Search this site
IRONSTRIKES
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Beliefs
  • Formation
  • For Women
  • Meetings & Events

Why I like denominations

10/23/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
One of the sea changes taking place in American religious life is a popular turn away from denominations. Some say we are entering, if not already in, a “post-denominational” era. Nearly all traditional denominations are struggling with membership declines and revenue shortfalls. As I put my ear to the ground of popular opinion about religion, I hear rumblings of discontent about denominational labels and behaviors and a preference for what I call “plain label” Christianity.

I, for one, still value denominations.

Before explaining, I need to define “denomination.” Some sociologists of religion use the term for broad religious traditions. For example, in that usage, “Baptist” is a denomination. That’s not how I use the word. For me, “Baptist” is a tradition, a heritage, and a religious type. I think “denomination” should be reserved for religious organizations and networks of churches. (I could add synagogues, but here, for purposes of this post, I’m talking only about Christians.) By my usage “Baptist” could not be a denomination. As the old saying goes “I don’t belong to any organized religion; I’m a Baptist.”

So, for me “denomination” refers to an organization of churches with something like a headquarters or at least some unifying structure, however informal and inchoate it may be. (For example, the Churches of Christ count as a denomination even though they have no headquarters as such. They do have a relatively cohesive structure of mutual recognition.)

By my definition, the Abingdon Handbook of Denominations lists and describes about 300 distinct denominations in the United States. There are more, of course, because the Handbook excludes the smallest ones and many that are restricted to a small region. Some scholars have guessed there are about 1,200 denominations in the U.S. (I suspect they are including groups of two or more churches.)

I know this will shock many people, but my attitude toward denominations is “the more the better.” Let me explain.

It seems to me one of the strengths of American Christianity has been its multiplicity and even diversity of denominations. That blooming, buzzing profusion (to paraphrase William James) has produced both good and bad results, but overall and in general, I judge, it has benefited American Christianity and American society as a whole.

For example, most colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded by denominations. So were most hospitals. Most denominations have charitable agencies that are involved in feeding the hungry, training people for jobs, community development, etc. And, of course, most have mission-sending agencies. Small churches that cannot afford to do these things (e.g., found a college or hospital or even support a missionary family) pool their resources better to do them.

Denominations also provide accountability for pastors and other “church professionals.” And I think that accountability works best when the authority is closer to the churches and their leaders.

Denominations also keep each other sharp. A certain amount of competition serves to raise the bar, so to speak, so that there is motivation constantly to update, refurbish, stay sharp (e.g., with regard to technology, training for ministry, etc.).

I recently interacted with a well-known ecumenical theologian who has been intimately involved with the World Council of Churches for many years. He expressed the hope of someday seeing one worldwide Christian denomination. I don’t share his hope. He portrayed the existence of multiple denominations as evidence of “brokenness” in the body of Christ. I don’t see them that way. At least the plurality of denominations does not have to evidence brokenness in the body of Christ.

As I have stated and explained here recently, my vision is of an ecumenism of the Spirit, not of institutions. I’m not opposed to denominations merging, unless that means the sacrifice of important particularities and a lowering of standards of belief and practice to a “least common denominator” in which robust belief and practice get lost (e.g., “generic Christianity”).

Some people assume (and I think this was the case with the ecumenical theologian) that the very existence of separate denominations equates with hostility and exclusion. I don’t see those as necessary at all. Where they exist, yes, they are to be overcome. Dialogue is the path, not throwing off particularities and distinctives in favor of a bland, generic spirituality and/or social ministry.

There is no reason why denominations cannot worship and work together while maintaining their institutional lives. There is no reason why separate denominations must harbor or express hostility toward each other. They don’t even have to be exclusive. In my opinion, “ecumenism” should aim at mutual understanding and cooperation. Beyond that, I hope, through ecumenical work, that all Christians might someday enjoy intercommunion. But “visible and institutional unity” is not necessary for that. Nor, in my opinion, is it even a good goal.

