Russell Moore considers why nondenominational churches are the fastest growing in the country:
Are we witnessing the death of America’s Christian denominations? Studies conducted by secular and Christian organizations indicate that we are. Fewer and fewer American Christians, especially Protestants, strongly identify with a particular religious communion—Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. According to the Baylor Survey on Religion, nondenominational churches now represent the second largest group of Protestant churches in America, and they are also the fastest growing.
February 4th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
I’m wondering what the definition of “nondenominational” is here. There are now groups of related churches that are hard to distinguish from denominations in important respects (and not that hard in others) that nonetheless are considered “nondenominational.” Many of these kinds of churches tend toward congregations with large memberships, thus possibly skewing the statistic.
Maybe that’s accounted for in this statistic; if it’s not, is there really a substantive shift, or just a shift in whether it’s perceived to be good to be perceived to be part of a denomination?
February 4th, 2011 | 2:20 pm
I don’t think that we are witnessing the death of denominations per se. What we have seen more than anything else is many of the denominations of “mainline” Protestantism consign themselves to irrelevancy with insipid theology, massive bureaucracies, tin-eared political advocacy and pedestrian leadership.
The “non-denominational” church is really nothing more than a decentralized denomination in many cases.
February 4th, 2011 | 9:09 pm
“Nondenominational”. Translation: Social clubs.
February 4th, 2011 | 9:30 pm
A denomination takes stance on particular things, its doctrines usually attempt to be precise. Many people, it seems to me, are not precise or do not value precision on these things – they just want to worship God and be in relationship with Jesus and focus on the cross and not spend any time asking or thinking about what these things actually mean and what they entail about other things. They construe attempts to discuss these things as divisive, dogmatism and the worst label of all “theological.” Small wonder so many are content to go to places where these conversations are not had.
February 4th, 2011 | 11:32 pm
Russell Moore’s article ends with the comment that perhaps the “denominational era” is just beginning.
Yes, that’s the answer: a few more Protestant denominations, or maybe the revitalization of all the many, many old ones.
Most, if not all, non-denominational churches claim to build their statements of faith on the Scripture only, not on church structures and traditions. Shouldn’t Protestants be happy about that? Shouldn’t they celebrate these churches as the natural outcome of a few centuries of insufficient ecclesiology? (I almost wrote “schism,” but charitably refrained.)
February 5th, 2011 | 12:01 am
There is another important distinction: a Church is not a denomination. A denomination is some community one chooses to join because of a variety of reasons. A Church however is a community to which one is called [ekklesia=to be called out]
February 5th, 2011 | 8:47 am
I’m looking for a church/denomination that lacks an abundance of women over fifty years of age.
Perhaps later in life I will understand the needs, desires to embrace the stale, effeminate spirituality I’ve found in loud churches and quiet churches (is there any other relevant distinction?), yet as I approach the age of thirty, the last pangs of youth still crave a vigor, a vitality, a dynamo to stir one’s soul awake—something not found in the non-denominational church of my childhood, or my father’s establishment church, or his father’s.
Do beta-males deserve their own denomination? Or should all denominations remain united in shrugging them off by focusing only on the married portion of their congregations (and the children accompanying them)?
February 5th, 2011 | 11:29 am
Feeney,
Awful judgmental statement. Have you been to every “non-denominational” church out there? How do you know?
The answer is of course, you don’t and you just wanted to make some provocative statement.
Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
February 5th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
I looked up some stuff on David Platt and his book, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream, which was mentioned at the end of the article. Just read some excerpts online (put it in my queue at my library) and watched a few youtube vids. Interesting that such a non-denom sounds a bit like Fr Dubay’s Happy Are You Poor. Anyone know much about Platt?
February 5th, 2011 | 9:43 pm
Non-denominational is a non-sequitur.
Somebody’s theology is gittin’ taught!
Other than a few sects in hiding (sects always like to proudly herald their distinctions), those churches calling themselves non-denoms are most often Calvinists updating Wesley’s methodology.
