Why Do Some People Have A Problem With Non-Denom People Self-Identifyi

[cooterhein]

Let me be especially clear in what I mean by this question. I happen to be non-denominational myself, so as you might guess, I know where I go to church. I know why it's called what it is. I know all the different ways in which I might choose to identify myself, and I know all my reasons for identifying myself if any given way. They are my reasons, after all.

As you may or may not guess- though I think you should be able to- I am not asking this in the interest of finding out what you think I think before you know anything about me, what you think is wrong with the way I think, or what you think is wrong with me in general. So don't lead with that. If we wind up getting there, I guess that's fine, but at least do me the courtesy of asking [b]me[/b] to supply you with the information about who I am, how/why I self-identify in a particular way, and any information about my church background that might be pertinent. I supply specific information about myself when you ask for it, [b]then[/b] you have something to comment on. You do not begin your response by talking about who/what it is that I am and all the things that are wrong with me.

That's not what I'm asking for. And if you take a second to look back at the OP before you reply, you will know enough to avoid an initial response that looks anything like that.

If you happen to be a person who has some type of problem with non-Catholics who self-identify as non-denominational, I want to know about [b]you.[/b] Tell me something about [b]you.[/b] You could begin with something like "Here's the thing about me." Or "This is the thing about me that explains why I have such a problem with that."

If you aren't one of these people but you know something about them, I would appreciate your input as well. You might start by saying "I'm a Catholic who doesn't have any problem with the non-denom label, but I know something about the people who do, and I think I'm in a good position to tell you why they might do this."

That is what I'm looking for- at least at the outset. If that's not what you're willing to respond with, by all means, find a different thread where you can respond as you see fit. Or wait until the first part is over, read what's there, and come back for part two. For starters, though, I want to know about you. If you want to know about me, ask me. I'll tell you. I'm right here. I started this thread, and I do plan on keeping up with it. I start by asking you to supply info about you, and I will read it. If you want to ask me for info about me, I will see that and respond to it. That's where I'd like to start. We go where it takes us afterward, but that's what I want to start with.

Once we get to the point where I have submitted some info about me and you have submitted some info about you....excuse me for a quick sidebar.

Point of clarification: I will submit info about me. You will submit info about you. I will not pretend to be more of an expert on you than you are, and you will not pretend to be more of an expert on me than I am. We will each do our best to avoid commenting in a way that shows incredulity or disrespect. If there's anything we don't know about each other, we ask in a way that is straightforward and ingenuous. (Opposite of disingenuous). End sidebar.

Once we've submitted [b]our own[/b] relevant info about ourselves, [b]then[/b] we can explore it a bit more and come to a better understanding of where everyone is coming from.

That's what I'm looking for. Boiled down to one sentence, If you have some kind of problem with non-denominational people identifying themselves in this way, what is it [b]about you[/b] that can help me better understand why this is?

I'm sure we'll have to spend at least a couple of pages discussing exactly what a denomination is. In keeping with what I'm asking for, though, you go right ahead and tell me what [b]you[/b] have to say about that. Then you politely ask me what it is I have to say about it. Then- [b]after that happens-[/b] we can engage in respectful commenting and clarification in order to achieve a better understanding of each other, even though we know we probably won't wind up agreeing on much of anything.

But that's not really the goal. The goal is to trade information and gain understanding in areas that are of mutual interest to us, albeit for different reasons. I will keep in mind that there are different kinds of Catholics, and each of you is best equipped to speak on behalf of a certain kind of Catholic. You can keep in mind that there are different kinds of non-denom congregations and individuals, and I am best equipped to speak on behalf of a certain kind of animal from my end. You guys can tell me about the specific animal I'm inquiring after, and I'll tell you exactly what animal I am. Once that happens and only after that happens, we can get into it a little bit more.

For starters, though, please tell me whatever I need to know about you. Or if it's not you, the kind of person I'm asking about.

[Vincent Vega]

I guess I don't have anything more against non-denoms than I do against other types of protestants.

[Vincent Vega]

Upon closer inspection, I guess I do. Your run of the mill Methodist doesn't, by his own actions, contribute to the further splintering of Christianity. Non-denoms do. That's what I have against non-denoms.

