What is with "non-denominational Christians"?

[SavedByHim]

I’m trying to understand this whole non-denominational thing because I have family members that belong to these churches. So bear with me when I ask these questions, they are not meant to be offensive.

In my experience, many of the parishioners of this church want to be pastors “when they grow up”. (I have 4 in my family alone that have become pastors or who are in school to become a pastor and they all went to the same church.) Many of their friends are also going to school to be a pastor. So, anyways, all these people go off to school, become a pastor and start their own church.

Well, how can they just “start their own church”? Is it really a held belief that you can go rent a building, renovate it and start a church? Again, I don’t mean to offend, I’m just wandering where the authority comes from to do this.

As my husband sometimes wonders, is it truly Christ these people are seeking to serve, or do they just want to be “their own boss”?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

mango_2003:

The thing is…RC’s, for the most part, think more of these divisions than we do. Often times it is merely a difference in worship styles that divides us. We still are in communion with one another. Even if the division is over something theological, usually it’s not so bad that we don’t fellowship.

But God says in his word that there are to be NO divisions among Christians. Not “no divisions unless they aren’t so bad”, but rather “Agree with one another so that there may be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU and that you may be PERFECTLY UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT (1 Cor 1:10)”. This raises a few questions:

1. On what scriptural grounds do you consider ANY divisions, even not so bad ones, acceptable?
2. Does scripture give us criterion for determining which divisions are not so bad and which ones are so bad?
3. If not, who is it who’s deciding which divisions are not so bad and therefore acceptable?
4. By what authority is (s)he making this decision?

Here are some of the divisions that exist among non-Catholics. Are any of these among the “not so bad” divisions?:

*there is a hell

*there isn’t a hell

*Jesus is God

*Jesus isn’t God

*There is no trinity

*There is a trinity

*Jesus is Father, Son and holy Spirit

*Jesus is God the Son only

*Salvation can be lost

*Salvation can’t be lost

*Salvation is assured

*Salvation isn’t assured

*Baptism is necessary for salvation

*Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation

 

[Apologia100]

“Full Gospel” distinguishes from 'New Testament Christian Church". The ‘Full Gospel’ churches don’t want to imply that the Old Testament is totally irrelevant. The ‘New Testament’ churches see the New Testament as the sole rule-and-standard of Christian teaching and practice (though they revere the Old Testament as giving valuable insights into the background and symbology of the N.T.). These are theological terms, though I grant that not everyone who picks a double-jointed jawbreaker of a name for a church knows quite what they’re trying to really say.

Protestants assume the Roman Catholic Church is a ‘closed Bible’ church. The implication of ‘Open Bible’ is that the congregants are going to be exhorted to bring their own personal Bibles and use them heavily in Sunday School and throughout the pastor’s sermon. In Catholic churches–and most other liturgical worship services–the homilist doesn’t ask the congregation to ‘turn in your Bibles’ to three, four, five different Scripture passages throughout the sermon, in addition to the liturgical readings. Even if the homilist mentions in passing a passage of scripture other than those in the day’s liturgy, no one would think of cross-checking his reference to ensure he had cited it accurately and in full context.

That is probably because one of the homilist’s responsibilities is to develop a sermon that is centered around the days passages. Therefore there is no need for the congregants to bring a bible, the relevant passages they need are right there in the daily missil.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

mango_2003:

The thing is…RC’s, for the most part, think more of these divisions than we do. Often times it is merely a difference in worship styles that divides us. We still are in communion with one another. Even if the division is over something theological, usually it’s not so bad that we don’t fellowship.

But God says in his word that there are to be NO divisions among Christians. Not “no divisions unless they aren’t so bad”, but rather “Agree with one another so that there may be NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU and that you may be PERFECTLY UNITED IN MIND AND THOUGHT (1 Cor 1:10)”. This raises a few questions:

1. On what scriptural grounds do you consider ANY divisions, even not so bad ones, acceptable?
2. Does scripture give us criterion for determining which divisions are not so bad and which ones are so bad?
3. If not, who is it who’s deciding which divisions are not so bad and therefore acceptable?
4. By what authority is (s)he making this decision?