The Sacraments are whatever you and the Holy Spirit (or your wife and his) decide should or should not be Sacraments–if we are to recognize them as such to begin with), but be sure to drop that envelope in the plate, brother, and know you will be blessed and receive in like measure that you give.
Hmmm . . . seems just keeping it would be the most economical course. But I digress . . .
“Denomination” has always defined a specific confession of faith. Non-denoms are too cute by half, wanting to sell the products of their pulpits without identifying the author.
Almost always (again, excluding sects), the trail will lead back to Geneva, and Calvin. If, as he stated, the Holy Spirit needs no specific vehicle (despite Christ’s own witness to the contrary) to convey grace, then the non-denoms are the evolutionary “perfect fit.”
Luther, the Reformer, having gored the Roman ox precisely where said ox was denying historical and dogmatic theology (and the faith of the faithful) in favor of the abuses of the age, has been forced until only recently to being tarred with the “Protestant” label.
Calvin (and Zwingli) were protesters. Luther was IN the Church and challenged the Church to mend its ways, and was excommunicated by one of the most corrupt popes in history. And Luther knew then what Catholicism is just now discovering–the faith is ALL about the Sacraments and the sacramentals–Luther was all over that in the positive! And he knew and predicted where Calvinism would lead without the sure doctrine of the means of grace. Rome was lazy at Trent, and lumped Luther together with Calvin and Zwingli and completely muddled their (Rome’s) attempt at counter-reformation.
But Luther, whom Rome has never refuted theologically, was right, and he was even moreso about what heresy would grow out of Calvinism.
Joel Osteen and John Calvin are theological compatriots and brothers. Likewise, most all other denoms.
Note: There are Confessional Reformed Churches that have come to realize their Reformational heritage and linkage to Wittenberg, and to the Holy Sacraments. Not all once under Calvin’s influence have followed the logical course of Calvinism.
February 5th, 2011 | 10:00 pm
[...] But here was the issue at FIRST THOUGHTS. [...]
February 5th, 2011 | 11:51 pm
“Denomination” has indeed become a misunderstood term. Americans have shifted from headquarter-based church corporations to leader-based franchise church networks. Perhaps the clearest example is the non-denominational Calvary Chapel church family. Each church is independent, and some of the largest congregations in the USA are Calvary Chapels. However, when I have attended their gatherings, they cite their patriarch Chuck Smith more often than Lutherans mention Martin Luther. Smith is their doctrinal and leadership gate-keeper. When he passes on, they may acknowledge themselves as a denomination or loosen the bonds of their franchise.
In reference to earlier posts: David Platt is a Southern Baptist (from what I have been told).
And, if Lutheran was a non-Protestant sacramentalist, why did he write: “The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important and not the mass”? (Luther’s Works, Vol. 53, Worship and Liturgy, p 13).
February 6th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
Ben
If you are wondering why Luther said that, read more. There are 54 volumes, plus a 55th serving as index. Plenty of opportunities to get the answer to your question. Those are just the works translated into English.
Don’t just cherry-pick One sentence that, standing alone as you have written it, completely misrepresents what he was driving at.
As to Lutherans citing Luther all the time–
We also cite the Greek Church Fathers, the Western Fathers, Chemnitz, the Pope, the Eastern Patriarchs, Merton, Lewis, Tolkein, Chesterton, Marquart, Scaer, Preus, Nagel, Pieper, Walther, et. al. Lot of reading for you there, before you fire off your next zinger.
Dominus vobiscum, my friend.
February 7th, 2011 | 9:05 am
[...] Carter links and says, “Nondenominational is Becoming America’s Favorite Denomination.” I think this says much that lead to the situation discussed in the next [...]
February 7th, 2011 | 10:29 am
JB’s remarls about Calvinism and the Counter-Reformation reminded me of the intriguing fact that Jean Calvin and Ignatius Loyola had the same tutor at the University of Paris, namely John Mair, a friend of Erasmus and later Master of St Salvator’s College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.
In so many ways, the two men are mirror-images of each other
February 8th, 2011 | 9:01 pm
“My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.]It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact