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?

[OpenedUp]

Well I knwot hat msot of the non-denominational churches in my town are ones that have adopted the "loving God" idea and have pretty much dropped all of the traditional and ritualistic ideas of Christianity.

Its mostly teenagers too. The churches are kind of a place where people can hang out under a common idea.

[jergarmar]

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?

Whoa! I hope I can do this question justice, McCulloch.

First of all, I can't help but first point out that non-denominationalism is, obviously, sort of a denomination of its own. I have heard some say, "We don't have any creeds -- we just have the Bible", but obviously how you understand the Bible sets you into a certain "camp" or denomination. Some use non-denominationalism to say that they are "independent"; that is, they are not subject to any higher church structure. In that case, though, you could say that each non-denomination church is itself its own denomination! In practice it really that means is you have no IDEA what kind of church you're getting into. The behavior and character of the church is totally dependent on the church leader(s).

This has an interesting connection with fundamentalism. "What?" you say, "What are you talking about?" Well, early in the 20th century (about 1910), in response to the church movement called "liberal theology" at the time, some scholars from a range of conservative denominations came together to answer this question: "We may differ on certain points but what are the fundamentals that we can all agree on?" They wanted a non-denominational statement of faith. Thus "The Fundamentals" was published and those who subscribed to them were called "fundamentalists".

Good intentions, right? There's probably something positive to be said for what they accomplished. However, as the idea promulgated the conclusion that some people came to (was it inevitable?) was that the "fundamentals" were ALL that mattered -- that anything else just divided people. It became for many churches an incentive to NOT study theology, to NOT have creeds (just as is now happening in many non-denominational churches). After all, "liberal theology" took hold in the most elite religious universities. Thus a skepticism of the universities themselves began to take hold, which is partly why some accused the movement of anti-intellectualism.

Another problem that fundamentalism had was that the fundamentalists started disagreeing and dividing over what the fundamentals really were! All of this is part of the reason why I am critical of the current non-denominational movement: it sounds like an attempt toward unity that really just turns into the disunity of one denomination for each church. Certainly today many Christians don't really understand what they believe, and don't have any connection with history (whether their history of that of others).

On another note, if you're in a non-denominational church and your paster/elder starts going wacky and handling snakes, who do you appeal to for help? Being in some kind of organized denomination means that there's SOME group who has the authority to smack some sense into that guy.

Sorry for the long post, but I really think it's a fascinating subject. I'll argue about the dangers of overzealous denominational exclusivism in another thread <grin>.

[Skeptic]

I have always seen non-denominational as a cop out answer. Usually delivered by non practicing Christian who belong to no church or who do not attend church, when asked about their religion. They fear alienation for not really going to church so they just say "Christian and when pressed further rather than say "I don't really go" they say "oh I'm non-denominational." Afraid of being judged by those they consider to hold similar beliefs as them they feel compelled to assert their Christianity though they often have no real clue as to what they are saying they believe.

I think this description is fairly accurate for a majority who make the claim. If as many people who claim to be of a religion actually attended their church services there would certainly be a shortage of seating and parking spaces.

[McCulloch]

First of all, I can't help but first point out that non-denominationalism is, obviously, sort of a denomination of its own. I have heard some say, "We don't have any creeds -- we just have the Bible", but obviously how you understand the Bible sets you into a certain "camp" or denomination. Some use non-denominationalism to say that they are "independent"; that is, they are not subject to any higher church structure. In that case, though, you could say that each non-denomination church is itself its own denomination! In practice it really that means is you have no IDEA what kind of church you're getting into. The behavior and character of the church is totally dependent on the church leader(s).

Doesn't this belie the whole idea of sola scriptura?

Another problem that fundamentalism had was that the fundamentalists started disagreeing and dividing over what the fundamentals really were! All of this is part of the reason why I am critical of the current non-denominational movement: it sounds like an attempt toward unity that really just turns into the disunity of one denomination for each church. Certainly today many Christians don't really understand what they believe, and don't have any connection with history (whether their history of that of others).

It does seem that every attempt at Christian unity ends up making it more divisive.

On another note, if you're in a non-denominational church and your paster/elder starts going wacky and handling snakes, who do you appeal to for help? Being in some kind of organized denomination means that there's SOME group who has the authority to smack some sense into that guy.

Shouldn't it be the elders of the local church?