Here are some of the divisions that exist among non-Catholics:

*there is a hell
*there isn’t a hell

*Jesus is God
*Jesus isn’t God

*There is no trinity
*There is a trinity

*Jesus is Father, Son and holy Spirit
*Jesus is God the Son only

*Salvation can be lost
*Salvation can’t be lost

*Salvation is assure
*Salvation isn’t assured

*Baptism is necessary for salvation
*Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation

*The saved no longer sin
*One can still sin after one is saved

  *Speaking in tongues is Satanic

*Speaking in tongues is necessary as evidence of salvation
*Speaking in tongues is not necessary as evidence of salvation

These divisions don’t seem “not so bad” to me, in fact, they seem pretty important. Why do non-Catholics consider divisions such as these acceptable within the Body of Christ, a body that is to be perfectly one as Jesus and the Father are one (John 17:21-23)? Do Jesus and the Father disagree on doctrine? No. Nor can the Body of Christ, according to scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

flameburns623:

While I wouldn’t put things quite that way: most Protestants distiguish between ‘core’ doctrinal issues–such as one finds in the early creeds, though American-bred Protestant churches often reject the idea of ‘Creedalism’–and ‘peripheral’ issues. The Trinity is a core doctrinal issue; Eschatology is usually deemed a peripheral issue. Non-denominational churches–and the idea was tried at least as early as the Campbellite movement–are an attempt to communicate the core doctrines in a more relevant fashion while leaving the peripheral doctrines to the individual.

Where does scripture indicate which doctrinal issues are “core” and which are “peripheral”?

If not in scripture, who is it who gets to decide which doctrinal issues are “core” and which are “peripheral”? By what authority does this person do so?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

flameburns623:

for many folks who ‘fall away’ from denominational churches as youths and return only as young adults, the non-denominational churches offer a more immediate relevance and a more interesting practice of Christianity.

But do they offer truth? Immediate relevance and interesting practice of Christianity are good things, but they don’t set us free. Truth does (John 8:32). Since different non-denominational churches offer different, conflicting and contradictory truths how can a non-denominationalist be infallibley certain that he is getting the truth that sets him free? Isn’t freedom more important than immediate relevance and an interesting practice of Christianity? Or is partial/unknown enslavement acceptable?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

flameburns623:

Protestants assume the Roman Catholic Church is a ‘closed Bible’ church. The implication of ‘Open Bible’ is that the congregants are going to be exhorted to bring their own personal Bibles and use them heavily in Sunday School and throughout the pastor’s sermon.

This attitude has always struck me as “spiritual snobbery”. Does the book that God’s word is read from really matter? Catholics seem to be severely looked down upon and judged because we use the provided books rather than toting our own with us. "Faith comes by HEARING and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD (Romans 10:17), not carrying your bible to church.

In Catholic churches–and most other liturgical worship services–the homilist doesn’t ask the congregation to ‘turn in your Bibles’ to three, four, five different Scripture passages throughout the sermon, in addition to the liturgical readings.

And that’s…OK (ala Stuart Smalley).

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Cairisti]

dream wanderer:

When I was a Protestant (and I daresay many former Protestants here) thought a LOT about these divisions…long and hard. It wasn’t Catholics bringing it to my attention…I didn’t even know any Catholics then!

Please understand I didn’t walk away angry or bitter or hurt. I was really concerned about these divisions and believed that God must have left His complete truth somewhere…and not have it strung out in bits and pieces across the world and we could only hope to find it.

