non-denominational Christianity

[McCulloch]

Many Christians now identify themselves as non-denominational.

What does this mean?
Is it a good thing? Should Christians abandon their denominational divisions? How could this be done? Is there anything more authentic about being non-denominational?

Or is your particular denomination the one that really gets it right?

[chibiq]

I go to a non-denominational church and attend quite regularly. So do most of the others who attend this church.

My reading of the intent of the NT is that those who speak of attending church have missed the point. Christians do not go to church. Christians are the church. They are members (the word used in the NT) of a church. The church meets from time to time when its members get together for various purposes.

Christians attend church. Christians go to a church. The building they're in is called a "church house", church for short. Church, in modern terms, could mean either the people or the building. I agree that it would help the Christian community if this were a little more clear, but I can't quite remember the last time McCulloch stated something that could be used FOR Christianity.

Definition of Church
Wikipedia: Church (building)

[chibiq]

The church I attend is nondenominational. My pastor describes our church as a "learning" church. We get into debates that are pretty similiar to the ones of this forum on a regular basis, although they're never quite that heated.

What he means by "learning" church is that we admit to not knowing all there is to know about Christianity, but also knowing that the fine details (why God did certain things for example) isn't as important as knowing the way to live a true Christian life. We do sometimes get into the finer details, but we're not passionate about them and allow everyone to voice their opinions on why certain things are certain ways in the Bible.

Our church is extremely diverse for its size. We only have about 50 regular members that are definitely going to come at least once a week, and of those, 6 nationalities are represented. There's at least 2 members from every 10-year age range, and almost all of them have different opinions on at least one issue of the Bible. It's really interesting to listen to a 20-something year old debate with a 60 year old, hearing the doctrines that the latter grew up with hearing in hymns versus the doctrines that the 20-something year old found himself.

This is how I believe a church should be. I'm sure I could pluck 10 people (atheists included) from this forum and have a debate similiar to some that we've had in my church. I believe there should be no human authority over the Bible at a church that can't be questioned or who gets the final say (see popes).

[realthinker]

The church I attend is nondenominational. My pastor describes our church as a "learning" church. We get into debates that are pretty similiar to the ones of this forum on a regular basis, although they're never quite that heated.

What he means by "learning" church is that we admit to not knowing all there is to know about Christianity, but also knowing that the fine details (why God did certain things for example) isn't as important as knowing the way to live a true Christian life. We do sometimes get into the finer details, but we're not passionate about them and allow everyone to voice their opinions on why certain things are certain ways in the Bible.

Our church is extremely diverse for its size. We only have about 50 regular members that are definitely going to come at least once a week, and of those, 6 nationalities are represented. There's at least 2 members from every 10-year age range, and almost all of them have different opinions on at least one issue of the Bible. It's really interesting to listen to a 20-something year old debate with a 60 year old, hearing the doctrines that the latter grew up with hearing in hymns versus the doctrines that the 20-something year old found himself.

This is how I believe a church should be. I'm sure I could pluck 10 people (atheists included) from this forum and have a debate similiar to some that we've had in my church. I believe there should be no human authority over the Bible at a church that can't be questioned or who gets the final say (see popes).

If you're going to make up the rules as you go, why stop at the borders of Christianity? Why not look more broadly at spiritual matters?

[chibiq]

The church I attend is nondenominational. My pastor describes our church as a "learning" church. We get into debates that are pretty similiar to the ones of this forum on a regular basis, although they're never quite that heated.

What he means by "learning" church is that we admit to not knowing all there is to know about Christianity, but also knowing that the fine details (why God did certain things for example) isn't as important as knowing the way to live a true Christian life. We do sometimes get into the finer details, but we're not passionate about them and allow everyone to voice their opinions on why certain things are certain ways in the Bible.

Our church is extremely diverse for its size. We only have about 50 regular members that are definitely going to come at least once a week, and of those, 6 nationalities are represented. There's at least 2 members from every 10-year age range, and almost all of them have different opinions on at least one issue of the Bible. It's really interesting to listen to a 20-something year old debate with a 60 year old, hearing the doctrines that the latter grew up with hearing in hymns versus the doctrines that the 20-something year old found himself.

This is how I believe a church should be. I'm sure I could pluck 10 people (atheists included) from this forum and have a debate similiar to some that we've had in my church. I believe there should be no human authority over the Bible at a church that can't be questioned or who gets the final say (see popes).

If you're going to make up the rules as you go, why stop at the borders of Christianity? Why not look more broadly at spiritual matters?

Exactly what rules are we making up?

[realthinker]

The church I attend is nondenominational. My pastor describes our church as a "learning" church. We get into debates that are pretty similiar to the ones of this forum on a regular basis, although they're never quite that heated.

What he means by "learning" church is that we admit to not knowing all there is to know about Christianity, but also knowing that the fine details (why God did certain things for example) isn't as important as knowing the way to live a true Christian life. We do sometimes get into the finer details, but we're not passionate about them and allow everyone to voice their opinions on why certain things are certain ways in the Bible.

