I've been picking up on a real trend against the very idea of denominations of late. It seems to me that this feeling is particularly strong among emergents, but I know boomers too who are changing their church signs from "Wesleyan Church" to "Community Church."
I think I know at least in part what these trends are reacting against, and I think it is in part the same reason why "religion" has become a dirty word. For all intents and purposes, denominations used to think that their group alone had the truth. If pushed, they might admit that some people from other denominations might make it to heaven. But obviously these distant others didn't quite have things right. Either they didn't have enough "light" and were just ignorant, or they were perverse and wilfully believed the wrong things. This mindset also witnessed the countless founding and refounding of endless splinter groups who finally had the "true" variation on the parent theme.
But it's hard to hold to this philosophy if you actually know a few Christians from some other groups. It's hard to be quite so anti-catholic if you know a few spirit-filled catholics who nevertheless look at things differently than you do.
The problem as I see it is that if churches simply become islands of the universal, invisible church, there is no telling what they will become. I see two main alternative paths:
1. They will move increasingly toward the common denominator of all Christians out there. This has already happened to a large degree. The current evangelical non-denominational church is an baptistified Arminian-flavored mix with little attachment to historical orthodoxy but a fairly conservative Republican politic. The Bible is a controlling factor, but (as I have often argued) as somewhat of a mirror--the group finds in the words what it thinks it should find.
A non-denominational "core" tends to water down the flavors of Christendom to a blase, pretty tasteless mix.
2. It will slip back into ideosyncratic individual groups--this time without any denominational organization--each of which thinks it has the truth.
I have some thoughts on the "bastion of truth alone" concept of churches, Christian universities, seminaries, etc... the idea that individual churches should just follow the truth, that we should forget denominations but let them all just be Christian churches. This is the idea that Christian colleges, Christian seminaries, that they should just be Christian colleges and seminaries untied to denominations, that they should just be Christian and follow the truth.
The main problem I have with this approach is that it is exactly the philosophy that led to the splintering of Protestantism into ten thousands of denominations with that "truth." Non-denominations like the "Disciples of Christ" or the "Church of Christ" or the "Church of God, Anderson" sure have particular ideas and traditions like denominations that actually call themselves denominations.
Or, alternatively, this is the path that Harvard and Yale took back when they were church schools. The naked quest for truth without any traditional mooring almost always walks right out the door of Christianity.
So what do I advocate? Denominations as sociological groups with traditions that recognize they are just a small piece of the Christian puzzle. Does the Church of the Brethren want to foot wash? Great! Do it, maybe even require it of your churches--I'm fine with that as long as you acknowledge that this tradition is something God has given to your group and that it doesn't make you any more Christian than groups that don't foot wash--you're the "feet" in the body of Christ.
So Wesleyans don't drink. Does the Bible forbid drinking? Of course not. Are there Christians who drink in moderation who are just as spiritual as teetotaling Wesleyans? The correct answer is, "Of course there are" (visit England some time). Is it still legitimate for Wesleyans to say, "It is part of our identity not to drink"? It is, as long as we don't think we are better than other Christians for it. We are the liver in the body of Christ, the Nazirites of Israel. :)
As I see it, Christianity is a lot more potent and alive with diversity of this sort, with denominations that have traditions and are to some degree constituted as sociological groups. Do I think that Wesleyan theology is more accurate than Baptist theology? I do, but I don't think I'm more spiritual than a Baptist, and I suspect there are elements of Christian theology that they do better than Wesleyans do. Could we really capture the whole of God without some degree of paradox?
So I celebrate denominations. Are there too many? Sure. I would love to see Wesleyans and Free Methodists and a few other churches become a single church, for a start.
Do denominations take themselves too seriously? Sure.
But I think if we can see our denominations as "specialists" within the body of Christ, then Christendom is the richer. And if we don't band together in some way, then we will get a whole lot less done in the world for the kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well said!
Just as each individual is an essential and unique part of the larger body of Christ, I have come to view local churches quite similarly on a larger level.
And then again denominations on an even larger level. Does that make any sense?
But if we have not love, we have nothing.
Greetings from the land of flaming liberals! Good to see your thoughts in action Dr. Schenck. You have a wealth of knowledge to share so keep them coming!
Perhaps we could add another option to your list. The denominations, to some degree, have become large corporations that "employ" pastors to do the work of the ministry. For instance, those that have a calling in ministry don't only look at the theological beliefs of the denominations but also the benefits that they offer (parsonage regulations, minimum salaries, pensions, education requirements for ministry, etc.). When I was in the United Methodist Denomination, I was surprised to learn that if I was ordained as an elder than the denomination was required to make sure I had a charge. It was a form of job security. Yet, it was also one of the hardest denominations to become ordained because of the educational requirements.
There is also a comfort that is found in belonging to a denomination as opposed to an independent church. There are higher authorities that can step in when needed and you also have a superintedent that doubles as a job hunter.
Perhaps as the denominations break down the walls of theological differences, they will put more emphasis on their governmental structures. Could we see denominations using recruiting tactics to lure in new pastors? Of course there are some major theological differences that won't change, but what about the denominations with a foundation in wesleyan theology ? What will make a ministry student decide whether to join the Wesleyans, Free Methodists, or United Methodists? Just a thought.
Paul, you said part of what I tried to say a lot clearer!
