so true and glad to hear plainspoken isnt just "dismissive" of nondenoms. As a Baptist, we generally dont see ourselves as a "denomination" but rather a "convention of churches working together". Technically the SBC only exists 3 days a year. The "nondenoms" are generally baptistic in doctrine and practice. Ive never seen a nondenom church that practices infant baptism for instance, and most have a congregational form of govt etc/ Some are charismatic but still have the same view as Baptists about baptism/sacraments. How does this fit with mainline Protestant churches who are intrinsically linked to the Roman church thru sacraments and infant baptism? Plainspoken did a video on a large church UMC church (in Sought Dakota??) that left the UMC that in most respects didnt even follow Methodist doctrine anyway. What was their stance on things like baptism and sacraments? What about those churches like Snellville First UMC that broke away and now call themselves Snellville Community Church? Will they retain Methodist doctrine on these issues in the long run? Just thinking out loud. great post
I grew up in a denomination, have been in a non-denominational church for about 10 years, I'm not anti-denomination but I sure like the leaders making decisions to be in seats with us where they are directly accountable to the people. Also I feel like being in a denomination makes it too easy to pass responsibility up the ladder, the local church gives to the denomination and the denomination uses that to fund missionaries but almost nobody in the local church goes on missions trips. We had 178 people go on missions trips last year, that activates a congregation in ways that simply giving towards missions never will.
I've been a member of a Bible Church since the 1990s, long before non-denominational was even on the radar. In all of that time, I've never heard anyone at my church expressing "anti-denomination" sentiments or taking disparaging potshots at denominations. A number of us have family and friends in Methodist Churches. We hear the stories, and we pray for their well-being and for the Global Methodist Church. Some groups, like the Churches of Christ, claim non-denominational but really are a denomination. These days, non-denominational usually means an independent church. It doesn't mean these are churches without tradition or background.
Even as an LCMS Lutheran your channel keeps me informed! Look into the Lutherans, you won't regret it. I feel Wesley was more Lutheran than many Anglicans of his time. I was raised UMC but Lutheran has a more unified confession of what my heart knows to be true. I don't expect anyone to understand unless they look into it themselves.
I'll try to be brief. What we are experiencing is the consequence of theological bankrupcy within mainline Christianity. As images of God the most important question any of us can ask is "Who are you, Lord?". The answer we get is going to drive literally everything we do since God Himself is the target we aim at. Embodying His character is the very reason for our existence as human beings, let alone as Christians. Needles to say, getting that wrong has dire consequences over time. And we've failed to even ask it seriously, much less answer it appropriately. So we are lost, ironically, even as we are saved. Who's to blame for the collapse? We all are. Seminaries produce religious social workers or doctrinaire academics who's language is unaccessible to ordinary people struggling to make sense of themselves, the world, and the time we are living in. "Lay" leaders make decisions based on what feels right without asking where the feelings come from. And regular folks like me just go with the flow because it's easy. We're interested in finding the bare minimum so we can "go to heaven", whatever that even means. It's a feedback loop and barring divine intervention it's not going to change until reality itself rejects us and we die. The handful who have struggled against the flood will then have to begin anew. Non denominational Christianity is a dead end because by its very nature it cannot build institutions. Each pastor is in charge of his, or her I suppose, own little feifdom which ends with them. That's why almost all of them are apocalyptic, believing the End is at hand. There is no reason to think in generational terms when we are the last generation. It never occurs to them that their children or grandchildren will inherit a hellscape if they are wrong and the Lord decides to continue tarrying. I call this mindset prosyletyzing apocalyptic pietism. So what can we do? Pray. Beg to Lord to save us from our folly. Take full unflinching responsibility for our own lives seen from His perspective (of course we have to know who He is in order to even begin doing so). Oh. And buckle up. The Babylonians are at the gate. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
