Non denominational churches

Albion said:

Don't work so hard to make something out of nothing. The language isn't your enemy.

Click to expand...

Nope, its not the language thats my enemy, but how certain ppl use it, in many walks of life, to try to lord it over me and others, or throw sneaky little fiery darts, that shows their intentions to be just that.

And Jesus doesnt like that kind of thing ... in fact, Jesus HATES doctrines that lord it over others and dictate works-righteousness as a form of religious oppression.

The bible says the heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. (who can know it? :scared

Since many internet chatforum sites are designed to feed deceit, its important to be wise and discerning. The devil roams about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, but he comes DISGUISED as an angel or messenger of light.

Thats why its unwise and even unsafe to just assume ppl are on your side.
But the bible says we'll know the enemy by their fruits, (and sometimes ppl confuse 'playing nicey-nice' with being christian.) Its the fruit of doctrine thats important, especially when the only communication is thru reading and writing.

Because you cant look in someones eyes, you cant hear their voice, and ppl can easily deceive you with typing 'just the right words' they know will suck you in. Ive been a first-hand witness to it, and at times have been partly fooled by it myself. It can happen bc sometimes ppl WANT to believe in the goodness of others, and the enemy knows how to exploit that. And religion is one of the biggest , no really THE biggest means of deception there is, imo.

Thats why I dont think its a good idea to just assume ppl are christians ... Its better to assume theyre not, and then watch what they believe and teach, as well as the underhanded mocking, smirking, ridicule, etc., to see.

When you lift up the Lord and praise him that He saved you, and you get works-righteousness and sneering thrown at you instead of mutual rejoicing and joy from a friend and brother/sister, its a pretty good indication of who or what you're dealing with.

Snerfle said:

Nope, its not the language thats my enemy, but how certain ppl use it, in many walks of life, to try to lord it over me and others, or throw sneaky little fiery darts, that shows their intentions to be just that.

Click to expand...

All right. So you're saying that you have a personal problem based upon some of life's experiences. I would hope that we would not inject that sort of thing, meaningful as it might be to the person speaking, into a post that deals with the meaning of the word (Christian) itself.

Thats why I dont think its a good idea to just assume ppl are christians ... Its better to assume theyre not, and then watch what they believe and teach....
When you lift up the Lord and praise him that He saved you, and you get works-righteousness and sneering thrown at you instead of mutual rejoicing and joy from a friend and brother/sister, its a pretty good indication of who or what you're dealing with.

Click to expand...

Once again you are insisting upon confining the word (Christian) to a good example of a Christian, to someone who behaves and believes as a true Christian ought. I wasn't using the word in that sense when you got all upset at me saying that we're all Christians here. I am not taking exception to your use of the word, but I was using it in a different sense, that's all.

And BTW, in that other thread which picked up on this topic, I asked why we have "Christian" as one of the choices a new CH member can select for his profile. Several people replied to say something or other about the Nicene Creed, etc. but the point was that the word is used there in the same way as society generally uses it and in the way I used it earlier in this thread--as a simple identification of a religious preference. It obviously is NOT in that list to be selected only if everyone else thinks you are as upright, sincere, devout, doctrinally straight, etc. as a true Christian ought to be--and as you're talking about in this post to which I'm replying.

Albion said:

All right. So you're saying that you have a personal problem based upon some of life's experiences. I would hope that we would not inject that sort of thing, meaningful as it might be to the person speaking, into a post that deals with the meaning of the word (Christian) itself.



Once again you are insisting upon confining the word (Christian) to a good example of a Christian, to someone who behaves and believes as a true Christian ought. I wasn't using the word in that sense when you got all upset at me saying that we're all Christians here. I am not taking exception to your use of the word, but I was using it in a different sense, that's all.

And BTW, in that other thread which picked up on this topic, I asked why we have "Christian" as one of the choices a new CH member can select for his profile. Several people replied to say something or other about the Nicene Creed, etc. but the point was that the word is used there in the same way as society generally uses it and in the way I used it earlier in this thread--as a simple identification of a religious preference. It obviously is NOT in that list to be selected only if everyone else thinks you are as upright, sincere, devout, doctrinally straight, etc. as a true Christian ought to be--and as you're talking about in this post to which I'm replying.

Click to expand...

For me, the best reason to label as a generic Christian, outside of denominational boundaries, is to avoid the all too common stereotypes that happen with a more specific label. Being generic allows an open audience where being specific may close a person's mind before discussion can even begin.
I use Tapatalk as my app so I never see a person's denomination label. I like that. I'm more concerned with the content of a person's thoughts than I am with their denominational affiliation.

MennoSota said:

For me, the best reason to label as a generic Christian, outside of denominational boundaries, is to avoid the all too common stereotypes that happen with a more specific label. Being generic allows an open audience where being specific may close a person's mind before discussion can even begin.
I use Tapatalk as my app so I never see a person's denomination label. I like that. I'm more concerned with the content of a person's thoughts than I am with their denominational affiliation.

