Isn't the point of the life of Jesus to get us to change our hearts and change our behaviors? Shouldn't then the main defining feature of denominations be essentially to what degree you are asked to love? To renounce this world? To the ethical standards you are held? So e.g. a certain denomination might be defined as people who say they believe in the message of Jesus, sing some songs, eat/drink some food, and go once a week. Another denomination might be defined by being of believers who don't eat meat, are pacifist, share all possessions in common, shave their head/beard, and refrain from 300 other nefarious practices, all while partaking in a high church style liturgy 3 times a day and spending at least 3 hours a day in deep centering prayer. In these example denominations, what really defines them is their behavior. Their behavior is downstream of the love, renunciation, peace, joy etc. present in their hearts. But you really don't need sophisticated beliefs to get your heart right. You need to change your desires and your behavior. So again, why are so many denominations defined by abstract, metaphysical matters of theology? Why aren't they defined solely by the behaviors and the desires they are aiming to cultivate or relinquish? Jesus was no theologian. Jesus was a man of action.

I came across a blog author [Matthew Bryan](https://conciliarpost.com/author/matthew-bryan/) who self-identify as a "post-Protestant", a term that I encountered for the first time. When I Googled what "post-Protestant" means, I came across [this entry](https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Post-Protestant) from *religion.wikia.org*: > Post-Protestantism is the movement in 20th century and 21st Christianity to even further remove Christian faith from the influence and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and "her sister churches" (traditional, mainline, liturgical Protestant denominations dating back mostly to the 1600s and 1700s). > > Many of these "post-Protestant" churches refer to themselves simply as "Christian", or nondenominational, but also commonly use the terms "Church of", followed by such words as "God", "Christ", "Jesus", "The Bible", etc. The trend was the natural outgrowth of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the earlier 20th century (1900s), and partly includes, but is not limited to, Restorationists and the Community Church movement, who refer to themselves as being post-Protestant and postdenominational. > > These leaders of these often promote points of view which are anti-intellectual, or at least ahistorical, to the point that they totally deny or are even oblivious to the history of Christian denominations, and the meaning of the word Protestant (which essentially, is any Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Christian). This often adds to the confusion and ignorance of people who mistakenly believe that only churches with the words "Christian", "Christ", or "Jesus" in the name are Christian, and that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. are something else. I'm looking for a good article from either a religious studies scholar or a Christian / church that self-identify as "post-Protestant" that can do at least a few of the following: - explain why they don't simply use the term "non-denominational" or "evangelical" - describe specific hermeneutical principles that they use to interpret Bible, which distinguish them from evangelicals - describe their understanding of *sola scriptura* since they seem to reject mainstream Protestant (and even some evangelical!) use of the early church councils to narrow down certain interpretation of the Bible (for example, to reject non-Trinitarian interpretation) - describe several theological positions that unite them as a group (for example, their view of the Lord's supper, baptism, and gifts of the Holy Spirit) - speak for others who identify as "post-Protestant"

I have been brought up in a church group where our church history has never been taught and they refuse to call themselves anything other than Christian. This makes it very difficult for me to research how they started from a historical perspective. If anyone has an idea of what it could be, I would be very thankful. Here are some practices and beliefs unique (again, I say this with some uncertainty) to this group. 1) 7 Dispensations and frequent teaching of them. 2) Women in church should write their questions on slips of paper, then hand it to a man to read out loud for them. 3) High regard for the Darby Translation. 4) Saying “Lord’s Day” instead of Sunday. 5) Their own hymn book, called “Spiritual Songs.” Some beliefs and practices that are broadly found in other denominations but might help in identifying this one are: Believers cannot lose their salvation. Believers baptism. The Eucharist (or as they call it, Breaking of Bread) is only symbolic. Women veiling during meetings and services. No Ecclesiastical structure or even any titles of “pastor” and the like. Belief in the doctrine of Predestination. I hope somebody might be able to help me out.

