Folks don't like denominations too much these days. They read the Bible & hear Jesus praying for the unity of his followers, and on the surface, the reality of thousands of denominations and church associations in our world today seems contradictory to this ideal. The idea of being Episcopal or Pentecostal appears to be a concept that should die to the idea of being "just plain Christian." As a result, many churches are taking the denominational label off their marquee and shying away from certain practices that would identify them as distinctively Baptist or Presbyterian. There are even those who avoid the labels "Christian" and "church" because of the baggage associated with such words.
I sympathize with this sentiment. There is a great deal of truth in what such people are saying - the body of believers around the globe are truly one body in Christ, and we should see ourselves as brothers and sisters, even across denominational lines. It can also be valuable to keep the denominational label off the marquee in situations (like ours in the U.S. today) where outsiders would be turned off from considering Christ and the church if they saw "Methodist" on the sign. (It can even be appropriate to avoid the personal label "Christian" in certain global contexts, like the Middle East, but that's a separate issue.) In addition, in our growing understanding of contextualization for our different localities, it is no longer accepted as a given that one should be able to enter a Lutheran church in New Jersey or Kansas and experience basically the same worship service; as a result, it may now be at least partially inappropriate to "brand" a particular church according to denomination in order to court those who move to town from another church of the same type (sorry, Mom).
At the same time, I believe denominations and/or church associations are healthy and necessary structures for the global Church today. Why, you say? (Humor me; pretend you're interested.) I'm glad you asked!
First, there are well-reasoned, well-intentioned believers who genuinely disagree in areas that are significant enough to make it unreasonable for them to join together under one ecclesiastical umbrella. For instance, take my friend Tony and me. We're both intelligent, educated, generally God-centered gentlemen. I believe in the relative autonomy of the local church and believer's baptism; he is committed to episcopal church government and infant baptism. As much as we might love to work together in a church, there would be some clear roadblocks. I also happen to believe that women can serve in the pastorate, whereas many friends I respect and love interpret certain biblical passages to say they should not. On the other end of the spectrum, there are Christians who hold to a lesser view of the Bible's authority than I do. There are circumstances in a local church where such differences as these can be too great to be overcome, and folks should feel the freedom to disagree agreeably through affiliation with churches in different denominations.
Another reaction I have against post-denominational churches is that they tend (not universally, but generally) to be ignorant of church history. We CANNOT be ignorant of church history. The way we choose to practice our faith, read the Bible, relate to our culture, and more finds the vast majority of its roots in historical development. The very fact that we are having this conversation about being for or against denominations means we are probably neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and we need to know why. When a church identifies itself denominationally on some level, people are more likely to ask historical questions: "What does it mean that we're Congregational? Where did the UCC come from? What do we have in common with the Disciples of Christ church across town? What are our differences? Why do we believe the things we do?" Churches that know their place in history will more responsibly practice their distinctive incarnation of Christianity and more responsibly relate to the other churches in their area.
Speaking of lessons from history, denominations are a natural consequence of the separation of church and state. From the time of Constantine up until the Enlightenment, the Western world lived in a state of Christendom, where every citizen was supposed to be a Christian and each state (or, after the Reformation, each fiefdom) was aligned with a particular church. This mutual alignment came with certain conveniences for both organizations, but it also had its drawbacks, particularly for the church and especially for those Christians whose convictions varied from official church positions. The breakdown of this Christendom mindset gave way to denominationalism, giving churches the freedom to govern themselves apart from the interference of the state and giving believers the freedom to dissent from the church when it discerned a need for correction.
So even if there are imperfections in the denominational concept, it is better than any alternative the years have offered.
To conclude:
--a church should major on the majors (love God, love people) and minor in its distinctives
--it's okay to keep the label off the door
--but the denomination or association should be a vital component of the church's DNA, and we should embrace rather than apologize for those distinctives
--and we need to teach church history in our churches!
For a more eloquent exposition of these things and the historical rise of the denominational concept of the church, see Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, pp. 306-308.
8 comments:
A thoughtful reflection, Benihana...One of several very important things you mention is the fact that Christians read the Bible through the lens of their respective traditions. In other words, it isn't surprising that my non-denom church back home understands the Lord's Supper as an ordinance, or that they affirm believer's baptism--and likewise, that my Anglican church views the Lord's Supper sacramentally, etc. There's more involved in getting at biblical truth than cracking open one's Bible alone in the woods, reading it, and believing it--and I know you aren't suggesting otherwise! Here's my burning question: Which tradition is the most faithful to the deposit of faith handed down to the church from the apostles? How do we get at this? In other words, how did Christ intend his word to be interpreted? As you know (despite your belief that our greatest-grandparents liked bananas a lot), truth matters; therefore, our interpretations aren't equally valid, nor does everything reduce to a mere "style" issue (as many in my worship class seem to think--which, reflects the American evangelical Protestant history we've imbibed). In saying this, I am not disagreeing with your focus on majoring on the majors; however, even what constitutes a "major" is to a large extent determined by one's tradition. I have more I would like to add, but daddy's falling asleep here at the coffeeshop and still needs to drive home.
