This is somethign I have pondered for a while now, and Molly's post about her encounter with the man on the street sort of prompted me to post about it, and instead of cluttering up her thread (which was a good read. thank you Molly) I made one all it's own. So here goes... Can a church really be "non-denominational", or is "non-denominational" really a denomination in itself? From my experiences hearing about "non-denominational" churches, most of them seem to be conservative, evangelical or pentecostal prodestant churches. granted there are some instances where institutions are generally non-denominational (I am reminded of university chaplains and charity organizations and such--but even they have their limits. My mom and dad were married by a university chaplain, but he would only do it if you were Anglican, Lutheran, or United or somethignt o that effect). But I think there are very few, if any, churches that can truly be non-denominational. My idea of what one would be would be one that has more than a few priests from different denominations taking turns delivering mass/sunday worship, but can still give the Eurachrist specifically for a specific group (catholics, orthodox, lutheran, etc)... But yeah, that would be a dream world cause 1) Why would most people want to go there? 2) Who would organize all of the priests together? among many other conflicts... I dunno, what are your thoughts?
Yes, and this is why I think that having a "non-denominational" church is just another label for another kind of theology. A real church is a group of people gathered where the gospel is rightly preached and baptism and the Eucharist are offered with the genuine meaning of the gospel (both offer God's promise of love and forgiveness.) That statement I made is based on inherited Lutheran theology. The key word is inherited....it came from somewhere. (Now you could refute the inherited theology, but let's get to Burb's point.) But what is governing the non-denominational church, if they claim that they are not a denomination and their theology is "pure"? The people leading that church are getting their ideas from somewhere. Many of them claim that their governing truth came straight down from God. But obviously that's not the case. Even the Scriptures, the Word of God, are fallible and have been passed down 2,000 years, (more for the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament) and written, and re-translated by human hands. What that guy on the street was saying to me, that goes even further than the question of denomination, was that the group of people he was in didn't call themselves a church. That's where I think it gets problematic, because, as I was explaining to him, if all people are sinful, how can he possibly believe that he could be a part of a holy community that is living in God's kingdom? As soon as you have a community that emphasizes this "holy" state, you come up with rules that govern how people should act, or else they're sinful. That's the kind of Christianity that people loathe, and rightly so. This man said that they were a separate people that worship the Bible. EXACTLY the problem. They're worshipping the Bible. One of the best things that my university chaplain taught me was that even the Bible can be an idol. An idol is all that directs your absolute worship away from God.
I always thought nondenominational churches were based purely on the Bible, following no set creed or anything but what is written in the bible. I think, though, that that is true in general for all protestants. I'm not really sure. Perhaps it is any christian who doesn't fit into any specific, established church; though of course, once you get a group of nondenoms all gathering and believing alike, it's a defacto church/denom. Ironic, haha. Molly, interesting point about the Bible as an idol. It's like spiritual pride, where you set yourself as holier than others. This kind of idolotry or pride is the most dangerous and the hardest to escape from (in any religion) because you think you're on the right road. You really trap yourself because there's no reason to question what you're doing, since it's supposedly the "true path." It comes down to one's attitude, one's perspective. I watched some Catholic priest on tv giving a sermon (don't ask why i was watching, I don't know), and he said that humbleness is very important, because we all have the same capacity for sin. the old quote, by a priest on seeing a man being led to his hanging, "but for the grace of god, there goes I." Of course, one can get so wedded to being humble that it becomes prideful in itself, "i'm humbler than you are." It's a fine line, and it always comes down to one's attitude. I think one's denomination doesn't really matter. There's nothing wrong with being a catholic, or a lutheran, or a baptist; I don't see why it would be any better to be "nondenominational." It almost seems like another example of spiritual pride, saying that everyone else has strayed from the true understanding and only you and your "nondenomination" have it right. Speaking as a nonchristian, but I don't think it matters how you come to god or illumination, as long as you get there. If you're a catholic, that's cool, as long as you don't get stuck on the fetters of the faith and lose sight of the whole point of it.
My Dad's church (I really hate saying that because its not his but God's) Isn't even non-denominational simply bible based. If God said it then its so type of thing. Not to say we sacrfice sheep, because christ abolished the old law etc etc etc. and we aren't jewish... yeah most non-denominational churches i've been to are just like some other non-denominational and all put in their personal doctrince... Idunno when ask what i am i simply say "a follwer of jesus" because in truth thats all i really need to be.
somebody once said "superstition is the toy we give our minds to keep it occupied so God can speak to our hearts without being interrupted". I've always seen the non-denominational churches as an attempt at a sort of mini-reformation, as if the practitioners are saying "We're not interested in competeing with the other churches, we're too busy trying to get in sync with God's will". I do know that when I was hitch-hiking--one of the ways I got by was knocking on church doors and asking for work--the non-denominational churches seemed, overall, more open and less judgmental.
I like what Naykid said about mini reformation.... Anyway, I think as long as we all agree not to conform we are doing all right.
My short answer to this very good question is that you can have a non-denominational Christian but not a non-denominational Church. A person can have a very unique set of beliefs, but a church, as a doctrine must have a fundamental set of beliefs that its members accept and follow. Maybe it could be called an "undefined denomination", but not "non-denominational". If you define church purely as the building, then I can see the use of the term non-denominational, however it would almost be impossible for the worship leader to be non-partial to any one set of held beliefs. I tend to think of a chapel in a hospital or other public building as fitting this defination of "non-denominational". just my two cents.
If you're non-denominational, why do you need a church? I mean, unless you're Catholic or a stricter form of Protestant, you don't actually have to go to church, do you? As long as you still practice? Or perhaps I am mistaken. It just seems odd to me that someone who decides their beliefs do not fit in with the denominations out there would want to attend a church. Isn't that going to cause the same kind of problem?
People are social animals, we like to hang out with like-minded people. Almost inevitably. Ironic isn't it?
I like that they are more inclusive and agreeable than the very specific and isolationist churches, but the unacceptance of non-Christian faithful contradicts my own belief. I feel that Buddhism which Lisa Simpson said allows followers to adhere to other faiths at the same time, is more like my style. It is my view that any belief can be the right one, and each of us must make our own choices. If God is as often claimed, sweet on one particular church, excluding all others, I'll file a formal complaint after I'm dead. I cannot imagine that being so, though. God, if real, is unlikely to be biased, and I would bet that atheists, Christians, and Buddhists alike are all okay in God's eyes.
As I understand it, the churches who claim to be "non-denominational" or "inter-denominational" or "independent" or whatever are nothing more than independent churches whose doctrine centers around a rhetorical, literal interpretation of scripture. Many if not most of the time, while these churches claim to be an independent voice, they are doctrinally rigid and probably resemble fundamentalist protestant denominations more than anything, at least as far as I'm concerned. This is not the case, at least as I understand. About the only denomination that may do something like this might be a Unitarian-Univerasalist congregation, which might go out of its way to recognize certain specific holidays of a given religion. Many of the people that attend such congregations are looking for spiritual guidance that they cannot find elsewhere. In my experience, I've noticed that a good number of the people who attend such churches have had (a) bad experience/s (e.g. substance abuse, past relationship gone bad, etc.) in their past and find that attending such a church provides them with answers to life issues and dilemmas. I believe that because many of these churches are independent with the pastor of the church being the "head honcho", the final source of appeal is him (or her), but I'm not sure.