And yes…I asked the Holy Spirit for guidance. I asked in all sincerity that I would be shown the truth and NOT BE DECEIVED. I was just as surprised as anyone else where it led me.

dream wanderer

Well, as we used to say in the Baptist church, “amen sistah”

I have a brother who attends a “Bible Doctrine” church here and he’s always stating how his paster is always “correct” as he has knowledge of Classical Greek goes in depth on each verse. Of course, when I’ve challenged him on how “The Cornel” be infallible, but anyone else is wrong, he can’t come up with a reasonable response. Gonna be interesting when I tell him about RCIA class.

 

[flameburns623]

Gerry Hunter:

I am pleased to report that Catholic homolists can be trusted by the faithful to cite accurately and in context, to the point where a presumption otherwise is entirely inappropriate.

Blessings,

Gerry

Gerry: With all due respect, the first and foremost reason for this practice is that it is deemed to be an example established by the Bereans in the book of Acts, 17:11. (Of course—the ‘scriptures’ that would have been ‘diligently searched’ would have been the Hebrew canon, AND the Bereans likely would NOT gave had personal copies of the Old Testament–a point I suspect gets lost on many and many an American Protestant, mired in their 20th-century assumptions). Secondly: you mistake this for an act of theological mistrust rather than for a desire to more-perfectly absorb and internalize the material being expounded, and to treat the TEXT and not the commentator as the supreme authority.

Finally: Roman Catholic homilists cannot be trusted with the clear text of the Catholic liturgy. They cannot be counted upon to look over the text of the Catholic Catechism. Or had you overlooked the ‘clown masses’ and other abuses which receive regular scrutiny on Open Line days on Catholic Answers and similar EWTN shows. Why would you put any confidence in their ability to exegete the text of Scripture?

I have personal and repeated knowledge of Catholic priests who cited Scripture texts to justify outright denials of Christian and Catholic doctrine, and who even cited texts to mean precisely opposite of what the text clearly said it meant. I have observed Catholic military chaplains who cited Bible verses which simply don’t exist, etcetera. These were NOT homilies composed in the heat of battle–I did not serve in a combat zone nor in a time of open hostilities. The chaplains had adequate time to prepare their homilies and to check their references. At least one was clearly committed to a personal agenda having little to do with orthodox Christianity. Many who post to this board labor under the teaching of priests with similar issues.

And then–there are perfectly sound Roman Catholics who attempt to make utterly illicit connections between the Ark of the Covenant and the Virgin Mary. Karl Keating–I think–has a habit of expounding on the book of Revelation as an unfolding of Roman Catholic liturgy, in a manner that has no historical basis in the tradition of Jewish Apocalypticism in which the writer of Revelation was steeped. My observation is that Roman Catholics generally have no concern nor respect for the text of Scripture, it’s context, or the principles for exegeting a text in a sound manner.

I am not a ‘Bible Only’ fundamentalist. But I point out–in contradistinction to the assumption which sems to be made in Roman Catholic circles–that Protestant Biblical exegesis, even among conservative Protestants, is not a willy-nilly excercise of pulling bible verses from the text but is a discipline with rules and principles. One cites Scripture from within it’s own context, not pulling an individual text or symbol from the Scripture and attaching one’s own meaning to it. One interprets Scripture by Scripture to the fullest extent possible. And so forth. Catholic homilists scarcely ever appear to know of, let alone to care about, such rules or principles. Frankly, were a Catholic to claim that the Old Testament appears in his Bible before the New Testament, I would want to see his copy of Scripture to verify the claim. Chances are, it would be laden with mold and dust . . . . Or would still be contained in it’s packaging of shrink-wrap.

 

[flameburns623]

La Chiara:

Thanks for the definitions of all these types of Protestant denominations. So in these “open Bible” congregations, do the congregants all have the same translation of the Bible? The King James Version (KJV) for example? Or perhaps the church supplies the Bible, keeping it in the pews, so that everyone is looking at the same Bible? I wonder what happens if someone in the congregation disagrees with the minister about his interpretation of the Bible passage. I imagine the congregant does not interrupt the service to disagree.

