The Nondenominationalists Who Weren’t

November 15th, 2012 Post by

Calling oneself nondenominational is en vogue, but what does it mean exactly to be nondenominational? I doubt many have given it much thought. Yet, as I have talked to those who use this term for themselves or for their church, I find that they believe that there’s something magnanimous about not being part of a denomination — that it’s primitive and all Jesus-like to just call yourself a Christian and not be so sectarian as to be denominational. The term’s appeal is that it gives those who use it a feeling of being a pure Christian, but is that feeling reflective of what it means to be nondenominational? Here’s where the trouble comes in. I can’t get a meaningful answer to this question from those who use it. This is because it is an entirely meaningless term. It is meaningless in the sense that there is no group to which it can refer. This makes the use of the term is worse than useless, it makes it misleading and inaccurate. Strictly speaking, no group of Christians is non-denominational.

nondenominational books

Do you or your church have a view on baptism? Do you baptize only those who can articulate their faith and only after they have confessed their faith? Or do you baptize infants? Is Baptism a unique means of grace or is it only a public confession? What is the Lord’s Supper? Is it the physical body of Christ? Is it a visual symbol by which we act in obedience to Christ when we eat it? Is Christ only spiritually present in it?

There are of course other important questions along which denominational lines are drawn but these questions suffice to show that nondenominationalism isn’t really an option. I know of no church that doesn’t have an opinion on these doctrinal issues. But even should your church have no opinion about these matters it wouldn’t get around the denominational question. Without answering these kinds of questions, it would eliminate your church as a Christian church since Christians are regard these matters and who treat Baptism and the Lord’s Supper with seriousness, and even if you think a church could count as Christian without answering these questions it still wouldn’t be nondenominational since indifference is still a view of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (among other things) which would define the church denominationally over against those who do practice it and regard it with seriousness. Not having an opinion on matters of baptism and the Lord’s Supper constitutes a stance toward those issues and a denomination-making stance at that.

But this consideration is really just a hypothetical extreme. In the real world, churches clearly have views about the issues that divide them into denominations. Most (but not all) churches that call themselves nondenominational are really just Baptist churches who refuse to openly acknowledge this fact. Maybe they don’t want to be part of a denomination, but we don’t always get what we want. Some may not like belonging to a denomination by virtue of what doctrines they hold to, but their wishes are really irrelevant for g them in their religious grouping. There’s nothing new under the sun; all the available doctrinal options have already been covered, and like it or not we all fit into one of these groups. You didn’t just pop up on the screen of church history. You have roots. You come from somewhere and that tells us a lot about who you are and who you are is denominational.

Still, sometimes people use “nondenominational” a little differently than how I’m using it here. I’m using the term in reference to what doctrine a particular group confesses. It is sometimes used to mean not belonging to some organized conglomerate church body like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Southern Baptists, the Assemblies of God, etc. But it’s easy to see that this isn’t nondenominationalism.

First, this has not been the meaning of a “denomination” historically. Doctrine has historically defined denominations rather than a denomination being defined according to what ecclesiastical infrastructure one is apart of (especially since there have been denominational groups without much infrastructure).

