Calling oneself nondenominational is en vogue, but what does it mean exactly? I doubt many have given it much thought. As I have talked to those who use this term for themselves or for their church, I find that they think that there’s something magnanimous about not being part of a denomination. That it’s primitive and Jesus-like to just call yourself a Christian and not be so sectarian as to be denominational. It’s appeal is that it gives those who use the term a feeling of being a pure Christian, but what does it mean 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. No group of Christians is non-denominational.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. But suppose that such a church nonetheless counts as Christian, would it be nondenominational? No, because there 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.
The above consideration is merely hypothetical. Clearly churches do have views about the issues that divide churches into denomination and are therefore part of a denomination. Most 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. We may not like that we belong to a denomination by virtue of what doctrines we hold to, but we nevertheless belong to the denomination whose doctrine we hold. 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. I am a Lutheran. If I were to call myself “nondenominatinal” tomorrow it wouldn’t make me any less Lutheran, though it would make me a little more confused — perhaps even dishonest depending on my intentions.
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 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 the Baptist Faith and Message have departed from what the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 confesses about the Lord’s Supper.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 worship which involves lasers, smoke, spotlights, a praise band with electric guitars, late twentieth-century music, and a pastor who sits on a stool in cabana wear. Really? This is pure Christianity that is just about loving Jesus?
The last point I wish to make is that the claim we’ve been considering: 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 is somehow unrelated to 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 14:15; 15:10). Obedience on these matters is quite relevant to what it means to love Christ and follow him.
As with all of my writing, there are left-over issues to consider, but these are best left for hashing out in the comments.
[...] This post was Twitted by Evangeltweet [...]
I’ve often thought that the term “inter-denominational” would be more appropriate for so-called “non-denominational” churches.
Of course, the concept of denominational loyalty is going down the tubes… and no matter what Diana Bass says, Mainstream Protestantism is dying. So while people will hold on to beliefs, theological distinctives, and liturgical practices that are rooted in denominational history, it seems to me that we are careening towards a post-denominational age (eg, emergent Christianity).
Anyway, thanks for your thought provoking post.
John,
This is a thought provoking post. I have used the “non-denominational” terminology when talking to people outside the church about our new church plant in Austin. The main reason is that I’m just not sure how to label us. We are a part (unashamedly-it is in our name) of the Hill Country Bible Church association in Austin, TX. There are about 15 churches in the local association. They have a great reputation in the Austin area, so why would we shy away from the affiliation? On the other hand, we are not as closely associated with the larger, more widespread, much more dispensational “denomination” of Bible churches. We are really just a Baptist church with a local name (i.e. Hill Country Church-everything is Hill Country here) that is supported and sponsored by, and that associates and cooperates with the Austin Hill Country Bible Church family. I’m not really sure where that leaves us, and explaining all of that to someone who really just wants to know “what they’ll be eating” can be difficult and sometimes unnecessary. We are Baptist, we are reformed, we are Christian. Actually, we will probably be considered a part of the SBC soon, due to our gifts to the cooperative program (makes seminary a lot cheaper 8-), although we would rather not be labeled a “Southern Baptist” church. I suppose we are simply a “Bible” church (whatever that means). Our fear is that someone to whom we are trying to minister will be turned off based on a label combined with a preconceived notion (i.e. “you Baptists are against anything fun…and you don’t let people drink!”).
The comment about labels is a good one. There is something to be said about “knowing what you are eating.” On the other hand, if I cook the food myself and set it on the table in front of you we can talk about how I made it. There is no need for a label. That, I think is what we are shooting for with the people in Austin. We are Hill Country Church, for the most part. Yes, we associate with a slightly larger association of churches called Hill Country Bible, and yes, according to our statements and creeds we are Baptists. We are also somewhat Calvinistic and somewhat Lutheran (I say somewhat because we have never killed any Jews, or burned anyone at the stake for disagreeing with us . . . , and we don’t baptize infants). We are somewhat ana-baptist (though not running off to the new Jerusalem, which happens to be a small village in Eastern Europe anytime soon!).