Howdy Brian! Been a while! Great additional to the equation--you'd expect me to forget the practical dimension :)
Hmm, yet at the same time scripture is full of paradoxes. It seems only natural that we would have mulitple denominations to support these paradoxes. I don't think we can blaim poor Martin for the Protestant Principle. Look at Calvinism and Armineanism? The more I study scripture, the more I respect and appreciate the many paradoxes within the texts. Praise God there isn't one answer. If scripture was clearly calvinist than why should I pray? If it was clearly arminean than where would the soveriegnty and security be?
We are always taught to "fall off the log" or to not sit on the fence. Well, today is the day that I've decided to sit on the fence and proclaim that the grass is green on both sides. Praise the Lord for the diversity that we have in denominations. If all else, the denominations give us a larger picture of the revelation of God and not cookie cutter that produces a predictable God. Mmmm, can I take a glass of milk with that!
James, I know you're right about the abuses and about the tendency to become inward focused. I don't know how comfortable I would feel in the Roman Catholic bureauocracy. I actually detest the narrow-minded denominational paradigm, so I'm primarily reacting to the other extreme.
And here let me play my hand a little. I don't see Indiana Wesleyan as the negative type of denominational institution. I don't know if IWU will ever found a seminary, but if it does, I think tethering it to my denomination does not have to contradict a more pan-Wesleyan flavor. I think tying places like IWU to a denominational traditions--without thinking that denomination is more spiritual or God's child, etc--is just as legitimate as "objective bastions of truth" that inevitably either drift unintentionally or water down into oblivion.
I'm not putting this very well, but I would summarize it as a kind of unity in diversity model of Christianity rather than a monolithic watered down version. A "feel free to disagree" but this is our sociological theological identity for you to react to kind of thing. It's like committees where you have something to edit rather than the whole committee trying to draft together from scratch...
Well, too busy to reread this morning...
I'd love to have $100 in my pocket right now.
It could be in the form of ten $10 bills, 20 $5 bills, 4 $20 bills, or 100 $1 bills (and don't get me started on coins).
For me, I'm less concerned with the... um, "denomination" as I am with what it totals out to.
In a way, non-denominational churches have formed denominations based on an ideology rather than a theology. The Willow Creek association is perhaps the best example of this trend. Churches (some even belonging to other denominations) are networked through a mindset of how to "do ministry" rather than on similar doctrinal stances. This is why there can be a Baptist Church and Wesleyan Church linked together through the WCA and still have contradicting theologies. Is Willow Creek onto something? Can a denomination be formed (including a leadership structure) along the lines of ideology and not theology?
Regarding Kevin's post,
I think a denomination can be formed from ideology. As you pointed out, Willow Creek has done just that. My concern would be if the ideology usurps the theology. Every church, denomination, tradition, is driven by theology. While Willow Creek may have been formed ideologically, I would hope it is sustained theologically. Perhaps, though, a Willow Creek structure would have to be founded upon an accommodating, somewhat fluid, theology. If we are to form a church based upon our ministry methodology, then the common link would be ideology. I don't necessarily see a serious problem with this as long as the accommodating theology that accompanies such a church remains in the orthodox Tradition of the Church. The Tradition of the Church is somewhat accommodating in itself and therefore I don't see a huge problem to overcome in that area. I suppose in essence what I am saying is I would not necessarily be opposed to a church being created from ideology as long as it remains orthodox theologically. Once a church loses its orthodoxy I believe it also loses its efficacy. Props to Dietrich Bonhoeffer here.
I suppose the next issue to arise would then be what, if any, ministry method is the best? Is Willow Creek's method the best? Can we speak of a universal methodology? Perhaps I am simply restating what has already been said, but maybe our common link should be our ecclesiology. It's not so much what we believe about how we do church, rather it is what we believe about what or who the Church is. Sorry, now I'm rambling and have probably been inconsistent.
I wonder . . . does all the current angst over denominations simply reflect an unacceptably low view of the church.
I am not sure we should link the idea that denominations are somewhat outdated or not needed to Emergent or to any of its constituents (which is growing in advocates philosophically every day). Any idea that is floating around right now seems to get attached to "postmodernity" or "The emerging Church movement," and I think this is done for the sake that the whole movement is reacting against, easy labels that make life easier but aren't really all that accurate...ok enough said.
Here is how I think Emergent (if we take Brian McLaren as one of their main advocates) would respond with:
"So what do I advocate? Denominations as sociological groups with traditions that recognize they are just a small piece of the Christian puzzle."
Wait a minute, those are your words...exactly! It seems to me, that although not all of emergent is of the same strand of thinking, that this is exactly what McLaren points out in A Generous Orthodoxy. That all denominations and traditions are a piece of the puzzle that fits within the big T tradition (on some things, not all), and that all can add to one another. It is not that they aren't needed, but rather that denominations should be viewed in light of one another to form a more generous community.
One more thing, Emergent is so wide already, which is why the comparison can be drawed to non-denoms and the movement itself. A guy like McManus for instance tends to lean a little more heavily in the direction of one church, no denoms (if I read him write and add in my own progressive thought).
McLarens and others however, trumpet denoms as long as they see themself in context...ok I'm done, this is not my blog, sorry Schenck
Thanks Mike for some good clarification.
I can tell where the real "hot" issues are for sure!
Post a Comment