Just what IS a "denomination"?

[Guest]

1. Rick, would you list a few of those denominations which do not have church membership, or which do not require membership for full fellowship?

2. Having done so, would you also state exactly what characteristics these groups do have which qualifies them as "denominations"?

3. While you're at it, would you also state what characteristics a group would have to have in order to correctly label it as "non-denominational"?

1. I'm sure there are more, but The Church of God, (based in), Anderson, Indiana does not have church membership. These churches always have open communion for anyone who is a Christian.

2. I think your list covers much if not most of it.

3. I'd say, they simply have no denominational affiliation.
Keeping in mind that many churches who call themselves "non-denominational" are often in fellowship, agree on doctrine and so on, with other groups or churches who have no denominational affiliations. In this sense, these churches or groups can be said to have some kind of 'affiliation' between themselves though they haven't formally merged, imo. (They may be mutual members of the same para-church orgs. as well).

[Guest]

This may be irreverent ...

Is it possible that denominations are created and sustained by professional clergymen to provide employment and retirement pensions for themselves?

That may be a bit harsh.

I suppose that it is possible that some denominations were created to provide employment for someone, but I doubt that most of them started with that as the goal. I would wager to guess that most movements that led to the formation of new denominations probably began with the best of intentions. Some, like Wesley's movement, did not begin with the goal of breaking away from the "mother" church. Rather, they hoped to reform the existing church.

Now, whether denominations are sustained by clergy for the purpose of self-employment is a different question. Being an optimist, I like to think that there any many pastors who support their denominations out of very sincere motives. But, I suppose it is completely possible that some clergymen are guided by less noble ideals, and that they labor as hard to maintain their jobs as they do to minister Christ.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

1. Rick, would you list a few of those denominations which do not have church membership, or which do not require membership for full fellowship?

Rick replied:

I'm sure there are more, but The Church of God, (based in), Anderson, Indiana does not have church membership. These churches always have open communion for anyone who is a Christian.

Yes, there are more: various other "Churches of God", "Churches of Christ", "Plymouth Brethren ('open' type)" to mention a few. I do not regard these as denominations. By not requiring membership for fellowship, they recognize others as part of the church which Christ founded (hereafter called the "CHURCH"). They believe that you cannot join the CHURCH, but that "the Lord adds to the CHURCH those who are being saved". By gathering with them, other disciples are on an equal footing with them and qualify for communion, having a voice in decision making, as well as all other privileges shared by those who regularly gather with them. Further, they take on a Biblical name for their church group or for its members, Church of God, or Church of Christ or Christian Church, or Brethren or Fellowship of Believers, etc. ("Plymouth brethren" is a name given to them by others. They call themelves merely "brethren"). They do not try to separate themselves from other Christians either by creeds or any other distinctive. As I see it, it is these characteristics which make them non-denominational.

2. Having done so, would you also state exactly what characteristics these groups do have which qualifies them as "denominations"?

Rick replied:

I think your list covers much if not most of it.

I would like to see you be specific so that I know what you think constitutes a denomination.

In my view, a denomination holds the view that the CHURCH is divided into denominations, much as we have various makes of automobiles: Chevrolets, Fords, etc. They all serve the same purpose, but have distinctive characteristics. When you "join" their church, you hold to their distincitives, their distinctive "statement of faith", their distincitive name "Baptist", "Presbyterian", "Lutheran", etc. In many denominational churches, when you are baptized at that church you are baptized "into the local church" or "into the denomination". Non-denominational churches usually regard your baptism as being "into Christ".

3. While you're at it, would you also state what characteristics a group would have to have in order to correctly label it as "non-denominational"?

Rick replied:

I'd say, they simply have no denominational affiliation.
Keeping in mind that many churches who call themselves "non-denominational" are often in fellowship, agree on doctrine and so on, with other groups or churches who have no denominational affiliations. In this sense, these churches or groups can be said to have some kind of 'affiliation' between themselves though they haven't formally merged, imo. (They may be mutual members of the same para-church orgs. as well).