[ardillacid]

You clearly didn't read the OP

[RezaMikhaeil]

Many "non-denominational" churches identify themselves as such, as if they don't have an affiliation but there is often a common doctrinal thread through them, which unites them.

[dominicansoul]

i work with a bunch of non-denoms and fundies.

worst people i've ever worked with in my whole life! lol!!!!

[vee]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1313627600' post='2290211']
Let me be especially clear in what I mean by this question.
[/quote]

Then try to say it in like fifty words or less.

[dUSt]

I guess I view non-denoms as people who try to conform God to themselves, instead of trying to conform themselves to God. And I say this as s person who use to attend a non-denominational church.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1313633513' post='2290309']
Many "non-denominational" churches identify themselves as such, as if they don't have an affiliation but there is often a common doctrinal thread through them, which unites them.
[/quote]People like me are pretty likely to talk about a common doctrinal thread, and we'll even do it with the primary purpose of claiming a certain kind of unity. From what I understand about denominationalism, however, denominations have been historically defined as groups within Christianity that are identified by a common name, structure, and doctrine. So I think I and all the other non-denom people are likely to agree with you about a certain degree of doctrinal unity, but we'd also say it's a necessary but insufficient identifying quality of something called a denomination.

I also have a certain understanding of how the name started being used; feel free to respond with your understanding. Up to a certain point (the 2nd Great Awakening is a likely starting point to look at), all (or nearly all) Christians belonged to some group of various congregations that shared a common name, structure, and doctrine. Then you start seeing a bunch of new congregations that have no formal ties to a larger governing body, they don't share common names, and if their structures happen to be rather similar, it's more of a coincidence from one congregation to the next rather than the result of an intentional and coordinated effort between congregations.

So people had to come up with a way of referring to these new types of congregations. While acknowledging that many of them do organize and coordinate certain types of doctrinal unity in ways that are cooperative and intentional, they differ from earlier groupings of congregations with regard to names and structures. So the word that people came up with in order to describe this situation was "non-denominational."

There's a couple of alternatives to this, of course- you could say all non-denom people are a denomination unto themselves on the basis of their doctrinal unity and their shared ND self-identification. (Leadership structure and church governance is still an issue, though). However, different non-denom congregations have differing levels of doctrinal unity, and they also have differing levels of formalized cooperation with one another in order to reach whatever doctrinal unity they have. Beyond that, some independent congregations have far more doctrinal unity with one or two "formal" denominations (Baptist, for example), without having as much in common with most other ND groups. Additionally, a common denominational grouping generally guarantees that membership in one congregation is good for membership in all congregations within that denomination- but the theoretical ND denomination would not function that way. It actually wouldn't function any differently than how it functions now. There's nothing that changes about the thing we're focused on; it's just a matter of putting a name on it. Essentially, this sort of grouping would be characterized by something that's different from any other denomination. It's eclectic. It's a bit of a catch-all, in theory. It's unique in that it's sort of a potpourri denomination- not always in terms of doctrine, but in terms of leadership structure, church governance, the names used by different congregations, and the ways in which church membership is recognized when a person moves from one congregation to another.

I do want to keep in mind that we seem to be using different words to describe the same exact thing. As we each look at that same thing, though, let's say we do call it a denomination. Every time you talk about it, there would be some kind of necessary clarification making it clear that it's different from any other denomination in a number of ways. Again, please correct me if you think something different is true, but it's my understanding that this possibility received serious consideration over the course of the past century-plus, and people decided it would be easier to call this grouping "non-denominational" rather than "a denomination that's fundamentally different from any other denominational grouping."

The other option would be to refer to nearly nearly every individual congregation as a denomination unto itself. But then there's the matter of congregations that belong to a particular group of independent congregations that do work toward formalized agreement on certain doctrinal issues, and grouping them as entirely separate would understate the degree to which ND congregations- though independent in other ways- often do have something more like semi-autonomy with regard to the formation of doctrine. The way I see it, the overall situation is somewhat fluid, hardly uniform, and often places you somewhere in between one thing and another. Since it's hard to pin down exactly what all of it collectively is, the easiest thing is to say what it's not- it's non-denominational.