Second, a church may be independent of an organized denominational group, but that doesn’t make it any less denominational. At best it makes the church an independent Baptist or an independent Presbyterian or an independent Penecostal church, etc., but it is still a Baptist or Presbyterian or Penecostal church.The issue of nondenominationalism is different than the issue of an organized cooperation of churches. Furthermore, the issue of nondenominationalism is different than whether your church has discloses its denomination in the church name or title. Some churches leave their denomination out of the title but don’t claim to be nondenominational. While there may be good and bad reasons for leaving the denomination out of the title, it isn’t necessarily connected to the church’s belief about their denominational status. I personally prefer that we be upfront about who and what we are. To quote a friend on this matter, from a time when I claimed to be “nondenominational”: “I like labels; they let me know what I’m eating.” This is true, of course, only on the condition that the label is true to the content. There are many churches who claim to belong to a denomination but have long since departed from the doctrine of that denomination. While these are often self-described liberal or mainline churches, there are many evangelical churches that have done this too. For example, despite being considered conservative, most Southern Baptist churches and specifically it’s denominational confession, the Baptist Faith and Message, have departed from what Baptists historically have confessed about the Lord’s Supper in Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.As I said above, those who call themselves “nondenominational” are nearly invariably Baptists. I don’t propose to have an explanation for this phenomenon. Is it embarrassment about being Baptist? Is it some deceptive evangelism tactic that’s to blame? Whatever the reason, claiming nondenominationalism isn’t accurate. But it is more than just a minor quibble about labels and the meaning of the word “nondenominational.”
To claim nondenominationalism is, whether intentional or unintentional, deceptive and arrogant. Deceptive because it claims to be something that it isn’t. Arrogant because those who claim nondenominationalism think they are above the fray of those who are hung up on what denomination they’re part of. I’ve been around enough of it. Someone asks, “What denomination are you?” The response: “Oh! We’re not part of a denomination. We’re just Christians. We don’t get into those debates. We just want to love Jesus here.” Sounds nice, but the church goes on to articulate views that are without doubt denominational (as I say, usually Baptist) all the while claiming this is the Christian view. The implicit claim is that those who don’t hold such views aren’t Christians. If a church claims to be nondenominational and claims to have the “Christian” view of things, then by implication, there is a claim that churches who don’t believe like they do on these matters aren’t Christian or at least aren’t fully Christian. This is clearly both deceptive and arrogant, again, even if unintentional. Furthermore, I don’t think the unchurched people that nondenominationalists are trying to reach really buy the line that they’re just these primitive, pure-doctrine Christians somehow floating above the fray of all those who want to divide the church and complicate things with denominationalism. It’s certainly hard to buy that claim when you’re sitting in a multi-million dollar complex, with a food court, and your “worship” involves lasers, smoke, spotlights, a praise band with electric guitars, late twentieth-century music, and a pastor who sits on a stool as a cultural cliche of emo glasses and a soul patch. Really? This is pure Christianity that’s just about loving Jesus?
The last point I wish to make is that the claim we’ve been evaluating (namely, that nondenominational churches are simply “Christian” churches who just want to love Jesus without getting caught up in denominational divides), is also a claim that being a Christian, loving and following Jesus has nothing to do with obeying what Scripture teaches about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church government, and various other doctrinal matters. But Christ told us that if we love him we will keep his commandments (Jn 14:1515:10). Obedience on these matters is quite relevant to what it means to love Christ and follow him. You can’t truly claim to love Jesus, while pretending that matters of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are irrelevant for the validity of your claim to love Jesus.

As Lutherans know better than almost any, you rarely get to chose your own labels. Beliefs have consequences for defining you relative to those holding other beliefs. Own who you are and where you fit in the landscape. Telling us all that you’re “just a Christian” is just an exercise in deception and manipulation, no matter what your intentions are.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. November 21st, 2012 at 05:06 | #1

    @Jim Hamilton #49
    Would you go so far as to say it is always inappropriate for the Lutheran Church (where the Word is correctly preached and the Sacraments correctly administered) to do good works such as operate a food pantry out of its basement?

  2. Jim Hamilton
    November 21st, 2012 at 06:56 | #2

    @helen #50

    Obviously. Who ever said otherwise? What are we arguing about?

  3. Jim Hamilton
    November 21st, 2012 at 07:00 | #3

    @Pastor Ted Crandall #1

    I never said it is was inappropriate, Pastor. I don’t even know what we’re debating at this point. My only point was that the purpose of the church is to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. So far as I know, that’s correct. At least it is according to the Confessions and Pieper and so on.

  4. Jim Hamilton
    November 21st, 2012 at 10:09 | #4

    @Pastor Ted Crandall #1

    Pastor, thanks for making me think about this issue. With respect, sir, I think that you are maybe not using language as carefully as is needed here.

    All the good works that you and others have mentioned (establishing food banks, visiting shut-ins, distributing clothing to the needy, and so on) are very desirable and excellent. But, properly speaking, such good works are the activities of the saints after justification. The purpose of the church is to preach the Word and adminster the Sacraments and, by so doing, through the activity of the Spirit, apply the forgiveness and salvation that the Son won on the cross to terrfied sinners.

    To argue that the pupose of the church is to alleviate temporal suffering is to improperly conflate justification and santification and thereby proclaim the social gospel. A careful distinction must be maintained between the purpose of the church (to proclaim the Word and adminster the Sacraments to all nations) and the post-justification good works of the saints (which are the fruit of faith but never the cause of justification).