I appreciate your take. On the whole, perhaps I agree with your message, even if I nitpick a detail or two (around 3:00 you say we’re in an era of deconstructing, which has come to have a political intent that is somewhat malevolent in my opinion). And for the record, I am leaving the UMC, and want to stay Methodist, but the church I’m looking at moving into did not join the GMC. In one sense, it’s “non-denominational”. I hear many say the church should be one - “catholic” [the denotative definition - universal] and apostolic. But a long time ago I’ve began defending the protestant reformation and the various denominations under it, not because I think mine is right on doctrines, but because we have benefitted as a society from the diversity of thought, akin to a marketplace of ideas. Thus, we can go beyond the simple into-to-church message of ‘Jesus loves you’ and into some deeper theological questions about what it means to follow Jesus and how costly that is. America is richer for this tradition, with nearly 40% of country indicating themselves as deeply evangelical; the average for a first world, wealthy country is ~10% I think? Strictly in the political realm, conservatives may be accused of dividing people into small groups for , but we think this closely mirrors our system of federalism, and should in theory promote some level of competition between the various cities/states/etc. It’s a way to bring out the best ideas among the groups, and set them into the foundation of society. It’s not always a healthy dynamic and you do get some bad apples that make bad decisions, but in this case, it’s contained to a smaller number of people, rather than a tyrant over everyone. I think this system of governance parallels our churches too. I do hope the GMC can stand against the cultural rot that has invaded the other ‘mainline’ denominations, challenging people to love Jesus in words *and actions*. I want it to restore and preach the vast wisdom of the two millennia of Christendom, and what a sure foundation looks like. And naturally, to share that overflowing wealth of God the world over.
I guess that I really can’t relate to either term, denominational, or nondenominational, because I self identify as post-denominational. Many so-called nondenominational congregations are actually either generic Baptist or Pentecostal. They maintain the same practices and doctrines, less the denominational baggage. My reason for self identifying as post denominational is because I can’t find any Biblical support to justify the many divisions within the One Body of Christ. I continue to serve as an adult Bible class facilitator at a local GMC congregation, but am not officially a member. I also serve at a local nursing home in a volunteer chaplaincy ministry where I serve a very theologically diverse group of residents. They don’t seem to mind that I’m not representing a particular denomination. I serve wherever I discern the Lord has called me.
I can't disagree that many of the reasonings behind non-denominationalism are negative. But there's also a constructive angle as well. You've got to have a group of brothers willing to get down to the brass tacks, reinvent the wheel, and hash out just what it is we believe. It keeps the objective framework of the faith fresh and is a wonderful counter against the kind of liberal theology rot that can set it. The idea that some church bureaucrat can simply appoint a new congregational leader for this or that group is mind blowingly stupid to me. And while yes, I'm against it, what I'm really for is churches that invest in growing their own leadership. It's a vital function for any congregation.
Denominationalism vs non-denominationalism gets complicated because it is entangled in particular views of Scripture. Those that see any form of Apostolic succession will tend toward denominationalism. Some see the incidence of church cooperation (taking up a collection for relief, passing on letters, leaders getting together to agree on guidance for Gentiles) as prescriptive examples for all time. Are Bishops and Elders different offices? This will have add a lot of weight to your case for denominations. In 1 Cor 1:12 are Wesley, Luther, and Calvin interchangeable with Paul Apollos and Cephas or is our affiliation somehow different than what Paul points out? Is the New Covenant a sufficient bond for all of Christ’s church or do we require extra contractual agreements? When Christ prays that we may be one as He and the Father are one, does that still leave wiggle room for our factions? Ask me how to achieve unity without sacrificing truth… oh, look I’ve run out of space haha
They seek unity and lack of the bitterness between the Denominations...what they don't realize is Christ built that unity into the Catholic (universal) Church
The question is if your beliefs are rooted in the Bible or your denomination's confessional beliefs. If your beliefs are rooted in your brand's church fathers and not the Bible then you are in error. Non denominational churches are really based on things like being Baptists.
