Denominations — Really Bad?

[OBW]

I wasn't sure where this would fit, so put it here in Orthopraxy. This is mostly about how we practice our faith, though the theology (therefore Orthodoxy) is included.

This will be in two parts. This post will somewhat setup where I am coming from. The next will ask the question.

- - - -

One of the things that has struck me in the past few years is that despite the place the RCC eventually went, they were not just a fixed dogma for centuries. Mary worship is not found all the way to the beginning. And the Immaculate Conception is relatively recent. (I guess this will be the proof that what I am about to say doesn't always work.) The reason that it went on as it had with only the one split (being mostly over where the center of church authority would be found) was that there was a constant process of study, question, debate, etc., that resulted in changes over time. Even many of the issues that Martin Luther complained about (and that the RCC was unwilling to even discuss at the time) have since changed.

With the split-off of the Germans (Lutherans) and then others, there would seem to now be the opportunity to reinvigorate that dialog and deal with issues at least a little more currently. But the history has instead been parting of the ways after parting of the ways. After an early round of settling doctrine for any new group, they basically closed off.

Yet by the 1800s, the number of truly different groups was really fairly small. It took the education of the masses and the Jesus People movement to really stir things up. The number of truly independent assemblies that had no real connection with anyone else skyrocketed from that time until now. Everyone is busy being their own theologian and taking exception with everyone else. Add to that the ever-shrinking attention span of people and there is no stomach for real deliberation on any issue.

I keep seeing a kind of paradox lately where so many want to go it on their own, or at least be free to find what suits them. That is what many of us did back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But the paradox is that it is mostly the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants theology of people who do their own interpretation and study and end up either joining or creating extreme sects (moving into the realm of cult).

It may be that letting the trained theologians who rely on a long tradition of teaching and understanding be the ones who spend more time (than we want to wait) just considering a question that might move some aspect of practice from its mooring to a different place rather than someone excitedly declaring something different and a bunch of people being caught-up in the new and starting a new group.

I know that it was all new in the 1st century AD. Now the only thing that is truly new is not what is true, but the realization that it is true. What is new is that someone moves from disbelief to belief. Other than that, it really is sound and old.

And at some level, me being responsible for feeding myself and doing my own interpretation is just an invitation for another sect/cult. Or dissatisfaction while staying the course of the old ways. Maybe letting the church be heavily responsible for what I "eat" and what my children learn (in terms of theology, not in terms of my example for them — which I was not very good at) is a better way.

Not saying we don't read the Bible for ourselves. Or have realization of possible interpretations. But maybe what we are reading should be more in what is suggested from the last sermon, of found in a regular daily lectionary. Bible studies should not be presumed to be for me to find something special that I see, but rather to realize what is known to be there. When we think we see something new, our "ahas" maybe should be checked with others in our Christian communities rather than just kept as "my gift from God." (It might or might not be. Keeping it to yourself provides no check. Just spreading it like doctrine is fodder for a new split.)

Of course working within your Christian community only works if those communities are prepared to be a sounding board and to actually engage in questions rather than just dispense answers. Otherwise they just become enclosed within their own dogma. Much like the LCM, even if less dogmatically so.

I have many questions. I do see things. (Obviously I had to if I was ever going to mover beyond what Lee and the LCM gave me.) Some that would be problematic if my assembly of choice is too set in its ways to at least engage in the question and some dialog. And my questions would get me booted out of the LCM. But I am satisfied with my assembly even if the answers to my questions don't go where I think they could/should. And I am willing to be shown the error in where I think it might go (or at least think I am).

[OBW]

If you haven't figured out the gist of the question, it is whether denominations are really bad. But it is not that simple.

Might denominations be closer to a practice and belief in sound Christian faith than free groups?
Might the strong connection of the defined group provide a better shield against the whims of lone thinkers (like me)?

And I ask this question as a member of an assembly that is not tied to a denomination. That being said, they are strongly affiliated with others of the same movement and with the schools of theology that they mostly rely on for their preachers and teaching. I will admit that I am not convinced on all of their positions. Very dispensational and I am not so dispensationally predisposed.

And every assembly does not agree with every other assembly on every issue. But they do not condemn those that disagree. I was for quite some time a member of one of these assemblies, then for reasons having nothing to do with liking or disliking them, am at another within the same group. There is a particular point on which the two do not agree. And I tend to agree more with the one where I am no longer a member.

I went through that because I am thinking for myself whether the looser group of an affiliated but not wholly-joined denomination achieves what I am seeking.

