Shhhh! We're Christians too

[llcooljabe]

Link (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2188033&page=1)


Moderate US Christians face conservative Goliath

Jul 13, 2006 — By Andrea Hopkins

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Rev. Timothy Ahrens had heard his share of fiery rhetoric from Ohio's religious right and seen conservative Christians turn out in droves to ban gay marriage and re-elect President Bush in 2004.

But when an evangelical pastor stood outside the Ohio statehouse last fall to declare he was "locking, loading and firing on Ohio" to campaign for more religion in public life, Ahrens decided it was time moderate Christians spoke up.

"People are fed up with having religion represented in such a skewed way," said Ahrens, senior minister at The First Congregational Church in downtown Columbus.

He called moderate church leaders together to counter the conservative presence in American politics — and convince mainstream voters that Christians care about more than banning gay marriage and abortion and restoring school prayer.

"At our opening meeting, pastor after pastor said they have members … who won't even tell people they are Christian any more, because Christian is such a dirty word," Ahrens said.

Out of the meeting was born 'We Believe Ohio,' a group of about 300 religious leaders who believe people of faith should focus on issues like poverty rather than sexual politics.

Ohio, a key swing state, narrowly decided Bush's victory in 2004. But this year Republicans are on the defensive with some of their key leaders embroiled in ethical scandals.

A March survey by the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics found 25 percent of Ohio voters are self-described evangelicals, 25 percent are Catholic, 25 percent are mainline or black Protestant and 15 percent are not affiliated with any religion — in line with U.S. totals.

But the survey showed people who attend church at least once a week are more likely to vote Republican, while the less observant tended to be politically mixed. That could make it tough for moderates to make political inroads.

SSSHHH, WE'RE CHRISTIANS TOO

"There are a huge number of these groups forming, and they want to pressure Democrats to talk more about faith," said Bliss Institute director John Green. "But moderate and liberal churches have more diverse congregations, so it's more difficult to pull it off."

While the religious right has firm links with Bush, who speaks comfortably about his born-again Christianity, the We Believe movement tiptoes around issues of partisan politics.

We Believe activist Tom Brownfield said ministers are sometimes reluctant to raise issues that could divide their mixed congregations.

"An awful lot of Christians on the progressive side, and progressive Jews, for that matter, are very uncomfortable with the role of religion in politics," Brownfield said.

Not coincidentally, many Democrats feel the same way.

The Democratic candidate for Ohio governor, Rep. Ted Strickland, said he applauds We Believe Ohio's speaking up. But even Strickland, who was a Methodist minister before he was congressman, is careful about making a link.

"I think there may be some synergy, but I don't know that there is any connection," he said. "I think it's best that this remain a religious movement rather than a political movement."

Ahrens said his group's primary goal is increase voter turnout at the November mid-term election, when Democrats hope to seize control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

We Believe Ohio has attracted little more than derision from local evangelical leaders, whose churches are flourishing in the suburbs and rural areas of central Ohio.

"I think they'll be about as effective (politically) as they are at growing their churches," said Russell Johnson, pastor of Fairfield Christian Church in nearby Lancaster.

Ahrens is undeterred.

"We're being laughed at and scoffed at: 'Oh you're too little to play this game'. But we're not going to go away."

[Pseudolus]

This story gets written about every two months - how liberal commited Christians are juuuuust about to become a powerful force within the Democratic party. Been reading it for years, and, still, juuuuuust about.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Ahrens is undeterred.

"We're being laughed at and scoffed at: 'Oh you're too little to play this game'. But we're not going to go away."

Mathematically, you are going away.

[ShebaPoe]

Angels!

[_BullDog_]

This story gets written about every two months - how liberal commited Christians are juuuuust about to become a powerful force within the Democratic party. Been reading it for years, and, still, juuuuuust about.

My guess is that is exactly what this guy was thinking

"I think they'll be about as effective (politically) as they are at growing their churches," said Russell Johnson, pastor of Fairfield Christian Church in nearby Lancaster.

[Ronald Reagan]

The Wal-mart version of religion is pretty disgusting -- with the mega churches and all. I always thought that mixing politics w/ religion would leave religion more tarnished.

