While perhaps not intended to be so, most if not all denominations are ultimately about power and control, something which infects virtually every human organization.
And I don’t believe that was God’s wish for his body of believers.

David P Himes, #1,
Tell me the truth, how do you know “most if not all denominations are ultimately about power and control”?
I’ve participated in two denominations, and never once had that sense about either. Ever.

I think it’s important to remember that Stetzer’s CT piece presents hypotheses. But he does not provide anything but anecdotal cases in support of his hypotheses. It’ll be really interesting if, as a church researcher, Stetzer can show us patterns that support the thoughts he presents. For my part, I would be really surprised if he could detect any positive “denomination effect” along the lines he proposes.
I also thought his comment about the SBC’s IMB was misleading. As a commenter on Stetzer’s blog noted, Campus Crusade and YWAM have far larger missionary footprints than the IMB. To my knowledge, at least double. And having to raise support may have the unintended benefit of screening out the lazy. I was surprised that such points were strangely absent from the Stetzer article. Also, to my knowledge denominational missionaries are not any more willing to be cooperative with like-minded others. The denominational affiliation often makes it about “planting SBC churches” than “planting churches.” This isn’t to say that some nondenom missionaries aren’t equally territorial in their own ways at times.
To me, Stetzer’s more general point is that new churches and ministries should learn from those who came from others, not go it alone, and connect with history. But groups inside and outside of denominations do this and don’t do this.
In general I agree with and value his point that people are too dismissive of historical denominations and they should value them more. I just feel that his CT article tries to do way too much and was conspicuously one-sided.

David-
The one denomination I have extensive experience with has a great deal of power and control going on. Certain leaders at certain times may be “ultimately” driven by these goals. But personally, I’d have no way of knowing that most or even many of them do and have done. A couple of the previous leaders seem really godly and spiritually mature.
But as one of Scot’s posts preceding this one pointed out… most saints aren’t always saintly all the time. Could it be power-grasping is a condition that besets all sorts of Christian groups and organizations–denominational and nondenominational alike.

Jason,
I don’t know what all your acronyms means–IMB, YWAM. As for having to have a denominational imprint, I don’t think many denominations are fixated on this– as a religion reporter I saw several denominations, including the Southern Baptists, United Methodists and PCUSA putting significant resources into house churches and non-denominational church plants, including emerging church plants. In fact, I was often awed at how little it was about “us” or ego and how much about a yearning to build the body of Christ. Clearly, most denominations hope their “untagged” church members will eventually join the denomination, but that’s not the main point.
The positive I see in institutions, when well run, is their ability to curb excess. At times this dampens innovation, but it also breeds humility and curbs egomaniacal impulses. Non-denominational churches do run the danger of becoming overly dominated by one personality. And denominations do have rich resources– I see not having to cost justify every activity and not having to pinch every penny as a positive. Denominations have some deep pockets to sustain losses and that’s a good thing, as some good works take time to take hold.

Jesus and the apostles aren’t here among us on this earth. Yes, we have the Holy Spirit, and scripture to guide, BUT the faith we live is also passed from generation to generation. This, in my mind requires a strong denomination.

The reasons for the denom. decline seem to be legion. On the (big) upside, I think ecumenism has gained a lot of ground, especially as the gospel of the kingdom of God, thanks to Ladd and many others, has continued to merge with and shape our theological paradigms. It has been like a steady rain on the fires of old debates, whether Calvinism vs. Arm; or pre vs. post trib; or spiritual vs. social gospel, or even Cath vs. Prot. Not that the debates are dead, but for an increasing number, they’ve become a sideshow at best, and they should be. Well, some of those debates were the raison d’etre for denominational loyalty. The new ties, by contrast, seem to be more pragmatic and/or local. Willow’s org is a perfect example of the former. In some ways, even the rise of mega-churches seems to reflect the latter trend, as “big-tent” evangelicals at the local level seek a church that “majors on the majors” and lets those majors actually drive everything. Aren’t most of the megachurches non-denoms (or at least act like non-denoms)?
In any event, I personally don’t think that denoms are necessarily the best worst way. Most still seem to have an intent, at least in the fine print, of making big policy decisions on theological minors or based on traditions whose original justification has long died or shrunk. Too many other strategic, helpful alliances are available now, with less baggage, for many denoms to thrive without major changes.

Jason, thanks for your approach here. I suspect nothing really has been done that could cull out a “denominational effect” but isn’t Stetzer’s view a little more generic? Namely, that while denominations aren’t anything close to perfect (his last par is very honest) they do get things done.

Banding together in pursuit of mission, sharing resources, being connected to history, all absolutely important. Whether that happens in a traditional denomination is irrelevant. They are a good option for all those things, but they aren’t magic.
And don’t forget history. Every big old historical denomination with fancy hats and dusty hymnbooks was once a radical upstart sect of some kind. In 300 years, if the Lord tarries, maybe the Presbyterians and Baptists will be gone, and the Willowans and the Emergans will be attacked as bureaucratic, out of touch fuddy-duddies. Who knows?

