I spent 36 years of my after-college life in large non-denominational churches before moving to a mainline church 2 years ago. So doing the math you know I'm not exactly young.
Looking back, what issues did I not consider close enough or overlooked:
1) Church was focused on a performative Sunday service.
2) Church was centered around a single pastor that had very little accountability, even if there was a "board".
3) Church had very little financial accountability to the membership. A typical audit report would fit on a 3x5 card.
4) Very little teaching on theology, what we believe, why we believe this or that. Is the Bible inerrant? Why do we believe in eternal conscious torment?
5) Church follows the fads. Small groups, coffee shops, etc. Whatever is in.
6) Most "ministries" were internal and had little to do with the community.
7) Systemic and/or social issues? No thanks, we just love Jesus and can't wait to get to heaven.
Wondering. I wonder if the non denoms have a common view about religion besides describing themselves as Christian And what do they mean by Christian? It strikes me that many people are bored by theology and are seeking feeling in its place. One could describe this as a spiritual connection or a sense of community of the elect.
What makes a church Christian is it a belief in Jesus or a belief in the Trinity? Some Catholic theologians that I have read recently speak of Christomonism, meaning where Jesus has largely displaced the Trinity. Is this an evolution of Christianity or a new thing?
When people say they believe that the bible is the literal word of God do they know what is in the Bible or do they even care that much or is this more of a political statement, kind of a line in the sand? Do they think the English text of the Bible is the word of God?
In terms of organized Christian movements in the USA, Ryan's assessment is correct. The future is non-denominational. This movement had been clearly launched by the 1960s and had a substantial presence by 1980.. By 1990 we were certainly moving rapidly towards a post-denominational era. (In my consulting with denominations launched during that decade, I preferred to refer to it as a denominational transformational era. The problem was too few existing denominations were transformed. Many changed leadership and focus, but too often it was a return to the 1950s.) By 2010, the movement to nondenominational was unstoppable--assuming it needed to be stopped, which is not a correct assumption. Denominations are killing themselves--and have been so long that the movement cannot be stopped. But there is a very different question that needs to be asked, for which getting reliable data is much tougher than the assessments Ryan does. It is--what is the impact of the Christian movement and message on the community context and the people groups of our nation? Is the denominational and non-denominational Christian movement in the USA making the community context and people groups more loving and Christlike? Or, are nondenominational congregations simply skimming the surface and reaching a slice of society but not truly transforming our context?
In order to get that distribution to non-denom and age a lot of the current non-denominationals had to be defectors from someplace else. While they had their reasons to move on from where they were raised or where they were as young adults, they really import their old identity to their new membership. That is especially true in churches that make few theological demands or have no litmus tests for belonging.
We Jews have had that template of affiliation since the 1950s. While our denominations of Haredi/Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist/Reform all had umbrella groups before that, suburbanization led to a lot of shifting. The tenets of the denominations are often quite distant from the realities of the members. Some choose a synagogue because they like the Rabbi or their neighbors go there or the Hebrew School has better hours for car pooling. As a consequence, Reform temples which make very few observance expectations have defectors from more stringent movements who still have Kosher homes and can read Torah. Orthodox congregations either know they have to keep the parking lots open on Sabbath or their less observant members park at the nearest supermarket and walk over.
The Non-Denoms are going to be something of a variant of that. If Biblical literalism has increased, it is because they migrated from someplace where literalism was an expectation that got maintained. It's largely the same people but redistributed to different worship settings.
We are Baptist, but it is not in our name so most think we are non-denominational. We have done a survey every year for 10 years of everyone in our auditorium 12 years old and above. Average sample size: 1000 people. 39% said, "I did not attend any church in the 5 years prior to coming to Bridgewater Church." Some of these were something as a child, and we are only one church, but non-denominational church are attracting "nothing" people and not just switchers from other Christian faiths.
We have grown an average of 15% a year for about 20 years and spun separate churches off. So we are probably not normal. The survey we do internally also shows that 40-60% of our congregation starting coming to our church in the last 2 years.
I have to ask, why are many Baptist churches, as least in my area of Texas, running away from their Baptist name? Do you think those attending who do not know you are Baptist understand the beliefs of the Baptist church?