The two have always been mixed to some degree, but the correlation is there. Well, if it acts dirty, maybe it has to be a dirty word.

http://209.238.190.251/news/reviews/images/lakewood_Joelstage_600.jpg

Look close, you can see some of the flags of the coalition of the willing!
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/1201/2673626_200X150.jpg

[_BullDog_]

The Wal-mart version of religion is pretty disgusting -- with the mega churches and all. I always thought that mixing politics w/ religion would leave religion more tarnished.


So, do you think churches should limit the number of members and size of their bulding? Or are you just disgusted at the few churches who are using the television to make money.

[Ronald Reagan]

So, do you think churches should limit the number of members and size of their bulding? Or are you just disgusted at the few churches who are using the television to make money.

Well, being rich as hell doesn't really mix with the oath (as I understand it.) But, basically this is some people hijacking a religion and consolidating power. That's usually bad. I'd prefer the input of 100 small groups of citizens to that of 1 enormous group. Less chance for corruption.

[_BullDog_]

Well, being rich as hell doesn't really mix with the oath (as I understand it.) But, basically this is some people hijacking a religion and consolidating power. That's usually bad. I'd prefer the input of 100 small groups of citizens to that of 1 enormous group. Less chance for corruption.


Logisticaly speaking, if churches are to grow and split at say 400 members, do you realize how many churches will start to pop up. IF the church is well run their is no reason that they shouldn't continue to grow. I also realize that is a big 'if', but then again if a church isn't well run why would people continue to go.


Side discussion, being rich has nothing to do with an oath, not sure exactly what you are talking about, but more how they use what they have.

[Jack]

Mathematically, you are going away.
I don't think so. Fundamentalist Christianity will be crushed by its own weight in a similar manner to communism.

[_BullDog_]

I don't think so. Fundamentalist Christianity will be crushed by its own weight in a similar manner to communism.

Please explain.

[Ronald Reagan]

Logisticaly speaking, if churches are to grow and split at say 400 members, do you realize how many churches will start to pop up. IF the church is well run their is no reason that they shouldn't continue to grow. I also realize that is a big 'if', but then again if a church isn't well run why would people continue to go.


Side discussion, being rich has nothing to do with an oath, not sure exactly what you are talking about, but more how they use what they have.

400 and 20,000 are very different numbers. At this point, they might as well be going to a sporting event. Part of the charm (to me) of church is the knowing your neighbor/community aspect. This trend is about power and money, like most everything else.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch.html

[_BullDog_]

400 and 20,000 are very different numbers. At this point, they might as well be going to a sporting event. Part of the charm (to me) of church is the knowing your neighbor/community aspect. This trend is about power and money, like most everything else.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch.html

The megachurches I have heard about are more like e central meeting place for smaller groups to meet in a large forum. So, tell me agian why you are against a pastor making money.

[Pseudolus]

Fundamentalist Christianity will be crushed by its own weight in a similar manner to communism.
Please explain.Ronald Reagan, the Pope, and Margaret Thatcher are going to kick their punk a$$.

[_BullDog_]

Ronald Reagan, the Pope, and Margaret Thatcher are going to kick their punk a$$.

I see. How much are front row tickets to that cage match.

[Griffin]

Angels!Now that you have the attention of 80% of the board, what do you want?

[SirVLCIV]

"I think they'll be about as effective (politically) as they are at growing their churches," said Russell Johnson, pastor of Fairfield Christian Church in nearby Lancaster.

At least we know how religious this guy is.

[Fun King ded]

The Wal-mart version of religion is pretty disgusting -- with the mega churches and all. I always thought that mixing politics w/ religion would leave religion more tarnished.

The two have always been mixed to some degree, but the correlation is there. Well, if it acts dirty, maybe it has to be a dirty word.

http://209.238.190.251/news/reviews/images/lakewood_Joelstage_600.jpg

Look close, you can see some of the flags of the coalition of the willing!
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/1201/2673626_200X150.jpg

Those are pictures of Joel Olsteen not exactly the fundamentalist / political minister you're probably thinking about.

You might try this guy http://www.jhm.org/ or this guy http://www.breakthrough.net/

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

The Wal-mart version of religion is pretty disgusting -- with the mega churches and all. I always thought that mixing politics w/ religion would leave religion more tarnished.

"The Walmart version" could be translated as "the successful version" or "the version people like to show up at"

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I don't think so. Fundamentalist Christianity will be crushed by its own weight in a similar manner to communism.

