Making A Case For Denominations



An increasingly popular topic in many evangelical circles today is the relevance and/or importance of denominations. Not surprisingly this conversation occurs primarily, but certainly not exclusively, among  pastors and congregations not affiliated with any denominational and who, by definition, have already concluded that denominations are either irrelevant and/or unimportant.

This issue came up in the conversations at The Elephant Room this week. Not surprisingly the panel made up of pastors not affiliated with any denomination (no, “Baptist” isn’t a denomination), was convinced that denominations are losing their relevance. Although, ironically, by their own admission most of these guys also participate in “cooperative networks,” which are almost like denominations, except that they allow the local pastor to hold on to his power authority.

I’ve seen the numbers too and, generally speaking, traditional denominations are losing members. Despite what you may think, however, I believe that this makes them more relevant, not less.

Why? Because it seems to me, and many others, that the mass migration we are witnessing is fueled in large part, not by a burning passion for an “authentic faith”, but by consumerism. I’m not saying there aren’t people leaving denominational churches with legitimate scars. Nor am I saying that “relevance” isn’t important.

However, if there is one thing the church does not need more of it’s fracturing. The reality is that even within traditional denominations, there is great diversity, including many churches who are making intentional efforts to be “relevant” to the 21st century. Surely we can find ways to further that diversity by staying faithful to the commitments we have made, rather than bolting for the cool, new church down the street, further dividing an already fractured church.

With that in mind, I would like to try to make the case that denominations are not only still relevant, they are also tremendously important.

We need less splintering, not more.

I don’t know of anyone who would argue that the church needs less division. However, our actions speak louder than our words. I could be wrong, but there seem to be more Christian denominations today than at any point in history. We began with 1 church and now there are over 38,000 different denominations.

Diversity is a great thing. Splintering is not.

It was Paul who said we are one body, but many parts. The hand cannot say “I don’t need” you, for it will die by itself. Yet, this seems to be exactly what we’re doing today.

So what gives?

I don’t think we have to look much further than McDonald’s  and Wendy’s for the answer. We live in a consumeristic society. We love our menus. We want to pick and choose whatever we want, reject what we don’t want, and not be held accountable for either decision. If we don’t like what we see at McDonald’s, then we’ll just go across the street to Wendy’s. They still have basically what we’re looking for, but we like their Frosty better than McDonald’s shakes. And of course, if we get tired of burgers and fries, then we can just head down the street to Taco Bell and pick up a  “taco”.

We do the same thing with church. We are consumeristic congregations. If we don’t like the preacher, the style of music, or the color of the carpet, then we feel free to leave at our whim. Certainly, we all have the right to choose our particular faith tradition. But once we have committed to that tradition or a particular church and we leave because we get upset about something or because the church down the street is suddenly more exciting, then I think we need to ask ourselves some tough questions.

What does it say about us and what we are actually “seeking” that we shop around for the “right” church that makes us comfortable?

Likewise, what does it do to the body of Christ when our commitment to her is based primarily on our personal happiness?

Simply put, the church doesn’t need more splintering. The church needs men and women brave enough to stay in the churches or traditions where they are, enrich those churches or traditions, and become agents of change within those places when necessary.

By what authority?

As freedom loving Americans we may not want to hear this, but authority in the church is important. That’s not the bias suggestion of a minister, it’s the model Jesus himself established in the Gospels. Jesus lays his hands on his disciples and literally breathes authority into them to establish his church and make disciples. Years later, when a formal church and hierarchy is established it’s not the “invention of man”, it’s the invention of Jesus.

This isn’t an argument for us to all return to Rome. (sorry Catholic friends) I’m simply making the point that if you’re going to go out and establish a new church, particularly an autonomous one, then you need to pause and ask “Who gave me the authority to do so?”

Before you say God told you to do it, I have to ask how you know it was God and not just your own frustrations or dreams. The New Testament gives us a way to discern this. Paul tells us to “test the spirits”. He’s not telling us to simply pray and then go with what our gut or heart tells us. Both Paul and Peter tested what they thought they were called to do by appearing before the Council of Jerusalem. In other words, they brought it to the church. The formal church, not an abstract, spritiual collection of Christian friends. If the church would affirm it, then it was from God. If they didn’t, then it wasn’t.

This is the pattern the church as largely followed ever since then. Certainly there are moments of irreconcilable difference in the church, i.e. the filioque controversy and the Protestant Reformation. However, there is a tremendous difference between disagreeing over fundamental tenets of the faith and breaking away from the established church because you want to be “more relevant”.

Likewise, denominational authority is tremendously important because it gives both the local pastor and the laity someone to appeal to beyond the local church. In the case of autonomous churches, there is no one to appeal to beyond the pastor or church board. If your problem is with the pastor and/or church board, then how can it ever be resolved in a fair manner? What is to stop the pastor or board from simply ignoring you or worse, turning you into a “wolf among the sheep”?