[jergarmar]

First of all, I can't help but first point out that non-denominationalism is, obviously, sort of a denomination of its own. I have heard some say, "We don't have any creeds -- we just have the Bible", but obviously how you understand the Bible sets you into a certain "camp" or denomination. Some use non-denominationalism to say that they are "independent"; that is, they are not subject to any higher church structure. In that case, though, you could say that each non-denomination church is itself its own denomination! In practice it really that means is you have no IDEA what kind of church you're getting into. The behavior and character of the church is totally dependent on the church leader(s).

Doesn't this belie the whole idea of sola scriptura?

In principle your question makes good sense. What could be more admirable than saying that "creeds divide but the Bible unites"? However, this interpretation of "sola scriptura" would baffle the reformers who coined it. They meant it in terms of final authority: any statement of faith or creed or belief must be shown from scripture without appeal to church history or church tradition (this is clearly aimed at the Roman Catholic Church). Just as one example, the Westminster Confession (the creed of my denomination) was published with point-by-point scripture proofs and evidence to show obeisance to sola scriptura. There is a certain procedure in place to question and amend this creed if someone believes it states something contrary to scripture.

On another note, if you're in a non-denominational church and your paster/elder starts going wacky and handling snakes, who do you appeal to for help? Being in some kind of organized denomination means that there's SOME group who has the authority to smack some sense into that guy.

Shouldn't it be the elders of the local church?

Once again, one would hope that any problem could be handled locally; this is not always the case. Furthermore, it is a common characteristic of non-denomination churches to have a very prominent charismatic pastor/elder/leader that acts as the "face" of that congregation. If he won't take correction, who ya gunna call? Now I don't believe that every non-denominational church is inherently bad -- I'm only trying to address the non-denominational "movement" that you describe.

As a passing note, it should be mentioned that not every "division" in the church was created equal. Most of the differences between a Presbyterian church and a Baptist church deals with church government (and when you get baptized, of course). If you asked a bunch of Christians a bunch of questions from the DCR forum, I would be shown to have MUCH more in common with a "conservative" Baptist than a "liberal" Presbyterian.

As I said before, in an appropriate thread I would certainly attack the kind of thinking that says, "my denomination is the only Christian denomination" or "people in my denomination will receive extra favor from God" or some such nonsense.

[micatala]

I have always seen non-denominational as a cop out answer. Usually delivered by non practicing Christian who belong to no church or who do not attend church, when asked about their religion. They fear alienation for not really going to church so they just say "Christian and when pressed further rather than say "I don't really go" they say "oh I'm non-denominational." Afraid of being judged by those they consider to hold similar beliefs as them they feel compelled to assert their Christianity though they often have no real clue as to what they are saying they believe.

I think this description is fairly accurate for a majority who make the claim. If as many people who claim to be of a religion actually attended their church services there would certainly be a shortage of seating and parking spaces.

This would be very different from my experience. I go to a non-denominational church and attend quite regularly (might I say religiously? ). So do most of the others who attend this church.

The same is true of many other attendees of non-denominational churches in our area. In fact, my anecdotal evidence would suggest that those who attend the non-denominational churches are more regular in attendance than some of the mainline churches (a few of which I have occasion to visit).

Now, it certainly could be there are many in town who are as you describe. Non-attendees who profess to be non-denominational. What the statistics are in my area I am not sure. We do have over 2 dozen Christian churches in a town of around 16000. Many of these are small non-denominational churches. Some of the denominational churches are also small, but I know some of the mainline churches have weekend attendance numbers of well over 1000.

[realthinker]

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?

It means they're cherry-picking. They've decided to interpret what Christianity means rather than recognize any of the authorities.

[Skeptic]

This would be very different from my experience. I go to a non-denominational church and attend quite regularly (might I say religiously? ). So do most of the others who attend this church.

The same is true of many other attendees of non-denominational churches in our area. In fact, my anecdotal evidence would suggest that those who attend the non-denominational churches are more regular in attendance than some of the mainline churches (a few of which I have occasion to visit).

Now, it certainly could be there are many in town who are as you describe. Non-attendees who profess to be non-denominational. What the statistics are in my area I am not sure. We do have over 2 dozen Christian churches in a town of around 16000. Many of these are small non-denominational churches. Some of the denominational churches are also small, but I know some of the mainline churches have weekend attendance numbers of well over 1000.

The key word is attend. Also living in a small community might have an affect on what people say and do. If everybody knows when you are not at church it is hard to lie about it. I live in Phoenix, I think our population is just over 3 million. Nobody knows anybody really. I sure wish I lived in a smaller community but our careers are here so this is where we live.

This is an interesting topic as I didn't actually know that there were that many non-denominational Christian churches out there. I honestly thought it was just something people say when they aren't sure themselves.

[McCulloch]

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.