Well, to say that non-denominational churches are churches which have no denominational affiliation is tautologous. If by "denomination" you simply mean "a circle of churches in mutual fellowship" then only independent churches are "non-denominational". However, I think the meaning of "non-denominational" is much broader. Even independent churches may have a denominational spirit; it's just that their denomination is limited to a single church. I think I have expressed my view of "non-denominationalism" fairly completely in my comments after your response to part 1.

I don't regard denominations as part of the CHURCH. I see them are man-made religious CLUBS. However, I do recognize some of their members as part of the CHURCH. There are CHURCH members in many clubs --- the 4H Club, the Lion's Club, etc.

The denominational spirit can increase in a church and move into escalating isolation. Here are the views that might be taken in each step of the move toward total independency:

1. The CHURCH is divided into denominations. All are more or less on equal footing before the Lord.

2. My denomination is superior to others because of the following distinctives....

3. My denomination is getting off course (perhaps "too modernistic" or "too rigid" or "too legalistic" or "too tolerant", etc. etc.) and so my friends and I are pulling out and forming an independent church.

4. The others in my church are getting off course, and so I am pulling out and serving the Lord in the way that He is leading me.

5. Since I've separated from all forms of religion, I've formed a creed, actually a testimony which I sing to my self in a little ditty:

I'm the one and only member, and I'm very proud to be
Of the most exclusive club that holds the truth for all to see.

Here is my favourite hymn which I sing to myself:

On the Jericho road, there's room for just two;
No more and no less; Just Jesus and you.
Every burden He'll bear; Every sorrow He'll share.
There's never a care when Jesus is there.

[Guest]

I would like to see you be specific so that I know what you think constitutes a denomination.

Any group of churches which are in fellowship with one another.
Any group of churches which hold to the same theological beliefs.
Any group of churches which are an expression of the body of Christ.
Any group of churches which require formal membership for full fellowship.
Any group of churches which do not require formal membership for full fellowship.
Any group of churches which are distinctive from other churches in terms of belief and practice.
Any group of churches which have separated from a larger body.
Formal organization (statements of faith, a headquarters with administration), etc.
I view Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as denominations in that they formally organized after the NT era. They would dispute this, of course.

No true Christian sees denominational differences as significant in terms of all Christians being united in Christ. (That sums it up, basically, imo).

[Guest]

I don't regard denominations as part of the CHURCH. I see them are man-made religious CLUBS. However, I do recognize some of their members as part of the CHURCH. There are CHURCH members in many clubs --- the 4H Club, the Lion's Club, etc.

I understood what you were saying up until the beginning of the next sentence; then you lost me. Do the 4H Club or the Lion's become infected with the "denominational spirit?"

The denominational spirit can increase in a church and move into escalating isolation. Here are the views that might be taken in each step of the move toward total independency:

1. The CHURCH is divided into denominations. All are more or less on equal footing before the Lord.

2. My denomination is superior to others because of the following distinctives....

3. My denomination is getting off course (perhaps "too modernistic" or "too rigid" or "too legalistic" or "too tolerant", etc. etc.) and so my friends and I are pulling out and forming an independent church.

4. The others in my church are getting off course, and so I am pulling out and serving the Lord in the way that He is leading me.

5. Since I've separated from all forms of religion, I've formed a creed, actually a testimony which I sing to my self in a little ditty:

I'm the one and only member, and I'm very proud to be
Of the most exclusive club that holds the truth for all to see.

Here is my favourite hymn which I sing to myself:

On the Jericho road, there's room for just two;
No more and no less; Just Jesus and you.
Every burden He'll bear; Every sorrow He'll share.
There's never a care when Jesus is there.

Do you know anybody personally that has gone down this road?

Your little ditties sound pretty sarcastic. Do you believe that every person who hasn't attached himself or herself to a formal fellowship of believers is exhibiting that amount of pride?