First of all, are you refuting my point, or merely adding an observation? My point was that the liberal churches were, mathematically, "going away". That's impossible to refute. Look at the denominations that would be called liberal--they are collectively dying out. The denominations that could be called conservative are all growing. There is no mystery in that, it has been going on for a long time, and it shows no signs of stopping.

That COULD be a separate point from whether or not fundamentalist Christianity would be crushed by its own weight, whatever that means.

[Fun King ded]

I haven't really looked into this before. What denominations are considered liberal? What denominations are considered conservative? If you have a link with stats that would be benefitial.

[SamTheEagle]

Those are pictures of Joel Olsteen not exactly the fundamentalist / political minister you're probably thinking about.

You might try this guy http://www.jhm.org/ or this guy http://www.breakthrough.net/

LoL. He showed pictures of Joel Olsteen? Does that guy even believe in God?

[SamTheEagle]

I haven't really looked into this before. What denominations are considered liberal? What denominations are considered conservative? If you have a link with stats that would be benefitial.

A lot of denominations have some of each.

For example, the United Methodist Church is generally considered to lean liberal, but in my area, United Methodists are rather conservative, and in California, they are extremely liberal.

And as TDBM mentioned, the United Methodist Church is losing membership.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I haven't really looked into this before. What denominations are considered liberal? What denominations are considered conservative? If you have a link with stats that would be benefitial.

Acceptance of abortion and gay marriage would be a good demarcation(sp) line.

On the liberal side of those issues, in some form or another, would be:

Episcopals
Presbyterians
Methodists
Unitarians
and one of the Lutheran denominations (NOT the Missouri Synod, IIRC)


On the other side would be:
Pentacostal
Baptists
Assemblies of God
Catholic
and the other Lutheran denomination

I THINK that the eastern Orthodox churches would count as conservative in this grouping.


So, right there you've got the majority of Christianity represented--and if you ranked them by growth rate, i wouldn't be surprised if the 5 liberal denominations occupied the bottom five spots.

I've seen the statistics in a bunch of places--try googling it.

[Jack]

I'd consider Catholic and certainly Lutheran as liberal leaning. There's a hell of a lot more than abortion and gay marraige.

[2pac Shakur]

This is my point. Blessed Theresa of Calcutta spent most of her life caring for the poor.

She didn't really help.
At least according to Hitchens.

[Sew Lining]

I’m personally not a big fan of using “liberal” or “conservative” in terms of religion. People are so used to the political labels that it loses its meaning.

I think, in general, when people say “liberal” they mean “heterodox”, and when they say “conservative” they mean “orthodox.” Orthodox is not used in terms of an official label (e.g. Greek Orthodox) but in terms of adherence to traditional doctrinal positions.
That's a good point.

Then you have to differentiate between Protestant groups where the orthodoxy is quite different from Catholic orthodoxy. The Catholic Church is more willing to express more traditionally liberal fiscal policies (e.g. it's society's responsibility to help the poor) whereas conservative Evangelical churches are not (e.g. it's each individual's resopnsibility along with the local church to help the poor).

I must admit that I think conservative Evangelical churches in America aren't living up to their responsibility in this area. I say this as a conservative Evangelical.

It's also interesting to note - from my experience, mind you - that the more fundamentalist churches will tend to lean more toward a fiscal liberalism than the conservative Evangelicals do. Thought the line between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals is not always well-defined.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I was using "liberal/conservative" as a proxy for "progressive/orthodox".

That being said, Bush won the Catholic vote in 2004, and the majority of regular-attending Catholics lean conservative.

Also, when judging the democrat platform versus the republican platform, you'll note places where the democrat position is mutually incompatible with the Church's position than is the case with the republicans.

Abortion and gay marriage are not compatible with Catholicism.

On the other hand, the death penalty, while it is frowned upon, is still compatible with Catholicism. Same goes for war.

[Eimon Gnome]

I’m personally not a big fan of using “liberal” or “conservative” in terms of religion. People are so used to the political labels that it loses its meaning.

I think, in general, when people say “liberal” they mean “heterodox”, and when they say “conservative” they mean “orthodox.” Orthodox is not used in terms of an official label (e.g. Greek Orthodox) but in terms of adherence to traditional doctrinal positions.
Well spoken. Religion transcends politics. "Render unto Caesar......"

It is dismaying to see my fellow lefties frequently lump anyone that has faith as being somehow less fit to be a liberal, politically. It was not always so.