Click to expand...

The generic "Christian" more often than not means a person who is fundamentally a baptist but refuses denominational labels. "Christian" is every bit as likely to invoke stereotypes as "Baptist" would.

MoreCoffee said:

The generic "Christian" more often than not means a person who is fundamentally a baptist but refuses denominational labels. "Christian" is every bit as likely to invoke stereotypes as "Baptist" would.

Click to expand...

Not really.
I find many people labeling themselves as Christian who barely enter a church door. Many have Roman church and Lutheran church backgrounds, but find the church empty of substance or value for their lives. They look at the pedophile priests and cringe so they avoid the term Catholic and just say they are Christian.

MennoSota said:

For me, the best reason to label as a generic Christian, outside of denominational boundaries, is to avoid the all too common stereotypes that happen with a more specific label. Being generic allows an open audience where being specific may close a person's mind before discussion can even begin.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's to look at it in a sympathetic way. But it's also true that allowing any member to choose Christian or Non-denominational merely allows that person to pass for whatever denominational orientation he wants, whenever he wants.

MennoSota said:

Not really.
I find many people labeling themselves as Christian who barely enter a church door. Many have Roman church and Lutheran church backgrounds, but find the church empty of substance or value for their lives. They look at the pedophile priests and cringe so they avoid the term Catholic and just say they are Christian.

Click to expand...

sexual exploitation of children and women is very wicked and also common enough in Baptist and non-denominational churches to make the headlines frequently. Isn't the current political scandal centred around a self-proclaimed champion of evangelical Christianity who is a candidate for the Republican party in the Alabama senate race? And even President Trump makes a big showing of his alleged Christianity yet he is implicated in numerous sexual exploitation scandals arising from his own comments on a bus.Some priests and some bishops have wickedly exploited children but the same is true of some pastors and some preachers.

MoreCoffee said:

sexual exploitation of children and women is very wicked and also common enough in Baptist and non-denominational churches to make the headlines frequently. Isn't the current political scandal centred around a self-proclaimed champion of evangelical Christianity who is a candidate for the Republican party in the Alabama senate race? .

Click to expand...

Well, he is a champion of Christian belief and practice. Many years ago he was a Democrat and not a champion of Christianity.

MoreCoffee said:

Some priests and some bishops have wickedly exploited children but the same is true of some pastors and some preachers.

Click to expand...

True, but your church still wins the contest in several different ways. That fact shouldn't be minimized even if it's correct to say that these scandals are not confined to any one denomination.

Albion said:

True, but your church still wins the contest in several different ways. That fact shouldn't be minimized even if it's correct to say that these scandals are not confined to any one denomination.

Click to expand...

It ought not be forgotten that both the Jones Town massacre and Waco Branch Davidian killings were non-denominational (or new denominational) scandals of sexual exploitation and mass killing.

Albion said:

Yes, and that's to look at it in a sympathetic way. But it's also true that allowing any member to choose Christian or Non-denominational merely allows that person to pass for whatever denominational orientation he wants, whenever he wants.

Click to expand...

It may mean that denomination designation is merely a human construct by which subgroups are created.
The Bible is not denominational in any facet.

MoreCoffee said:

sexual exploitation of children and women is very wicked and also common enough in Baptist and non-denominational churches to make the headlines frequently.

Click to expand...

Of course, the ISSUE in that horrible RCC chapter was not so much the monsterous things some Catholic clergy did to poor, innocent Catholic boys (horrible as that was) but the cover up by the RC Denomination. Nearly all the court cases and all the fines were for that - the denomination's cover ups. BUT I think some good actually came out of that horrific chapter - ALL denominations very carefully examined their policies in this regard, even beyond, Schools, sporting organizations, scouting organizations, they ALL looked very, very, very carefully at their own policies and procedures. While we must weep for these innocent Catholic boys (and their families)... and nothing can "make up" for that.... at least it wasn't totally in vain: The exposure of that has likely meant fewer children are being abused today. I pray.

But to the point here: While the RC Denomination failed here, at least there SHOULD have been (and I believe now strongly IS) in place supervision of clergy and parishes. This is one of the many advantages of belonging to a denomination. Stand-alone, independent, isolated congregations (non-denoms) have nothing outside or above itself to oversee finances, theology and these kinds of issues. While the RC Denomination so horribly failed here, at least we all saw the NEED for it (and all denominations) to do it's job.... and perhaps also why non-denoms have a potentially dangerous void there being without any external supervision/accountability.


- Josiah

MoreCoffee said:

sexual exploitation of children and women is very wicked and also common enough in Baptist and non-denominational churches to make the headlines frequently. Isn't the current political scandal centred around a self-proclaimed champion of evangelical Christianity who is a candidate for the Republican party in the Alabama senate race? And even President Trump makes a big showing of his alleged Christianity yet he is implicated in numerous sexual exploitation scandals arising from his own comments on a bus.Some priests and some bishops have wickedly exploited children but the same is true of some pastors and some preachers.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. Distancing from a shamed group causes people to move toward generic labels or relabelling (rebranding) of the name.