And that is a more sound base of theology than one guy and his Bible leading a house church. Or even three or four guys and their Bibles leading a small gathering in a room at a community center.

You realize that the LCM started with a single college-aged kid who started publishing his own theological newspaper (within about 2 years of salvation), then a major book in his twenties. That drew a lot of followers who were then anxious to follow this apparently brilliant man.

Even my fairly untrained mind can see huge holes in his theological ship. But there was something new that captured the minds of the people of the 1920s and 1930s in China.

And, like a lot of other Jesus People stuff in the 60s, throwing that kid's stuff into the mix in America was really new. And appealing. Some of the followers found better alternatives than the LCM, but for most of us here, it was the LCM.

But we spent too many years hearing that denominations were the harlot daughters of the Whore of Babylon. And while we dumped Lee (and hopefully Nee), we have tended to like the idea of bad denominations. And of me and my Bible. We like to think that we receive a lot of special, private inspiration from God if we worship in a small house group. Inspiration we would not get if we were merely members at some Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Reformed, Congregational, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, (and so on) church. But despite the relatively constant state of doctrine and belief in those places, is that really bad? Is the state of Christian understanding so poor that we think constant, solid, and even old is the wrong way?

Not suggesting that any of these are perfect or that there is nothing new. But despite that song with each verse ending "the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his Word," the light and truth that needs to spring forth is not mostly something new, but the realization of what has clearly been seen there before but not realized by us. I would suggest that the totality of truth that the Baptists and Lutherans have in their arsenals will not be entirely appreciated by hardly any person within their lifetime. It will be springing forth for each of us over our lives.

But we think it is about brand new, never been seen stuff.

I mentioned in my last post that I have questions. Some of which might not go over well with some people. But my questions have ceased to be about brand new revelation, but rather the tendency for us to lose sight of the steady pathway set before us. We rush to go on a missions trip. We celebrate the outwardly spiritual acts of some. And in doing that, we denigrate the constantly faithful living of those who never went on a missions trip. Or went to seminary. Or joined a team going door-to-door preaching the gospel. The church is full of people who are humble in their faith. Who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Who love their neighbor as themselves. But we celebrate those who are the missionaries. Or have achievements in the "spiritual" realm.

I wonder why we worship God by singing a lot of songs that center on me. Surely part of the worship should include some thankfulness for what has been done for me/us. And some repentance for my failures. But the center should be Christ. Not even a lot about my life with some thanks to Christ thrown into the chorus. There is a place for "me" songs. That mostly should not be worship.

But when it comes to my theological base, even with my small disagreements, I am happy to be part of a group that has at least a reasonable base of thought that is greater than itself and maybe one or two more nearby assemblies. I would feel rather naked in a truly free group.

And I know that means that the relatively new denomination that is known as the Local Churches (specifically those affiliated with the LSM) would seem to be better off than a free group. But that is not the case. As I mentioned, they were started by a single person without any real training and grew into the thing that it is today. They may be a denomination now, but that does not give them legitimacy.

- - - - -

Have you actually considered whether there is a basis for dissing denominations? If so, where do you fall on the following continuum:

• Still sold on the evils of denominations?
• Ambivalent?
• Jettisoned the whole idea of denominations as simply non-biblical?

I welcome thoughts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I am satisfied with my assembly even if the answers to my questions don't go where I think they could/should. And I am willing to be shown the error in where I think it might go (or at least think I am).

This captures my position at present. I think differently from others, but I am fine with others, where they are, and am willing to get light from them. Even though there is some basis for my thoughts (both scriptural and exegetical commentary), I'm still a seeking person. The basis of my revelation today is my willingness to let go of yesterday's revelation, or at least have it severely pruned within the flock (scripture + exegetical discussion).

Originally Posted by OBW

Have you actually considered whether there is a basis for dissing denominations? If so, where do you fall on the following continuum:

• Still sold on the evils of denominations?
• Ambivalent?
• Jettisoned the whole idea of denominations as simply non-biblical?

I welcome thoughts.

There is no Jew nor Greek. There is no Baptist nor Presbyterian. We are all one in Christ, regardless of the "ground" you meet on. Not everyone sees it, but I must see it: if they see Jesus Christ, by faith, then the command is clearly, "Receive them."

So I respect all, receive all. Some of the more flaky ones I typically avoid, or say "Hi nice to see you" and move on. And I still will call the apostate ones for what they are. The Heavens Gate "Jesus is coming on a flying saucer" types. Abomination - goodbye.