[The Mad Hatter]

First of all, are you refuting my point, or merely adding an observation? My point was that the liberal churches were, mathematically, "going away". That's impossible to refute. Look at the denominations that would be called liberal--they are collectively dying out. The denominations that could be called conservative are all growing. There is no mystery in that, it has been going on for a long time, and it shows no signs of stopping.

That COULD be a separate point from whether or not fundamentalist Christianity would be crushed by its own weight, whatever that means.

Fundamentalist Islam is growing like the plague too. Hooray for irreason, superstition and misogony!

[Eimon Gnome]

SBC is by far the largest Christian sect in America. Both in terms of numbers and growth rate. It is also very active, politically.

The SBC turned over its leadership in 1979, becoming markedly more conservative. Prior to that, it was an advocate of racial equality and the church of the working man, especially in the South. Since then, it has rapidly expanded and taken a decidedly conservative political stance.

The Rise of Baptist Republicanism, by Oran Smith is a good read on the topic.

[SirVLCIV]

Fundamentalist Islam is growing like the plague too. Hooray for irreason, superstition and misogony!

Ding! And quite frankly, it can get quite scary when millenia old church doctrines take the forefront over recent scientific advances in the public square. Hooray for ignorance!

[Pseudolus]

SBC is by far the largest Christian sect in America. Both in terms of numbers and growth rate.Larger than Catholics?

[PK]

Fundamentalist Islam is growing like the plague too....Is this even true? Seems like there is a portion of North Africa, Middle East, Southern Asia that has been Islamic for quite some time, but I see no growth. Is this statement just the logical equivalent of 2pac's "booga"?

[Pseudolus]

Larger than Catholics?Found some data (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html). There are about 2.5 times as many Protestants than Catholics in the US, and the SBC is the largest single Protestant body, but there are still many more Catholics than SBCs.

[Mayor Adam West]

The biggest growing trend within the group we would call EC's is actually the non-denominational movement. Churches like Willow Creek (http://www.willowcreek.org/), Saddleback (http://www.saddleback.com/flash/default.htm), and Mars Hill (http://www.marshillchurch.org/) are the types of churches that I really believe are going to be the trend going forward. Particularly churches like Mars Hill describe themselves as "doctrinally conservative, but culturally liberal." So they follow the "fundamentalist" way of thinking of taking a view of the Bible as inerrant, but will be a lot more active in areas of social justice like taking care of the homeless, AIDS awareness, support for teen moms, etc, and have a greater focus on artistic creativity. I attend a church with a similar personality to Mars Hill.

By the way, I hope I don't offend any of his loyal followers on this board, but Joel Osteen's church would NOT fit in this category. His would not be considered your typical interdenominational community church (like Willow Creek) or an emergent church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church) (like Mars Hill), it would be an adherent to what is called prosperity theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology).

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

SBC is by far the largest Christian sect in America.

Pseud beat me to it, but SBC probably has 1/4 the number of Catholics in the US.

And, I'd be surprised if the Pentecostal churches weren't ahead of the SBC in growth rate, as a %.

[SamTheEagle]

it would be an adherent to what is called prosperity theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology).

Hatter and his friends think that all Christians follow that theology.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

The biggest growing trend within the group we would call EC's is actually the non-denominational movement.

<at the risk of offending people...>

The word "non-denominational" is a bit of a joke. Each non-denominational church is, in effect, it's own denomination. It promulgates a set of beliefs, just like a denominational body would. The difference is, the non-denominational churches do so without reference to any other Christians. The non-denominational churches like the term because it feigns the moral high ground, as though "denominational" were a dirty word.

"non-denominational" is really just another term for "congregational", and many of the Protestant sects in the US are "congregational" (Puritans were like this--and modern Baptists are, too). "congregational" means the congregation is the highest level of Church heirarchy. The "denomination" is a loose confederation at best--the organizing body has little control over the constituent members and what they do, teach, say, etc.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Fundamentalist Islam is growing like the plague too. Hooray for irreason, superstition and misogony!

Hooray for spell-checker!

[_BullDog_]

<at the risk of offending people...>

The word "non-denominational" is a bit of a joke. Each non-denominational church is, in effect, it's own denomination. It promulgates a set of beliefs, just like a denominational body would. The difference is, the non-denominational churches do so without reference to any other Christians. The non-denominational churches like the term because it feigns the moral high ground, as though "denominational" were a dirty word.

