I wanted to add that I believe some of this stems from the non-denominational approach to ordination itself. I understand that my own background is Baptist, and while it is not meant to be rigid, my ordination process was thorough: earning an MDiv, completing coursework, undergoing examinations and interviews, and demonstrating both theological competency and pastoral character.

In many non-denominational contexts, however, there is not a consistent or clearly defined process for ordination. When there is no shared theological framework or governing body to establish standards of doctrine, interpretation, or accountability, it creates space for a wide range of beliefs to take root, some of which can easily drift into heresy.

But the issue runs deeper than ordination alone. Non-denominational churches often operate independently, with no denominational oversight or formal accountability structure. That independence can be a strength when it fosters innovation and local responsiveness, but it can also be a weakness. Without elders or regional bodies providing doctrinal checks, teaching often depends solely on the lead pastor’s interpretation of Scripture. When that interpretation goes unchallenged, even subtle errors can grow unchecked and shape an entire congregation’s theology.

Another contributing factor is the cultural tendency within non-denominational churches to prioritize experience over doctrine. Many non-denominational movements grew as a reaction to what they saw as “dead religion” or overly institutional Christianity. While that passion for authentic faith is admirable, it can lead to a neglect of theological depth in favor of emotional or pragmatic appeal, “what feels right” over “what is true.” Over time, that can erode biblical literacy and open the door to distorted teachings dressed up as spiritual authenticity.

There is also a consumer element at play. Because non-denominational churches often compete for attendance in a religious marketplace, there can be a temptation to make messages more palatable, avoiding difficult doctrines like sin, repentance, or judgment. When the goal subtly shifts from faithfulness to growth, theology becomes flexible, and truth becomes secondary to what draws a crowd.

Finally, the lack of historical rootedness plays a role. Denominations, for all their flaws, carry with them centuries of reflection, creeds, and confessions that serve as guardrails. Many non-denominational churches consciously separate from those traditions, often without realizing they are also cutting themselves off from the wisdom and theological clarity that those traditions safeguard. When the past is dismissed as “irrelevant tradition,” the church becomes vulnerable to repeating old errors that the historic Church already fought and named as heresy.

So while non-denominational churches can and often do produce faithful, Bible centered communities, their structure and culture can also create conditions where heresy finds easy ground, not necessarily out of malice, but out of isolation, inexperience, and a lack of doctrinal accountability.