The answer?


We need accountability

This goes right along with the issue of authority. With few exceptions denominationally unaffliated churches live and die with their founding pastor. It was the pastor that founded the church and his or her charismatic personality that draws people in. This certainly happens in denonimational churches, but it is the exception rather than the norm.

When this is the case, their power often goes unquestioned. There may be rules or structrures in place to govern the church, but ulimately everyone knows who is “really” in charge. When this happens, as it so often does, the pastor becomes accountable to no one but himself. This is obviously an incredibly dangerous and toxic situation. You don’t have to look further than the constant stories of financial corruption, illicit affiars, and spiritual abuse to see what happens when a pastor is accountable to no one.

However, having denomination leadership in place, rather than the pastor’s friends, aka the church board, goes a long way in holding the pastor accountable for his or her actions. Though it’s not a perfect system, most denominational pastors are keenly aware of the limits of their “power” and act accordingly. This makes for a much healthier church, than a cult of personality.


Vast resources

Denominations have vast resources from which to draw from, and I’m not just talking about financial resources.

Listening to converstions between “innovative” pastors and “their ideas” for their churches, I never cease to be amazed. They often talk about the programs, strategies, and models they have created as if they are their own, original creation. They may add some 21st century flair, but their’s almost never anything “new” or “innovative” going on. It’s just a repackaging of something the church has already been doing for hundreds of years.

And that’s just the thing. There’s no need to “reinvent the wheel”. The wheel has been invented, tested, and tweaked for 2 millenia. To assert that the church needs “innovative” pastors to come in and teach her how to function is either naive or arrogant. Certainly, the church is always in need of tweeking. But when we are members of a denomination, rather than breaking off on our own, we have access to vast resources for “how” to do church. They may need tweaking in light of new technology, but they don’t need inventing.

Additionally, when we attach ourselves to a church that is not denominationally affiliated, we do so in large part because of the style of worship, the personality of the pastor, and/or the teachings of the church. If we move away, there is no guarantee that we will be able to find a church that is even remotely similar to what we fell in love with. This isn’t usually the case, however, with a denomination. Certainly no 2 United Methodist churches are exactly the same, but if you move from Orlando to Portland you can still be relatively sure that you’ll be able to continue to worship in the tradition that has shaped your faith.

Likewise, this inter-connectedness creates a wide and wonderful family that simply can’t be found in autonomous churches. Personally speaking, this is one of the things that appeals to me the most about being part of a denomination. I’ve been a member of the Church of the Nazarene my entire life. It’s not a perfect denomination, but one thing I cherish about my tradition is its connectedness and sense of family. It doesn’t matter where I go, I seem find a Nazarene connection. When this happens it’s like meeting a lost friend and when I visit another Nazarene church it kind of feels like coming home. Obviously you can find friends and a sense of home in any church, but denominations have this already built in and I think that’s a wonderful thing. In fact, I think that’s what the church is really all about.


Clearly, I’m not a big fan of the surge in autonomous churches. However, I firmly believe that those who attend these churches are every bit as Christian as the rest of us. Likewise, I don’t think that leaving your church for another is by any means an unforgivable sin. Sometimes we should leave, particularly when spirituality abuse is occurring.

My issue is with the unnecessary splintering of an already fractured church as well as the unaccountable authority that is recklessly wielded by autonomous pastors.

Because of this I think denominations are relevant and important now more than ever. In a world of consumeristic “have it your way Christianity” when we all, pastor or lay, want to be accountable to no one, when need to be reminded that autonomy and consumerism are antithetical to Christianity. It was Jesus who said “not my will, but Yours”. If we are going to claim to be Christ-like then we have to learn that we are not the center of the universe. If there was anything Jesus taught us, it was that should always be the needs of others first.

Likewise, Paul, the man who constantly butted heads with the leadership of the early church, was also quick and emphatic in reminding us that we are one Body and we cannot say to each other “I don’t need you.” We may claim that this is not what we’re saying when we break away to form autonomous churches, but that is the very action Paul is warning us against.

I’m afraid that we’ve opened a Pandora’s box that may never close before Jesus returns. That being said, there is always hope. If we truly love the church we must learn to passionately pursue unity.

Conformity does not equate to unity and I don’t think that is what we are called to be as the Body of Christ. Diversity is beautiful and tremendously important. However, we must also strive to remain faithful to the committments we make to the church and avoid fleeing for greener pastures if it can at all be helped.

God has invited us all to be a part of his Body. That body was broken once for all on the cross. Let us not needlessly break it apart anymore.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

  • Dana Wells

    Hi. When you say “autonomous church” are you saying nondenominational? The Baptist Church is not a denomination but the Methodist is? Please explain. I grew up Baptist, later joined and Assembly of God and now attend Grace Fellowship. I was a Baptist growing up bc that is where my parent’s attended. I became a member of FAOG at 17 (bc the Lord led me there), and the Lord also led me to Grace Fellowship. I’m in agreement with you about the accountability and authority and the need for it. I love denominations bc we need to be bonded with ppl who are of like beliefs in order to be used more effectively for the Kingdom of God. Thank you as always for a great article.