With respect (and a great deal of it), I agree with you that there are really no “non-denominational” Christians. Most seem to be just Baptists not wanting to admit it. Is that where we are? You tell me, John, what denomination are we?
Chris,
After reading your description of your church plant, I’m left wondering how your church is anything other than a Baptist church. Hill Country Bible Church sounds like a Baptist church (they don’t baptize infants; they don’t have a synodical structure of church government, etc.). You step to the edge of admitting it when you say: “We are really just a Baptist church with a local name…” But then you seem to back off it because yours is a church that is “supported and sponsored by, and that associates and cooperates with the Austin Hill Country Bible Church family”. I don’t see how this gives cause to rethink your Baptist status. As I say, Hill Country Bible Church is a Baptist church as far as I can tell.
So what do you call a church that practices only believer’s baptism by immersion, (will soon be) chartered as a SBC church, and considers itself Reformed? I think it’s pretty evident. This was once the way that nearly every Southern Baptist church described itself.
I’m curious to know in what sense your church is Lutheran. I sense confusion about what it means to be Lutheran since you mention burning opponents at the stake in the fuller description of Lutheranism. I am aware that it was stated tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps you’re familiar with a part of Lutheran history that I am not. A better case can be made that burning opponents at the stake is a Reformed practice, a title which you take for yourself.
The reason, from what I can tell, that you consider yourself non-denominational is that you don’t want to be associated with people’s stereotype of Baptists (some of which may or may not be accurate). I can understand wanting a clean slate on which to explain who you are without having someone writing on it for you. But I don’t see how this can be avoided. Doesn’t the term “Christian” have the same problem? To many, Christians are people who have committed terrible attrocities throughout history. They are people who hypocritically sit on their moral high-horse and look down their noses at everyone else. They go around condemning people to hell, etc. Do we stop calling ourselves Christians? Some people have chosen this route. They call themselves “Christ followers” or “lovers of Jesus”. But this approach has a few problems, I think. 1) Rebranding doesn’t really work. I don’t think people who hear this term see them as something distinct from Christian. If someone told me they were a “Muhammed follower” or an “Allah lover” I wouldn’t say, “Oh! That’s interesting. What does that mean?” I’d say, “Oh! You’re a muslim.” 2) It seeks to cut oneself off from the negative reputation that Christians have earned rather than improve the reputation (though some of the things that people consider negative about Christians can’t and shouldn’t be avoided). 3) It doesn’t give credit to one’s historical past. You wouldn’t be here to call yourself a “Christ follower” if you didn’t come from Christianity.
I think each of these problems apply to the term “nondenominational”. I don’t think using the term really brings in anybody that it wouldn’t if the church simply called itself Baptist (again, I think this is a little different than the question of whether one uses the term in their church title). But suppose I’m wrong about that. Wouldn’t calling a church nondenominational be just as likely to deter some people who are looking for a Baptist church? Either way, I don’t think there’s any real net gain from using the term. I think it would be better to just say “Yes, we’re Baptist. That’s our heritage and we can’t deny that. But there are some things that we don’t share in common with other Baptists.” I think it’s better to correct the reputation of Baptists rather than abandon it.
Apologies for confusing Luther and Calvin (stake-burning). I think I was attempting to allude to Luther’s “Jew-hating” last years (though he himself never killed anyone, but advised the magistrates).
I think you are right about titles in general. I spoke to our pastor (Jason McNutt) about that very thing today over lunch. We truly are a Baptist church (Bible churches in general actually come from an SBC split over liberalism “way back” in the 1900’s). The term ‘Christian’ carries similar negative connotations; I suppose all labels do if they are old enough and successful enough to have both people who bad-talk them and bad people who use them.
As I stated earlier, we are not afraid of the Baptist label (especially when time to pay our tuition!). We simply want to remove as many hindrances as possible when talking to someone about our church. People in Southwest Austin hear “Baptist” and they automatically think they know who we are. Our “non-denominationalism,” I would like to think anyway, is an effort to remove obstacles to someone becoming a participant in the gospel through our ministry. I’m not sure what the right answer is, but I am certain that we are, historically and theologically speaking, Baptist (just like the many churches that make up the non-denominational denomination. But that’s our little secret…at least for now.
