What is Non-Denominational?

[Sixpence]

Please explain why.

He basically said (in a my-own-words paraphrase) that ND churches are spiritually dead inside, they offer nothing of value to Christianity, and they’re filled with ignorant, confused people who care only for the superficial social aspects of a church without which they would either stay at home or find some other social club.

I wouldn’t call that informative. You wouldn’t let me get away with being “informative” about the CC in a similar manner. After all, I’m not a Catholic. What business do I have “informing” on that matter? You intuitively know that Catholics have the right to be the ones who inform about themselves.

And the Catholic who sedonaman finds so informative is not someone who has a right to “inform” in this way. No business doing so. It may be a less intuitive concept for you, but ND Christians have the same right to be the ones who inform people about themselves.

 

[JustaServant]

He basically said (in a my-own-words paraphrase) that ND churches are spiritually dead inside, they offer nothing of value to Christianity, and they’re filled with ignorant, confused people who care only for the superficial social aspects of a church without which they would either stay at home or find some other social club.

No, read it again. And this time with an open mind that many, MANY Catholics on this board are reverts who have spent years. YEARS across the Tiber.
The psychology of the evangelical world is what he speaks of. I experienced the same and can even go much farther, but there is no point.
It’s tough to look at yourself in the mirror. It’s tough to see yourself as others see you. We create a narrative we defend despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s simply too scary to peek outside the walls of the evangelical/fundamentalist world.
I used to be the same way.
It takes courage to look in that mirror. It takes courage to admit the truth of it.

 

[novusCatholic]

Anyone can gather together a few like-minded people, begin meeting, and call themselves a non-denominational church. They can pick any name that they want and make-up their own rules. It’s all self-interpretation, and they stay together as long as they continue to agree. The pastor need not have gone to any type of seminary, but he/she could easily take a quick online course and recieve a “degree” to make it more official.

I’ve seen this happen in Protestant churches. A few people don’t like someting about their current congregation. They get upset, leave, and begin their own church. Sometimes it drys out, sometimes it grows, sometimes it splits again…

Didn’t Jesus pray that we would all be one?

 

[PRmerger]

Anyone can gather together a few like-minded people, begin meeting, and call themselves a non-denominational church. They can pick any name that they want and make-up their own rules.

Indeed. That is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image. That is, finding all the parts of the Gospel that agree with one’s own ideology, and then creating a church that matches this.

The correct paradigm is, of course, finding the Church that Christ established and then conforming one’s views to Christ’s.

I daresay that if you’re a Christian who’s in a church that conforms to all your own views, that hasn’t made you change your beliefs/ideology/morality at all, then you’re in a church of the Almighty Self.

If you’ve left a church because it taught something you disagreed with, then shopped for a church that matches your POV, what kind of church is this???

 

[sedonaman]

He basically said (in a my-own-words paraphrase) that ND churches are spiritually dead inside, they offer nothing of value to Christianity, and they’re filled with ignorant, confused people who care only for the superficial social aspects of a church without which they would either stay at home or find some other social club.

I wouldn’t call that informative. You wouldn’t let me get away with being “informative” about the CC in a similar manner. After all, I’m not a Catholic. What business do I have “informing” on that matter? You intuitively know that Catholics have the right to be the ones who inform about themselves.

And the Catholic who sedonaman finds so informative is not someone who has a right to “inform” in this way. No business doing so. It may be a less intuitive concept for you, but ND Christians have the same right to be the ones who inform people about themselves.

You don’t’ have to be a chicken to recognize another chicken.

 

[Sixpence]

No, read it again. And this time with an open mind that many, MANY Catholics on this board are reverts who have spent years. YEARS across the Tiber.

You have zero respect for ex-Catholics who spent years, YEARS as Catholics. You assume that anyone who leaves has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Truth, they must be poorly catechized, and the only question you have is “what type of ignorance is this?” For you, it is intuitive to think of the ex-Catholic as being an ex- because they were some kind of defective Catholic in the first place. The double standard that you have when dealing with ex-Protestants is absurd.

Of course, there is some truth to what was said, and there are some specific things for which ND churches and Christians deserve criticism. But this isn’t criticism on some specific matter. This is a disrespectful castigation of what ND Christianity is on the whole. The OP has to do with what ND Christianity is, and inexplicably, all of you seem to think that it makes sense to ignore what ND Christians have to say about themselves and pay more attention to whatever problems an ex- may have had with it.

I do have the courage to look in the mirror; I just want a little respect and some pattern of behavior that makes more sense for what this thread is. Speaking of looking in the mirror, though, you let me know when you’ve joined an ex-Catholic forum and made over 100 posts there.

On a more encouraging note, however, we did get past the “are they really non-denom” issue pretty quickly. We didn’t move on to anything good, but we did move on.

 

[JustaServant]

The problem with ND churches:
First of all, the dramatic life-changing “Born Again” experiences reported by many is subjective – they vary in degree from person to person.

Secondly, these groups then take what is subjective and try to make it normative. In other words, they take these very personal encounters and insist that everyone must have a similar “experience”.

Lastly, these groups “re-Baptize” when they recruit ex-Catholics. This is what makes them of particular concern: they teach that the legitimate, licit, formal Baptism received by Catholics as infants into Jesus Christ is of no consequence, and must be replaced by a “Believer’s Baptism” in order for one to be able to say one is Baptized.

This is part of the narrative NDs create and rationalize anything contrary to it. It creates a mental merry-go-round that keeps them from experiencing Christianity in its fullest sense.

 

[Sixpence]

You don’t’ have to be a chicken to recognize another chicken.

So I can criticize the CC and avoid the “contempt for Catholicism” charge on grounds of the Chicken Defense? Yeah, I don’t think so.