Imagine a worldwide Christian church (denomination). It would have to have a hierarchical structure of some kind. It would have to somehow blend Christians together in a way that would require the muting of distinctive voices. Inevitably, also, it would leave out some Christians because they don’t fit the worldwide church’s standards for unity.

Here’s an example of that. The ecumenical theologian argued that Baptists, for example, ought to recognize the infant baptisms of other denominations as legitimate Christian baptisms. Okay, that’s not likely to happen, but I understand where he’s coming from. Or I thought I understood. I don’t mind hearing a challenge like that. But, then, he held up for me (and others listening) a model of ecumenicity in which a church body decided to open the Lord’s Supper to all Christians except unbaptized children. Note—for him, baptized children could partake of the Lord’s Supper but not not-yet baptized children. In effect, he was suggesting that Baptists give up their distinctive insofar as it excludes other Christians but other denominations should not accommodate to Baptists’ beliefs! Imagine two families considering joining the church he described. One family has baptized children, but the other family comes from a baptist-like background in which the children have not yet been baptized. The first family’s children can partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the second family’s children cannot. How is that a triumph for ecumenicity?

My point is that, even this great ecumenical theologian seems blind to what would have to happen in order to achieve a world church. Some traditions’ distinctive would have to be slighted. Some tradition’s distinctive would have to “win,” so to speak. In my experience, nearly all these “world church” ecumenical thinkers envision a reformed papacy and magisterium. As one of them once said to me (he was a Lutheran ecumenist) “If the pope would just admit he’s not infallible we could join the Catholic Church.” Fine. Maybe he, as an ELCA minister and theologian, could. But how could Free Church Christians? How could baptists (of all kinds)? How could Pentecostals? In my opinion, this one world church ideal is not ideal at all—except for Catholics and closet Catholics.

My vision of ecumenism is all Christian denominations agreeing to worship together (on occasion), cooperate together (e.g., in charitable endeavors), and even admit one another to the Lord’s Table.

Now, there’s another reason for disdaining denominations that’s popular among younger Christians. It’s what’s generally meant by “post-denominationalism.” Many young Christians consider denominations old fashioned, divisive, top heavy, always embroiled in controversies, etc. They prefer what I call “plain label” churches, often newly founded, meeting in rented spaces, grassroots-oriented, etc. My observation, though, is that these churches tend to be too inclusive and lack proper emphasis on Christianity’s experiential and cognitive aspects. They tend to emphasize community. The motto is sometimes “Belong, believe, behave” or “Belong, behave, believe.” But moving from “belong” to the other “b’s” doesn’t always happen. Many such churches stress community to the exclusion of strong beliefs and moral expectations (out of fear of dogmatism and legalism).

I sympathize with this youth-oriented movement, but I fear their Christianity may, like that of the “big ‘E’ ecumenists,” be bland, with no cutting edge to it. Sometimes, it seems, they are reinventing Christianity which means they are likely to make the same mistakes older Christian churches have made (and perhaps some newer ones).

For years, whenever I traveled (and I still do it), I got out the phone book in the hotel room and looked at the headings under “Churches” in the Yellow Pages. All across the country the list of churches under “Non-denominational” has grown. Now that is one of the longest lists in most places. What’s ironic, however, is that, as an aficionado of denominational histories and identities, I recognize many denominational churches under that heading! How honest is that? To be “non-denominational” or even “post-denominational” and belong to a denomination? To promote your church as non-denominational or to tout post-denominationalism and be denominational? And yet it happens all the time.

Personally, I struggle with “plain label” churches. When I see a church sign or ad that contains no hint of the church’s denominational affiliation or identity I assume one of two things. Either it is genuinely independent, non-denominational, or it is hiding its denominational affiliation to appeal to post-denominational people. Often it’s the latter. (I know because I often look them up on the web and find their denominational affiliation.)