I accept non-denominationalism as a legitimate description of church organization and polity, but it is a rather fraudulent claim when it comes to theology. As an RC I have yet to encounter non-denominational beliefs that do not more or less fit into the original established beliefs of historic Protestant Christianity. In some ways non- denominationalism reminds me of the contradictory facade of those who live together without ever officially getting married. They share the same bed, have the same expectations of married couples, share assets, buy houses together, But But, But, with a straight face (no irony intended), they are not married. Non-denominationalists are in my book, theological poseurs' par excellence.
so true and glad to hear plainspoken isnt just "dismissive" of nondenoms. As a Baptist, we generally dont see ourselves as a "denomination" but rather a "convention of churches working together". Technically the SBC only exists 3 days a year. The "nondenoms" are generally baptistic in doctrine and practice. Ive never seen a nondenom church that practices infant baptism for instance, and most have a congregational form of govt etc/ Some are charismatic but still have the same view as Baptists about baptism/sacraments. How does this fit with mainline Protestant churches who are intrinsically linked to the Roman church thru sacraments and infant baptism? Plainspoken did a video on a large church UMC church (in Sought Dakota??) that left the UMC that in most respects didnt even follow Methodist doctrine anyway. What was their stance on things like baptism and sacraments? What about those churches like Snellville First UMC that broke away and now call themselves Snellville Community Church? Will they retain Methodist doctrine on these issues in the long run? Just thinking out loud. great post
I grew up in a denomination, have been in a non-denominational church for about 10 years, I'm not anti-denomination but I sure like the leaders making decisions to be in seats with us where they are directly accountable to the people.
Also I feel like being in a denomination makes it too easy to pass responsibility up the ladder, the local church gives to the denomination and the denomination uses that to fund missionaries but almost nobody in the local church goes on missions trips. We had 178 people go on missions trips last year, that activates a congregation in ways that simply giving towards missions never will.
I've been a member of a Bible Church since the 1990s, long before non-denominational was even on the radar. In all of that time, I've never heard anyone at my church expressing "anti-denomination" sentiments or taking disparaging potshots at denominations.
A number of us have family and friends in Methodist Churches. We hear the stories, and we pray for their well-being and for the Global Methodist Church.
Some groups, like the Churches of Christ, claim non-denominational but really are a denomination. These days, non-denominational usually means an independent church. It doesn't mean these are churches without tradition or background.
Even as an LCMS Lutheran your channel keeps me informed! Look into the Lutherans, you won't regret it. I feel Wesley was more Lutheran than many Anglicans of his time. I was raised UMC but Lutheran has a more unified confession of what my heart knows to be true. I don't expect anyone to understand unless they look into it themselves.
I'll try to be brief. What we are experiencing is the consequence of theological bankrupcy within mainline Christianity. As images of God the most important question any of us can ask is "Who are you, Lord?". The answer we get is going to drive literally everything we do since God Himself is the target we aim at. Embodying His character is the very reason for our existence as human beings, let alone as Christians. Needles to say, getting that wrong has dire consequences over time. And we've failed to even ask it seriously, much less answer it appropriately. So we are lost, ironically, even as we are saved. Who's to blame for the collapse? We all are. Seminaries produce religious social workers or doctrinaire academics who's language is unaccessible to ordinary people struggling to make sense of themselves, the world, and the time we are living in. "Lay" leaders make decisions based on what feels right without asking where the feelings come from. And regular folks like me just go with the flow because it's easy. We're interested in finding the bare minimum so we can "go to heaven", whatever that even means. It's a feedback loop and barring divine intervention it's not going to change until reality itself rejects us and we die. The handful who have struggled against the flood will then have to begin anew. Non denominational Christianity is a dead end because by its very nature it cannot build institutions. Each pastor is in charge of his, or her I suppose, own little feifdom which ends with them. That's why almost all of them are apocalyptic, believing the End is at hand. There is no reason to think in generational terms when we are the last generation. It never occurs to them that their children or grandchildren will inherit a hellscape if they are wrong and the Lord decides to continue tarrying. I call this mindset prosyletyzing apocalyptic pietism.
So what can we do? Pray. Beg to Lord to save us from our folly. Take full unflinching responsibility for our own lives seen from His perspective (of course we have to know who He is in order to even begin doing so). Oh. And buckle up. The Babylonians are at the gate. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
I appreciate your take. On the whole, perhaps I agree with your message, even if I nitpick a detail or two (around 3:00 you say we’re in an era of deconstructing, which has come to have a political intent that is somewhat malevolent in my opinion). And for the record, I am leaving the UMC, and want to stay Methodist, but the church I’m looking at moving into did not join the GMC. In one sense, it’s “non-denominational”.
