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).