 

[JustaServant]

You have zero respect for ex-Catholics who spent years, YEARS as Catholics. You assume that anyone who leaves has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Truth, they must be poorly catechized, and the only question you have is “what type of ignorance is this?” For you, it is intuitive to think of the ex-Catholic as being an ex- because they were some kind of defective Catholic in the first place. The double standard that you have when dealing with ex-Protestants is absurd.

Of course, there is some truth to what was said, and there are some specific things for which ND churches and Christians deserve criticism. But this isn’t criticism on some specific matter. This is a disrespectful castigation of what ND Christianity is on the whole. The OP has to do with what ND Christianity is, and inexplicably, all of you seem to think that it makes sense to ignore what ND Christians have to say about themselves and pay more attention to whatever problems an ex- may have had with it.

I do have the courage to look in the mirror; I just want a little respect and some pattern of behavior that makes more sense for what this thread is. Speaking of looking in the mirror, though, you let me know when you’ve joined an ex-Catholic forum and made over 100 posts there.

On a more encouraging note, however, we did get past the “are they really non-denom” issue pretty quickly. We didn’t move on to anything good, but we did move on.

You seem alfull angry.
You might want to walk away from the computer for a while to calm down.
And maybe ask yourself why you are so angry.

 

[JustaServant]

So I can criticize the CC and avoid the “contempt for Catholicism” charge on grounds of the Chicken Defense? Yeah, I don’t think so.

Reporting moderator actions is against forum rules.

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t’ have to be a chicken to recognize another chicken.

True, this.

But I agree with Sixpence that just as I assign a high degree of skepticism to the proclamations of what a JW says regarding Catholicism, I also would also put the same degree of skepticism upon what a Catholic says regarding ND theology.

However, in this case what the Catholic said regarding ND theology was on the mark.

 

[JustaServant]

A friend of mine who left the Catholic church some years ago was re-baptized into his new church which he calls non-denominational. When I mentioned to my friend that basically means he joined a Protestant church, I was rebuked and told that they who consider themselves “non-denominational” means that they don’t conform to any religion because there is no religion and no church that can save a person that only Jesus saves.

So basically my question is what is non-denominational and if only Jesus saves than why do we need all these churches? I was taught that “the Church” is the doorway that leads to salvation in Christ.

Back to the OP.
The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. That’s really all the term means. It never had anything to do with the type of church government.
“Non-denominational" churches are a type of denomination because it is a name applied (“denominated”) to these churches. Each church is connected by a “Bible college” or a “camp”.
There simply is no such thing as a “non-denominational” church.

 

[zz912]

Didn’t Jesus pray that we would all be one?

Funny you mention this, because a recent reading was from Ephesians, and St. Paul tells us there is ONE Faith, ONE Baptism, ONE God, ONE Church, etc, etc, etc.

If there is one faith, it disproves the Protestant basis for being apart from the Catholic Church.

 

[sedonaman]

The problem with ND churches:
First of all, the dramatic life-changing “Born Again” experiences reported by many is subjective – they vary in degree from person to person.

Secondly, these groups then take what is subjective and try to make it normative. In other words, they take these very personal encounters and insist that everyone must have a similar “experience”.

Lastly, these groups “re-Baptize” when they recruit ex-Catholics. This is what makes them of particular concern: they teach that the legitimate, licit, formal Baptism received by Catholics as infants into Jesus Christ is of no consequence, and must be replaced by a “Believer’s Baptism” in order for one to be able to say one is Baptized.

This is part of the narrative NDs create and rationalize anything contrary to it. It creates a mental merry-go-round that keeps them from experiencing Christianity in its fullest sense.

This all sounds like they’ve created a denomination of their own.

 

[Sixpence]

The problem with ND churches:

The OP asks what is a non-denominational church, and you answer with a laundry list of problems that you have with it.

Do I even need to say it?

 

[Sixpence]

This all sounds like they’ve created a denomination of their own.

If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between formal alignment and informal affiliations, you’ll probably be stuck there for awhile.

 

[ltwin]

Back to the OP.
The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. That’s really all the term means. It never had anything to do with the type of church government.
“Non-denominational" churches are a type of denomination because it is a name applied (“denominated”) to these churches. Each church is connected by a “Bible college” or a “camp”.
There simply is no such thing as a “non-denominational” church.

Yeah in a sense you are right. Protestants “denominate” themselves as Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reformed, etc. But the word “denomination” also has the meaning of a particular organization of local churches. Therefore, there is the Baptist denominational family but within that denominational family there is the Southern Baptist Convention or the Cooperative Baptists or the American Baptists. These are specific Baptist denominations. And there is a Methodist denominational family, but within that family is the United Methodist Church and the Free Methodist Church and the Wesleyan Methodist Church. These are specific Methodist denominations.

To be a non-denominational church implies that a local church is not a member of a denomination such as the Southern Baptist Convention or the United Methodist Church. There are no legal ties between the local church and a larger organization. The church has its own internal governing processes. The church does not relate with other churches through denominational fellowship. It relates with other churches through personal relationships.

This has everything to do with “church government.” Non-denominational churches are explicitly rejecting being under the authority and government of regional or national church authorities.

 

[PRmerger]

This has everything to do with “church government.” Non-denominational churches are explicitly rejecting being under the authority and government of regional or national church authorities.

Are you saying being nondenominational has little to do with theology? One pastor breaks off from another church because of polity, not theology?

 

[Sixpence]

Are you saying being nondenominational has little to do with theology? One pastor breaks off from another church because of polity, not theology?

Typically, they don’t “break off.” It tends to be non-sectarian.

 

[sedonaman]

If you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between formal alignment and informal affiliations, you’ll probably be stuck there for awhile.

So take away my library card for a couple of weeks.