What is Non-Denominational?

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I go to my daughter´s non-denominational church. To me it´s mostly Baptist. I should know, because I used to be a Baptist. Although I am sad that she left the Church, I would rather she be Baptist than any other Protestant religion. I pray for her constantly, and I am certain, that God has a way for her salvation. I just don´t know what it is.God bless:thumbsup:

Indeed. Most most “non-denoms” are Baptist in theology and worship-practice, though quite a few lean more torwards Pentecostal or Assemblies of God or others. It all depends on the particular founder’s background–many never went to a Protestant seminary but studied on their own.

However, following the popular Baptist “Trail of Blood” mythology, many non-denoms flat out deny they are Protestant, but are the “out of hiding” remnant Church that survived (unnoticed with no influence or historical record) the persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church

 

[ltwin]

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

It depends. In the case of my church, we were started as a Pentecostal Church of God (which is a denomination very similar to the Assemblies of God). From what my family tells me (this all happened before I was born), our church always had problems. Our pastors were always making the congregation mad, and the congregation actually starved out some of the ministers. Anytime a pastor made the church mad, a group of church members would leave church and walk next door to a member’s house and call the district (the middle judicatory between the local church and the General Convention). Then the district would have to send someone down from Virginia to settle the petty disputes in our congregation. I’ve been told that when our church left the PCG they were just about to kick us out anyway.

So we left, but it was never about theology. We all agreed on doctrine, but we could never get along with the pastors. Eventually, my church’s last PCG pastor left to pastor another PCG, and my church elected a young man who had been called to preach but was not licensed by the PCG. So, he became our pastor and we left the PCG. He is still our pastor today decades later, probably because he understands the dynamics of our church unlike the pastors that we got from the PCG.

I suppose whether splitting off from a larger group would be considered a theological question varies by tradition. In the Pentecostal tradition, congregational independence is highly valued. Churches join denominations because there are benefits in cooperating with other churches. You get combined resources for missionary work and church planting, you get ecclessiastical oversight and discipline. However, cooperation can come in many forms and there is no theological imperative to swear allegiance to the Pentecostal Church of God or any other church. My church still cooperates with other churches and ministries, but it is on a voluntary basis now. We’re not required to cooperate with another church or agency just because we share the same denomination.

However, if there was a Catholic church or an Episcopal church that decided to go non-denominational I supppose that definitely would be a theological controversy. But for Pentecostals and Baptists (which practice congregational autonomy) and similar traditions, a local church going non-denominational is not unusual. For that matter, an independent Pentecostal or Baptist church deciding to join a Pentecostal or Baptist denomination also happens.

 

[Rhuarc]

There are two breeds of Non-Denominationalist’s.

1.) Too many choices when it comes to protestantism and the Catholic Church is icky by design so I will go to this Church that can’t make up it’s mind.

2.) I don’t go to church and don’t want to pick out a certain one so I will call my self a non-denominational Christian and get kudos for trying!

 

[ltwin]

There are two breeds of Non-Denominationalist’s.

1.) Too many choices when it comes to protestantism and the Catholic Church is icky by design so I will go to this Church that can’t make up it’s mind.

I really don’t understand this characterization at all. Non-denominational churches are almost always evangelical Protestantism of one kind or another (some may be of a Baptist nature others a Pentecostal or charismatic nature etc. They have no problem defining what they believe. Christians who go to a non-denominational church don’t get to pick and choose what they believe. If they go to a non-denominational church they will be asked to confirm that they believe what the church in question believes if they want membership and the right to hold any kind of position.

P.S. My church has a “new members class” every so often that prospective members can attend and learn about our church and what we believe. There is also a membership form that has a short statement of faith that covers all the evangelical and Pentecostal essentials. There is also a statement to the effect that “You agree to abide by the government and discipline of this church . . .”

2.) I don’t go to church and don’t want to pick out a certain one so I will call my self a non-denominational Christian and get kudos for trying!

Interesting. I’ve never heard a non-church goer describe themselves as a “non-denominational Christian.” I’ve usually only heard people who actually attend a non-denominational church describe themselves this way.

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

I think you’re misunderstanding the reason why some of these answers from Catholics are offensive to evangelicals.

Itwin and Sixpence are probably the two most qualified to answer the OP’s question. They have done so, with informative and dispassionate (probably…mostly) posts. Good job.

