When I was in high school, a friend of mine once expressed to me how much distaste she had for the rivalry between Baptists and Methodists in our community. Aggravated, she said something to me along the lines of, "When I am out on my own, I'm just going to be Nondenominational."

In the past few decades, many Christians - especially in the United States - have flocked to the "nondenominational" trend. They do so even to the point of forming "nondenominational" churches. The ministers of these churches are different from other ministers in one or both of the following ways:

1. They offer what they think to be a more enlightened perspective on controversial issues.
2. They steer clear from controversial issues altogether, focusing on what they deem to be the most important parts of the Gospel.
   

Both of these characteristics, though, have intrinsic problems. The problem with the first is that, not having any God-given authority to dictate what is or isn't true doctrine, their opinions are not any more valid than the views of those from whom they wish to differentiate themselves. The problem with the second characteristic is its insinuation that some doctrines are unimportant and that they have the authority to dictate the level of importance that a particular doctrine holds. Every Christian doctrine is important - though perhaps not equally important - and again, they have no authority to dictate the level of a particular doctrine's importance anyway.

The reasons people usually give for founding or joining "nondenominational" groups are usually something very similar to my friend's reason: a distaste for the bickering that exists among the various Christian sects in the world. This decision is very understandable, and it does often bespeak a certain level of virtue and humility. However, just as there are problems associated with the perspective a "nondenominational" minister takes, there are some intrinsic flaws to the entire "nondenominational" philosophy:

• It does not actually beget peace between Christians.
  Even "nondenominational" churches disagree and bicker with each other.
• It is a misnomer.
  There is no such thing as a truly "nondenominational" church or individual. When a man presents himself as a "nondenominational" minister, he is really saying that he simply belongs to his own denomination.
  
• It misplaces priorities.
  "Nondenominationalism" is based in a desire to appease the various prejudices and conjectures of Man rather than in a need to abide by the will of God. The fact that sectarians cannot seem to agree on a particular point of doctrine does not mean that God has no opinion on the matter.
  
• There is no power in it.
  Even if a "nondenominational" minister were to present a message that is absolutely devoid of all controversy, he would only be able to do so by watering it down so much that it would lose all efficacy.

It is absolutely true that Christians should not be at odds with one another, and I applaud those who call themselves "nondenominational" out of a desire to establish peace in the Lord's house. However, the truth of the matter is that the sectarian world is not the Lord's house. Constantine had more to do with the founding of the Catholic faith than the Lord did, and those groups who have split off from the Catholic faith are simply mopping the floor with dirty water. I use that analogy because the Protestant Reformation tried to use the limited vision and vain philosophies of men to fix problems that were caused by the limited vision and vain philosophies of men.

Thus, the sectarian situation that we see today is not the creation of God, and we should not act as if it were. We cannot splice up deep schisms by replacing supernal truths with platitudes and feelgoodyness. Instead of trying to blindly correct a flawed and fragmented copy, the Christian world should look for the original work. The great reformer Roger Williams knew this. After having formed the first Baptist congregation in America, he forsook Protestantism altogether. Knowing that neither he nor any other religious leaders at that time had the true apostolic authority that is necessary to stand as a representative of Christ and lead His people, Williams counseled his followers to wait for the Lord to send new apostles.

Sectarian ministers reinterpret the Lord's message in such a way that they are preaching their own conjectures as if they were the will of God. However, only one with the proper apostolic authority, received from Christ in an unbroken line and empowering him to know the true will of God, can authoritatively compose or interpret scripture.

"Nondenominational" ministers deem various aspects of the Gospel unimportant because they are controversial. However, as Christ said, He brought a sword into the world, and He knew that His message would turn brother against brother and mother against daughter. Why do we seek to end controversy by watering down the message when we know that the true Gospel always has been and always will be the single greatest subject of controversy in the world?

(No, I'm not saying that controversy is the goal. It is just an unavoidable externality.)

If Satan cannot remove Christianity from the world entirely, I am sure he will gladly settle for a Christianity that dares not assert or even clearly identify itself.