MennoSota said:

It may mean that denomination designation is merely a human construct by which subgroups are created.
The Bible is not denominational in any facet.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is right to say that any bible is not denominational. The KJV is Anglican in emphasis. The NIV is evangelical. Catholic bibles are Catholic in tone. Every bible has its biases. And besides that there is the fact that even the bible's authors had a perspective. Think of how the Samaritan woman at the well saw Jewish scripture and religion.

MennoSota said:

It may mean that denomination designation is merely a human construct by which subgroups are created.
The Bible is not denominational in any facet.

Click to expand...

That's a theological issue, not what I was speaking to.

If there are denominations to choose from for one's profile on a discussion board, there ought not also to be one that says, in effect, "all of them."

MennoSota said:

You are absolutely correct. Distancing from a shamed group causes people to move toward generic labels or relabelling (rebranding) of the name.

Click to expand...

People distance themselves from other people's sins all the time. That is the heart of human hypocrisy isn't it? Pretend that "we" are not like "them" because "they" did such horrible things and "we" didn't. But as soon as "we" are exposed as having very wicked people in our midst "we" distance ourselves from "them" and start the hypocritical thing all over again. As an example Jones Town started as a normal evangelical sort of religion in the USA and slowly crept towards its extreme views until eventually it all went wrong and hundreds died. The same seems to be how it went with the Branch Davidians. They started as a branch of Adventists and slowly became extreme and then they became dead. Albion is right that some bishops covered up the crimes of some priests and that even the Curia in Rome was complicit in hushing it up. It's still a very scandalous and horrible aspect of curia duplicity and a terrible example of how people in positions of power prefer to protect their power more than they want to help victims of wicked churchmen. I think it is shocking that the Catholic Church's hierarchy has so many men implicated in these things. I also think it is shocking that Evangelicals distance themselves from Jones Town and the Branch Davidians and numerous other exploitative churches and preachers who "get exposed". Human beings sin a lot. Much too much for anybody to play the "we" versus "they" game. No church and no denomination and no religious group is spotless even though members are tempted to pretend that theirs is.

MoreCoffee said:

I don't think it is right to say that any bible is not denominational. The KJV is Anglican in emphasis. The NIV is evangelical. Catholic bibles are Catholic in tone. Every bible has its biases. And besides that there is the fact that even the bible's authors had a perspective. Think of how the Samaritan woman at the well saw Jewish scripture and religion.

Click to expand...

The text of the scripture is not denominational.
Each denomination may choose a specific translation that fits their presuppositions. For example, the Roman church in the US has used the New Jerusalem Bible and added its own commentary in the text for congregants.
Other denominations may choose a different translation and suggest a different commentary such as Ryrie or Scofield. My personal preference is to purchase a bible with no comments from any outside source. I just want the text. Usually I read two or three translations to see how translators interpreted a certain word. Then I check with my Young's concordance and Vine's expository dictionary to get a deeper meaning of a greek word.
The text itself has no denominational connection.

Albion said:

That's a theological issue, not what I was speaking to.

If there are denominations to choose from for one's profile on a discussion board, there ought not also to be one that says, in effect, "all of them."

Click to expand...

"All of them" would not be accurate. There are many intra-biblical cults that identify as Christian. The Mormons call themselves Christians.

MoreCoffee said:

People distance themselves from other people's sins all the time. That is the heart of human hypocrisy isn't it? Pretend that "we" are not like "them" because "they" did such horrible things and "we" didn't. But as soon as "we" are exposed as having very wicked people in our midst "we" distance ourselves from "them" and start the hypocritical thing all over again. As an example Jones Town started as a normal evangelical sort of religion in the USA and slowly crept towards its extreme views until eventually it all went wrong and hundreds died. The same seems to be how it went with the Branch Davidians. They started as a branch of Adventists and slowly became extreme and then they became dead. Albion is right that some bishops covered up the crimes of some priests and that even the Curia in Rome was complicit in hushing it up. It's still a very scandalous and horrible aspect of curia duplicity and a terrible example of how people in positions of power prefer to protect their power more than they want to help victims of wicked churchmen. I think it is shocking that the Catholic Church's hierarchy has so many men implicated in these things. I also think it is shocking that Evangelicals distance themselves from Jones Town and the Branch Davidians and numerous other exploitative churches and preachers who "get exposed". Human beings sin a lot. Much too much for anybody to play the "we" versus "they" game. No church and no denomination and no religious group is spotless even though members are tempted to pretend that theirs is.

Click to expand...

Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are clearly intra-biblical cults. Only their followers would ever label as such.

MennoSota said:

"All of them" would not be accurate.

Click to expand...

"would not be accurate" according to some standard of belief, practice, or sincerity. That's not what I was referring to in my previous post.