Translation choices are up to the tastes and knowledge of the individual member of the congregation. It is the Greek text which is ultimately deemed authoritative and there is not even full agreement about that: some conservatives deem the Textus Receptus to be as close as we can get to the orignal autografa. This text is sometimes known as the ‘Majority Text’ since the majority of manuscipts and early citations concur with this text. In a ‘Textus Receptus’ church, almost everyone would be using a King Kames Bible, a Third Millenium Bible (re-working of the KJV to clarify anitquated phrases and words) or–among the extreme ‘liberals’ in the congregation–the New King James Bible.

Most Evangelical Protestants, like most Catholics, rely upon scholarly redactions which depend upon manuscript evidence found in the last century or two. So on would find a great majority of translations in use. The more conservative the theology, the more likely that very conservative the translations which will preponderate: if the New American Standard Bible and the New King James are prominent, the congregation is likely very conservative. If the New Revised Standard is common, it is likely that the congregation is less strict, even vulnerable to heterodoxy.

In the ‘nondenominational’ churches of which this thread is the subject, one might find that the PASTOR uses umpteen different translations, mainly popular paraphrases such as the New Living Translation. Many such non-denom churches publish an outline or study guide to the pastor’s sermon in the church bulletin. This allows the congregation to review the sermon as it is expounded and/or do further study on the matter at home.

Disagreements on peripherals are kept to oneself. Disagreements on essentials simply don’t come up very often. Churches split where the line between peripherals and essentials is cloudy. Which is one reason that many Protestant congregations have a denominational policy of splitting congregations when the membership reaches a critical mass–usually about 300 adult attendeess and members. One does not expect to be in full agreement with the pastor or the Sunday School teachers. The assumption is that due to one’s own character flaws, if one ever found the ‘perfect church’, one would ruin it by joining it. The goal is ‘unity with diversity within orthodoxy’. The emphasis is upon the church as an instrument to facilitate one’s personal service to Christ, and less upon the church as an end of itself.

 

[La_Chiara]

flameburns623:

Finally: Roman Catholic homilists cannot be trusted with the clear text of the Catholic liturgy. They cannot be counted upon to look over the text of the Catholic Catechism. Or had you overlooked the ‘clown masses’ and other abuses which receive regular scrutiny on Open Line days on Catholic Answers and similar EWTN shows. Why would you put any confidence in their ability to exegete the text of Scripture?

I have personal and repeated knowledge of Catholic priests who cited Scripture texts to justify outright denials of Christian and Catholic doctrine, and who even cited texts to mean precisely opposite of what the text clearly said it meant. I have observed Catholic military chaplains who cited Bible verses which simply don’t exist, etcetera. These were NOT homilies composed in the heat of battle–I did not serve in a combat zone nor in a time of open hostilities. The chaplains had adequate time to prepare their homilies and to check their references. At least one was clearly committed to a personal agenda having little to do with orthodox Christianity. Many who post to this board labor under the teaching of priests with similar issues.

And then–there are perfectly sound Roman Catholics who attempt to make utterly illicit connections between the Ark of the Covenant and the Virgin Mary. Karl Keating–I think–has a habit of expounding on the book of Revelation as an unfolding of Roman Catholic liturgy, in a manner that has no historical basis in the tradition of Jewish Apocalypticism in which the writer of Revelation was steeped. My observation is that Roman Catholics generally have no concern nor respect for the text of Scripture, it’s context, or the principles for exegeting a text in a sound manner.