 

[ltwin]

Thanks AbideWithMe. Where did your comment go? I’ve also had some of my comments disappear on other threads lately. Is there a reason for this?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Stick with the topic please

 

[AbideWithMe]

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.

I think you’re misunderstanding the reasons why some of these posts from Catholics may be offensive to evangelicals.

Itwin and Sixpence have given their time to answer the OP in a informative way. Good job.

 

[JustaServant]

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.

Maybe I’m just being a grammer nazi, but if it does have to do with church government, than the ‘denomination’ is the wrong word.
The word ‘independent’ might be a better term. Because they still “denominate” among themselves. But they are free of outside authority.

 

[JustaServant]

I think you’re misunderstanding the reasons why some of these posts from Catholics may be offensive to evangelicals.

Itwin and Sixpence have given their time to answer the OP in a informative way. Good job.

Catholics with much experience in ND churches…
I’ve pastored a few.

 

[Lucky7]

I think you’re misunderstanding the reasons why some of these posts from Catholics may be offensive to evangelicals.

I get that sometimes we will say things that may be offensive to non-Catholics. I think, as Catholics on a Catholic website, we do a pretty good job of remaining charitable to non-Catholics. At the same time, we are Catholics and many of us believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Because of that we are bound to say things that offend just because of the fact that we think this way. I would fully expect the same thing if I frequented an Protestant forum talking about Cahtolicism. I wouldn’t do that, but that’s me.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Catholics with much experience in ND churches…
I’ve pastored a few.

I’m not dismissing your experience, JustaServant.

The OP asked “what is a non-denominational church?” Itwin and Sixpence gave informative answers as to what they are and how they may arise. That’s all that’s required for this thread.

Some of the other posts border on being offensive because they try too much to discern ND church-goers’ inner motives and the state of their relationship with God and fellow men.

 

[JustaServant]

I’m not dismissing your experience, JustaServant.

The OP asked “what is a non-denominational church?” Itwin and Sixpence gave informative answers as to what they are and how they may arise. That’s all that’s required for this thread.

Some of the other posts border on being offensive because they try too much to discern ND church-goers’ inner motives and the state of their relationship with God and fellow men.

Abide, I didn’t write the post in question, Jacob Morgan did.
Would I have stated it differently using more diplomatic language? Yeah, but I did read the post and, although gruff, there isn’t anything he stated that I did not experience myself.
There is a psychological underpinning to ND churches. It can’t be dodged.
Note this part of Jacob’s post:

At what point does one stop simplifying? The end game, which is already in play, is that every person belives what they want and their behavior and actions are limited only to what they can rationalize. It isn’t so much Sola Scriptura, as Sola Self. Instead of recognizing this a theological nihilisim or relatavisim, it is celebrated as the end of denominations, as though they are “above all that now.”

My question when I was part of ND churches was always “where does the buck stop?” To say the Bible sounds great…but then we wouldn’t have “denominations” to begin with if everyone agreed on what the Bible said.
What Jacob stated was slam dunk. We can rationalize ourselves into almost anything.

 

[Lucky7]

A friend of mine who left the Catholic church some years ago was re-baptized into his new church which he calls non-denominational. .

I have a different kind of question. Why was your friend re-baptized? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t re-baptize other Christians.

Oh wait, let me guess. This non-denominational church doesn’t think Catholics are Christians!

 

[AbideWithMe]

I get that sometimes we will say things that may be offensive to non-Catholics. I think, as Catholics on a Catholic website, we do a pretty good job of remaining charitable to non-Catholics. At the same time, we are Catholics and many of us believe that the Catholic Church is the one true church. Because of that we are bound to say things that offend just because of the fact that we think this way. I would fully expect the same thing if I frequented an Protestant forum talking about Cahtolicism. I wouldn’t do that, but that’s me.

I see the issue ( as to what’s offensive) as simply being about letting non-Catholics speak and explain themselves for themselves…otherwise known as having a dialogue (two parties speaking to each other, not one party speaking for both parties.)

And yes, if you went on a Protestant forum I’m sure you’d find loads of the same offense-giving statements in reverse, with Protestants subtly or overtly bashing Catholics while attempting to explain Catholicism to other Protestants.

There are some well-informed Protestants who visit CAF and give their time to try to answer questions about Protestant belief and practice. They do a good job of it.

 

[Lucky7]

I see the issue ( as to what’s offensive) as simply being about letting non-Catholics speak and explain themselves for themselves…otherwise known as having a dialogue (two parties speaking to each other, not one party speaking for both parties.)