[Guest]

I don't regard denominations as part of the CHURCH. I see them are man-made religious CLUBS. However, I do recognize some of their members as part of the CHURCH. There are CHURCH members in many clubs --- the 4H Club, the Lion's Club, etc.

I understood what you were saying up until the beginning of the next sentence; then you lost me. Do the 4H Club or the Lion's become infected with the "denominational spirit?"

There is no hidden agenda here. What I said is completely straight-forward. You find members of the CHURCH in the 4H Club, the Lion's Club, and many others. But that doesn't mean that any of these clubs are part of the Church. Likewise, you find many members of the CHURCH within denominations. That doesn't mean that denominations are part of the CHURCH. I'm not sure that what I've just written will make be any clearer to you, but I don't know what else to say. I thought the way I originally said it was clear. I'm puzzled as to why I "lost" you.

Do you know anybody personally that has gone down this road?

I met such a person at a Christian conference. The man seemed most sincere; indeed, he prayed with my wife and gave her a personal prophecy. He spoke of his having left all "religion", and now had difficulty in meeting for prayer with some of his friends of like mind lest they get into "religious" formalism. So for him and his friends it was just "Jesus and me."

Your little ditties sound pretty sarcastic. Do you believe that every person who hasn't attached himself or herself to a formal fellowship of believers is exhibiting that amount of pride?

I don't know about "pride", but if you omit the word "formal" in your question, then I would suspect that most people who separate themselves from other Christians are moving into isolation. But I don't hold any firm belief about it.

By the way, the second "little ditty" is an actual hymn found in older hymn books. So don't give me any credit or discredit for it.

The first one was my own composition, but since the time I posted it, I have revised it:

I'm the one and only member, and I'm very proud to be
Of the most exclusive church, "The Church of I, Myself, and Me".

I did not and do not intend it to be sarcastic ---- only realistic. I did smile a bit in composing this "little ditty". I find that when I am concerned about spiritually unhealthy choices of my fellow disciples, it is better for my mental well-being and more pleasant for others if I joke about it a bit rather than get angry about it.

During the days of the Soviet Union, the government took advantage of workers who could scarcely earn enough to live. Rather than complain about their plight they joked about it. Here is one of the stories that was shared among the workers:

One of the commissars approached a worker, asking how the tomato crops were coming.

"Oh, wonderful, Commissar! There are so many tomatoes that if you piled them all together, they would reach right up to God in heaven!

"Comrade! Why are you talking that way? You know there's no God and no heaven!"

"True," the worker replied. "And there's no tomatoes, either!"

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

I apologize. It was my imprecise wording and copy-and-pasting that caused you to have to write that explanation. The paragraph that I quoted, and that you explained, was actually very clear. I understood that part completely ... and I agree with you! It was what came after that paragraph that I was asking about. This is the paragraph that needed no explanation:

I don't regard denominations as part of the CHURCH. I see them are man-made religious CLUBS. However, I do recognize some of their members as part of the CHURCH. There are CHURCH members in many clubs --- the 4H Club, the Lion's Club, etc.

Again, I'm sorry that I wasted your time explaining it.

This is the part I wanted more explanation about:

The denominational spirit can increase in a church and move into escalating isolation. Here are the views that might be taken in each step of the move toward total independency:

1. The CHURCH is divided into denominations. All are more or less on equal footing before the Lord.

2. My denomination is superior to others because of the following distinctives....

3. My denomination is getting off course (perhaps "too modernistic" or "too rigid" or "too legalistic" or "too tolerant", etc. etc.) and so my friends and I are pulling out and forming an independent church.

4. The others in my church are getting off course, and so I am pulling out and serving the Lord in the way that He is leading me.

5. Since I've separated from all forms of religion, I've formed a creed, actually a testimony which I sing to my self in a little ditty:

I'm the one and only member, and I'm very proud to be
Of the most exclusive club that holds the truth for all to see.