A good example (but only one of too many to name or describe) is a large church in a city to which I travel often. I pass it several times a year. It’s a large, beautiful church in a suburban neighborhood. Its sign says simply “Calvary Church.” I finally remembered to look it up using a search engine. It’s a member church of the Christian Reformed Church of America. Nothing I could see on the building or grounds indicated that. (Many have “CRC” or something on their signs.)

So, what’s wrong with that? Only that the CRC is a truly confessional denomination with distinctive beliefs and practices. One of its doctrinal standards is the Canons of Dort—the anti-Arminian statement of faith. Suppose a Wesleyan family (I mean doctrinally, not denominationally) moved to that suburb, liked the looks of the church, heard it is a good church (family-oriented, many programs for kids, whatever) and decided to visit with an eye toward joining the church. How long would it be before they realized they were visiting and considering joining a Calvinist church? I personally know of such situations and, in some cases, people have attended a long time before realizing the church they want to join holds beliefs contrary to their own. In the end, they have to leave, having wasted a lot of time and emotional investment.

I think every church that belongs to any denomination should say so “up front.” Failing to do so seems somewhat dishonest to me. And truly non-denominational churches should make their beliefs and distinctive practices known to visitors with a brochure in every pew.

I once saw a church that advertised itself as “The Undenominational Church.” (This was back when 7-UP was advertising itself as the “UNCOLA.” I found out the “undenominational” church was really a Church of Christ.

Every church has boundaries; every church should let visitors and their communities know what they are by making them readily available.

What is happening (that I’ve been talking about in the previous few paragraphs) is simply cultural accommodation in a bad way. Church growth experts are telling churches that most American’s don’t like denominations and encouraging them to re-name their churches with generic names (e.g., Faith Family Fellowship) and omit any reference to any denominational affiliation or distinctive beliefs and practices. In most cases, the churches that do it keep their denominational affiliations and/or distinctive practices but hide them. In my opinion that is nothing other than cultural accommodation involving an element of dishonesty. As we have all heard, “lying” is not just telling an untruth; it can also be neglecting to tell the truth.

So, I titled this post “Why I like denominations.” I’ve wandered away from that somewhat, but I’ll conclude by returning to it. Christian churches do have distinctives; there is no such thing as (organized) generic Christianity. They ought to be honest about them. If they’re not proud of them, drop them. But better, be proud of the ones you keep! Distinctives do not have to be divisive. In fact, I like the fact that there are: Wesleyans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. I often wish some of them would soften their rough edges, but, for the most part, they are already doing that and sometimes going so far that they are losing all shape. When I see a church that is proud of its denominational affiliation I suspect it is giving money to help found institutions of higher education, mission-sending agencies, charitable organizations, etc. And I know what it is; I’m not left in the dark about it. May their tribe increase.


This post was written by Roger Olson, you can read more here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/why-i-like-denominations/#ixzz3GtONeRBM




0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Rules for commenting:

    1.  Be respectful  
    2.  Refer to rule #1

    All comments may not be approved.

    Note that many identifying details about individuals in these posts are not accurate.  Their identity is protected, except for those individuals who are being honored or are public figures.

