The Non-Denominational Problem
The fading pursuit of ecclesiology
Let me make it clear before I begin, I have almost exclusively attended non-denominational churches in the past, and I wouldn’t be surprised if my next series of churches fall into this category as well. The other point I want to make is that this is not an all-encompassing statement but one that is more prevalent than not.
So what’s the problem? The problem with non-denominational churches is that they lack a defined ecclesiology. It’s actually my attendance of non-denominational churches that grew my interest in ecclesiology because I found so many of them differing from each other to the point where I could safely say that nobody gave any mind to this doctrine.
What is ecclesiology? In simplistic terms, it is the doctrine of the church. But defining it this way often leads people to explain the church in the broadest sense, focusing more on the universal or “catholic” church (e.g., the invisible church). But then they don’t bring this discussion to the importance of the local church. And this is where the problem becomes for the non-denominational church.
The non-denominational church often does not fit into any status or mold. They exist as non-denominational because of various circumstances (i.e., church split, growth of a bible study, differences in ideals with their home church, etc.). Unlike some Christian “influencers” (e.g., Redeemed Zoomer), I do not believe that non-denominational churches are schismatic, heretical, or in-error. Rather, I believe that they have not placed enough thought into what it means to be a local church.
This is not to say that every detail of ecclesiology must be understood and defined within a church, as we could well discuss how the continuity/discontinuity discussion of Israel and the church may not affect the membership of a congregation. The same is true about the purpose or mission of the church. Each member may think differently, and a local church may have no defined position within these doctrines.
However, what must be addressed and defined are the practical implications. These are regarding the ordinances, the governance, and the membership at a minimum. And this is where non-denominational churches fail. For example, a favorite church of mine has begun baptizing babies lately. Now, what brings into question is what the purpose of the ordinance is. As the church was previously congregational in governance, being led by a plurality of elders, how is membership affected if the member may not be regenerate? This naturally leads to a more elder-rule/presbyterian model. And if there are fewer regenerate in the church, what is the mission of the church? Will it be as evangelical as it was previously?
And this is an example of a favorite church of mine. Many other churches of the non-denominational identification have been riddled with nepotism, CEO-Board structure, charismatic leadership, lack of accountability in their leaders, a congregation of attendees with no membership covenant, no purpose for the congregation, etc. What happens is that these non-denominational churches are picking and choosing from various other church structures that they like—or possibly making choices solely based on what they don’t like—and then the structures don’t match what they are preaching and teaching. For example, John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church is elder-ruled, having been adopted from a Presbyterian structure (it’s the Reformed in Reformed Baptist), but then exhorting the congregation to do things as the church that they don’t have any authority to do without an elder’s approval. In the case of Grace Community, their size may warrant this structure, and they utilize a heavy dependence on volunteers and voluntary support that still uses the church. But the church is not naturally growing to make decisions as a church.
And this is not the only example, but it is one of the churches that has adopted this means, which is being fruitful. The majority of other non-denominational churches are not as fruitful. For example, the family-run church has no intention of bringing in others to assist in the ministry. They definitely aren’t looking to build up leaders either, unless it is leaders they can control.
And lastly, this isn’t solely a non-denominational problem. It exists within the Baptist denomination as well. Baptist distinctives are heavy into the autonomy of the local church, to be governed as a congregational model. But it isn’t taught, because I think many Baptist preachers are being selected before they have either been examined by Biblical models or have lost the urge to study and learn all things of the faith. John Hammett first stated this when he said that many Baptists do not know what it means to be Baptists, and “The tendency among most evangelical Christians is to go straight from Scripture to ministry without taking the necessary intervening steps. [Enrich Understanding with Historical and Global Perspectives, then Formulate Systematic Theology].”[1]
Therefore, this problem is mostly uniquely found in Baptists and Non-Denominational circles. I have never had a discussion with a Presbyterian, Anglican, or Methodist regarding a misunderstanding of their ecclesiology (though their own particular views may be more heavily rooted in tradition or culture). Thus, I think every church member should ask themselves whether their church has a defined ecclesiology. Ask whether they are elder-led or elder-ruled. If elder-led, do they have a purpose for the congregation to make decisions? If they are elder-ruled, who are they accountable to? What is their definition of the ordinances, and what are the practical applications of them? Are they open-communion, close-communion, or closed-communion? If they are the latter two, how do they view Baptism? How does baptism relate to membership? If they were baptized as a baby, are they eligible for membership? Are they in communion with other churches? What distinctives allow them to cooperate? Etc., etc.
We could ask a number of questions, but the ultimate question is what does Scripture say about their position? Can it be defended? I understand the Presbyterian position, and even if I think it is in error, at least they can defend it. Many of the non-denominational churches that I have been in the past could not, and mostly responded with “this is what we know we don’t like.” That is not acceptable, and that is where the church is in an unhealthy error. Are all non-denominational churches this way, in error? Of course not. But I think the majority are. Do you think this is a non-issue, or can you see how this has resulted in the stagnant growth or failure of many churches?
[1] John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations For Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019), 16.