Here is my favourite hymn which I sing to myself:

On the Jericho road, there's room for just two;
No more and no less; Just Jesus and you.
Every burden He'll bear; Every sorrow He'll share.
There's never a care when Jesus is there.

I asked if you knew anyone who had gone down that road. You gave an example of a man you met at a conference who is now afraid of getting back into "religious" formalism. Thanks for that example.

I asked:

Do you believe that every person who hasn't attached himself or herself to a formal fellowship of believers is exhibiting that amount of pride?

and you answered:

I don't know about "pride", but if you omit the word "formal" in your question, then I would suspect that most people who separate themselves from other Christians are moving into isolation. But I don't hold any firm belief about it.

And I would agree! Any believer who separates himself from other believers is moving into isolation. That poor man you mentioned above, for instance. I'm just surprised and concerned that you seem to think that it's an inevitable progression. (regression?)

By the way, in step 4 the believer is following the Lord in the way He is leading. Do you mean that sarcastically, as though the person has not really heard from the Lord? Because, come on, aren't we supposed to follow the leading of the Lord?

I did not and do not intend it to be sarcastic ---- only realistic. I did smile a bit in composing this "little ditty". I find that when I am concerned about spiritually unhealthy choices of my fellow disciples, it is better for my mental well-being and more pleasant for others if I joke about it a bit rather than get angry about it.

OK.

I find humor in most situations; it's probably why my blood pressure seldom gets too high. But there is a world of difference between laughing at your own predicament and making fun of other's. You've painted with a pretty broad brush here; first to denigrate "denominations", which, when you boil down your definition, seems to be any Christian organization that doesn't agree with your particular understanding; then to lay out a path leading to isolation for any believer who finds himself inside one of those denominations. Next you make up a little verse to amuse yourself with so you don't become angry with what you've just declared "spiritually unhealthy choices." It comes across as arrogant and usually you don't strike me as an arrogant man.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion.

Maybe you have addressed this already but for my benefit maybe you will again. What do you see as the proper solution outside of denominationalism? I find in my research that home churches are just as vulnerable to the occurance of the points you made. Just because a home church exists it does not provide immunity from the denominational mindset. In fact the gravitational pull is just as strong but the people involved simply have a different set of values with regard to corporate worship.

Do you see a solution in avoiding this shared element whether home churched or mega churched?

[Guest]

By the way, in step 4 the believer is following the Lord in the way He is leading. Do you mean that sarcastically, as though the person has not really heard from the Lord? Because, come on, aren't we supposed to follow the leading of the Lord?

I meant that this is usually the justification for leaving. The Lord's purpose is to unite his disciples, not divide them. In Jesus' wonderful prayer in John 17, he prayed that his disciples might be one as he and the Father are one. It seems that that prayer has not yet been fulfilled. Jesus and the Father are completely ONE in purpose, action, love, and in every other way (except possible "knowledge"; there seems to be scriptural evidence that Jesus is not omniscient, whereas the Father is). But instead of coming into unity, Christ's disciples are constantly dividing. I don't say that "coming out" from a group or denomination never arises from the Lord's leading. However, I think in most cases, the person coming out is either saying that as a justification, knowing such language is acceptable to Christians, or else he mistakenly thinks the Lord has led him because he wants out so badly.

I'm just surprised and concerned that you seem to think that it's an inevitable progression. (regression?)

I don't think I said or implied that the progession is inevitable. Indeed, I know many people that have remained in stage 1, 2, or 3 for decades,
or even for the rest of their lives. I've also known many people who have moved from stage 1 through 3, and some who have gone as far as 4.

My point in bringing out the stages was just to illustrate the natural progression down toward isolation until it's finally "just Jesus and me" (which usually ends up being "just me").

What do you see as the proper solution outside of denominationalism?

I refer you to my answer to a similar question on another thread:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... ght=#29224