There are some well-informed Protestants who visit CAF and give their time to try to answer questions about Protestant belief and practice. They do a good job of it.

I don’t see anyone saying that non-Catholics can’t speak. In fact, we have devoted a whole forum just for that purpose…on a Catholic website! I do see non-Catholics telling Catholics that they shouldn’t speak their minds about what they think about a particular denomination and its theology or what-have-you in realtionship to the One, True Faith.

 

[ltwin]

Maybe I’m just being a grammer nazi, but if it does have to do with church government, than the ‘denomination’ is the wrong word.
The word ‘independent’ might be a better term. Because they still “denominate” among themselves. But they are free of outside authority.

Well, you’re privileging one sense of the word over the other. While the word “denomination” may have originated with the sense of “denominating” something, today people use it to refer to church bodies: the Southern Baptist denomination, the United Methodist denomination. Non-denominational churches use the term because while they may share the beliefs of the Southern Baptist or the United Methodists they are not “formally aligned” with that denomination.

The word “independent” might be better but that isn’t what most people say. Also, “inter-denominational” is sometimes used because supposedly it sounds more inviting (I personally think “inter-denominational” is misleading because these churches will inevitably have limits to what they accept. A conservative evangelical “inter-denominational church” is not going to accept an Episcopalian same-sex blessing as acceptable in their church, for example).

It gets more confusing because there are groups of churches that can be arguably called true denominations (like Calvary Chapel or the Assemblies of God) that outright reject that they are a denomination. Calvary Chapel says they aren’t a denomination and in a sense they are right. Churches can leave anytime, but they can’t use the Calvary Chapel name anymore. Also, Chuck Smith doesn’t have any control in the internal affairs of a Calvary Chapel Church. However, they all have the same name, they agree to basic shared beliefs, and they adopt the pastor-led governance style Calvary Chapel is known for.

The Assemblies of God is one of those full blown denominations (they even require churches to include property reversion clauses in their governing documents) that prefer to be called “a cooperative fellowship of churches” or “a movement.” However, its more common for those inside the AG to refer to themselves as a denomination now than it was years ago. For Calvary Chapel, I think they still dislike the term.

 

[Lucky7]

*At what point does one stop simplifying? The end game, which is already in play, is that every person belives what they want and their behavior and actions are limited only to what they can rationalize. It isn’t so much Sola Scriptura, as Sola Self. Instead of recognizing this a theological nihilisim or relatavisim, it is celebrated as the end of denominations, as though they are “above all that now.” *

ITA with this assessment as well especially the bolded. That is why I am actually surprised that, in the end, we “only” have 30,000 some odd protestant denominations.

 

[manualman]

Non-Denom is a rationally necessary solution to the reality that after 500 years of fracturing, it’s not possible for any protestant group anymore to claim with a straight face to be THE church Christ established. Even the Simpsons poke fun at this! (Picture the Simpsons pastor guy saying “Come to the ONE true Church: the west branch of Presbo-Lutheran Methodism (reformed)!” )

The solution is to propose that Jesus founded an INVISIBLE church. One in which believers of all sorts seem to be divided, but really aren’t at the important level. That resolved the problem of dozens of competing protestant churches, but eventually created a new problem. Combine ‘invisible church’ with Sola Scriptura and pretty soon anybody with a bible and a guitar can start his own ‘church’ and it’s as valid as anybody else’s. And so they have!

The problem, of course, is that Jesus DIDN’T found an invisible church. He selected 12 apostles and gave them explicit authority the likes of which had never been seen on earth before. Those apostles clearly (Book of Acts) established precedent of delegating their authority to local bishops they ordained, replacing their number when an apostle died (first with Judas), expanding beyond 12 (adding St. Paul), etc. He established a clearly VISIBLE Church. One that still exists. The trick is figuring our which of the claimants really IS that church. (Pretty obvious which one I’m sure of!)

 

[ltwin]

I have a different kind of question. Why was your friend re-baptized? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t re-baptize other Christians.

Oh wait, let me guess. This non-denominational church doesn’t think Catholics are Christians!

I would not draw that conclusion. It might be true (I don’t know), but it could just be that the church in question believes that baptism should be believer’s baptism. They would not classify infant baptism as a valid baptism. While the church might say that Catholics aren’t Christians, they probably are just saying that Christians should be baptized only when they are capable of making a confession of faith for themselves.