P.S. The way we are classical Lutherans is that we love beer…especially dark, German beer!
Chris,
Are you joking? You can’t seriously be arguing that more Texans are turned off by the name “Baptist” than are turned off by the effort to hide your Baptist belief, can you? If you can’t be forthright about your Baptist beliefs in Texas, where can you?
I know you were joking, but the question of what makes you in any sense Lutheran deserves a real answer. The same goes for any other label you care to claim. It really is insulting to people when you claim that their descriptive label applies to you simply because you share a trivial appreciation which is often associated with them.
KWR
You said . . . I was joking. I see that good, inter-denominational humor is lost on you. Besides, I have already given one way in which we are “more” Lutheran than most Baptists: “we have communion every Sunday.” That is definitely more “lutheran” than modern-day Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist today (generally speaking, of course) do not place much value on the Lord’s Supper, and see it as a mere symbol. We do not share that same conviction. However, our particular view of communion, as John pointed out earlier is more Reformed (in the Calvinist tradition) than it is Lutheran. If you are insulted that I have seemingly applied the Lutheran label to myself, then perhaps you are too wrapped up in your denomination or you take yourself too seriously.
You mention people in Texas not being turned off to the Baptist label . . . I wonder, have you ever been to Austin? This is not your typical Bible-belt town. The culture and the spiritual atmosphere is more like Portland or Seatle than Dallas or Fort Worth. Here, when people hear “Baptist” they automatically think in terms of either the independent-fundamentalist groups that seem to be against everything under the sun, or the larger, more public Southern Baptist Convention. We will be contributing a small percentage of our funds to help with certain missionary and theological endeavors that are associated with the SBC. But we are not a Southern Baptist church. If all it took to label a church was a couple of similarities, then I could ignorantly label the Lutheran Roman Catholic. Are Lutherans Catholic? I think not. Were Luther and Pope Leo X different? I think so. Both held similar views on certain things. So, in the same way, even though we share some things in common with the Southern Baptists (as well as other “denominations” of Baptists), we are not Southern Baptist. We may be more Baptist than Lutheran, but the degree to which we are “more” Southern Baptist than Lutheran does not make us Southern Baptist. The fact that a bottle of water is 5 degrees closer to freezing than another bottle of water does not make the first bottle of water ice!
Labels are not necessarily necessary. The first Christians were called Christians not by themselves, but by those outside the church. In much the same way, the first Baptists were called Baptists, not by themselves but by their opponents (Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic). So, why should we be so caught up in labels. If someone says to me, “hey, you guys baptize adults” (which is the meaning of the word anyway, wink wink), “you must be Baptist,” I would probably say to them “if that is all you mean by Baptist, then we are Baptist. However, as the person gets to know us, and were he or she to compare us to a “typical” Baptist church, the commonalities would soon end. Baptists these days are generally characterized , not by immersion of adults alone, but by democratic congregationalism, single pastor, once-saved-always-saved, gimicky evangeilism, and weakness of doctrine in teaching. That is not us. We may be baptist by historical expression of certain doctrines and practices, but we are in no way the same as the First Baptist Church of Austin, TX.
John, are you Catholic because you have a sacramental view of communion? I think not. You may retort, “My view and the Lutheran view of the sacrament of communion is different from that of the RCC.” Well, perhaps someone could make the case that you were simply a better Catholic!
We are a church, which is simply a gathered body of people who believe in Jesus and seek to follow him. We love Jesus, we love God’s word, we love people, and we have been given the ministry of reconciliation between God and sinners. Why do we need a label. The more I think about it, the better I like the term “non-denominational.” I have found the term to be helpful when talking to Austinites about our church. It gives us an opportunity to show them who we are and what we believe without having to overcome the label. Overcoming the negative associations surrounding the term “Christian” is enough in itself. People here need to know who the real Jesus is, not the Jesus that is hidden behind our denominational labels.
By the way, we are not trying to reach people in Texas who are turned off by the fact that we do not call ourselves Baptist. We are trying to reach people who have never been a part of any church. And there are hundreds of thousands of those people in Austin, TX.
