CBS Evening News featured a segment about the rise of non-denominational churches. It focused, as an example, Rooftop Church in St. Louis. The point of the story was that Christians are increasingly gravitating to non-denominational churches. I don’t dispute that. However, I would ask CBS News and other media outlets to talk to those of us who have strong qualms about so-called non-denominational churches.
Let me be absolutely clear: I respect the rights of people to start and attend, join, any church. I am a Christian theologian and see it as part of my calling and preparation to examine and critique churches.
For background, let me announce that I love denominations. I have loved denominations for most of my life! I love studying them. I love that they have done great things such as founding Christian institutions of many kinds that no “independent, non-denominational” stand-alone church could found.
The only denominations I dislike are those that claim to be the only true Christians or the “best” Christians simply because they think they are. I accept that most denominations think they embody some feature(s) that is (are) better than most others. But I despise denominations (and independent churches) that claim exclusivity of authentic Christian spirituality.
So, to get at it—why do I dislike “independent, non-denominational” churches? In my experience and study I see these weaknesses: 1) They usually have some specific Christian tradition of theology and spirituality that is not announced “up front” and that is hidden, whether intentionally or unintentionally; 2) They often lack clear accountability to anyone outside their organization; 3) Very often their preaching and teaching is theologically vague, even generic, to the point that it is shallow; 4) Many, if not most, tend to worship in a manner that smacks of entertainment more than reverence.
Now, are all of them guilty of all three of those weaknesses? I am not saying that. However, I think there is something in the “DNA” of independent, non-denominational churches (one advertised itself as “Undenominational”) that is unhealthy.
And, if a church does have a denominational connection, I believe it needs to be quite upfront about it and not hide it, as many so-called “independent, non-denominational” churches do.
I have a friend who attended a growing, dynamic, exciting church that presented itself as non-denominational. I examined its web site and discovered that it considered itself under the authority-leadership of an Anglican bishop in Africa. My friend had no idea.
Similarly, I spoke with a woman who joined what she thought was an independent, nondenominational church that meets in a brick office building (or a building that looks like and probably was an office building) and has a very generic one word name. I told her it is an Anabaptist and even Mennonite church. She had no idea. I know it is because I read its statement of faith online and saw that it “encourages” its young men and women to serve in non-combatant roles if drafted into the military. I searched the web sites of some Mennonite denominations and found it listed as a “church plant” by one of them. Even the denomination has dropped the word “Mennonite,” but it is still clearly Anabaptist in ethos.
For some reason, our American culture is set against denominations. I get that. But I am very uncomfortable with the “entrepreneurial” style of “doing church” these days. And with church names that tell nothing about its theological leanings or true identity.
Many years ago I was invited to teach a Wednesday evening adult Bible study at a church that represented itself as independent and even nondenominational. I knew it to be a member congregation of a Baptist denomination/convention. I belonged to that. The gathering was large but some of the people told me that they attended the church faithfully and supported it financially before learning that to join they had to be “re-baptized” by immersion. They were mostly Lutherans who gravitated to the church because of its size, dynamic personality, preaching, etc. They felt betrayed when they applied for membership and were denied it unless and until they were (re)baptized by immersion.
Many, very many, so-called independent, non-denominational churches follow this pattern of drawing in attenders without telling them that to become members they will have to be (re)baptized. Many, if not most of them are baptistic in terms of beliefs about the ordinances/sacraments.
I prefer to know what a church is simply by seeing its sign or at least by looking at its web site (without having to dig deeply into it).
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In