A great thought-provoking post, my friend. I look forward to hearing more from Sage Knox.
Much love to you and your house.
Chone-chone! Thanks for the comment.
Aside from lots of "yes, yes, you're absolutely right," a couple thoughts:
--You ask, "How do we figure out which tradition is most faithful to the true faith?" This assumes something that I do not accept: it assumes ecclesiology as a starting point (and, to a certain extent, it assumes episcopal ecclesiology). Ecclesiology is an important question, but it is not where the Spirit of God begins when He moves into a new group of people. Missionaries shared the gospel with the Chinese people and later got kicked out of the country. Now we praise God to find out that a movement of house churches flourished in their absence. If Anglicanism is the most faithful tradition, does that mean these Chinese churches should begin affiliating with Canterbury as soon as they possibly can? I don't buy it, and as one who rejects episcopal ecclesiology, I don't have to: I can work to encourage the Chinese church to adopt certain views I think are correct (like gender equality in ministry) without needing to ask them to join my denomination/association. My ecclesiology makes room for God to be at work in independent churches.
--No, everything does not reduce to mere style, but perhaps more reduces to cultural baggage than you can accept as a highchurchman (new word). The difference is, you officially endorse a certain strand of Western church historical/cultural baggage. It happens to be some very profound baggage, laden with beautiful symbolism; I'll give you that much, but it's still thoroughly culturally conditioned.
This is fun! Looking forward to any more rebutting you might be inclined to offer.
Ben,
Thanks for the very engaging response. You are a gentleman and a scholar, my friend; but, do you smoke a pipe with a tweed jacket and snap-down cap? I challenge you not to be ashamed of that fine cap in your closet and I will expect to see you donning it Thursday morning...
Your point about the Spirit of God working among new groups of people is a good one, and I would agree that this is prior to ecclesiology; however, I do not think this acknowledgment renders my question invalid or of secondary importance. Let's just think about "tradition" itself for a minute. The pitting of scripture against tradition was not a familiar posture for the NT or early church; the two were viewed as existing in a relationship of co-inherence. Scripture itself is a part of tradition--albeit, the final authority on matters of faith and practice. Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to "hold onto the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter [II Thess 2:15]." This is biblical warrant for affirming the authority of oral tradition passed down from the apostles to the early church. Likewise, when Paul talks about the Lord's Supper in I Cor 11, he is assuming that the Corinthians already received the tradition handed down from the apostles and is correcting and confirming their practice--not providing a blueprint for celebrating the Lord's Supper in any time and place. Also, see I Cor 15 and the resurrection tradition that pre-dates the NT writings themselves. So, there was this existing tradition that the churches had received and the biblical authors do not betray a view of conflict with their writings and that of received tradition. Given the reality of tradition as content AND the transmission process of handing down the faith itself, it is important to ask questions such as, "Which tradition is most faithful to the integrity of the Gospel as handed down from the apostles to the early church?" Tradition is inescapable--even the canon of scripture itself is the result of the church's tradition. There is no listing of the canonical books (or "Golden Index") in scripture itself. Scripture was never meant to be understood apart from the great tradition in which it found itself intertwined in the early church. Even in low-church, non-denom settings, the doctrinal statement almost always reflects the doctrinal conclusions of the Apostles', Nicene, and Chalcedonian Creeds. Of course the seeds and content for the doctrines are in scripture, but the formulations of the doctrines themselves come from the early church. My point is simply that we must acknowledge the essential role of tradition in the formation and handing down of our faith, and it is a right and good thing to seek the tradition(s) that are most faithfully connected to the deposit of faith as handed down to us from the apostles. Of course, this investigation is not necessary for salvation, but that doesn't mean it's not an extremely important question--especially in a day when church unity matters so greatly. Let's dialogue with other Christian traditions and seek truth and faithfulness together--as we are even doing right here!
As to your comment about my endorsing Western cultural baggage, I would simply say that the Eastern church affirms much of the same history and doctrine. Also, particularity is not a problem in and of itself--Xity is an incarnated religion and must express itself in history with particularity. So cultural baggage, yes, but unavoidable cultural baggage nonetheless. There is an historical church (not necessarily thinking of just one here, as RC, Orthodox, and Anglicans all can trace their lineage back through history), so let's look for it and connect with it!
This is fun. Thanks again for waxing theologic with me. Good night, sweet prince.
My good man!
I will happily commune with you tomorrow in the Olde English style. Please acquiesce with your own appropriate attire.