Chris,
It seems like you were a little upset by by questions and observations. I know that I’m not as diplomatic as John, but I honestly think you may be overreacting a bit.
You ask if I have been to Austin. Yes, I have. Though Austin is more liberal than the rest of the state, you are only kidding yourselves when you try characterize it as part of the “left coast.” It seems more likely that you have decided to focus on a particular social class of people whose worldview makes them more like stereotypical Portlanders than stereotypical Austinites. Perhaps that is a perfectly legitimate strategy for church planting; I’m not criticizing it. But, it does mean that your embarrassment about being Baptist is not based on the attitude of people in general. Perhaps this is too harsh a way of putting it, but it seems like you may be “becoming snobs to win snobs.” Don’t take that personally; I’m not so much making a judgment as floating a potential criticism of that approach. I’m interested in your response.
It surprises me that you suggest that I am too wrapped up in my denomination or take myself too seriously. I suppose you assumed that I meant that I was insulted by you claim to be partially Lutheran. But, that is not the case; I am not Lutheran. In fact, I am Baptist.
But, my point is still correct. Enjoyment of beer does not make you a Lutheran any more than an enjoyment of flowers would make you a woman. Oddly, your rejection of my point seems more like a defense of it in many ways. You appear to like my reasoning when you want to reject a label that really does apply (like Baptist), but you despise it when you want to take a label which really doesn’t apply to you (like Lutheran).
I suppose your higher frequency of communion more closely approaches the issues which distinguish between Lutheran and Baptist than does your enjoyment of beer, but it still misses the mark. Frequency of communion is simply not the issue. John will not be somehow less Lutheran if he misses communion next Sunday, and I would be no less Baptist (and no more Lutheran) if I managed to take communion every day for the next month.
Again, please give me the benefit of the doubt. I know that the way I make a point is rarely as diplomatic as John is, but I am not trying to attack you.
KWR
I am certain of one thing, the black and white text of my response to you in no way carries with it or displays any certain tone or inflection of voice. I was not upset, neither am I upset now. Perhaps it sounded like I was upset due to your own inclination toward a negative, terse, and confrontational disposition. It does not matter to me if you are Baptist, Lutheran, or Catholic. I simply put you in the place of the supposed offended party because you brought it up (I’m thinking happy thoughts right now). It has been my experience that only Baptists are “turned off” by my not choosing to label myself Baptist. No lost person in Austin (unless they happen to be a member of one of your Baptist churches) is going to be “turned off” by my not using the Baptist label. I doubt there will ever be a time when someone who has come to faith through the ministry of our church comes to me and says, “You know, Chris, now that I know who you are and what you believe and how you practice what you believe, I dislike the fact that you don’t ‘own up’ to your Baptist heritage.” We are, in fact, only targeting a certain kind of person in the Austin area. We are targeting those who do not know Christ. We are not targeting Baptists who are fed up with their current church, or who are just looking for something edgier or more relevant. We are seeking to take the gospel into hearts where, as the apostle Paul put it-”Christ has not been named.” And by the way, Austin is now considered one of the most liberal cities in America in many ways (e.g. recently surpassing San Francisco in terms of per ca pita homosexuality). It is true, there is a large Christian movement here (there are millions of people here), but it is also true that only 10 percent or so of the population of Austin claims affiliation with any evangelical denomination. It is one of the most “spiritual” towns in the country, yet not Christian. There are many here who have never set foot in a local church of any sort, and in their minds for good reason. That is who we are after. And in that endeavor, it is expedient for us not to label ourselves Baptist, Charismatic, Independent, or any other name for that matter.
When I said we are “somewhat Lutheran,” I simply meant that we share some common ground with the Lutheran church and its creed. You yourself said that does not make us Lutheran. So why should giving money to the SBC to support missions and education automatically make us Southern Baptist?
What, exactly is it then that makes one Baptist? Baptism by immersion? Immersion of adults rather than infants? Those practices existed in the early church long before the term Baptist ever was denoted.
