[OBW]

The problem with coming only occasionally is that you only see a few more recent threads. In looking back a little, I find this one interesting.

I will note that the thread asks about singular "denomination" rather than plural "denominations." I will assume this is a typo until someone tells me otherwise.

To the extent that a denomination, or denominations in general, are the result of division and acrimony in the body, it is easy to suggest that there is a problem with it/them. But that is not the whole of the separations. While some declare others (certain others or all others) to be in error and not really churches, they mostly are maintaining peace within the body by keeping arguments over doctrine and practice out of the everyday practice of our faith. And whether large or small, at some level I like the idea that there are some who have the calling to be more given to the Word, study, prayer, preaching, etc., and provide the rest of us with a coherent base of doctrine and understanding. They do the heavy lifting of theology that allows the rest of us to believe, learn, and practice in what we trust is a sound environment. If this sounds just like following Lee, you are wrong. With some exceptions, the job of the "heavy lifting" is done among many, not dictated by one. They even do some of their study with those who see things differently and undertake to understand both sides of debates and develop and support their conclusions.

Unfortunately, at the participant level, and sometimes at the local leadership level, they are more sectarian about their understanding. And they mix in various kinds of "folk religion." In Haiti, that might be something like voodoo mixed in with Catholicism. In Dallas, that might be more like mixing views on how families should be, or patriotism with the worship of God. Not saying that families or patriotism are bad, but that they are not what the Christian faith is about. And not what worship is for.

It is interesting that at the upper levels, many from different groups regularly engage in discussions. They may tend to be strong for their views, but they are generally not so closed as to suspect the Christian stance of the others. But as you move toward a local assembly, the tendency to be generous toward others often decreases.

(Now it is interesting to note that certain "young, restless, and reformed" members of a part of the Presbyterians (broadly) have managed to argue that the definition of a true evangelical is so strongly Calvinist that all those of old-school Pentecostal groups who hold to more Aminian teachings would not be included even though they, and others, consider them part of the larger Evangelical community.)

So, while the fact of a denomination somewhat codifies the reasons for doctrinal divisions in the faith, they also provide an anchor in faith and belief that too many free groups and one-off assemblies do not have except to the extent that their preachers were trained at reputable schools of theology.

I know that this seems to bring in another hot button in the LC discussion — clergy. But clergy in some form is all over both Christ's teachings and those that followed in the various epistles. Some were trained for 3+ years to be the leaders of the church. They were admonished to not do it like the Pharisees, but as servants. Some are "given" to the body to train them fo their "works of ministry." Paul specifically admonished the believers to support those that labored in the word and teaching for their sake. So having a paid preacher is not necessarily a bad thing. And while it might be ideal if an assembly were to send one of their own to a trusted school of theology so they could return to shepherd, teach, and lead that assembly, that is not always how it works. So simply calling a paid preacher who came from outside the group a hireling is probably not a fair or accurate assessment.

Surely the fact of denominations points to the fact of our doctrinal separations. But eliminating them would likely create massive separation and division. It would free too many to more finely dissect understanding and exclude others over it. In any case, in the face of disputes concerning doctrines, and despite a gut feeling that going to the "church of my choice" is somehow a bad thing, it probably keeps the focus of gatherings off of the differences and instead on Christ.

So, in my view, and given the fact of things as they are, I do not think that denominations are necessarily such a bad thing, or something to rail against.

I realize that some may point to a particular assembly that is not part of any denomination, that has no external office to answer to, and feel that it is preferrable. And you might be right. But you also may be getting a poor diet of Christian nourishment that is wrapped in a desirable environment. Why? Not necessarily becuase someone is out to fleece you. Maybe just because that is all that the one, standalone leader can provide. Maybe they cannot see their own limitations and errors and have no place to vet their ideas and get feedback, and even push-back where appropriate. Until they go so off the rails that some elderly woman stands and says "enough is enough" and leaves. And there begins to be a split amoung the few in the not so big independ assembly with no denomination to blame.