I am not a ‘Bible Only’ fundamentalist. But I point out–in contradistinction to the assumption which sems to be made in Roman Catholic circles–that Protestant Biblical exegesis, even among conservative Protestants, is not a willy-nilly excercise of pulling bible verses from the text but is a discipline with rules and principles. One cites Scripture from within it’s own context, not pulling an individual text or symbol from the Scripture and attaching one’s own meaning to it. One interprets Scripture by Scripture to the fullest extent possible. And so forth. Catholic homilists scarcely ever appear to know of, let alone to care about, such rules or principles. Frankly, were a Catholic to claim that the Old Testament appears in his Bible before the New Testament, I would want to see his copy of Scripture to verify the claim. Chances are, it would be laden with mold and dust . . . . Or would still be contained in it’s packaging of shrink-wrap.

flameburns–So what are you if you are not a “Bible only fundamentalist” and you have so much first hand knowledge of Caholics–at least enough knowledge to be pretty biting in your criticism.? You make a fair number of pretty outrageous statements about Catholicism.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

La Chiara:

flameburns–So what are you if you are not a “Bible only fundamentalist” and you have so much first hand knowledge of Caholics–at least enough knowledge to be pretty biting in your criticism.? You make a fair number of pretty outrageous statements about Catholicism.

Yes, La C., biting indeed. Far too outrageous to be taken seriously since no attempt is made to provide examples of what seems to be partly hearsay.

No further comment on this calumny seems warranted, unless or until there is substantiation.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

flameburns623:

And then–there are perfectly sound Roman Catholics who attempt to make utterly illicit connections between the Ark of the Covenant and the Virgin Mary.

In what way are these connections utterly illicit? The parallels are actually quite compelling:

2 Samuel 6:1-7

1. David “arose and went”
2. David went to hill country of Judah
3. David proclaimed his unworthiness before the ark
4. David danced before the ark
5. The ark remained in the hill country for 3 months

Luke 1:39-45

1. Mary “arose and went”
2. Mary went to the hill country of Judah
3. Elizabeth proclaims unworthiness before Mary
4. John leaped in his mother’s womb before Mary (the Greek word translated “leaped” is the same word used in the passage about David in 2 Samuel)
5. Mary stayed 3 months with Elizabeth.

The Old Testament Ark contained:

1. Rod of Aaron (ancestral high priest)
2. Miraculous manna (bread from heaven)
3. Word of God written in stone

New Testament ark (Mary) contained:

1. Jesus, eternal High Priest
2. Jesus, Bread of Life
3. Jesus, Word of God made flesh

My observation is that Roman Catholics generally have no concern nor respect for the text of Scripture, it’s context, or the principles for exegeting a text in a sound manner.

What is your criterion for determining who IS showing concern and respect for the text of Scripture, it’s context, and the principles for exegeting a text in a sound manner?

Protestant Biblical exegesis, even among conservative Protestants, is not a willy-nilly excercise of pulling bible verses from the text but is a discipline with rules and principles.

Are these rules and principles found in scripture? If so, where? If not, who was it who decided what these rules and principles would be? Are these rules and principles binding on all readers of scripture?

One cites Scripture from within it’s own context, not pulling an individual text or symbol from the Scripture and attaching one’s own meaning to it.

If this is a common Protestant practice how do you account for the many conflicing and contradictory interpretations of scripture? If those whose interpretations conflict with and contradict one another aren’t attaching their OWN meaning to it, whose meaning ARE they attaching to it? They can’t all be attaching God’s meaning to it since we know that God can’t contadict himself. Whose meaning do you propose is being attached if not God’s and not one’s own?

One interprets Scripture by Scripture to the fullest extent possible.

This is only effective to the extent that the passage being used to interpret another passage has, itself, been properly interpreted.

Catholic homilists scarcely ever appear to know of, let alone to care about, such rules or principles.

Are these rules and principles listed in scripture? If not, who got to decide what they were? How can we be infallibley correct that those rules and principles are the correct rules and principles for interpreting scripture correctly?

Frankly, were a Catholic to claim that the Old Testament appears in his Bible before the New Testament, I would want to see his copy of Scripture to verify the claim. Chances are, it would be laden with mold and dust . . . . Or would still be contained in it’s packaging of shrink-wrap.