If I have read John’s post correctly one can disassociate himself completely from any form of fellowship or communion or cooperation with a larger association of Baptists and yet still be Baptist because of beliefs and practices that define what a Baptist is. So, it would follow that one could be closely associated with a large group of Baptists and yet he himself not be Baptist. According to that reasoning, the same would apply to any denomination.
Again I ask, can we consider a Lutheran to be no more than a Catholic in disguise because he holds to some of the same doctrines?
One more thing: I feel no embarrassment being considered a Baptist. I feel no embarrassment for being labeled a Calvinist (though I have many disagreements with Calvin). I feel no embarrassment over the Bible Church denomination (although I am not a classical dispesationalist and do not draw charts and graphs of the end-times). I feel no embarrassment on account of the “Christian” moniker (even though, historically speaking, “Christians” have been responsible for some of the most heinous crimes against the imago dei since the beginning of time). If I were structurally a part of a larger denomination (e.g. the SBC, or PCA) I would have no problem referring to myself accordingly. We are not, however, so associated.
We are a free, Christian church seeking to pursue the face of Christ for the glory of God.
Chris,
It is ironic that you, in excusing yourself, accuse me of a negative, terse, and confrontational disposition. Happy thoughts or no, it seems quite evident that you are displeased with what I wrote. But, I hurled no accusations of that sort toward you, and I don’t want to.
What I was attempting to do is critique the view you have expressed, not condemn or negatively characterize you.
“Common ground” only relates to the question of whether or not you may legitimately take the label of another denomination if that ground is located in the central issues which define that denomination–which distinguish it from other denominations. Enjoyment of beer is not one of those issues, and neither is weekly practice of communion. For example, regarding Lutheran vs. Baptist the issue is sacramental theology and it’s implications. Someone who holds that baptism is chiefly a symbol of one’s belief and that communion is chiefly a memorial cannot be Lutheran, for his beliefs contradict those which are the very core of what it is to be Lutheran. Likewise, one who holds that baptism is a means of grace which should be bestowed upon infants and in the “real presence” of Christ in the supper cannot be considered Baptist. It is impossible for anyone to be both Lutheran and Baptist. He may be one, the other, or neither; he cannot be both.
KWR
And what if I do not hold to the Baptist/Zwinglian view of communion being a mere symbol? What if I happen to hold a view of communion that is closer to that of Calvin? Am I now a Presbyterian? Is my view of Calvin’s real “spiritual” presence of Christ’s body in the supper (when accompanied by faith) not closer to Luther’s consubstantiation than to Zwingli’s mere symbol theology? Perhaps you could argue otherwise. But I have encountered more opposition to my own views on the Eucharist among Baptists than among Lutherans. To the Lutherans that I know, I am a step in the “right” direction when it comes to the Lord’s supper. So where does that leave us? I am certainly not (by any qualifiers that we have mentioned in our discussion) Lutheran. Am I Presbyterian? Do you still insist that I am a closet Baptist? Would your church tolerate my view of communion?
Chris,
Looking back over what has been written, I think my challenge to the assertion that Texans generally dislike Baptists took the discussion in a wrong direction. Let me try to redirect the discussion with what I think is a better point:
It seems that many self-identified “non-denominationalists” are really not so concerned with rejection of Baptist doctrine as they are with rejection of the Baptist label and/or those who claim it. Very often this is said to be an evangelistic measure, and assertions to the effect of “unbelievers (or some particular set of them) despise Baptists” are offered as justification for the practice of distancing oneself from that label.
Such ideas entail an assumption that dislike of Baptists is the obstacle between many unbelievers and God. That assumption is incorrect. The real obstacle between unbelievers and God is their dislike of Baptists, but their hatred of God. We are separated from God by our rejection of him, and, if all our pretenses and excuses (like “Baptists are so despicable”) were somehow removed, our hearts would still hate him. Only God himself can change human hearts, and no pretense, excuse, or hatred of a denomination can stand in his way when he does.
The gospel is not about God (or God’s people) meeting our terms of acceptance for him, but God’s accepting us in Christ on his terms.
And, are not all “I reject God because_____” arguments and attitudes really just statements of our terms of acceptance–demands of what God must change before we will submit to him?