"non-denominational" is really just another term for "congregational", and many of the Protestant sects in the US are "congregational" (Puritans were like this--and modern Baptists are, too). "congregational" means the congregation is the highest level of Church hierarchy. The "denomination" is a loose confederation at best--the organizing body has little control over the constituent members and what they do, teach, say, etc.

For the most part, when I hear refer to themselves as 'non-denominational' it is often used to separate them from a traditional denomination since so many people are perceived to have a negative connotation with 'denominational' churches.

And when I hear 'denominational' people use the term 'non-denominational' it is often to show how they are worse because they lack tradition and Sunday school classes.

Personally I think the whole thing is a wrong focus on showing why your not like the 'other' Christians rather than finding that common ground and moving from there.

just my observations.

[Mayor Adam West]

<at the risk of offending people...>

The word "non-denominational" is a bit of a joke. Each non-denominational church is, in effect, it's own denomination. It promulgates a set of beliefs, just like a denominational body would. The difference is, the non-denominational churches do so without reference to any other Christians. The non-denominational churches like the term because it feigns the moral high ground, as though "denominational" were a dirty word.

"non-denominational" is really just another term for "congregational", and many of the Protestant sects in the US are "congregational" (Puritans were like this--and modern Baptists are, too). "congregational" means the congregation is the highest level of Church heirarchy. The "denomination" is a loose confederation at best--the organizing body has little control over the constituent members and what they do, teach, say, etc.

I'm not offended, but I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I largely disagree because I grew up in an actual Congregational Church, and now attend a church which I suppose would be more accurately described as "not from a mainline denomination." Churches like the ones I mentioned in my prior post tend to be loosely affiliated with other churches that are similar to them, but are not governed by a central power like the Methodists or Episcopalians or Baptists or whatever. But that doesn't make them "congregational." That term implies that the church members are the governing body of the church, not just the fact that the church is more or less "free-standing." So for example in the congregational church I grew up in, the members voted to fill offices like elders and pastor every year or two; so the pastor essentially had no real authority. If he did something that offended people, they could just vote him out (or even vote fairly split, like 60-40....what pastor would remain leading a church if he thought nearly half of its members didn't want him there?). So calling a church "congregational" also adds the level of "democratic leadership," which, if you ask me, is completely idiotic. In fact, the pastor (Mark Driscoll) of that church Mars Hill that I mentioned before wrote a book in which he made the statement, "As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote." It's just not Biblical.

Anyway, all that to say, you're right in a sense that most "non-denominational" churches aren't truly independent, they're just not from one of the major denoms that everyone has heard of, and they tend to be more loosely tied to the fellowship of churches they are a part of. But that doesn't make them "congregational" per se.

For the most part, when I hear refer to themselves as 'non-denominational' it is often used to separate them from a traditional denomination since so many people are perceived to have a negative connotation with 'denominational' churches.

And when I hear 'denominational' people use the term 'non-denominational' it is often to show how they are worse because they lack tradition and Sunday school classes.

Personally I think the whole thing is a wrong focus on showing why your not like the 'other' Christians rather than finding that common ground and moving from there.

just my observations.

Good points.

[foghorn]

Churches like the ones I mentioned in my prior post tend to be loosely affiliated with other churches that are similar to them, but are not governed by a central power like the Methodists or Episcopalians or Baptists or whatever.

Most Baptists churches are not governed by a central power.

[Mayor Adam West]

Most Baptists churches are not governed by a central power.
Sorry, you're right, I shouldn't have included them in that list.

[Brad Gile]

My church is UCC, which is definitely liberal both politically and theologically. There is a national body, which is extremely liberal politically, but has no real authority. Our pastor is selected by a committee and voted upon by the congregation with a 6 month probationary period. I know of only one case in which a pastor got the boot.

The pastor does what pastors do and is ordained, but he/she has no authority to dictate theological matters, which are left to each member to decide for themselves. I am very comfortable with this arrangement, under which I can receive guidance from my pastor and still think for myself. A political conservative, I am clearly a religious liberal. :D

Brad

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

The pastor does what pastors do and is ordained, but he/she has no authority to dictate theological matters, which are left to each member to decide for themselves. I am very comfortable with this arrangement, under which I can receive guidance from my pastor and still think for myself. A political conservative, I am clearly a religious liberal. :D

Brad

So, you can't think for yourself without the permission of your pastor?