I have long considered a ThD (from the time I started my MDiv) and already have a research interest (in Pastoral Ministry) in mind. I was going to go to my denomination's seminary and pay the cost myself. However, I've just been offered a full scholarship to another school (a non-denominational secular University program). To be honest I wanted the ThD for mainly vanity reasons (I don't intend on a research or teaching career) and getting one from my denomination's seminary may give me a tad more prestige at church councils etc. But it's a cost I'm not going to recoup as a pastor. How does one choose a Doctoral program in this case? To make this question more objective, are there articles / books offering pastoral career guidance in a Protestant & non-denominational church setting for a ThD / PhD applicant, of **the pros/cons of getting a doctorate in theology from a secular university** (like Harvard or Princeton) vs. **denominational/evangelical seminary** (like Fuller, Asbury, Baylor or WTS)?

We read in Gen 21:5-8: >Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. Now Sarah said, “God has brought laughter for me; everyone who hears will laugh with me.” And she said, “Who would ever have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age.” The child grew, and was weaned; and Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. If the ceremony of weaning was an integral part of Jewish tradition, Jesus as a child would also have become the center of such a ceremony in his name . My question therefore is: Is there any denomination that commemorates the Weaning Ceremony of Infant Jesus ?

We read in Gen 1: 20-21 (NRSVCE): > And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and **let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.**” So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. That shows that birds were intended to fly, at the time of their creation. But now, we have the chicken which cannot fly above a certain level. According to entries in the wikipedia, The chicken (Gallus domesticus) is a domesticated subspecies of the red junglefowl.The red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) is a tropical bird in the family Phasianidae. Evidence from the molecular level derived from whole-genome sequencing revealed that the chicken was domesticated from red junglefowl about 8,000 years ago. The grey junglefowl, Sri Lankan junglefowl and green junglefowl also contributed genetic material to the gene pool of the chicken. The riddle "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" has been troubling mankind since long, especially against the backdrop of theory of evolution. Going by Gen 1:20-21, one is inclined to think that God did not create chicken in the form we have it today. So, there is a chance that the egg came first, followed by chicken! My question therefore is: What is Christian scholars' take on the `chicken-or-egg-fist' riddle in the context of Genesis 1:20-21 and history of aviculture? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

I recently saw this being used on a church [website](https://www.theliftchurch.tv/) , where they describe themselves as "a regional, Spirit-filled, Word-based church led by Pastors Keith and Margie Nix." Now, I understand "Word-based". They hold to *sola scriptura*. That's easy. But it kind of threw me to see "Spirit-filled" as a kind of "proper noun" description of a denomination. What exactly should this tell me about their theology? Or is there no one definition?

At a recent "celebration of life" for my brother-in-law's step-dad (which I did not attend, this is secondhand knowledge), BIL's step-brother made reference to the dad now getting to work forever in Heaven. "Work" as in, doing a 9-5 job like you do on Earth. I don't believe the step-brother is formally a part of any denomination. What might be the theology behind such a belief?

Especially since we have switched from in person to live streamed services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continuing as we have had a phased return with both in person people and live steaming, we’ve had a sense of the service being a production. We’ve avoided using the term “performance” to describe the actions of the worship team, because we consider them to be leading the whole church, not performing to the church. But we’ve struggled to find an alternative word to describe it. We want to say “you need to prepare to be ready for your X” for example. It’s possible we’re hunting for a word that doesn’t really exist, nevertheless, is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an Evangelical worship music team's actions? --- This is a non-denominational evangelical, independent church. Our hymns are mostly modern with a few more traditional. The instruments are piano keyboard, a couple guitars, drums / cajon and a singer (male or female). Recent songs have included “Only a Holy God”, “This I Believe”, “Come Holy Spirit”, “Jesus Strong Kind”, “Amazing Grace”, “Yes, finished! the Messiah dies”, others “feel” similar to me!

I'm familiar with what "bishop" typically means in mainline, churches. It specifically points to an overseer of several other pastors and/or their congregations. Some African-American Christian religious figures, or leaders of "historically black churches", use the title "Bishop", but in my estimation, they may be leaders of a congregation, but not overseers of other congregations. Q: What does the term mean in these contexts, and how is the term derived?