Basically, I don't disagree with anything you said- there is a certain kind of unity that we do espouse along with being ND, and if one of these seems to imply that the other is not true, I assure you that's not what we intend to do. We do generally favor some level of formal cooperation between different congregations (sometimes working with recognized, self-described denominations as well) in the formation of doctrine. However, when other things are taken into consideration, I do think it made sense for people to describe this situation the way they did. That's where I'm coming from, anyway. I'm still trying to get a sense of exactly why some people don't like that description, though. I guess I'm particularly interested in Catholics because Catholicism typically isn't described as a denomination, either, so we may have different ideas of what's required of a religious entity in order for it to be a denomination. Along with what's required of a grouping within Christianity in order for it to be something else.

I'm interested in how it works on a more personal level, too. For me, I see myself as ND because there's no particular denomination that I can readily associate myself with. When I settle down a little more in one place and become a long-term member of one congregation, I could potentially wind up in a fair number of denominations (at which point I guess I'd identify with whatever one I'm in) and several different types of independent/non-denom churches as well. That's how I feel about where I'm at and where I'm headed. And if my future is anything like my past, I expect to have a certain level of involvement in at least three or four different churches, even if I just spend Sunday mornings at the one where I'm a member. On one hand, that speaks to a certain level of unity and cooperation between various congregations, whether they're denominational or not. On the other hand, though, membership in one might mean something different from membership in another- and in any case, membership in one is not membership in all.

I think I have a pretty good handle on why Catholics (and others with apostolic succession) don't see themselves as belonging to denominations. There is something that continues to puzzle me, though. From what I can tell, it seems that some (particularly among Catholics) feel that a lack of apostolic succession necessitates the presence of a denomination wherever non-Catholic non-apostolic Christians happen to be. That's what I don't understand. I don't get how that conclusion is reached once all things are taken into consideration. And maybe there's something about how some Catholics view Christianity as a whole that's different from others. That might be important too.

[dUSt]

Dude. You write a lot, yo.

[vee]

Im confused but isnt "non denominational" basically its own denomination?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1313630769' post='2290264']
Upon closer inspection, I guess I do. Your run of the mill Methodist doesn't, by his own actions, contribute to the further splintering of Christianity. Non-denoms do. That's what I have against non-denoms.
[/quote]Not relevant or funny. Therefore, doubly offensive.

[vee]

So why are you non denominational anyway? Christ started one Church, guess which one, where we can receive Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity every day if we can get our butt to Mass. What else is there if there isnt Jesus?

[cooterhein]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1313643461' post='2290427']
Im confused but isnt "non denominational" basically its own denomination?
[/quote]Good question, this is what I said earlier.

You could say all non-denom people are a denomination unto themselves on the basis of their doctrinal unity and their shared ND self-identification. (Leadership structure and church governance is still an issue, though). However, different non-denom congregations have differing levels of doctrinal unity, and they also have differing levels of formalized cooperation with one another in order to reach whatever doctrinal unity they have. Beyond that, some independent congregations have far more doctrinal unity with one or two "formal" denominations (Baptist, for example), without having as much in common with most other ND groups. Additionally, a common denominational grouping generally guarantees that membership in one congregation is good for membership in all congregations within that denomination- but the theoretical ND denomination would not function that way. It actually wouldn't function any differently than how it functions now. There's nothing that changes about the thing we're focused on; it's just a matter of putting a name on it. Essentially, this sort of grouping would be characterized by something that's different from any other denomination. It's eclectic. It's a bit of a catch-all, in theory. [b]It's unique in that it's sort of a potpourri denomination- not always in terms of doctrine, but in terms of leadership structure, church governance, the names used by different congregations, and the ways in which church membership is recognized when a person moves from one congregation to another.[/b]

I do want to keep in mind that we seem to be using different words to describe the same exact thing. As we each look at that same thing, though, let's say we do call it a denomination. Every time you talk about it, there would be some kind of necessary clarification making it clear that it's different from any other denomination in a number of ways. Again, please correct me if you think something different is true, but it's my understanding that this possibility received serious consideration over the course of the past century-plus, and people decided it would be easier to call this grouping "non-denominational" rather than "a denomination that's fundamentally different from any other denominational grouping."

Edited August 18, 2011 by cooterhein

[cooterhein]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1313642921' post='2290422']
Dude. You write a lot, yo.
[/quote]Yes, I suppose I do.