KWR
Your point is true. The problem with unbelievers and God is that they hate God. As for distancing myself from the Baptist label, I do the same thing with the Calvinist label. There are enough similarities in my own belief and practice for me to be considered by many a Calvinist. But I do not use the term to describe myself. To me, there are enough dissimilarities between myself and John Calvin (and the Calvinists at large) for me to see that I am not a “Calvinist.” Distancing myself from the Baptist label, for me is not as much an evangelistic tool, but a personal conviction (i.e. that there are enough dissimilarities between my own belief and practice for me to see that I am not a Baptist. Am I similar to the General Baptists of the North-I think not! Am I like the independent, fundamentalists, am I like the SBC? I can tell you from much experience that the SBC (from it’s leadership’s perspective) does not want me in their associations. So what kind of Baptist am I?
Also, just because a particular “kind” of believer has been historically called Baptist (at least since about 500 years or so ago), does it necessarily follow that we have to be called Baptists forever? I don’t think so. How would you label Mars Hill Church in Seattle? Baptist? Well maybe-according to history. But they have no ties to Baptists in their own history. It is not necessary that they be known by any other label than Christian, or Mars Hill Church. Individual churches don’t need denominational distinctives to fit well into the kingdom of God. It has been my experience that denominationalism is a form of pride which Jesus hates (e.g. Paige Patterson and his SBC cowboys at SWBTS).
Again, If someone I am talking to says, “Hey you are like those Baptists,” and by that they mean that I believe in believer baptism, then so be it. I am Baptist. But if someone should say, “Hey you are like those Baptists,” and by that they mean you believe in believer baptism and therefore you must be a part of that Paige Patterson group, then my answer is “no, I am not.” I could say I am “Reformed Baptist,” but I don’t exactly fit in with that group either.
I don’t mind the label. I just don’t think it is necessary. Like you said yourself, lost people don’t care about the labels. That only supports my claim that the label isn’t necessary.
If you want to talk denominational distinctives: I believe in the real presence of Christ in communion. What does that make me?
Chris,
You know that feeling that you sometimes get in the middle of receiving a sales pitch…the suspicion you get when you sense that the salesperson will say anything at all to get you to buy their product? I generally start to get that feeling when the salesperson keeps making statements that just don’t add up and being evasive when I challenge him or her on it. You know the sort of thing:
- “This car has so much power that it’s just barely street legal”
and then the next minute
- “No car has better fuel economy than this one.”
And then they act like I am an idiot or a jerk when I ask them how that is possible.
Here’s a sampling of what you have said here about yourself and your church:
- “Our fear is that someone [to] whom we are trying to minister will be turned off based on a label combined with a preconceived notion,”
- “We simply want to remove as many hindrances as possible when talking to someone about our church,”
- “Our ‘non-denominationalism’…is an effort to remove obstacles to someone becoming a participant in the gospel through our ministry.”
- “We re not afraid of the Baptist label (especially when time to pay our tuition!). We simply want to remove as many hindrances as possible when talking to someone about our church.”
And now you are saying:
- “Distancing myself from the Baptist label, for me is not as much an evangelistic tool, but a personal conviction.”
I know I feel insulted and loose interest in the product when the salesperson is contradicting himself and being evasive about it. I suspect you do as well. Of course I don’t bother telling the salespeople how offended I am or explaining why their sales technique was ineffective–it’s not my responsibility, and it’s not worth my time. I certainly don’t spend my energy refuting every bogus claim they make; I just want to get away from them as quickly as possible.
Isn’t it possible that–even though they don’t bother to explain it to you–people have that kind of negative reaction to such a presentation of your church? How could anyone blame them if they do?
KWR
You forget one thing . . . I’m not selling anything.
Perhaps you take yourself (and your Baptist label) too seriously. So what if I’m a Baptist? So what if I’m not? You insist on missing my point. Now you sound like the salesman . . . you’re the one with the label!
Besides, you go on throwing out accusations and judgments: “even though they don’t bother to explain it to you–people have that kind of negative reaction to such a presentation of your church? How could anyone blame them if they do?”
You neither know me, nor my church. I’m not sure what kind of Baptist you are, but it is sounding more and more like you don’t even know Baptists!