Wow! Hope that made you feel better. :ehh:

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[flameburns623]

Catholic4aReasn:

Where does scripture indicate which doctrinal issues are “core” and which are “peripheral”?

If not in scripture, who is it who gets to decide which doctrinal issues are “core” and which are “peripheral”? By what authority does this person do so?

In Christ,
Nancy

Most Protestants give some thought to this matter in their Articles of Faith, Confessions, or other statements of faith. Some general agreement exists that the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed define a rock-bottom minimum of Christian belief. Protestants have little trouble in distinguishing between ‘Christian’ denominations and cults or heresies: the hard-shell Baptist recognizes the Methodist, the Church of Christer, the Presbyterian, and sometimes even the Roman Catholic as brother Christians. (That’s not a personal jab at Catholics: some real debate exists among sectarian fundamentalists about whether the Roman Catholic Church is a real Christian denomination or if it is a hodge-podge of pagan religions and heresies disguised as Christianity. I’m using a sectarian Baptist in my example and don’t want to overly generalize ‘his’ ecumenism), He rejects the Mormon, the Jehovah’s Witness, the Unity Schooler and the Unitarian as heretics. “Authority” is an issue for Roman Catholics and Mormons: it’s a non-starter for Protestants.

One of the great flaws of the contemporary non-denominational church movement has been noted elsewhere in this thread: whereas the denominational movements steeped their membership in sectarian theology, the contemporary groups tend to do ‘Christianity-lite’: a feel-good/do-good sort blend of Bible verses, praise songs, and pop psychology which the proponents of such movements HOPE will expose masses of unchurched folk to enough of the Gospel to make them hunger for more. My experience is that even if they do, the non-denoms hardly ever do anything to offer them the substance that the ‘user-friendly/seeker-sensitive’ services lack.

 

[La_Chiara]

flameburns623:

One of the great flaws of the contemporary non-denominational church movement has been noted elsewhere in this thread: whereas the denominational movements steeped their membership in sectarian theology, the contemporary groups tend to do ‘Christianity-lite’: a feel-good/do-good sort blend of Bible verses, praise songs, and pop psychology which the proponents of such movements HOPE will expose masses of unchurched folk to enough of the Gospel to make them hunger for more.

Who are all these “UNCHURCHED” people that you Protestants talk about? It seems to me that using “unchurched” is a catch-all term that justifies all the people that these groups successfully evangelize–if they weren’t “unchurched” then they wouldn’t be susceptible to the evangilization. So “unchurched” is applied without distinction to people who have had no religious background, as well as Catholics, and mainline Protestant denominations.

 

[flameburns623]

In what way are these connections utterly illicit? The parallels are actually quite compelling.

One doesn’t exegete Scripture using ‘parallels’. You really could make Scripture ‘say anything’ by such a principle.

Are these rules and principles found in scripture? If so, where? If not, who was it who decided what these rules and principles would be? Are these rules and principles binding on all readers of scripture?

The principles for exegeting Scripture can be found by example and usage within Scripture. They have been hammered out and are being hammered out by theologians, not all of those theologians Protestants.

If this is a common Protestant practice how do you account for the many conflicing and contradictory interpretations of scripture?

There aren’t ‘many’. There are some. Because Protestants do not reserve theology to ‘professionals’, our theological debates are hammered out publicly. Catholics also have theological issues which they are continually juggling. Mostly in Latin.

Quote:

Frankly, were a Catholic to claim that the Old Testament appears in his Bible before the New Testament, I would want to see his copy of Scripture to verify the claim. Chances are, it would be laden with mold and dust . . . . Or would still be contained in it’s packaging of shrink-wrap.

Wow! Hope that made you feel better.

Yeah that was rather mean-spirited. Sorry.