How are American non-denominational campus outreach lay ministries conducted? I think the purpose is either to serve the greater community's needs as a form of community service or to convert people to Christianity or to serve the greater community's needs as a form of community service, which can attract people into Christianity (aka convert to Christianity). What I wish to know is whether or not it is more community service or more proselytism/Christian education. What roles do clergy and laity play in this sort of ministry? How can a non-denominational lay ministry cater to Catholic students who may believe in the importance of the clergy in educating the populace about Christian history, doctrine, and practice, or are these ministries interested in proselytizing Catholics and Orthodox Christians to Evangelical Protestantism?

It seems most Protestant churches fall under one of two umbrellas: denominational or independent. What is the general rationale for a Protestant church to be part of a denomination rather than being independent? What general types of benefits are there in not being independent?

I am a Rob Bell follower in the sense that I believe his teaching brings value and are intellectual, and his way of looking at the faith and the Bible make the most sense without just using "that is the way it is" as a scapegoat. Now I am churchless and having a hard time finding a church. I think it is because I do follow so closely to the teachings of Rob Bell. Even the churches that try to be modern and different are just your same old bible thumpers; they just wear jeans and have a coffee shop in the church. So what types of churches or Christians would Rob Bell followers be today?

Can anyone point me to a scholarly article or book that clearly, definitively, and ***authoritatively*** defines what qualifies a person or denomination as "reformed"? I've heard Presbyterians claim that they are the only true reformed denomination; if this is the case, what authority is this based on, and why is it not just referred to either Presbyterianism (Presbyterian Theology) or Reformed Theology? For example, I consider myself a reformed, covenantal Calvinist (pretty much a non-denominational Calvinist), but since I believe in credo vs. paedobaptism, I've been told I am not reformed.

Some Christians claim a non-denominational church is better. However, as a scientist I like to see all angles of the story: I was under the impression that since all Christians don't belong to **one church**, (They agree to disagree on Ephesians 4 and opt for the Nicene Creed) then all Christians doctrines are denominations - there by:
1c penny doctrine,
5c nickel doctrine,
10c dime doctrine,
25c quarter doctrine,
50c half-dollar doctrine, etc
= 1.00 dollar Eph 4 Church - some claim all Christians are part of the universal church. I like the idea that non-denominational churches reject the idea of a denominational structure and opt for autonomous churches. This is similar to Paul when he opted not take money from the Corinthians but still claimed to have authority over them. Maybe that is what non-denominational is, that there is no central government and only Christ is the head or leader? So if non-denominational or denominational has nothing to do with doctrine. That begs the question: What is the definition of the One Doctrine in Eph 4? Or, simply explain: What is a non-denominational church?

I would like to ask my brother to officiate my wedding but he is a baptized Jehovah's Witness and my fiance and I are not. According to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, can he legally officiate our non-denominational ceremony without putting a strain on his faith? If so, how?

There seem to be many Calvary Chapel churches with no denominational affiliations, but it's unclear whether Calvary Chapel is itself a denomination.

I have heard "non-denominational" Protestant churches identify themselves as such because they believe they are above the squabbling and blindness that characterizes denominational Christianity. I have heard Christians identify themselves as "non-denominational" because they aren't really loyal to any particular denomination at the moment. I have ***also*** heard from ***non-*** non-denominationals that "non-denominational" is in essence a denomination of itself, because churches of this identification are actually related in their origin, theology, etc. **Is that true?** Are there any distinct characteristics of non-denominational Protestant churches besides the name?

As my profile says, I don't belong to any denomination and I can't answer this question myself. Recently, there was a question from a Catholic woman having difficulty in her love relationship because her boyfriend from *Jehovah's Witness* can't marry her. The main problem that I suspect is that both of them are not ready to change their denomination. Here is the thing I can't understand. What is the problem with changing our denomination? Why don't people want to change their denomination? I am ready to join any denomination if required, let it be Catholic, JW, Seventh Day, Orthodox, I don't mind as long as I can read the Bible and worship Jesus. I obviously have my personal choices. I like to go to a church that uses modern instruments, good music system, good worship songs, good sermons, good Bible study programs and a good and supporting community. For now, I prefer to remain denomination-less but I think I can join any denomination and adhere to their doctrines and ordinances, if their is no other choice available. Why are people **reluctant** to change their denomination? What is the reason why some people **cannot** change their denomination? What are the major **hindrances** in changing the denomination? What kind of **challenges** are faced after changing the denomination?