The awkward irony of a non-denominational church is the assumption that we can be more affiliated with all other Christians by affiliating ourselves with no other Christians.
– Karl Edwards
Non-Denominational Nonsense
Comments
7 responses to “Non-Denominational Nonsense”
-
That is definitely a provocative and controversial thought.
I have found, however, that the nondenominationalists are their own denomination–except with no standard theology, no institutional accountability, nor any organizational objectives for missions.
I need to think more about that. Good quote.
-
Witty. That makes sense, Karl. It’s definitely not always the case, speaking of intentions. Individuals and small groups of people “dream” up new communities of disciples that don’t fit squarely in one denomination, and often-times they evolve from just hanging out in homes or public spaces. I support any group of people who want to belong to each other and deepen their faith together, whether that is in a denominational brick-and-mortar setting or some other meaningful structure (however small or decentralized).
I have no ground to stand on in defense of nondenominationalists, I’m just pushing back a little. Standard theology looks differently to just about every person who seeks a standard, I think. 🙂 The standard theology I follow has nothing to do with any denominations but everything to do with the whole of Scripture, all of which is defined in Jesus and supported by the Spirit, everything to do with “seeking the kingdom” realities and principles to flourish in this world of many different kingdoms/governments.
With regard to accountability, people are finding that in a variety of settings, including from denominational folks, but not limited to that. Their accountability is to Scripture, each other, the Spirit, the broader history and traditions of humanity and religion, and the countless amazing “lights” and artists and deep theologians, who either are or are not denominationalists.
For me, it matters not what denomination someone belongs to or speaks out of, as long as we can get to Love for God with all we are and Love for our Neighbors with all we are. That’s some standard or common denominator theology I can live with.
Re mission: that should be defined solely in terms of the missio Dei, God’s mission to bring all of Creation into completeness in God, where heaven and earth kiss. This can/should happen in your family, at work, at school, at the supermarket, park, theater, in developing countries, through “mission” agencies and so on and so forth.
I’m obviously speaking out of my own faith journey. I constantly have felt the need to break denominational or any “structure” changes in order to be free. I left the brick-and-mortar church for nearly 6 years in order to deepen my faith and practice, reimagine possibilities and redefine so many things I was taught about God, life, meaningfulness and everything in between. My accountability took on a more liquid structure, but was nonetheless helpful and Spirit-led.
Hopefully this wasn’t too long of a response. It felt good to process these thoughts and experience of mine up against this idea, which I really haven’t done in any depth before. I welcome any thoughts or “pushing back.”
-
I meant to say structure “chains.”
And I forgot to say that I am now committed to a group of people who call themselves a community church for people of any denomination. The apostles creed is an anchor for us, although not too visible often enough, I would say.
Peace,
-
Of course non-denominational churches can be very healthy and vibrant. But a potential weakness is a lack of theological and historical depth. It’s only a potential weakness, but one your comment (Karl) points to quite nicely! That weakness, by the way, is one I see in American Christianity in general, even in denominations.
-
Excellent comments. Thanks for contributing.
The intent of my post was not to critique non-denominational churches or any independent initiative springing forth from the body of believers (my goodness, look at my own “business/mission”!), but rather to challenge one particular assumption related to unity vis-a-vis affiliation.
By definition to believe anything at all is to distinguish oneself from everyone else. We come back together as we converse, co-labor and commit to each others’ well-being.
I think it’s funny/ironic more than anything that some non-denominational communities consider themselves more united with the world-wide body of believers precisely because the don’t get involved in the difficult conversations, labors and commitments that make unity/division such a messy affair for the rest of us.
-
Right on, Karl. I agree with you completely. I was pushing back on one of the comments.
Thanks Thomas for your thoughts. I agree with you that it’s a weakness for the entire church, no matter what structure or style or label they identify with. And then, for me, 1 Cor 13 tempers all of that assessment, “without love, we’re clanging cymbals.”
I heard this last Sat: God’s goal is diversification, not division nor uniformity. We need flexibility for the mission of God. In view of Christian diversity, from high to low church, God had lower standards than all of us & our traditions … and has always blessed the ones we don’t.
Once again, forgive the length of my earlier reply. I probably should have journaled those thoughts and then just pulled some pieces out to share. 🙂
-
Nick, Nothing to forgive. You’re an amazing thinker and passionate activist, and it’s a privilege to interact with you.
Leave a Reply