    RSS Feed

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Abraham
    Abstinence
    Abuse
    Accountability
    Adam
    Adam Yauch
    Addictions
    Admiration
    Adultery
    Affair
    Amos
    Angels
    Anger
    Anniversary
    Anoint
    Anonymous
    Anxiety
    Atheism
    Avoidant
    Bad Boy
    Battle
    Beastie Boys
    Beautiful
    Bestiality
    Betrayal
    Bird
    Blame
    Bobby Petrino
    Bondage
    Book Review
    Brian Head Welch
    Brothel
    B.T. Roberts
    Camping
    Cancer
    Challenge
    Change
    Chaotic
    Character
    Children
    Choice
    Christmas
    Church
    Church Camp
    Closed Door
    Compulsions
    Confession
    Confident
    Control
    Courage
    Covenant
    Creator
    Crown
    Crucifixion
    Darkness
    Death
    Deception
    Decision
    Demons
    Depression
    Detachment
    Devotions
    Dez Bryant
    Differences
    Dilemma
    Dirty
    Discipleship
    Disgusting
    Divorce
    Domestic Violence
    Domination
    Doubt
    Dreams
    Dr Hart8bb80a7b00
    Dwayne Allen
    Dysfunction
    Easter
    Eden
    Ego
    Eleazar
    Elitism
    Empty
    Envy
    Ephesians
    Equality
    Erectile Dysfunction
    Esau
    Eternity
    Euthanasia
    Evil
    Exhibitionism
    Eyes
    Facebook
    Faithfulness
    Fantasy
    Fasting
    Father
    Favorites
    Fear
    Fellatio
    Fighting
    Fishing
    Flashing
    Flattery
    Flesh
    Force
    Forgiveness
    Gentleman
    Girls Gone Wild
    G.K. Chesteron
    Goals
    God
    Good Friday
    Grace
    Gratitude
    Greek
    Guard
    Guilt
    Heart
    Heaven
    Hebrew
    Hell
    Henri Nouwen
    Histrionic
    Hogging
    Holiness
    Hollow
    Honesty
    Honor
    Hope
    Humility
    Humor
    Ichabod
    Idols
    Impurity
    Individuality
    Input
    Insane Clown Posse
    Integrity
    Intent
    Intimacy
    Isaac
    Islam
    Jack Schaap
    Jamaica
    Jealousy
    Jimmy Needham
    Job
    Joy
    J.R.R. Tolkien
    Judgmentalism
    Justice
    Kindness
    King David
    Kittens
    Komboloib7e292a311
    Korn
    Larry Norman
    Leave It To Beaver
    Lies
    Light
    Listening
    Loneliness
    Love
    Lust
    Lying
    Macho
    Manners
    Marriage
    Masculinity
    Masturbation
    Maturity
    Mca
    Meditation
    Messianic
    Meticulous
    Mighty
    Missions
    Money
    Monogamy
    Moses
    Motivations
    Movies
    Music
    Normal
    Obedience
    Obscenity
    Open Door
    Parenting
    Passiveaggressive2ed940c88b
    Pastor
    Path
    Perfection
    Personality Disorders
    P.O.D.
    Politics
    Pornography
    Pornograpy
    Power
    Practical
    Prayer
    Predator
    Prejudice
    Premature Ejaculaton
    Preparation
    Pride
    Problems
    Promises
    Protection
    Providence
    Purity
    Quechua
    Quiz
    Racism
    Regret
    Religious
    Repentance
    Reputation
    Research
    Respect
    Responsibility
    Rest
    Resurrection
    Revival
    Righteousness
    Robots
    Roughhousing
    Routine
    Rules
    Rut
    Sabbath
    Sacrifice
    Sadism
    Salvation
    Sanctification
    Satisfaction
    Selfishness
    Self Love
    Self-love
    Service
    Sex
    Sexism
    Sexuality
    Sexual Response
    Sexual Response
    Shame
    Sin
    Singing
    Snobbery
    Soldier
    Sovereignty
    Stalking
    Stephen Hawking
    Step-parenting
    Strong
    Success
    Succubus
    Suicide
    Swearing
    Sword
    Teenagers
    Temper
    Temptation
    Tenth Ave North
    Testing
    Theology
    Thinking
    Thomas Cogswell Upham
    Tim Tebow
    Tournament Male
    Tradition
    Trafficking
    Trapped
    Trauma
    Triggers
    Trust
    Truth
    U2
    Uncle Buddy
    Unity
    Violence
    Virtue
    Vulnerability
    Warrior
    Watchman Nee
    Waywardness
    What Is A Man
    Women
    Worry
    Worship
    Wussification
    Year In Review
    Zombies

    Archives

    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012

IRONSTRIKES

Men Forging Men