I heartily embrace the importance of tradition, and this embrace of tradition means I ought to accept some form of "apostolic succession." On this note, however, I do not think the succession is bound to ecclesiology but to the movement of the Spirit in history. Consider this quote from Shelley, p. 307 in the 2nd ed.:
"The Reformers had planted the seeds of the denominational theory of the church when they insisted that the true church can never be identified in any exclusive sense with a particular institution. The true succession is not of bishops but of believers."
Returning briefly to the question of cultural baggage, let us certainly connect with the historical church culturally - and let part of that connection include our willingness for contextualization (as they exhibited in their liturgical choices).
Wax on, wax off, wax on...
I will join you in splendid gentlemanliness on the morrow, good chap. 8am, however, is a very UNgentlemanly hour; thus, I may not be able to fully appreciate our splendor. But, alas, we must move on to more pressing matters...
I do not agree with the stark either/or framework in which you are framing the issue: Either "apostolic succession" or the "movement of the Spirit;" neither is this befitting of a seminarian trained in the ways of the ubiquitous "both/and" logic. All churches claiming a historical connection all the way back to the apostles are going to point to the movement of the Spirit in preserving the church throughout the centuries. One need not choose one or the other, but can happily affirm both historical connectedness and the movement of the Spirit of God. In fact, I believe historical continuity is one of the ways the Spirit preserves the unity of the Church through time.
Also, as a Christian deeply appreciative of the English Reformation, I affirm the Shelley quote insofar as it affirms belief in the "invisible church"--that is, I believe that true Christians can be found in many churches, even if these churches are not equally faithful or connected to the great tradition of the church historic. Implied here is my view that some traditions of Xity are more faithful to that which has been handed down over the centuries than others and we ought to strive to discover these more historically grounded traditions of our faith. And this does not mean that historical traditions don't contextualize; in fact, Jesuits have a reputation in RCism for overdoing it with respect to contextualization! Again, not a salvation issue per se, but extremely important nonetheless. Enjoying the dialogue!
Methinks you have missed the primary thrust of my statement; I was not putting historic succession and the movement of the Spirit as separate poles, but affirming a certain type of succession as opposed to another - succession rooted in the Spirit's movement rather than succession rooted in any particular ecclesiastical movement. As I'm sure you know, in no way am I saying the Spirit doesn't move in/through churches and church movements - of course he does.
Rather than striving to discover the more historically grounded traditions of our faith, with my more autonomous ecclesiology, I would instead say, let us strive to align our local churches and church movements more correctly with the truth (whether from Scripture, other historically discerned truth, rationally discerned truth, personally discerned truth, or contextually discerned truth).
Have we beat this horse dead yet, or am I just giving up too soon? Time for me to go smoke my pipe and grade a paper.
The horse is in mortal danger of expiring. We'll just settle this the old fashioned way via fisticuffs--meet me by the bike racks after school...
Hey, in all seriousness, it was great getting lunch with you two today. I appreciate your gentlemanly and gentlewomanly friendship.
So as to pump the horse full of ecstasy and continue on... a few thoughts...
I agree with Tony that Sacred Tradition is a necessary component in theology. It's sadly overlooked. But I think Tony tends to make historical connectedness via Tradition as a sufficient condition in ecclesiology. And that's why I can't go as far as he has. A story...
A student here named James is Japanese. He is affiliated with the International General Mission (or something like that). It's a Japanese only Christian denomination.
To my knowledge (and I could be wrong) there are no other represented denominations in Japan. And that includes the three "sects": Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican. (By the way I think Anglican is debatable as more historically grounded than RC or Orthodox; but that's for another time).
IGM was founded in the 1960's. Is one to say that IGM is less legitimate because it has zero historical connectedness? Are these Japanese believers illegitimate Christians because they're not a part of the "big 3"? How could they be when there are no other options than IGM?
I value tradition very highly. I may even value historical connectedness highly. And that's good for me, because I have options of churches to attend. But it would be to my own demise if I were to ever say that IGM or any other low-church (heck, even non-denom and I cringe when I say...emergent church) are illegitimate. It's not for me to judge the legitimacy of their worship (as much as I want to and as much as I might disagree with their practices). That's for God.
I guess that's my concern with Tony's position. My concern with Ben's position can be found in Tony's concerns (for the most part).
Another quick story...
When I was in Mozambique I had the opportunity to preach one Sunday morning. It was at a Nazarene church in the village we were at. In Mozambique (and many many places not in the West) people attend the Christian church that is closest to where they live. The denomination is completely irrelevant.
And these people will worship the Lord with more heart and passion than any Western church that I have seen. ANY. My point is: the majority of Christians in this world do not live in the West. It's undeniable that the Holy Spirit is working in these areas. And these churches and Christians do things differently and think differently than Western churches. Don't you think the Western church should start taking notice of this?
That's enough for now. Glad to have your blog Ben-jammin'
Post a Comment