Other than that, whatever. I guess, then I'm ambivalent. Neither for nor against.

Lastly, it is the scholars that I really respect today. The ones who put in the time, in the trenches. I respect Pastor Bob, but if he's smart he's listening to the scholars. His own personal revelation doesn't weigh as much as the larger discussion going on within the community of scholarship. There are a few "lone voices" out there who have such basis for their ideational output that the scholars take them into consideration. But the vast majority are working within institutional frameworks.

[Cal]

There are two ways to look at it. One, as you suggest, denominations are good because at least you know what you are getting when you go there. It’s sort of like wanting a hamburger and seeing a McDonald’s and a Burger King. You know what you are getting when you go to either one. At McDonald’s you will get McDonalds-ish hamburgers and at Burger King you will get Burger King-ish hamburgers. The certainties outweigh the possibilities. But suppose you drive by a restaurant whose sign just says “Hamburgers.” What are you getting? Hamburgers, yes. But what kind? What are their characteristics? The possibilities outweigh the certainties.

The word “denomination” means “having a name” and the LC tries to get a lot of distance out of this by saying they don’t have a name. But in fact a denomination is just an identifiable brand of Christianity. The name identifies the brand, but the important thing is not the name, but the brand. So there is no doubt the LC is a denomination, as it is a very distinct brand. They like to think their defining characteristic is “Christ.” But actually their defining characteristic is Witness Lee-ish Christianity.

On the other hand, the advantage of non-denominational churches, though not always, is that the brand is less distinct. And so the possibilities are more varied for what you can get and do there. Whereas with a denomination the possibilities are more limited, because the brand is more defined.

So like branded hamburger restaurants, denominations serve a purpose. You know what you are getting when you go there. Whereas, when you go to a non-denominational church, you may not know what to expect.

Alas even a simple presentation may not guarantee a less distinctive approach--as in the case of the LC, where a façade of benign generality hides the fact of rigid specificity.

So, no, I don't think denominations are "bad." I do think some can get so distinctive that they are intolerable for some believers. That's why I like simpler churches. But that's my taste. I shouldn't insist on it.

[OBW]

I hear you both and generally agree. I guess the questions were more for myself than anyone else. Or more for the consideration by those who may have no desire to actually respond.

And that is the fate of many of my thread starts. It interests me, but is not necessarily a page turner for others. I don't care if it collects followers or participants as long as it makes people think. Or someone.

As for the comment about variety v a more certain environment, with the variety of church types that are represented by denominations, it is at least more varied than McD, BK, Wendy's, JitB, INnOut, (and Whataburger for the Texas locals). Of course, if you asked me what I wanted, the somewhat Frankenstein-ish thing I would put together might surprise some (including my wife).

. . . . If only my current assembly would make the necessary changes . . . .

But I still think I would rather remain within something at least as strongly cohesive as the Bible Church movement, even though not a denomination in the truest sense. Why? Because I think it represents my core and peripheral beliefs best, and provides a solid framework for sound theology, teaching, practice, etc.

[Freedom]

At present, I have no problem with denominations or the fact that they exist. In the LC, they will readily criticize denominations for "taking a name", but a name represents nothing more than a means of identification. By analogy from the tech world, there are two ways to go to the google website. You can either memorize the IP address of google.com (216.58.216.14), or just simply type "google.com". In the world of computers, names save us from having to memorize IP addresses. Suffice to say, names are a matter of convenience. All Christian groups have beliefs that they can be distinguished by. If a group takes a name of "Baptist", it allows people to readily identify what that group believes. Other groups don't choose to do that, and it's not a problem, it just means people might have to inquire as to what a group believes.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The word “denomination” means “having a name” and the LC tries to get a lot of distance out of this by saying they don’t have a name. But in fact a denomination is just an identifiable brand of Christianity. The name identifies the brand, but the important thing is not the name, but the brand. So there is no doubt the LC is a denomination, as it is a very distinct brand. They like to think their defining characteristic is “Christ.” But actually their defining characteristic is Witness Lee-ish Christianity

Ultimately, all groups are "branded" what they believe. This is as true for the LC as it is for any denomination. The explicit claim that group is "nameless" is about as ridiculous as if someone claimed that a Ford with the emblem removed is no longer a Ford. In the same way that Methodists are distinguished by what they believe, the LC is distinguished by their own set of beliefs. The names, or lack thereof do not ultimately factor into the equation. Maybe I've gone overboard on the analogies, but suffice to say, I can't see what the big deal about "names" really is.