  5. helen
    November 21st, 2012 at 22:21 | #5

    @Jim Hamilton #2

    I wasn’t arguing, Mr. Hamilton, but trying to straighten out a definition. The LWML sings sometimes, “I am the church, you are the church, we are the church together…”
    Not exactly.

    E.g., I am a member of the church. But I am not going to stand in the pulpit and preach the sermon (even though I’ve heard some in my long life that I could improve on). It’s not my Call.

    Likewise, I am not going to institute or distribute the Sacrament, for reasons obvious to me, at least. These are the things our called and ordained Pastors do.

    But they are not the only things that go on in the Divine Service (and I am not talking about “good works” here). The liturgy is arranged for the members (the “pewsitters”/laity) to participate in worship. We and the Pastor “are the church together.”

    You may think I am being too sticky about definitions and roles.

    Think about it again when your DP offers your congregation a “licensed lay minister” to do Word and Sacrament ministry because the Lutheranism of the CRM’s he has in his bottom file is not what he wants to promote in “his” [generic protestant] district.

    Sorry to be so long about this!
    Perhaps I’ve read Rolf Preus on this too often? :)

  6. Jim Hamilton
    November 21st, 2012 at 22:29 | #6

    @helen #5

    Helen, I’ve already repeated myself here enough times. There is a distinction between the purpose of the church (to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments to all nations until the end of the world) and the activity of the saints who are members of local congregations (praying, singing, doing works of charity and so on). If you don’t agree with these definitions, that’s ok, but now we’re just going in circles. Have a good night!

  7. November 22nd, 2012 at 09:34 | #7

    @Jim Hamilton #4

    Jim, you and I are in complete agreement and I applaud your careful use of language.

    Many people do not understand the technical definitions that you are correctly using. Many others know the technical definitions, but don’t use them as carefully as you. (Mea culpa!) I just wanted to clarify, lest anyone reading this think you were saying that it is inappropriate for a congregation to run a soup kitchen or thrift shop, but the church (There I go again!) should only preach and commune, as in “Be warm, be fed… be gone!” You never said that and never meant it, but it could have been understood that way. Sorry if I came across as correcting your precisely correct statement. I deeply appreciate your insights and contributions!

  8. Cindy
    November 26th, 2012 at 22:03 | #8

    What I’ve noticed about these mainstream non-denominational churches is that they don’t stand for anything. I don’t think they can take a stand on issues. They have so many people of different religious backgrounds that they might offend someone if they did. What turned me off is all their sermons about “you should do this” and “you have to do this.” These are works doctrines and contrary to the Scriptures. Many young Christians I know that go to these churches get absolutely no instruction in the Bible there. As a result, they have some pretty warped ideas about God. As the Bible says, they “have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.” You have to be careful because many set themselves up as preachers with no formal Bible school or seminary training of any kind. People believe that they know what they’re talking about and don’t take the time to check their credentials or lack of them. I had one “preacher” who changed the subject when I asked where they went to school. I left without looking back. There are many false prophets out there. I’ve also run into churches that have broken off from other churches in schisms. Their leaders play at being pastors.

  9. November 27th, 2012 at 04:51 | #9

    @Cindy #8

    Good points, Cindy. Thank you for being an eye-witness.

    It also concerns me that so many of these independent “nondenominational” churches are in fellowship with no one. Period. Their congregation has no other congregation with which they agree and no other pastor agrees with their pastor. There’s a red flag!

    Say what you will about the LCMS not being in fellowship with any denomination, and then check your facts. http://www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=1372.

  10. Jim Hamilton
    November 28th, 2012 at 11:22 | #10

    @Pastor Ted Crandall #7

    Thanks, Pastor!

  11. November 29th, 2012 at 13:54 | #11

    I understand that there are at least a few Christian literary works that were not written by Lutherans, but which we accept as “good and useful for reading” as Martin Luther would put it. These include “The Pilgrim’s Progress” by the Baptist minister John Bunyan, and C.S. Lewis’s writings (he was a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism). As for the other more “modern” works, we must always be ready to respond truthfully “with gentleness and respect” as St. Peter wrote.

Comment pages
1 2 3 24209
If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.