Non Denominational Churches?

[Pete Richert]

Those churches that seem to imply that they are exalting Christ and not denominationalism are usually doing exactly that which they say they avoid. Typically, these churches have identifiers or *something* of a statement of faith. These identifiers denominate these churches and literally dismantle and undermine that which they confess and defend.

I totally agree. Churches (such as the Church of Christ) who say they are not a denomination because denominations are evil are just being silly. In a very general sense, denomination justs groups beliefs together. It is only some very large groups of people that set up actual orgainized structures (like conventions) and then get attacked for being a denomination. There is a church in Southern California called Calvery Chapel that labels itself as non-denominational. Of course, now there are about twenty branches all across the United States who all get their training from the same Calvery Chapel seminary, and the large group itself has become a denomination, the Calvery Chapel Denomination.

There is nothing wrong with orgainzed strutures. Paul and Barnabas went back to Jerusalem to see what the Aposltes thought concerning Gentile Circumicion. And they had a big "council" about the matter.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Funny you mention Calvary Chapel. This is *the* most excellent example of propagating the erroneous idea of that which I suggest. C.C. say's they are *non denominational*, yet they denominate themselves by counting themselves (in regards to churches). They do not have a membership, hence they do not count members....but they do guess-timate. They also have a statement of faith (of sorts). These ideas surely point to making them a denomination, the Calvary Chapel denomination. The error of *no membership* is another issue. One might wonder if one can be truly a church without a membership?

IN HIM,
Scott

 

[Charlie the Chaplain]

I have been a Independant Baptist KJV since I was saved 21 years ago. Now a preacher in 7 nursing homes. In the nursing homes I have to go as a Non-denominational to attract the catholics and protestants. Baptist were never protestant, they never came out of catholicism. But inorder to reach these folk I enter the homes as tell them that we are holding a non-denomonational service to sing and praise and preach the Word of God. Most of the people that come are catholic, and come regularly. They see that they can get a different message every week. They like that and return. I believe many were saved because of it.
However, in the community where people have the choice of churches in the area,not in a nursing home situation, I would rather see a labled church. For as a missionary, if I am trying to find a church to worship in I want to see the sign "Fundamental Independant Baptist Church" because I know what I am getting for doctrine and bible.
Besides denominations do mean something in the world. A 20 dollar bill is worth more that a 5 dollar bill. or does it really mean any thing to you? If it does not I will trade my 5 for your 20 any day of the week. It will get me enough gas for the next nursing home.

 

[Pete Richert]

Scott,

I believe that is exactly what I was saying. Calvery Chapel is becoming a denomination all its own.

The error of *no membership* is another issue. One might wonder if one can be truly a church without a membership?

Chapter and verse?

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Pete,
Thanks for your challenge to present scripture and verse in regards to my proposition.I am going to assume your understanding of this topic is not *skewed* by the idea that the invisible body of believers is the facilitator for "true" membership and that is what is all that is needed for a church to function biblically. You do agree that a biblical church is to function in a certain manner, correct? For instance, how can one discipline it's members if one has no membership? How can a church excommunicate those in error if there is no communicants? surely you can see in the book of Acts that the church numerated itself. The description in Acts is forthright in describing the *local church assembly*.

Act 2:41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need.
Act 2:46 And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,
Act 2:47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved.

Non denominational churches say they do not have a membership and because of this idea, do not count their members. In the book of Acts, the right hand of fellowship was given to certain men and woman of a local assembly. What do you think this implied? Leaders are elected in churches who have members that vote; who elects leaders in non denominational churches; there are no members? If there are no members, why would one need a leader? If one initiates a club (say, a secular motorcycle club) and no one joins, is it truly a club? The club MUST have members before it is technically a club. It cannot function as a club if it has only the initiator of the idea. A general assembly or meeting implies just that, members meet! If there are no members, there cannot be a meeting.
How about the Lords supper? How would on define who is to partake? Or do you feel that everyone should partake? Membership allows the body to enumerate itself, to facilitate a knowledge of who is present and what their goals are. To initiate the workings of church life and church government. The present day idea that membership is error, is in itself not doing the body any justice; it is error! Granted, one may be hard pressed to present a scriptural case for it; it may be easier to present a historical one.

IN HIM,
Scott

[ May 20, 2002, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Scott Bushey ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by longshot:
[Just curious Dr. Bob, Is the Community Church in Casper charismatic and is that why you referred to it as cult? My curiousity is based on being raised in a non-charismatic Church of God headquarted in Anderson, Indiana. ("Church of God" being the source of confusion for many).[QB]

Don't know all the paramutations of the churches labeled as "Church of God", but this one is full of the "oneness" teaching (non-trinitarian) which makes them by definition not "orthodox" Christians.

Interestingly, they have a variety of SS classes for adults, each taught by a person from a different denominational background. So if you are a Baptist and come to visit, you go to a class that will not mention things offensive to baptists, etc.

Gospel preaching and folks do get saved there. Real problem is the children whose parents come from baptist churches and think, Wow! This is just like a Baptist church because of their pro-baptist SS Class. While their kids are being spoon-fed other doctrine.

 

[Multimom]

As the daughter of a Baptist Preacher (SBC) for 48 years, and now a member of an interdenominational church, let me give you a tidbit from experience on both sides of this issue.

Many Baptist churches have abandoned the name due to the embarrassing things that happen at the Convention both on the national and state level.

The media has made such a mockery of the division within the SBC that in order to eliminate the stigma many have removed "Baptist" from their names. Most however upon inspection by any member will find that these churches are truly Baptist not just in name but also in theology.

Now personally for me, I attend a inter-denominational church because of some personal beliefs that I have which I am convinced are scriptural, not just because someone told me, but because I studied it out and prayed it through. But on the whole these churches are in some way connected. Either by pastorial relation (i.e. a non-denominational church may have a pastor that is ordained in the Assemblies of God, but the church is not an affiliate) or by church association, for example, the church I attend is an interdenominational church which is affiliated with Church on the Rock.

So I'm not so sure that "ashamed" of the denomination is accurate, more likely embarrassed by the division. And lets be realistic, the convention is sorely divided. If you don't believe it check out what is being taught in some seminaries and some private Baptist Universities.

In fact one of the largest Baptist Universities (Houston Baptist University) is almost so secular in nature that its Baptist Charter should be revoked. I think the same thing should have happened to Baylor 15 years ago.

Oh well, just my insite and 2 cents.

 

[Johnv]

What denomination was Peter, John, Stephen, Paul, etc? Were they covering up something?

Uhhh, if I remember correctly, they were Palestinian Jews. They also believed a Jewish man named Joshua (in Greek, "Jesus") was the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures (or, as we know, the Old Testament).

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Johnv:
What denomination was Peter, John, Stephen, Paul, etc?

Well, they were all baptized by a Baptist, so . . . .