 

[flameburns623]

La Chiara:

Who are all these “UNCHURCHED” people that you Protestants talk about? It seems to me that using “unchurched” is a catch-all term that justifies all the people that these groups successfully evangelize–if they weren’t “unchurched” then they wouldn’t be susceptible to the evangilization. So “unchurched” is applied without distinction to people who have had no religious background, as well as Catholics, and mainline Protestant denominations.

‘Unchurched’ people are people who no longer attend church, whether they identify with a denomination or not. Folks who have no sense of any vital relationship to God or Christ, even if they occasionally attend a church. Or who have attached themselves to some non-Christian practice: Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. In non-denom churches, it’s uncommon for folks to be brought in by way of some sort of door-to-door canvassing such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses practice.

Usually, folks go voluntarily, out of curiosity or because an acquaintance invites them. Or they see a notice thumbtacked somewhere for some sort of an interesting midweek event (for the next several months it’ll be the Passion of the Christ movie, which just came out on DVD–but in the past it has been ‘The Gospel of Andy Griffith’ or similar pap). They go to the event, like what they see and start attending Sunday services.

Usually for about three or four years. After awhile, the ‘kumbaya’ music and pop theology wear stale. If they were inactive Catholics, I wouldn’t be too terribly worried if I were you: you’ll get most of them back, and in better condition than when the non-denoms ‘borrowed’ them. They’ll actually have acquired the habit of getting out of bed on Sundays and going somewhere to church. They might even have learned how to pray, though they’ll have to learn that it’s not common to do so in liturgical services while dangling one’s hands in the air. Whether you can keep them will be up to y’all: you’ll have to figure a way to bridge the gap between the cotton-candy Christianity they’ve been practicing for awhile and the solid Gospel food they’ve developed an appetite for.

At worst: folks who had long since ‘left’ you anyhow just never do come back.

 

[La_Chiara]

‘Unchurched’ people are people who no longer attend church, whether they identify with a denomination or not. Folks who have no sense of any vital relationship to God or Christ, even if they occasionally attend a church. Or who have attached themselves to some non-Christian practice: Buddhism, Wicca, or the like. In non-denom churches, it’s uncommon for folks to be brought in by way of some sort of door-to-door canvassing such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses practice.

Usually, folks go voluntarily, out of curiosity or because an acquaintance invites them. Or they see a notice thumbtacked somewhere for some sort of an interesting midweek event (for the next several months it’ll be the Passion of the Christ movie, which just came out on DVD–but in the past it has been ‘The Gospel of Andy Griffith’ or similar pap). They go to the event, like what they see and start attending Sunday services.

Usually for about three or four years. After awhile, the ‘kumbaya’ music and pop theology wear stale. If they were inactive Catholics, I wouldn’t be too terribly worried if I were you: you’ll get most of them back, and in better condition than when the non-denoms ‘borrowed’ them. They’ll actually have acquired the habit of getting out of bed on Sundays and going somewhere to church. They might even have learned how to pray, though they’ll have to learn that it’s not common to do so in liturgical services while dangling one’s hands in the air. Whether you can keep them will be up to y’all: you’ll have to figure a way to bridge the gap between the cotton-candy Christianity they’ve been practicing for awhile and the solid Gospel food they’ve developed an appetite for.

At worst: folks who had long since ‘left’ you anyhow just never do come back.

But calling them “UNCHURCHED” is rather condescending and rationalizing. The word “UNCHURCHED” sounds like they have never been “churched” or exposed to a Christian religion. I view this as just another of those ways that the evangelical Protestants put a self-satisfied spin on what they are doing–which is aggressive poaching of Catholics and mainline Protestant denominations. This kind of evangelism TARGETS the very much CHURCHED but least strong Catholics. It is very deliberate, intentional, and aggressive. If Catholics were to use the same tactics, we would hear the angry screams of righteous indignation across the U.S. Saying most of them come back to the Catholic Church, does not justify these all too common and very unfair tactics.