Also, you speak of my “evasiveness,” and yet you refuse to answer my question: “I believe in the real presence of Christ in communion . . . what does that make me?” It was you who said that denominational lines are drawn around doctrines such as this, was it not?
You’re not one of those guys who is a baptist because John the “Baptist” was a “Baptist,” are you?
Anyone else want to weigh in on this conversation?
I’ll weigh in for a second. It appears to me that Chris wasn’t contradicting himself; he was explaining, on the one hand, why his group of churches decided not to assume a Baptist label… and on the other hand, why he personally is distancing the Baptist label from himself. I see no contradiction at all.
As for the main subject, I myself have seen one very non-denominational church in every sense of the word. This particular church has high standards of moral behavior and such (no homosexuality, no premarital living arrangements, no abortion, etc.) but leaves a great deal up to the individuals in the church. If one wishes to have an infant baptized, they will do it. If one wishes to wait until some “age of accountability”, they will do it. And they will sprinkle, pour, or immerse (or all three at once) as the individual sees it.
As for communion, as long as the individual (they don’t have “members”, per se) is not living in some gross, unconfessed sin, they may take communion (of either wine or grape juice). The leaders figure if the body and blood of Jesus are in the elements, they will be there whether or not the person realizes it, and one doesn’t have to have to some perfect faith to receive God’s grace and forgiveness. It is imparted in one’s obedience in partaking of the sacraments/ordinances. Remember I’m just describing this church. I do not attend it.
Where music is concerned, they have “blended” worship. No rock band, but a mixture of styles nonetheless. In matters of eschatology, the different points of view are discussed quite a bit, but not everybody thinks the same on the issue. Drinking alcohol is up to the individual. There are differing beliefs in OSAS, free will, and original sin. These people get along quite well in spite of their differences, and seem to be very diplomatic and charitable to each other.
It seems to me a church like this fits the label of non- or interdenominational–what would you call it? Wishy-washy? (I’m not sure of the difference between non- and inter-). There are some things understood and agreed upon there–what you might call “the basics”: God in three persons, Jesus being fully God and fully man, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Church Triumphant, and the like.
As an aside, it’s interesting (amusing?) if people choose to be baptized in all three modes. According to this thinking, immersion represents the death, burial, and new life of the believer; the pouring represents the pouring out of the Holy Spirit; and the sprinkling represents the sprinkling of the blood. Different, but interesting to see people first get dunked, then poured on, then sprinkled. Maybe some do the “dunkard” method: fully immersed *forward* three times. Who knows.
This church just doesn’t care, just so you do it.
V
Me again.
It’s funny that I should find this post when I did. I just recently stopped calling myself a nondenominationalist. For a while, I liked the non-label simply because the divisiveness I saw in heavily denominational churches as against what Jesus would have wanted for the Church. I still believe that, but as much as I’ve resisted the idea over the years, I’m pretty much a Baptist, like it or not. Plus the more I learned about other denominations (nothing burns me quite as bad as these Calvinists who believe Jesus only died for some vexxingly ill-defined “elect” not for “the world” as John 3:16 clearly states) from my time at Liberty University, the more I realized how strongly I disagreed with these people in comparison to the relatively minor quibbles I had with the doctrine of my own church and pastor (who recently changed our Church’s name from Baptist Bible to Crossroads Bible) I agree with your point that our beliefs make our denomination, but I think, in reality all too often denomination makes beliefs; this problem is most prevalent, I think in organized church conferences like the SBC. In reference to my pastor’s decision to change the name of our church, I did and still do agree with it, as he was correct in believing that there’s a certain subset of unchurched that are scared away by a denominational title. You’re rather keen to notice that this phenomena is highly prevalent among Baptists, especially Baptist youth. I think this is due in large part to the embarrassing antics of many prominent Baptist “leaders” such as Pat Robertson who called other denominations “the spirit of the Antichrist” or the twisted, bile-spewing circus that is the Westboro Baptist Church and their deranged Ringmaster Fred Phelps. In short, there’s plenty of people making Baptist an uncomfortable title to walk around with.
At least someone was listening . . . sort of.