In my area it is because "Baptist" can mean American Baptist pro-LGBTQ or King James Only Suit-coat and tie, drums are of the devil Baptist. Our church is neither but we drop the Baptist name in our advertising and signs because it creates more barriers and is confusing to people who didn't grow up in our church (Which is 99.9% of the county).
No doubt there are many contributing factors to the non-denom rise, but I can't help but wonder if simplicity in governance structure doesn't contribute substantially. A non-denom usually has a strong pastor with a small board of elders--and that's it. Proposed changes don't have to go through five committees, often staffed with people related to each other. Polity is a major drag on denominations, I would think. Any studies on this? I was once extended a call to a UCC congregation, and while dealing with the fourth gatekeeping committee after the search committee's selection of me, I withdrew. If they were that bureaucratic in the search process, I couldn't imagine the administrative headache I would face when trying to pastor.
Administrative headache is one side of that coin but transparency is the other. I grew up Nazarene and they had the annual budget for the church on a table in the foyer where anyone could come off the street and read it. My fear with the non-denominational churches is that they are way more opaque in where the money goes so the next Swaggart or Bakker can hide much better behind those hidden budgets.
As always, very good. I'm not sure why you never used the words "megachurch" when discussing the rise in non-denom and younger congregants. I know you have in past article. It just seems overwhelmingly important considering the entertainment value of the megachurches vs any understanding of the bible, literal or otherwise.
Is there anyway you are able to drill down into geographic data? For example, when you speak of racial diversity amongst the "non-denominations", for example, in So Cal the growth in the Asian populations is considerable in South Orange County.
Are non-denom *congregations*racially diverse? Or is their diversity similar to that of Protestants in general, with lots of both Black and White adherents, but highly segregated congregations?
I believe Assembly of God is about 23% Hispanic. They are the only large denomination that has been starting more new churches than they are closing and many are started by Spanish-speaking pastors.
I spent 36 years of my after-college life in large non-denominational churches before moving to a mainline church 2 years ago. So doing the math you know I'm not exactly young.
Looking back, what issues did I not consider close enough or overlooked:
1) Church was focused on a performative Sunday service.
2) Church was centered around a single pastor that had very little accountability, even if there was a "board".
3) Church had very little financial accountability to the membership. A typical audit report would fit on a 3x5 card.
4) Very little teaching on theology, what we believe, why we believe this or that. Is the Bible inerrant? Why do we believe in eternal conscious torment?
5) Church follows the fads. Small groups, coffee shops, etc. Whatever is in.
6) Most "ministries" were internal and had little to do with the community.
7) Systemic and/or social issues? No thanks, we just love Jesus and can't wait to get to heaven.
Wondering. I wonder if the non denoms have a common view about religion besides describing themselves as Christian And what do they mean by Christian? It strikes me that many people are bored by theology and are seeking feeling in its place. One could describe this as a spiritual connection or a sense of community of the elect.
What makes a church Christian is it a belief in Jesus or a belief in the Trinity? Some Catholic theologians that I have read recently speak of Christomonism, meaning where Jesus has largely displaced the Trinity. Is this an evolution of Christianity or a new thing?
When people say they believe that the bible is the literal word of God do they know what is in the Bible or do they even care that much or is this more of a political statement, kind of a line in the sand? Do they think the English text of the Bible is the word of God?
I do think this continues to show that Non-denominational churches are mostly Southern Baptist and Assembly of God.
In terms of organized Christian movements in the USA, Ryan's assessment is correct. The future is non-denominational. This movement had been clearly launched by the 1960s and had a substantial presence by 1980.. By 1990 we were certainly moving rapidly towards a post-denominational era. (In my consulting with denominations launched during that decade, I preferred to refer to it as a denominational transformational era. The problem was too few existing denominations were transformed. Many changed leadership and focus, but too often it was a return to the 1950s.) By 2010, the movement to nondenominational was unstoppable--assuming it needed to be stopped, which is not a correct assumption. Denominations are killing themselves--and have been so long that the movement cannot be stopped. But there is a very different question that needs to be asked, for which getting reliable data is much tougher than the assessments Ryan does. It is--what is the impact of the Christian movement and message on the community context and the people groups of our nation? Is the denominational and non-denominational Christian movement in the USA making the community context and people groups more loving and Christlike? Or, are nondenominational congregations simply skimming the surface and reaching a slice of society but not truly transforming our context?
