Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The Denomination of the Nondenominational: Church and Individual
Distinctives Create Identity
[An article I wrote some years ago and modified today, posted due to subject interest]
The Denomination of the Nondenominational Church
In recent years many Christians have adopted the label “nondenominational” as a mark of distinction. The desire itself is understandable. Historic denominations often carry the weight of internal disputes, drifting doctrines, and inherited controversies, often forming different “camps” at war with one another within the denomination. For those who wish to avoid such entanglements, stepping outside the denominational framework can feel like a return to simplicity. Yet the claim is frequently carried further than the facts will bear, and this is where confusion begins.
A denomination, in the strict sense of the word, is simply a named and identifiable group distinguished by particular beliefs and practices. It does not require a headquarters, a hierarchy, or a centuries‑old history. It requires only a recognizable identity. By that definition, any group that gathers around shared doctrines, shared practices, and a shared name, whether formal or informal, has already become a denomination. Distinctives create distinction, and distinction creates a denomination.
For this reason, the assertion that one is “nondenominational” cannot be taken in an absolute grammatical sense. A church that has a statement of faith, a pattern of worship, a doctrinal emphasis, or even a recognizable style has already formed a distinct body. It may not belong to a historic denomination, but it has become a denomination of its own by virtue of its own distinctives. The moment a group separates itself from others on the basis of belief or practice, it has taken on a denominational character, whether it acknowledges it or not.
The difficulty arises when this reality is denied. Some, though not all, who champion nondenominationalism do so with an air of superiority, as though the absence of a historic label grants them a purer or more authentic Christianity. Yet this very claim becomes their denominating mark. They are distinguished not by the absence of distinctives, but by the distinct belief that they possess none. In practice, they often hold a fully formed doctrinal system while insisting they have no system at all. This lack of self‑awareness makes honest discussion difficult, because one cannot examine a structure that its defenders refuse to admit exists.
There is nothing inherently wrong with forming a new group or choosing a new name. Christians have done so throughout history. What is unhelpful is the refusal to recognize that distinctives create identity, and identity creates denomination. Clarity about this point does not condemn anyone; it simply restores honesty to the conversation. A church may be independent, unaffiliated, or free from historic denominational ties, but it cannot be without distinctives. And once distinctives exist, a denomination exists in substance, even if not in name.
The issue, then, is not the formation of new groups, but the failure to understand the meaning of one’s own words. A clear grasp of language brings clarity to doctrine, and clarity to doctrine brings peace to fellowship. When Christians speak plainly about what they are, they remove the needless confusion that so often surrounds the subject of denominational identity.
The Denomination of the Nondenominational Individual
The moment you extend the principle from a group to an individual, the clarity becomes even sharper.
The same principle that applies to churches applies equally to individuals. A person who insists that they are “nondenominational” often means only that they do not belong to a historic or organized denomination. Yet when the claim is pressed further, especially when it is used as a mark of superiority, it becomes clear that the individual has formed a distinct identity of their own. Every believer holds particular convictions about Scripture, salvation, worship, and the Christian life. These convictions distinguish one person from another, and distinction is the essence of denomination. A person who rejects all denominational labels while holding firm doctrinal views has not escaped denominational identity; they have simply created a private one.
The difficulty arises when the individual denies this reality. Some speak as though their refusal of a denominational name places them above doctrinal differences, as though they stand in a purer or more authentic position than those who acknowledge their affiliations. Yet this very posture becomes their distinguishing mark. They are set apart not by the absence of beliefs, but by the belief that their position transcends all others. In practice, they often defend a specific doctrinal system with great conviction while insisting they have none. This lack of self‑awareness makes meaningful discussion difficult, because one cannot examine convictions that their holder refuses to acknowledge as convictions.
There is nothing wrong with an individual Christian forming personal conclusions about Scripture. Indeed, every believer must do so. What is unhelpful is the refusal to recognize that personal convictions create identity, and identity creates distinction. When a person speaks plainly about what they believe, they invite clarity, accountability, and fellowship. When they deny the existence of their own distinctives, they create confusion for themselves and for others. The issue is not the presence of convictions, but the failure to understand the meaning of one’s own words. Clarity about this point restores honesty to personal testimony just as it does to church identity.
