to bafflement of other evangelicals.
Now that I have slagged off half my fellow Christians in my country, I would really welcome any foreigners to bring any more updated ideas here. The churches are always full (there were probably 100-200 for one of two daily mass in my parish that I attended today, Easter Monday). The different denominations are very much more united than elsewhere in face of religious oppression we face. Religious adherence is strong - just scholarship and openness to new ideas just a little slow that’s all.
P
Padres1969
Guest
I’ve been to several non-denominational churches over the years. They weren’t all from the same tradition (Pentacostal, Baptist, etc… but not part of any of the official denominations) but they all had more or less a similar set up. Most had a band/choir of some kind, that usually started the service with several songs (many in the Christian rock style with essentially a band on the altar/stage). Then once that was done or during one of the songs they had a “Lord’s Table” portion of the service where they’d read one of the accounts of the last supper or simply begin having folks partake in the bread and juice. Some had a table with communion wafers and grape juice in cups, some passed around trays with bread and juice (common theme, none used wine). But there were no Eucharistic element to it like you get in a liturgical church as it was universally a symbolic event only at the non-denoms. Then they all tended toward a lesson for the day, which usually a bible passage or passages, the meaning of which were taught during the lesson. This takes different forms depending on the pastor. At some point in the service the all had an equivalent to the peace, albeit more of an informal wander and welcome. Most then ended with another song or songs.
Some were more formal, simpler than say a Catholic or Episcopal mass, but not simply a Christian Rock Concert. Some were very informal with congregants encouraged to drink their coffee, take notes, etc… Obviously being non-denom however they can stray wildly outside this norm as there is no set service as there is in liturgical traditions. Any traditions they have are primarily born out of the pastor and his or her particular way of doing things. And frankly most of the non-denominational Christians I know like this free form mentality. My cousin being one I’m very close to as my daughter’s godfather. He jumps between a couple of Churches, each with a different take on the above, depending on the day, time of day he’s going, etc… He’s currently a member at 3 different non-denom churches which don’t all share the exact same way of doing things.
Some were more formal, simpler than say a Catholic or Episcopal mass, but not simply a Christian Rock Concert. Some were very informal with congregants encouraged to drink their coffee, take notes, etc… Obviously being non-denom however they can stray wildly outside this norm as there is no set service as there is in liturgical traditions. Any traditions they have are primarily born out of the pastor and his or her particular way of doing things. And frankly most of the non-denominational Christians I know like this free form mentality. My cousin being one I’m very close to as my daughter’s godfather. He jumps between a couple of Churches, each with a different take on the above, depending on the day, time of day he’s going, etc… He’s currently a member at 3 different non-denom churches which don’t all share the exact same way of doing things.
J
jimkhong
Guest
In that case, it sounds more like pentecostalist/charismatic worship rather than non-denominational. Charismatics would have the same features of evangelicals of being cross-denominational, including within Catholic and Orthodox churches. I guess the only difference between charismatics and evangelicals is that the former refer more worship and the latter more to doctrine.
I would think that non-denominational is different from being cross-denominational or Pentecostal/charismatic worship. (thanks to itwin for that enlightenment). Checking my understanding here - non-denominational worship would then be dependent on the liturgical tradition from which that church originates. While most are pentecostalist, they can also be Methodist, Presbyterian, and even Catholic. I realise that the evangelical church I mentioned whose members are largely ex-Catholics and thus, have a very liturgical type of worship, would be classed as non-denominational.
L
ltwin
Guest
In America, contemporary worship styles have infiltrated all denominations, so simply having praise and worship elements would not in itself indicate Pentecostal/charismatic beliefs.
What Padres1969 is describing is a basic “generic evangelical” church service. Many non-denominational churches are set up this way, but you can also find the same set up in Baptist, Pentecostal, and other Protestant traditions.
J
jimkhong
Guest
And in Catholic churches too. Not for mass of course, but for non-liturgical worship sessions. Speaking in tongues are quite common. In the two eastern states of Malaysia, Catholic priests would sometimes slain Catholics after confession. We then have to go round and pick them up. Some Catholics would probably find it scandalous.
J
jimkhong
Guest
haha, infiltrated - is that the right word? so sinister. Sounds the way some Catholics would speak on this topic.
P
Padres1969
Guest
You beat me to it. The most recent non-denom I visited followed that exact format above but had no roots in Pentecostalism. In fact the church had until a few years ago been a Baptist church before they became non-denominational. In fact having praise elements including contemporary music appears the norm in non-denoms in my experience, not the exception. Having no relation to what tradition the pastor or church may have come from originally be it Pentecostal/Charismatic or not.
L
ltwin
Guest
Some would use that word because they feel it is foreign to their traditional ways of worship. I come from a tradition where the praise and worship format is normative, but in earlier decades (such as the 1960s), adoption of contemporary worship was often seen as the “malevolent” influence of Pentecostalism and the charismatic influence.
When I was researching my master’s thesis, I found an obscure book written by a Baptist preacher in the 1960s that basically asserted that Pentecostalism was taking over the other denominations through contemporary worship music, and that, of course, the spirit behind the music was demonic in origin rather than godly.
It definitely is the norm for a wide variety of evangelicals. I often feel out of place in a church that practices more traditional worship practices.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I imagine a lot would.
One thing I’ve noticed is that in the US, not many Catholic charismatics use the term “slaying in the Spirit” anymore.
- Status