“Do not forsake the sacred assembly”, Paul incourages us, in fact directly implies that common belief fellowship is integral to the growth and maintenance of Christian faith, the issue then becomes in what your beliefs are based upon for “wide is the road that leads to destruction, but narrow is the gate and the way that leads to life, and few are they that find it.” Sadly in the world today many denominations ” teach for truth the doctrine of man”, so the only defense a Christian has if they desire to serve God is to be a “workman, studying to show themselves approved.”
Personaly I am a member of a denomination, it is not however the one I was raised up as a child in, nor is it any of the 17 other denominations in which I journeyed through on my search for one that was scripturally sound and has the fruit of the spirit, praise God that after 15 years I found her. However, it is my firm belief that the last days church has not yet been brought together, soon but not yet, so when it is time ( if God be merciful and permit me breath of life at that time), then I will go where God calls for I know the voice of my Shepard.
Let no man teach you, rather verify what they say in diligent study, scripture interprets scripture, It is one of the Spirits gifts that He ” leads us into the knowledge of the truth of all things”.
Hope to see some of you soon, God so willing.

I’ve grown up and been going to non-denominational churches all my life. I have to say that as time goes on though and I (hopefully) mature a bit in my theology, I am sort of envious of people who grew up in a “tradition”. While non-denominational churches do have much freedom, that freedom, I think anyway, tends to make one lose the sense of being in connection to a long tradition of thinkers.
So these days I sometimes find “what denomination are you?” websites with cheesy quizzes and am trying to figure find a theological and intellectual tradition to immerse myself into. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not, but I think at least in terms of trying to put together a coherent worldview and theology it’s useful to “put on” a denomination or at least “tradition” and see what it’s like.

It seems to me that the increasing role of crusade or college ministry conversions in the past 50 years has dealt a blow to denominations in general. I was raised Catholic, became a Christian in college through campus ministry and shortly thereafter became convinced that a calvinistic understanding of God and the gospel was accurate.
So when I have moved, I haven’t cared one lick about the denominations of the churches in the area. I look for a church that lines up with my beliefs surrounding the gospel, and then I address secondary issues. I have had to move a lot in the past 10 years and have ended up in Southern Baptist Churches, Presbyterian Churches, and non-denominational churches. I care about the gospel, as I understand it, not denominations, and I think all of the people in my campus ministry would agree.
I suspect that an attitude similar to mine is also shared by people that come to faith through organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ or the Navigators, or people affected by the revivalism of Billy Graham and the like.

I for one am very thankful for my denomination and the support it gives my local congregation. We recently had a member die in a tragic accident, he was one of those people that was involved in many areas of ministry. It left a huge hole in our congregation and many of our hearts. As a lay leader, our regional denomination offices provided support for our pastoral staff that we could not have had the resources within the congregation to provide. Our pastors were in turn able to give support to the congregation that we needed. I know it is possible to find these sorts of resources, but I wouldn’t have had any idea were to get them outside of a denomination.

There is beauty in the way God uses the various denominations to express distinctive streams of Christianity. And it is true that working as groups has advantages. I pray that denominational leaders will seriously consider a few of the disadvantages to their systems and see if they might express the Christian life in ways that are more meaningful in this age. First of all we have great inefficiencies and downright waste in some of the more bureaucratic pockets of denominationalism. Much of the overhead, and the buildings themselves, are inhibiting the flow of the Spirit in this age. I am suggesting that the very ethos of most denominations, built centuries ago, needs to go through radical shits. We see such shifting in most sectors of our economy: the newspaper delivery truck is just one example of a relic. We must examine virtually every aspect of the church – preaching and the pulpit; music; Sunday mornings; polity and government styles – and ask if these are like newspaper delivery trucks. With all the assets and budgets wrapped up in shrinking denominations there are serious stewardship issues here. Denominations have inherited much from previous generations and now must make good in their decisions; merely upholding the culture of 18- or 1950 or even 1990 should not be the aim. But I am afraid that is what goes on in church buildings across the land, while too many of today’s orphans (literal and spiritual) wander like sheep without a shepherd.

It’s kind of sad to hear so many people (who claim Christ) talk about what they like, or how cool it is at their church, etc.
The point of denominations is to #1 organize by belief #2 work together for the gospel.
I’m a Southern Baptist, does anyone else send more missionaries or provide more aid to those in need? Why not? Are your belief that narrow that you’re church is the only one who believes like you do, or are you so exclusivist that you don’t want to work with other believers for the advancement of the gospel?
I’m sorry if I come across as harsh, I’m just sick of my generation making excuses as to why they don’t get busy in their churches to see the great commission accomplished.
IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU!!!!!!
People as so selfish (venting done for the day)

I’m not big on denomination vs. non-denomination. I was taught as a child to seek a Bible-believing church and so that has always been my criteria first and foremost rather than denominational affiliation. However, I disagree with the statement above that, “we can do more for the kingdom of God by doing it together with people of common conviction–which usually means in a denomination…” As was cited, Willow Creek is doing quite a bit for the kingdom and they do not have denominational affiliation, yet there is some common conviction that has held them together and helped them to be successful. The pitfalls in denominations are also mentioned above: bureaucracy, doctrinal squabbles, etc. If denominations are declining, it’s probably for these reasons. What denominations would do well to learn is how to function with more of a biblical emphasis versus a denominational one. Once we make anything else our focus over adherence to God’s Word and living a biblical life, we’ll run into trouble.