Thoughts?
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2000, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution
Distinctives Create Identity
[An article I wrote some years ago and modified today, posted due to subject interest]
The Denomination of the Nondenominational Church
In recent years many Christians have adopted the label “nondenominational” as a mark of distinction. The desire itself is understandable. Historic denominations often carry the weight of internal disputes, drifting doctrines, and inherited controversies, often forming different “camps” at war with one another within the denomination. For those who wish to avoid such entanglements, stepping outside the denominational framework can feel like a return to simplicity. Yet the claim is frequently carried further than the facts will bear, and this is where confusion begins.
A denomination, in the strict sense of the word, is simply a named and identifiable group distinguished by particular beliefs and practices. It does not require a headquarters, a hierarchy, or a centuries‑old history. It requires only a recognizable identity. By that definition, any group that gathers around shared doctrines, shared practices, and a shared name, whether formal or informal, has already become a denomination. Distinctives create distinction, and distinction creates a denomination.
For this reason, the assertion that one is “nondenominational” cannot be taken in an absolute grammatical sense. A church that has a statement of faith, a pattern of worship, a doctrinal emphasis, or even a recognizable style has already formed a distinct body. It may not belong to a historic denomination, but it has become a denomination of its own by virtue of its own distinctives. The moment a group separates itself from others on the basis of belief or practice, it has taken on a denominational character, whether it acknowledges it or not.
The difficulty arises when this reality is denied. Some, though not all, who champion nondenominationalism do so with an air of superiority, as though the absence of a historic label grants them a purer or more authentic Christianity. Yet this very claim becomes their denominating mark. They are distinguished not by the absence of distinctives, but by the distinct belief that they possess none. In practice, they often hold a fully formed doctrinal system while insisting they have no system at all. This lack of self‑awareness makes honest discussion difficult, because one cannot examine a structure that its defenders refuse to admit exists.
There is nothing inherently wrong with forming a new group or choosing a new name. Christians have done so throughout history. What is unhelpful is the refusal to recognize that distinctives create identity, and identity creates denomination. Clarity about this point does not condemn anyone; it simply restores honesty to the conversation. A church may be independent, unaffiliated, or free from historic denominational ties, but it cannot be without distinctives. And once distinctives exist, a denomination exists in substance, even if not in name.
The issue, then, is not the formation of new groups, but the failure to understand the meaning of one’s own words. A clear grasp of language brings clarity to doctrine, and clarity to doctrine brings peace to fellowship. When Christians speak plainly about what they are, they remove the needless confusion that so often surrounds the subject of denominational identity.
The Denomination of the Nondenominational Individual
The moment you extend the principle from a group to an individual, the clarity becomes even sharper.
The same principle that applies to churches applies equally to individuals. A person who insists that they are “nondenominational” often means only that they do not belong to a historic or organized denomination. Yet when the claim is pressed further, especially when it is used as a mark of superiority, it becomes clear that the individual has formed a distinct identity of their own. Every believer holds particular convictions about Scripture, salvation, worship, and the Christian life. These convictions distinguish one person from another, and distinction is the essence of denomination. A person who rejects all denominational labels while holding firm doctrinal views has not escaped denominational identity; they have simply created a private one.
The difficulty arises when the individual denies this reality. Some speak as though their refusal of a denominational name places them above doctrinal differences, as though they stand in a purer or more authentic position than those who acknowledge their affiliations. Yet this very posture becomes their distinguishing mark. They are set apart not by the absence of beliefs, but by the belief that their position transcends all others. In practice, they often defend a specific doctrinal system with great conviction while insisting they have none. This lack of self‑awareness makes meaningful discussion difficult, because one cannot examine convictions that their holder refuses to acknowledge as convictions.
There is nothing wrong with an individual Christian forming personal conclusions about Scripture. Indeed, every believer must do so. What is unhelpful is the refusal to recognize that personal convictions create identity, and identity creates distinction. When a person speaks plainly about what they believe, they invite clarity, accountability, and fellowship. When they deny the existence of their own distinctives, they create confusion for themselves and for others. The issue is not the presence of convictions, but the failure to understand the meaning of one’s own words. Clarity about this point restores honesty to personal testimony just as it does to church identity.
Thoughts?
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2000, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution