Rise of the Nons

by Mark Tidsworth, Founder and Team Leader

No, not the Nones (no religious affiliation), but the Nons….Non-Denominational Churches, to be more precise.

Ryan Burge, excellent researcher on American religion, published an article recently on the exceptional growth of non-denominational churches alongside the exceptional shrinkage of denominationally-based churches. Please read the article – this one is worth your time. The Future Of American Christianity Is Non-Denominational,

www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-future-of-american-christianity?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.

If you are unable to take it in just now, here are three highlights communicating the primary insights from Burge’s research:

“Obviously, the rise of the Nones is the biggest story in American religion right now, but the second most important shift in the landscape is the unmistakable rise of the Nons. The only religious family that has grown over the last decade is non-denominational Protestant Christianity. There’s little reason to believe that their ascendance will slow at any point in the near future. If the future of American society is a shift away from institutions, there’s no bigger beneficiary of this trend in the religion space than non-denominational evangelicalism.”

“Instead, it’s non-denominational Protestants that are gaining new members hand over fist, while other denominations are losing folks by the tens of thousands.”

“Now, just 7.5% of Protestants are United Methodists and another 10% are Southern Baptists. While, the share who are non-denominationals has now risen to nearly 22%. Using this measure, it would appear that there are more non-denoms than United Methodists and Southern Baptists combined.”

Alright, how are you feeling? What are you thinking? Sobering data for sure.

The first place my mind goes is to the “why” question. Like every big change in religious life, there are multiple factors and dynamics at play. Burge suggests the rampant distrust for institutions in North American culture is the primary factor. If you’ve read my book Shift, you are aware that plenty of us saw this postmodern shift coming; growing distrust for government, educational, social, and religious institutions. Certainly, many other dynamics contribute, but this is one worth noting. Churches who are perceived as part of a franchise model, start one step behind others who are not, in the perception of the general public.

Strange, isn’t it? Strange how what was an asset during the Builder generation era (connection to an institution) is now suspect, functioning as a liability.

In next week’s article I will describe how denominationally-based churches can respond, while there are two observations worth noting before going there.

First, this raises questions about approach for any denominational office who’s paying attention. Those threats to your paradigm you’ve been noticing… they are real, not imagined. We’ve done quite a bit of consulting with denominational entities over time, so I know you are aware of what’s happening. Now there’s data to confirm subjective experience as objective reality.

Even so, there are two responses we are observing that seem to be prevalent. A very experienced minister I know recently wanted to get on the pulpit supply list of the judicatory for the churches in the area. The excessive red tape and multiple hoops required to do so were very discouraging. This is only one example of how some denominational entities are clamping down on their rules, driven by (largely unconscious) anxiety over losing control. Yes, I understand that when anxiety over decline rises, clamping down on one’s paradigm, growing more rules-oriented than ever, can give a sense of control. And, is extremely counter-productive when it comes to adaptation, innovation, and missional progress.

The other response by denominational offices we observe is blessing. Yes, denominational leaders are tasked with compliance with their paradigms, yet many are recognizing they can pursue the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Though they want to function decently and in order, they also want to allow room for the Spirit to move, using the structure that’s functional and helpful, while not creating unnecessary constraints toward missional progress. Clearly this approach is more adaptive.

The second observation at hand is that often the largest churches tend to downplay their denominational connections, for better or worse. I wonder if they noticed drag resulting from their denominational identity as they were growing, so they pushed the mute button? Or perhaps they wanted to avoid the issues denominational identity raises for their people? It’s likely there are varying motivations at play, yet downplaying their denominational identity is common among many of these large churches.

At Pinnacle, most of our constituents are denominationally-based churches and leaders. We value the historical contributions of these entities, as well as their current contributions. So, don’t read this article as disparaging toward denominations. Instead, I believe we are positioned to offer insights toward adaptation because of our strong denominational connections. That’s next week’s article – how churches can relate to this pervasive dynamic.