Non-Denom and RM

[TigerBunny]

Hey all...would someone be willing to outline the differences between Non-Denom churches and RM churches? From my point of view I don't see much, if any, difference. My apologies if this has been asked before.

[HeyHomie]

In a broad sense, there isn't any. We consider ourselves "Non-denominational" based on the fact that we don't have a governing heirarchy and we don't attach any name to ourselves other than "Christian."

The term "Restoration Movement" is a historical designation referring to the people and ideas that led to the development of where our congregations are today, and is not a term that is used in day to day conversation in our congregations. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if I walked into church later today and said the words "Restoration Movement," half the people in the pews wouldn't even know what I was talking about.

In a more narrow sense, some people DO consider us a denomination because our congregations share similar beliefs and practices, although there is no creed, no catechism, and no centralized authority handing out doctrine. However, almost every congregation that calls itself "Such-n-such Christian Church" or "Such-n-such Church of Christ" believes and practices what is outlined in this sub-forum's sticky. This differs from the practice of many non-denominational churches, where someone organizes a congregation without regard to or affiliation with any other congregation.

[crawfish]

The restoration movement was a "non-denom" movement over a hundred years ago. By strict definition, they're not a "denomination" - there is no central authority for any restoration body. However, in a more general sense each of the three major restoration churches have forged an individual identity, are uniquely identifiable, and share resources, so the claims of each congregation being fully independent are a bit dubious.

However, a significant number of independent/non-denom churches are either restoration churches, former restoration churches or started from restoration chuch-trained individuals.

I hope that clears things up slightly more than mud. ;)

[TigerBunny]

Absolutely :)

I currently attend a "church" that follows the RM outline fairly closely ( if not exactly ) but calls itself Non-Denom. Fun topic to take up with our pastor/elders. :D Thanks for the replies.

[HeyHomie]

and share resources,

That's news to me, and I've been a member of various RM congregations for well over 20 years now.

[crawfish]

That's news to me, and I've been a member of various RM congregations for well over 20 years now.
Well, I can only speak for CofC's...but when a visiting preacher is brough in, he's a CofC preacher. Various pamphlets, books and materials are shared between various congregations. Of course, each congregation decides for themselves what they share or adopt.

[Frame1520]

Well, I can only speak for CofC's...but when a visiting preacher is brough in, he's a CofC preacher. Various pamphlets, books and materials are shared between various congregations. Of course, each congregation decides for themselves what they share or adopt.
Are you referring to publications and so forth? For example, something like "The Restoration Herald" or "The Christian Standard" (although that later is becoming more and more liberal in it's teachings and articles.)

[crawfish]

Are you referring to publications and so forth? For example, something like "The Restoration Herald" or "The Christian Standard" (although that later is becoming more and more liberal in it's teachings and articles.)
Yes, pretty much.

Note that I'm not referring to some central authority, or some documentation of our beliefs outside the bible. I'm referring to a common set of materials that are used by our membership and define us as a unique and identifiable group of believers.

[HeyHomie]

Well, I can only speak for CofC's...but when a visiting preacher is brough in, he's a CofC preacher. Various pamphlets, books and materials are shared between various congregations.

Oh, I misunderstood what you meant by "resources." I though you were using the word as a euphemism for "money."

[DanielRB]

Peace, TigerBunny :wave:

Hey all...would someone be willing to outline the differences between Non-Denom churches and RM churches? From my point of view I don't see much, if any, difference. My apologies if this has been asked before.

In the exact meaning of the term, I'd say no, there isn't a difference. However, many non-denominational Churches are sometimes "a denomination of one"--that is, they aren't necessarily inclusive, but rather they don't fit in any particular denomination that is organized.

RM Churches do have some doctrinal distinctives, no question. But the RM ideal is one that should be fairly broad: "where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent." This means that in principal, for example, someone could be both a dispensationalist and in an RM Church, fellowshipping with a non-dispensationalist and neither one would consider the other less of a Christian. (This is the ideal, I said; in practice, it might be different.)

However, in some "non-denominational" Churches, if you have a view different from the majority (say, it is dispensational and you are amillinial), you might be viewed as some kind of heretic. Again, your mileage may vary.

One thing that I've experienced in RM Churches is basically whether you are allowed to participate in the local Christian Camp or not. There was an issue several years ago where some Charismatic RM Churches were essentially "de-camped." That seems like an element of denominationalism (whether you agree with the reason for doing it or not, it seemed denominational.)

In Christ,

Daniel

[ProfessorJ]

I'm agreeing with you, there are very few differences. I have noticed non-denom churches tend to be more liberal than the majority of RM churches, but that isnt necessairly true. The differences overall are few, if any truely exist, but may vary widely form congregation to congregation.