It is obvious to anyone who travels even locally, that there are a great number of “community churches” that are not affiliated with any denomination. Their signs make it plain that they are non-denominational and welcome people to come and worship. Without any supporting research, I would guess most of the growth in the number of community churches has taken place since the 1970’s.
Denominations usually started when a group of people within an earlier church become enlightened in some particular area of Biblical doctrine. For example, that we should baptize believers upon a confession of faith in Christ) instead of “infant baptism”. Others began because their Christian experience was not acknowledged, appreciated, or allowed in the existing church. This could include not only baptism by immersion, but repentance and conversion itself, or the “Pentecostal” experience. Such people were driven out, either by the dead dryness of conventional religion, by frustration, or by the opposition of the existing church. People thus left one denomination and started a new church or denomination, either willingly or because they were forced out of the old.
While I am not affiliated with a denomination, and am generally against them, I believe that God has directed church history to bring us over time to a better and more complete theology and experience. Each denomination, even if they had no intention of becoming such, added some particular facet of theological understanding to what had previously been missing. I do not mean that anything was added to Biblical truth – the truth has always been there in the Word (the Bible) - but Christianity in general has needed to recover truths that were unrecognized, neglected or even denied through earlier church history.
Of course, some of the “new” teachings were not really a recovery of neglected Biblical truths at all, but were recycled errors or heresies from early church history, or just plain wrong teachings based on ignorance or delusion. Some were so far “out there” that they are not even recognized as Christian denominations, but non-Christian cultish groups. For the purpose of this piece, I do not want to specifically address any of the “wrong” teachings, but instead look at the denominations that started out with something that really was true as far as they knew and could express it.
One problem is that each group became so enamored of the “new” teaching, that they stressed it to the neglect of other doctrines, or of scriptures that would give a better balance to their teachings. Thus they “camped out” on that one doctrine, and began setting up walls or barriers to protect it against opposition. They also became resistant to further revelation or attempts to correct or clarify their pet doctrines. So we have a multitude of denominations that are known for one, or a few particular beliefs, like Baptists and immersive water baptism, the various “holiness” churches, Lutheranism, the predestination and sovereignty taught in some Presbyterian and Reformed churches, the charismatic experience of churches generally classified as “Pentecostal”, churches that stress grace, or who stress missionary activities, etc.
While many of these stressed-doctrines are good and true because they are Biblical, the denominations have had several problems:
1. They have held to their own particular doctrine to the neglect of others. For example, there is much more in the Bible than just salvation by grace, or the salvation experience. Church members who really are Christians get frustrated when they hear nothing but a salvation message directed at unbelievers, every Sunday for 20 years. They correctly think that there has got to be more to Christianity than this.
2. Sometimes in their enthusiasm they have introduced errors, inconsistencies, or incompleteness in their doctrine, but defend themselves against a better and more accurate presentation of the truth. Men who have tried to correct the teaching have been seen as threats who are "rocking the boat", and are forced to either shut up or leave.
3. The original doctrines that characterized the church are often watered down, phased out, and eventually denied. This has repeatedly occurred in denominational seminaries that started with strict doctrinal requirements for their professors. Over decades the guidelines are loosened or ignored, and professors begin questioning or denying those doctrines that were supposed to be fundamental. As the professors continue to teach without negative consequence, they become more bold in denying truth and teaching error. Of course the “people in the pews” have no idea that their stated doctrinal beliefs have been compromised until the graduating “pastors” begin spewing out the nonsense they were taught in seminary. This problem is somewhat hidden by its gradual nature. A professor or pastor doesn’t usually just stand up all of a sudden and say “I no longer believe that the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God”. They do it much more gradually, over the course of years, sort of “feeling out the waters” to see how much they can distort or deny the Word without being called out.
4. Another problem is that pastors are afraid to teach all the Word because they know the denomination is against it, and so to teach certain things will result in their dismissal and loss of livelihood. For example, many of us in a campus ministry at Ball State University were told that if we held to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, prayers for healing or deliverance, etc., that we were no longer welcome. This is what is referred to as getting the “left foot of fellowship”. I will give the campus pastor the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was sincerely convinced that such things are not scripturally correct, but I am sure that a contributing factor was the knowledge that he would be kicked out on his ear if the three supporting denominations found out that they had a bunch of "Pentecostals” in their midst.
5. Another common problem with denominations is their organizational structure, where local churches are controlled by their “headquarters”. This can include rotation or assignment of ministers (pastors), the choice of Sunday School or other instructional materials, discipline of erring pastors (or sometimes of pastors that are too vocal with the truth), and even extends to ownership of the physical premises. This has become a problem for many of the United Methodist churches, where members object to the direction at the Methodist top, and want to break free. Many in our area have succeeded, but the ownership of the land and buildings is always an issue.
6. A major problem in many of the mainstream denominations is their embrace of globalism and leftist ideology. This can include the Marxism in portions of the Catholic church, and the controversies in the Episcopalian, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches concerning ordination of homosexuals or transgenders, or homosexual marriage, etc. People also object to the overt communistic tilts of the National and World Councils of Churches. They have become not only weary, but offended at their tithes and offerings going to support the denominational headquarters and its anti-Biblical directions. Local believers are saying, “Either get us out of this ungodly denominational connection, or we are going to leave”.
For these reasons and others, very many people have forsaken the denominations they were raised in, and have moved to this new type of “community church”. In the next part of this topic, I will discuss the benefits of the community church model, but also some of the difficulties and very real problems associated with it.
Comments