In order to get that distribution to non-denom and age a lot of the current non-denominationals had to be defectors from someplace else. While they had their reasons to move on from where they were raised or where they were as young adults, they really import their old identity to their new membership. That is especially true in churches that make few theological demands or have no litmus tests for belonging.
We Jews have had that template of affiliation since the 1950s. While our denominations of Haredi/Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist/Reform all had umbrella groups before that, suburbanization led to a lot of shifting. The tenets of the denominations are often quite distant from the realities of the members. Some choose a synagogue because they like the Rabbi or their neighbors go there or the Hebrew School has better hours for car pooling. As a consequence, Reform temples which make very few observance expectations have defectors from more stringent movements who still have Kosher homes and can read Torah. Orthodox congregations either know they have to keep the parking lots open on Sabbath or their less observant members park at the nearest supermarket and walk over.
The Non-Denoms are going to be something of a variant of that. If Biblical literalism has increased, it is because they migrated from someplace where literalism was an expectation that got maintained. It's largely the same people but redistributed to different worship settings.
We are Baptist, but it is not in our name so most think we are non-denominational. We have done a survey every year for 10 years of everyone in our auditorium 12 years old and above. Average sample size: 1000 people. 39% said, "I did not attend any church in the 5 years prior to coming to Bridgewater Church." Some of these were something as a child, and we are only one church, but non-denominational church are attracting "nothing" people and not just switchers from other Christian faiths.
We have grown an average of 15% a year for about 20 years and spun separate churches off. So we are probably not normal. The survey we do internally also shows that 40-60% of our congregation starting coming to our church in the last 2 years.
I have to ask, why are many Baptist churches, as least in my area of Texas, running away from their Baptist name? Do you think those attending who do not know you are Baptist understand the beliefs of the Baptist church?
In my area it is because "Baptist" can mean American Baptist pro-LGBTQ or King James Only Suit-coat and tie, drums are of the devil Baptist. Our church is neither but we drop the Baptist name in our advertising and signs because it creates more barriers and is confusing to people who didn't grow up in our church (Which is 99.9% of the county).
Thanks for that reply. In my area "Baptist" generally means SBC or ones that are to the right of SBC.
No doubt there are many contributing factors to the non-denom rise, but I can't help but wonder if simplicity in governance structure doesn't contribute substantially. A non-denom usually has a strong pastor with a small board of elders--and that's it. Proposed changes don't have to go through five committees, often staffed with people related to each other. Polity is a major drag on denominations, I would think. Any studies on this? I was once extended a call to a UCC congregation, and while dealing with the fourth gatekeeping committee after the search committee's selection of me, I withdrew. If they were that bureaucratic in the search process, I couldn't imagine the administrative headache I would face when trying to pastor.
Administrative headache is one side of that coin but transparency is the other. I grew up Nazarene and they had the annual budget for the church on a table in the foyer where anyone could come off the street and read it. My fear with the non-denominational churches is that they are way more opaque in where the money goes so the next Swaggart or Bakker can hide much better behind those hidden budgets.
As always, very good. I'm not sure why you never used the words "megachurch" when discussing the rise in non-denom and younger congregants. I know you have in past article. It just seems overwhelmingly important considering the entertainment value of the megachurches vs any understanding of the bible, literal or otherwise.
Is there anyway you are able to drill down into geographic data? For example, when you speak of racial diversity amongst the "non-denominations", for example, in So Cal the growth in the Asian populations is considerable in South Orange County.
Love what you do.
Are non-denom *congregations*racially diverse? Or is their diversity similar to that of Protestants in general, with lots of both Black and White adherents, but highly segregated congregations?
Do any of the Protestant denominations have a larger share of Hispanics than the Non-Denom churches?
AoG is 23% Hispanic:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-assemblies-of-god-in-2024
I believe Assembly of God is about 23% Hispanic. They are the only large denomination that has been starting more new churches than they are closing and many are started by Spanish-speaking pastors.