What is with "non-denominational Christians"?

[Maccabees]

Actually there is really only one non-denominational church.

The one Christ founded to be universal. The Catholic Church.

Denominations are divisions in the body of Christ.
ANd the evangelical non-denoms that declare themselves as such are lying to themselves. Ask them if they beleive in infant baptism?
Chances are they will say no. Suddenly they are Baptist in that area.
Ask them about speaking in tongues and the gifts of the holy spirit being available to every born again beleiver. They might say yes this makes them. Pentacostal. What they inevitably do is pick and choose what beleifs they believe in amon established denoms and becuase they don’t beleive in the official stance of any one church they form their own denom where the pastor becomes super pope the defacto single authority in his own little religion (his own church).

 

[flameburns623]

Glenn Lego:

La Chiara:

Are evangelical separate from non-denominational or are some non-denominational also evangelical? I didn’t think evangelical was a denomination, so wouldn’t that mean that evangelical is non-denominational? Heavens, this is so complicated. Wouldn’t it be nice if we Christians were all Catholic![/QU There are some evangelical churches that have “Evangelical” as part of their names Examples: Evangelical Free, Evangelical Covenant, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, etc. I also don’t understand what the difference is between evangelical and fundamentalist, even though I was once one! Yes it WOULD be nice if we were all catholic!

Some churches with the word ‘Evangelical’ in their name are Lutheran or Reformational in nature–remember that Luther didn’t really want his name used as the title of a church. This is scarcely true of EVERY church which happens to call itself ‘Evangelical’, since the term has become popular for other reasons since the late 1950’s.

‘Evangelical’ also describes a general mindset, or a movement within Protestantism: the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod (as well as the Wisconsin Synod) and the Presbyterian Church in America are widely deemed ‘evangelical’ because they are very conservative denominations with a high view of Biblical inerrancy. (Neither the Lutherans nor the Presbyterians particularly care for the appellation, but no one asked their permission). Most Evangelicals identify strongly with some sort of denomination but recognize a distinction between ‘core’ or ‘essential’ doctrines and ‘peripheral’ doctrines. They cooperate readily with like-minded Christians of other denominations. Fundamentalists often do NOT make such distinctions and are notably sectarian.

Evangelicals are also rather socially conscious and politically active–they oppose abortion, generally support the death penalty, strongly favor a free-enterprise economic system and a system of representative democracy, oppose same-sex unions, often favor the re-introduction of Bible reading and prayer in public schools, often favor tax credits or other forms of relief for parents who send their children to private schools, usually favor justices who are strict constructionists, would usually like to see morality re-inserted into public life (as in a constitutional amendment identifying the US as a Christian nation and/or enshrining the Ten Commandments as the ‘basis of law’ in America, etcetera). Not all Evangelicals concur with all of these points–some would disagree with many or most. My point is that they are distinguished from Fundamentalists in this respect insofar as the latter advocate that the church be largely apolitical, and concentrate upon converting individuals rather than changing the culture.

‘Non-denominationalism’ as it is being addressed in this thread is a different mindset and a different sort of movement: it seeks to make the church ‘relevant’ by de-emphasizing doctrine and theology and focusing on the ‘felt needs’ of those who would otherwise identify themselves as disenfranchised from denominations.

[/quote]

 

[CD4]

<<<‘Non-denominationalism’ as it is being addressed in this thread is a different mindset and a different sort of movement: it seeks to make the church ‘relevant’ by de-emphasizing doctrine and theology and focusing on the ‘felt needs’ of those who would otherwise identify themselves as disenfranchised from denominations.>>>

Your answer to the question re. evangelicals and non0denomnationa chruches was excellent.

---

**However, in re. this quote…You are right about the non-denominational churches de-emphasizing doctine theology. But, many of these chruches are, indeed, evangelical in their approach to many issues. I would characterize th Churhes of Christ as an expample (usually) of non-denominational evangelical churches. This has, at least, been my experience. OTOH, I realize that since the Churches of Christ are each independent of the othere, there could be a big difference in incividual churhces in thei regard. **

 

[flameburns623]

The modern ‘non-denominational’ mega-churches often sit squarely on the fence with regard to the social agendas of Evangelicalism: they may have members who have ‘Pro-Life ministries’ or similar activities, but the church often takes few stances which could be construed as politically divisive. On the other hand, they usually don’t have the intense focus upon theology that one might find in an Evangelical organization, either: one is rarely compelled to choose between Arminianism and Calvinism, between post-millenialism, premillenialism, or a-millenialism, between ‘covenental’ versus ‘dispensational’ views of the church, etcetera. One might attend such non-denom churches for years, taking part not only in Sunday worship but in various other church events and never quite realize that such differences exist in the larger Christian world.

I recall a course on prayer and devotions from about 15 years ago: the topic was the need to pray regularly, ideally daily, and the setting was informal and participative. A woman stood up–one known for her charismatic ecstasies during public worship, which included falling down in a dead faint periodically. She held up some beads in this prayer class and announced that she ‘prayed the Rosary every day’ as part of her daily devotions. The facilitator/teacher looked at her blandly and pleasantly and said something like “Well, that’s GREAT!!!”, after which the woman was given a big round of applause. The lady I was dating at the time leaned over to me and asked what a ‘Rosary’ was, but so far as I know, the woman who prayed the Rosary was never criticised or confronted. No one cared, and I honestly think most folks didn’t knew enough TO care: non-denoms are more concerned with a feel-good spirituality than with anything particularly serious. The leaders and elders are careful to not go exceedingly far astray–one seldom sees the ‘slaying in the Spirit’ phenomenom nowadays because it has been roundly denounced as a novel and aberrant practice. But great leeway exists, nontheless. I suspect this very blandness waxes stale and nondenom groups lose their older members in many cases to more ‘serious’ churches. My one-time girlfriend, raised a traditional Pentecostal didn’t want to go back to this church after she realized that a Rosary involved prayers to Mary. She thought this was being a bit too ‘open’.

I can assure you that in an Evangelical class of the same sort, this woman would have been gently and kindly criticised for her comment, not tolerated nor applauded. The point would have been made–privately perhaps, and not necessarily in public–that the woman was attending a Protestant church which did not approve of the Rosary. And in a sectarian fundamentalist church such as the Church of Christ, such an event might well have provoked a fairly extended series of parenthetical critiques of Roman Catholic practices and teachings, both explicitly and subtly, for some weeks or months to come.

Speaking of the C of C: it is rooted in the ‘Christian Connection’ movement of the late 1700’s, which was led in the early 1800’s by the Campbells and Barton Stone into a denominational structure. It was indeed an early precursor of non-denominationalism, but it is largely a very sectarian movement nowadays. Some parts of the C of C are especially divisive, but even the more moderate ‘Christian Churches’ are very protective of their denominational distinctives and disinclined to a great deal of social activism. Much of the movement qualifies more appropriately as ‘fundamentalist’ than ‘Evangelical’, though each congregation varies widely. The Disciples of Christ, another branch of the same movement, are actually becoming more mainstream/liberal.

 

[philipmarus]

In my neck of the woods the non-denominational churchs are fairly common. One of my Family members grew up Church of Christ (which are everywhere in Oklahoma) but has since joined the CHRISTIAN CHURCH which is a spin-off of the Church of christ. About two years ago this church split over issue of fhe frequency of communion. The Pastor took about 80% congregation with him (He wanted Communion only very infrequently). the few that remained who fortunately were left but owned the building. Its been my observation that few consider their pastor a pope but more of fallible bible adviser. Many will when disagree with the pastor simply shop for another church.