(and, you DO realize that you are slipping into the "people-who-disagree-with-me-aren't-using-their-brains" mode of debate, do you not? Think about what you are saying for second...it's no different that the typical Kerry voters charge against Bush voters)

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I'm not offended, but I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I largely disagree because I grew up in an actual Congregational Church, and now attend a church which I suppose would be more accurately described as "not from a mainline denomination." Churches like the ones I mentioned in my prior post tend to be loosely affiliated with other churches that are similar to them, but are not governed by a central power like the Methodists or Episcopalians or Baptists or whatever. But that doesn't make them "congregational." That term implies that the church members are the governing body of the church, not just the fact that the church is more or less "free-standing." So for example in the congregational church I grew up in, the members voted to fill offices like elders and pastor every year or two; so the pastor essentially had no real authority. If he did something that offended people, they could just vote him out (or even vote fairly split, like 60-40....what pastor would remain leading a church if he thought nearly half of its members didn't want him there?). So calling a church "congregational" also adds the level of "democratic leadership," which, if you ask me, is completely idiotic. In fact, the pastor (Mark Driscoll) of that church Mars Hill that I mentioned before wrote a book in which he made the statement, "As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote." It's just not Biblical.

Anyway, all that to say, you're right in a sense that most "non-denominational" churches aren't truly independent, they're just not from one of the major denoms that everyone has heard of, and they tend to be more loosely tied to the fellowship of churches they are a part of. But that doesn't make them "congregational" per se.




It's sounds like you are making the following distinction--

"congregational" means the members decide theology

"non-denominational" means that the pastor decides theology

In each case, there is no real reference to any other Christian outside the Church. But in the case of the non-denominational, it's a dictatorship, and in the congregational, it's a democracy.

But they share the same problem, which is that you have people determining thousands of different belief systems, all under the name of Christianity, whereas in a "denomination" you would have some form of unity of belief.


"As I studied the Bible, I found more warrant for a church led by unicorns than by majority vote." It's just not Biblical.
I am wondering how this guy got through the Acts of the Apostles, while still thinking that "non-denominational", one-off churches are what is in the Bible.

[Brad Gile]

So, you can't think for yourself without the permission of your pastor?

(and, you DO realize that you are slipping into the "people-who-disagree-with-me-aren't-using-their-brains" mode of debate, do you not? Think about what you are saying for second...it's no different that the typical Kerry voters charge against Bush voters)

I will rephrase: I am the final arbiter of my theology. That clear enough?

Brad

[Mayor Adam West]

It's sounds like you are making the following distinction--

"congregational" means the members decide theology

"non-denominational" means that the pastor decides theology

In each case, there is no real reference to any other Christian outside the Church. But in the case of the non-denominational, it's a dictatorship, and in the congregational, it's a democracy.

But they share the same problem, which is that you have people determining thousands of different belief systems, all under the name of Christianity, whereas in a "denomination" you would have some form of unity of belief.



I am wondering how this guy got through the Acts of the Apostles, while still thinking that "non-denominational", one-off churches are what is in the Bible.
I am wondering how you read the Acts of the Apostles and think think that denominational churches are what's in the Bible.

Denominations are a result of people not being able to coexist when they disagree about something. That was certainly NOT the model created by the early church fathers.

You claim that non-denom churches operate on "thousands of different belief systems, all under the name of Christianity." How exactly is that different from denominational churches? Do the Baptists and the Methodist have different belief systems? If you think they don't, ask a Baptist and Methodist about the meaning of baptism, and when it should be done, and see if they agree.

I'm sure there are kooky, fringe churches that are classified as non-denominational that have beliefs that most EC's would consider heresy, or at least unbiblical. Similarly, I find that many of the mainline denominations (I won't name names) have beliefs that I also consider highly unbiblical. All we can do is go to a church that we believe most accurately follows the Bible as we interpret it, whether that church is governed by a group of other churches, or whether it is independent.

Am I making sense here? I'm not trying to rip on all churches from mainline denominations or anything. But I think that in an increasingly postmodern culture, people will find it easier to worship and coexist with other Christians who might have beliefs that do not exactly mirror theirs, without feeling the need to split off and start a new church. And this trend will lead to a desire for people to attend churches that do not align themselves with a denomination.