Talk:Postdenominationalism

[Untitled]

POV.

If a church is to reach beyond denominational boundaries, why would it not be radically inclusive?

In doing so, why would it not reduce its dogma to essentials?

If it is to focus on unity, why the emphasis on personal salvation?

If it is to be Jesus centered, why would it not strive to answer the question "Who was Jesus and what does it mean to follow him?"

If it is to be scripturally based, why not quote the Gospels?

If it is not to be practice oriented but based on faith alone, what do we do with Matthew 25?

It is no wonder many love Jesus but have no use for the church.

Tarvid (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your questions is, simply, that the author of the article is, as I write, below, an obviously conservative, non-denominational Christian... one who thinks that "non-denominational" and "post-denominational" are the same thing; or, possibly -- more likely, in fact -- wants to blue the line between the two, and steer clear of post-denominationalism's true meaning since most (not all, certainly, but most) who call themselves "post-denominational" tend to be more liberal/progressive... which is, of course, anathema to conservative Christians. It is in their interest, then, to just not even have true post-denominationalism on the discussion table. This article is, then, POV, indeed. It needs serious re-writing! I am, then, now adding the POV template to the top of the article; and I'm also making a note to circle back, whenever I can, and see if I can clean this thing up, if no one else has by then done it.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Non-denominational Christianity?

This article seems to be slightly redundant, since it describes a specific form of Non-denominational Christianity. Could the information here be merged into the other article cleanly? David aukerman ^talk 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No! Wait! Please don't merge them! They are not the same! Not even close! The article seems redundant because whomever wrote it obviously sees no fundamental difference between "non-denominational" and "post-denominational," and clearly doesn't understand what post-denominational even means. How it's written definitely has a conservative Christian, non-denominational point-of-view. Someone (and I'm thinking of diving in and trying) needs to re-write this thing so that there is no confusion. It might help to read this article which differentiates the two terms, at least from a Jewish perspective. This article, then, addresses a different aspect of it, from a Christian point of view... not that it's definitive, mind you, from said point of view, but I'm just sayin'. This abstract helps to refine the point a little.

In its simplest terms, a non-denominational church or movement (or person or thing) is something that's intentionally not part of a mainline denomination, from its outset. A post-denominational church or movement (or person or thing) is something that was likely once a part of a mainline denomination, but wants to move past it. That's such a gross oversimplification that it actually makes it worse, but it hopefully at least sufficiently differentiates it that no one will want to merge the "non-denominational" and the "post-denominational" articles. That would be a wholly incorrect thing to do!

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Problematic claim that "Its focus on doctrine distinguishes it from ecumenism."

Ecumenism and the ecumenical movement has as one of its three main components Faith and Order, which deals with church-dividing issues of doctrine ("faith") and polity ("order") and the bulk of Faith and Order work has focused on doctrine shared across Christian communions. So I don't see how the "focus on doctrine distinguishes [Postdenomiationalism] from ecumenism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcampbell (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Tedcampbell (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)