I hear many say the church should be one - “catholic” [the denotative definition - universal] and apostolic. But a long time ago I’ve began defending the protestant reformation and the various denominations under it, not because I think mine is right on doctrines, but because we have benefitted as a society from the diversity of thought, akin to a marketplace of ideas. Thus, we can go beyond the simple into-to-church message of ‘Jesus loves you’ and into some deeper theological questions about what it means to follow Jesus and how costly that is. America is richer for this tradition, with nearly 40% of country indicating themselves as deeply evangelical; the average for a first world, wealthy country is ~10% I think?
Strictly in the political realm, conservatives may be accused of dividing people into small groups for , but we think this closely mirrors our system of federalism, and should in theory promote some level of competition between the various cities/states/etc. It’s a way to bring out the best ideas among the groups, and set them into the foundation of society. It’s not always a healthy dynamic and you do get some bad apples that make bad decisions, but in this case, it’s contained to a smaller number of people, rather than a tyrant over everyone. I think this system of governance parallels our churches too.
I do hope the GMC can stand against the cultural rot that has invaded the other ‘mainline’ denominations, challenging people to love Jesus in words *and actions*. I want it to restore and preach the vast wisdom of the two millennia of Christendom, and what a sure foundation looks like. And naturally, to share that overflowing wealth of God the world over.
I guess that I really can’t relate to either term, denominational, or nondenominational, because I self identify as post-denominational. Many so-called nondenominational congregations are actually either generic Baptist or Pentecostal. They maintain the same practices and doctrines, less the denominational baggage. My reason for self identifying as post denominational is because I can’t find any Biblical support to justify the many divisions within the One Body of Christ. I continue to serve as an adult Bible class facilitator at a local GMC congregation, but am not officially a member. I also serve at a local nursing home in a volunteer chaplaincy ministry where I serve a very theologically diverse group of residents. They don’t seem to mind that I’m not representing a particular denomination. I serve wherever I discern the Lord has called me.
I can't disagree that many of the reasonings behind non-denominationalism are negative. But there's also a constructive angle as well. You've got to have a group of brothers willing to get down to the brass tacks, reinvent the wheel, and hash out just what it is we believe. It keeps the objective framework of the faith fresh and is a wonderful counter against the kind of liberal theology rot that can set it.
The idea that some church bureaucrat can simply appoint a new congregational leader for this or that group is mind blowingly stupid to me. And while yes, I'm against it, what I'm really for is churches that invest in growing their own leadership. It's a vital function for any congregation.
Denominationalism vs non-denominationalism gets complicated because it is entangled in particular views of Scripture. Those that see any form of Apostolic succession will tend toward denominationalism. Some see the incidence of church cooperation (taking up a collection for relief, passing on letters, leaders getting together to agree on guidance for Gentiles) as prescriptive examples for all time. Are Bishops and Elders different offices? This will have add a lot of weight to your case for denominations. In 1 Cor 1:12 are Wesley, Luther, and Calvin interchangeable with Paul Apollos and Cephas or is our affiliation somehow different than what Paul points out? Is the New Covenant a sufficient bond for all of Christ’s church or do we require extra contractual agreements? When Christ prays that we may be one as He and the Father are one, does that still leave wiggle room for our factions? Ask me how to achieve unity without sacrificing truth… oh, look I’ve run out of space haha
They seek unity and lack of the bitterness between the Denominations...what they don't realize is Christ built that unity into the Catholic (universal) Church
The question is if your beliefs are rooted in the Bible or your denomination's confessional beliefs. If your beliefs are rooted in your brand's church fathers and not the Bible then you are in error.
Non denominational churches are really based on things like being Baptists.
I accept non-denominationalism as a legitimate description of church organization and polity, but it is a rather fraudulent claim when it comes to theology. As an RC I have yet to encounter non-denominational beliefs that do not more or less fit into the original established beliefs of historic Protestant Christianity. In some ways non- denominationalism reminds me of the contradictory facade of those who live together without ever officially getting married. They share the same bed, have the same expectations of married couples, share assets, buy houses together, But But, But, with a straight face (no irony intended), they are not married. Non-denominationalists are in my book, theological poseurs' par excellence.