 

[flameburns623]

Sorry, La Chiarra but ‘un-churched’ people with a nominal religious background are ‘unchurched’ for a reason: they can’t or won’t go back to whatever nominal denomination they come from. And yet they are miserable souls: they are alcoholics or addicts or suicidal or they are losing their families or they are caught up in some sort of miserable interior angst which is leaving them empty. Or they are simply aimless and wandering. They are desperate for a healing which they somehow cannot obtain from their ‘native’ denomination. They need a personal encounter with the Living Christ, and they aren’t getting Him in any meaningful way in their ancestral churches. The Great Commission applies to these folks every bit as much as to out-and-out pagans living in a mud hut in some far-flung corner of the world.

BTW: the term ‘unchurched’ is simply a term I used for purposes of this forum. The non-denoms are NOT strong-arming these folks into their folds–the un-churched are, to use the non-denom lingo, ‘seekers’. If the RCC or mainline denominations see their membership being bled away into these groups–it’s because the RCC or others somehow fail to meet the spiritual needs of such people. These ‘seekers’ are spiritually tone-deaf to the songs of your church, color-blind to the brilliant colors of your vestments. You’ve lost these folks already–in their present condition, they are generally NOT coming back to you. God MAY use the non-denom churches to soften their hearts and bring them, over time, back into communion with you. More importantly: He is establishing a vital relationship with them which did not exist before they met Him in one of these groups.

Bear in mind that I am NOT a non-denom myself: could you not tell by the rather ascerbic comments I make about them? I am a traditionalist Anglican. We experience every bit as much ‘boil-off’ to such groups as the RCC–more so in ECUSA, perhaps, since they have pursued a forty-plus year policy of responding to such movements by watering-down the Episcopalian proclamation of the Gospel. (ECUSA stands for ‘Episcopal Church USA’, the largest American Episcopalian group, the one ordaining women and gays, and the one to which I DO NOT belong, if anyone was confused). In any case: the RCC is scarcely seeing the sort of losses which should give it any great concern about the nondenoms, methinks. It is the Pentecostal and Baptist groups, along with the pseudo-Christian cults, which are making the big inroads in Third-World missionizing. The non-denominational churches are mainly a fad aimed at post-modernist Westerners. I doubt it’s long term prospects but I rejoice at every soul who somehow does meet our Lord by means of these groups.

I grew up in the Independent Christian Churches, a branch of the Campbellite Movement which I mentioned earlier. As I mentioned-the Campbellites attempted essentially the same thing the non-denoms are trying to do today, and it simply fell on it’s face. I see it as likely that the modern non-denoms will do likewise over time. I view them with much less alarm than you because I have a great deal more compassion for the walking wounded who would otherwise be ‘spiritually homeless’–I will repeat, these folks can’t or won’t find their immediate needs met in their nominal affiliations. In the long run however, I just don’t think the non-denoms have the substance needful to really hold most people. My opinion.

 

[La_Chiara]

Well, your opinion about who leaves the Catholic Church has some sweeping generalizations! I don’t agree with such sweeping statements. And I am not in a position to agree or disagree with you about whether the “non-denoms” are going to have staying power. That will be interesting to see.

But I very much disagree with you that anyone who leaves the Catholic Church is UNCHURCHED or that they had to have been UNCHURCHED to have left. I refuse to accept this made up word UNCHURCHED in that way. So the evangelical-types get to make up a word and a definition to go along with it! Well, I don’t have to accept either the word or the definition. The word implies “not having been taught religion or having gone to church”. By definition, a Catholic who has been confirmed has been “churched”–regardless of whether they later leave the Catholic Church. So they cannot be UNCHURCHED, as you claim.

BTW, my American Heritage dictionary gives two definitions for the VERB “unchurch” (no adjective). And these are:

1. to expel from a church or church membership; excommunicate
2. to deprive (a congregation, or sect, or building) of the status of a church.

Neither are the way that UNCHURCHED is used as an adjective to describe Catholics or others who stop practicing their faith or convert to another faith.