Our church is extremely diverse for its size. We only have about 50 regular members that are definitely going to come at least once a week, and of those, 6 nationalities are represented. There's at least 2 members from every 10-year age range, and almost all of them have different opinions on at least one issue of the Bible. It's really interesting to listen to a 20-something year old debate with a 60 year old, hearing the doctrines that the latter grew up with hearing in hymns versus the doctrines that the 20-something year old found himself.

This is how I believe a church should be. I'm sure I could pluck 10 people (atheists included) from this forum and have a debate similiar to some that we've had in my church. I believe there should be no human authority over the Bible at a church that can't be questioned or who gets the final say (see popes).

If you're going to make up the rules as you go, why stop at the borders of Christianity? Why not look more broadly at spiritual matters?

Exactly what rules are we making up?

Unless you're debating strictly for the purpose of coercing those with non-conforming views or ideas back to the "real" truth, you're deciding what to believe. If you can do that within Christianity, why should you stop there?

[chibiq]

Exactly what rules are we making up?

Unless you're debating strictly for the purpose of coercing those with non-conforming views or ideas back to the "real" truth, you're deciding what to believe. If you can do that within Christianity, why should you stop there?

That's not making up rules, that's figuring out what the truth is. Different people have different opinions on different parts of the Bible. We give a verse to discuss, we give our opinion, and if applicable, we give other verses to back up our opinions. Sort of like the scientific method.

[realthinker]

Exactly what rules are we making up?

Unless you're debating strictly for the purpose of coercing those with non-conforming views or ideas back to the "real" truth, you're deciding what to believe. If you can do that within Christianity, why should you stop there?

That's not making up rules, that's figuring out what the truth is. Different people have different opinions on different parts of the Bible. We give a verse to discuss, we give our opinion, and if applicable, we give other verses to back up our opinions. Sort of like the scientific method.

Isn't the nature of a denomination to have a particular understanding of Christianity and to distinctly not accept debate on the "truth"? Isn't that for the denominational authorities?

[chibiq]

Exactly what rules are we making up?

Unless you're debating strictly for the purpose of coercing those with non-conforming views or ideas back to the "real" truth, you're deciding what to believe. If you can do that within Christianity, why should you stop there?

That's not making up rules, that's figuring out what the truth is. Different people have different opinions on different parts of the Bible. We give a verse to discuss, we give our opinion, and if applicable, we give other verses to back up our opinions. Sort of like the scientific method.

Isn't the nature of a denomination to have a particular understanding of Christianity and to distinctly not accept debate on the "truth"? Isn't that for the denominational authorities?

That's the idea, isn't it? Our church doesn't have a particular understanding of Christianity (other than those issues we've all agreed on). Did I mention we were nondenominational?


[edit]

As a church, we are nondenominational. As individuals, we have our own beliefs, and defend them.

[realthinker]

Exactly what rules are we making up?

Unless you're debating strictly for the purpose of coercing those with non-conforming views or ideas back to the "real" truth, you're deciding what to believe. If you can do that within Christianity, why should you stop there?

That's not making up rules, that's figuring out what the truth is. Different people have different opinions on different parts of the Bible. We give a verse to discuss, we give our opinion, and if applicable, we give other verses to back up our opinions. Sort of like the scientific method.

Isn't the nature of a denomination to have a particular understanding of Christianity and to distinctly not accept debate on the "truth"? Isn't that for the denominational authorities?

That's the idea, isn't it? Our church doesn't have a particular understanding of Christianity (other than those issues we've all agreed on). Did I mention we were nondenominational?

So if you're not beholden to a denomination or driven by any authority t conform, why do you not look beyond Christianity for spiritual satisfaction? I'm not challenging, just wondering if you've ever considered it, and if you could describe why you haven't if that's the case.

[chibiq]

That's the idea, isn't it? Our church doesn't have a particular understanding of Christianity (other than those issues we've all agreed on). Did I mention we were nondenominational?

So if you're not beholden to a denomination or driven by any authority t conform, why do you not look beyond Christianity for spiritual satisfaction? I'm not challenging, just wondering if you've ever considered it, and if you could describe why you haven't if that's the case.

Because I'm convinced of it. Check this post. I'm not bragging, I'm just saying this is my experience as a Christian. Even in times when I've hit a slump and reverted to my old ways, I've known that what I was doing was the wrong thing and seen consequences from it. I'm not a sadist, I knew what I was putting myself through, and after, I knew I was compelled by Satan to sin.

I've never, since becoming "born again", have completely abandoned Christianity. My faith has often been tested, especially since I've been coming to forums like these, and I've been tempted to give up, but I never have. And because of that, because of perservering through the doubts, I've been given answers, and shared them.

To say I've never doubted Christianity would be a lie.