Not only do I firmly believe denominations will continue to fade, the non denom churches like Willow and all the “Community” churches which really belong to a doctrine of faith from the “non-denominational” Christian Church of America, will also start fading fast. McLaren noted years ago at Emergent in Nashville, he believes we are in the middle of a huge shift and that this era of change or gray area could take decades to form this new era.

#17
It depends on you what you mean by fading away. If you mean numerically fading away, this basically isn’t true. Mainline denominations are in strong decline. Theologically conservative denominations are numerically holding their own much more. There are 3 main reasons for this: (1) conservatives have more kids; (2) conservative denominations have fewer apostates; and (3) fewer conservatives join mainline denominations. See: http://sociology.sas.upenn.edu/sites/sociology.sas.upenn.edu/files/Demographic%20Imperative%20AJS.pdf

Two comments from a denominational pastor about the “personal pragmatics” of being part of a denomination:
1) I greatly appreciate (and need) the pastoral support I (and at times my congregation) receive from my regional denominational body (and which I am able to provide for my fellow pastors and churches). Locally, I am part of the leadership for our (very ecumenical) Ministerium; and I enjoy a lot of fellowship and friendship with my local pastors. But, for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t approach the intensity of that provided through my denominational channels. I know there are other non-denominational structures that provide such support (and I have been a part of some of those), but (again, at least for me) none approaches what I receive (and give) through the regional denominational body of which I and my church are a part.
2) That relationship also provides for my congregation the expectation of a fair amount of continuity between me and my successor. Not rigid conformity, but reasonable continuity. In my 30+ years here, the largest non-denominational church in our city has gone through 5 pastoral transitions — and with each transition has come a fairly dramatic shift in the “personality” of the church, causing a fair amount of disruption. I don’t know if that’s typical or not — and certainly a denominational church can face similar disruptions — but at least there’s a measure of continuity between pastors when a denomination has a particular doctrinal identity.
This will come as a surprise to no one who knows me, but I am not arguing that denominations are flawless (least of all mine!). And some of the internecine debates can drive me up a wall; but I would never want to return to my non-denominational roots.

Bob @ 19,
On your point 1, do you think it’s possible that the existence of denominations is part of what drives your more informal, local networks of fellow churches/ministers to be less supporting?
I think what you describe your denominational body providing is important, but I suspect it would happen a lot more on a local level if denominational differences weren’t a barrier, however semi-permeable. I have no data on that or anything, just my thoughts.
On your point 2, I think the pastor-whiplash you describe is a problem for nondenominational churches, but I’d chalk that up more to how most churches, especially nondenoms, conceive of the role of pastor.

I agree that a tradition is important, if only for the sake of humility. What can seem perfectly “right” in our own time, can look much different through the lens of history.

The days of African American invisibility have not yet ended. When discussing the largest denominations in the USA, rarely in the historically-black Church of God in Christ (5 million members in the USA) mentioned.

My pastor argues that non-denominational is actually a denomination, in that many non-denominational churches are very much the same. If you go into your local Bible-mega-church in any city, chances are you’ll have a similar experience and find a similar doctrine. There’s just no overarching authority/bureaucracy.
His view is that non-denominational is as much about marketing a church as anything. What’s the church for people who are fed up with organized religion and their parent’s old, stale, denominational church? The fresh, new non-denominational church!
Of course, being a pastor, he can make the point much more effectively than I am.

I sense denominations are collapsing in on themselves. I think that is a good thing. I’m more interested in seeing someone brought into the body of Christ than I am in seeing someone brought into a denomination.

Travis @20: “On your point 1, do you think it’s possible that the existence of denominations is part of what drives your more informal, local networks of fellow churches/ministers to be less supporting?”
Probably to some degree. But I also think that I would not be able to become as intimately involved in helping and being helped as I am within the denominational structure.
As hard as we try to work together ecumenically (and we do a lot together and get along amazingly well across quite a theological spectrum of congregations), there are limits beyond which involvement may be seen as “meddling” and where defensiveness comes into play. One could wish it weren’t so, but we’re sinners living in a sinful world! (By the way, I’ve observed this same possessiveness/defensiveness among churches whether or not they are part of a denomination. Indeed, a fair number of non-denominational churches that I’ve observed in nearly 40 years of ministry seem to view themselves as pretty much autonomous.)