    • Zack

      When you say “autonomous church” are you saying nondenominational? The Baptist Church is not a denomination but the Methodist is?

      Yes and no. I started to use the phrase “non-denominational” but that can be a bit too specific. My issue is with autonomy and that’s something that exists in “non-denoms”, “inter-denoms”, or “independent (fill in the blank)” churches.

      “Baptist” is a catch all word that encompasses MANY different streams of “Baptist theology.” Probably the closest you come to a formal denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention. However, they can merely suggest things to the local church. They have no real authority. If there is one thing that ties almost all “Baptist” churches together it is local autonomy, which is the opposite of a denomination.

      The United Methodist Church, on the other hand, is a formal denominational. Local churches run themselves, however, they are under the authority of a district superintendent, a conference bishop, and ultimately the general board of discipleship. This is the way most denominations function….locally run church, but authority is centralized at the denominational headquarters. Incidentally, this is also how the early church was structured.

  • Pingback: Mars Hill Church, Discipline, and Why We Need Denominations « Love Radically()

  • Pingback: Mars Hill Church, Discipline, and the Need for Accountability « Love Radically()

  • jordan

    Questions/comments about your authority points: How would you respond to someone like me who would argue that hierarchies within a church or denomination are inherently oppressive? Not to be cruel, but take pretty much the entire history of the Catholic church for example- the clergy have routinely used their positions of power to exert political, financial, spiritual control over their members (and sometimes even the non-members!). When it comes to the chain of command, I just don’t see how any of it is relevant or beneficial, save perhaps the idea that god > humanity.

    • Zack

      Good question.

      Not to be antagonistic, but I would say that your assertions are fundamentally flawed. Oppression is a form of evil. Evil has no ontological status, meaning it does not exist apart from humanity acting in an evil way. Hierarchies are amoral, whatever oppression (or evil) that results from them is not inherent, but brought about by human action.

      On their own cars and planes are immoral. However, when they break down or cause accidents they can cause great evil. That evil, however, is not inherent to the car or the plane, rather, it is brought about by human negligence. We wouldn’t stop driving cars or flying planes because of the possibility that evil may result. The same is true of hierarchies.

      Likewise, the assertion that “pretty much the entire history of the Catholic church” is oppressive or evil is a profound exaggeration. Obviously there are terrible moments in the Catholic church’s history, but that is true for all traditions. Those moments, however, in no way, shape, or form define its 2,000 years of existence during which great good has also been accomplished.

      As for the relevance issue, for starters, the “chain of command” is relevant because Jesus instituted it, Paul described it, the early church practiced it, and for 2,000 years the church (in every tradition) has continued to affirm and practice a chain of command. Additionally, businesses, the army, and even society itself would collapse without structure and authority. The same is true for the church.

      And in regards to the beneficial nature of church authority….well, that was sort of the whole point of the post. I spelled out, I think pretty clearly, what I think the benefits are of having authority and structure in the church. So, I would direct you back to the post there.

      Anyway, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I really appreciate your questions.

      • Andy Forsythe

        I would like to know exactly when were we told that after Judas had betrayed Our Lord that no one of authority would ever betray Christ and the Church again? Jesus had twelve apostles and in His greatest hour, one betrayed, one thrice denied, and the rest fled except for John the Beloved. That is a 1/12 success rate from God Himself. When did we ever think that anyone should be more successful? I don’t believe I will be leaving Our Lord and His Church under the care of Peter because of Judas.

  • Pingback: What I don’t understand about Christians who complain about the state of Christendom – Page 3 – Christian Forums()

  • Pingback: Pastor Becomes Atheist, Church Dissolves | The American Jesus()

  • Rae

    This article is really interesting, and share many of my senitments about denominations. I was raised in the Church of God in Christ and have very fond memories of attending and the going to different activites that the churches within our denomination had. My mom and I left when I was 7 and now that I am older and able to find my own church to attend I have visited quite a few, I have visited a few churches in the denomination I was raised in but things are so different now it’s crazy. That and the fact that I’m not fond of this denomination dissing this other denomination that goes around. So now I have been attending a non denominational church where I feel I get the Word and all the denominational isms get left out. I do hope one that I do find a good Church of God in Christ to go to some time in the future.

  • Dave

    Denominations do help in transitions between pastors, often aiding a search or dictating who is the next pastor. They provide a brand and some continuity. While autonomous churches may have occasional authority problems, most see that as far superior to the endless infighting on hot button issues in the PCUSA, UMC, Episcopalian, etc. When a denomination no longer uses the Scripture as their authority, the authority of the church is nul and void.