The Need For "Sinful" Denominations
[UPDATE]
The discussion of the need or future of the mainline church or denominations in general has been a hot topic (again) as of late. Tony Jones has a few posts on his blog, one being HERE, that ask whether or not the future of the mainline church is a bleak one and whether or not we should, perhaps, help speed it along. I don’t think so.
Below is a response I wrote this past summer when Tony Jones, in response to a friend’s hang-up in the ordination process with the Presbyterian church (you can more about that here: An Emerging Mess), said that denominations were “sinful.” Again, I don’t think so. While they may indeed do “sinful” things (like any one or any thing) they are not ontologically sinful. I’m reposting that discussion here for convenience sake.
Look back in a few days if you are interested as I will be posting a response with some questions to Philip Clayton’s recent article, Theology after Google. Philip is speaking at the Emergence NOW conference Tony Jones is presently at and has this particular article brings up some interesting things to think about as mainline churches move forward (or die slowly). [END UPDATE]
Ordination along with denominations have received quite a beating in the blogosphere over the last week. If you don’t know what I am talking about visit Pomomusings or Greg Bolt’s blog for a good overview with links to sites where this discussion is ongoing.
As I peruse the comments this topic has generated it struck me that no one is really talking about the real casualty in all of this: the local church. If we maintain that denominations are “sinful” (the position Tony Jones has taken) and should be done away with and the process of ordination should be made easier and more grass-roots, the church will die.
When I was baptized I was immersed into a story far bigger than me. All of us who call ourselves Christians are connected by a stream that runs through all of time. I am not an island unto myself. I am connected to the saints that have come before me, live with me and will live after me. Because you are, I am.
In our post-modern theological pow-wows it is trendy to talk of narratives. The story into which our baptism initiates us we call a grand meta-narrative, or a means by which we define our existence as well as make educated guesses about where creation is headed (or more precisely, where God is taking it). Evangelism, in this motif, is defined by Stanley Hauerwas as “an invitation to switch stories.” Christians believe we have a pretty good story, one we aptly call Good News, that is worth even our very lives.
On the ground this story gets played out in a variety of ways. How this story is lived out in Africa may look different then China. How it gets lived out in times of persecution may look different then in times of peace. How it is lived in the ghettos may look different then the way it is lived on Wall Street. The common thread that hopefully unites them all is that they each confess Jesus is Lord and strive to love God with heart, soul and mind and their neighbor as themselves.
Because I am human I do not always live up to the story my baptism calls me to live into. Perhaps this is due in part because I find it difficult to wrap my head (and heart) around the enormity of this story. Left to the macro, meta-narrative level alone I am overwhelmed. Jesus must have known our heads and hearts could not handle living autonomously in his river of life, flowing through all of history, so he gave us the church. The church, a local community of faith, puts flesh and bones on my story and helps me navigate the waters of my baptism.
Moving from the macro (grand meta-narrative) to the micro (local church) it is easy for us to become content. Especially since we most often find a local church that most closely resembles ourselves. Given that the majority of American churches are small churches (100 or less in worship each Sunday) it is no mystery how or why these churches might become homogenized. Over time they lose objectivity. Now, what would happen if these microcosms of God’s grand story, which have overtime begun to reflect the dreams and desires of the faithful members in attendance, determined that they would select for themselves their pastor? And what if, in an attempt to be fair and inclusive of all those desiring such an office, they made the process to become their pastor as simple as feasibly (yet not recklessly) possible? I imagine that a local church would want to safeguard against abuses or opening the door to heresy within the pulpit so they would do what comes natural and select a committee of people who can help discern for the local body who is a potential candidate to be their pastor before bringing said person before the congregation for a vote. Over time, I can imagine what those committee meetings might look like. The candidate in question would be selected based on how well he or she conforms to the image this local church has cast for itself. The church, over time, loses the ability to critique herself. It becomes an individual, only a bit larger. Unless there is a third way.
Denominations have forged a unique road between the macro meta-narrative and the microcosm of local church homogeneity. As a Methodist I have a context that gives shape to my faith that is grass roots enough to have teeth, enabling me to feel anchored yet big enough that some objectivity is maintained. There is a rich tradition that I as a young pastor can lay claim to as my own tradition and a certain wisdom that comes with centuries worth of theological pow-wows. I am not an island unto myself but stand on the shoulders of the many that have passed before me and who journey with me.
Now, why will this save the local church? Because as a denomination goes about ordaining its pastors and these pastors go out to serve these individual local churches the church receives not just one of their own members whom they have all agreed sufficiently agrees with their perceived vision of themselves but they receive a pastor who at his or her best will call the church to look with eyes beyond herself to a larger story outsides themselves. A pastor who enters a local church as a custodian of the larger Church’s story is positioned uniquely to offer praise where praise is due and critique where critique is due. Such was the unique position St. John of Patmos had as he delivered his pastoral letters to each of his seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3. In a way John was acting as their bishop – one who cared about the direction the local churches were taking with an objective and prophetic focus.
Churches that receive a pastor in this way resist the temptation of becoming mirrors directed at themselves. They continually have a voice from without that can bring a word to help catch the particular story of the church up with the larger story of Christ. This is life. This is life in the same way that my particular baptism catches my story up with the story of the Church. I say we should celebrate and give thanks wherever we see signs of God’s life. Denominations and the process of ordination that comes with them, while never perfect, are something worth celebrating.
Share this Post
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
good stuff man, good stuff
There are some in the so-called ADM who are, also, quite fond of criticizing the local church–especially those local churches of which they have no vested interested (either in membership or financial). It is easy to sit and criticize the local church of which one has no share. It is quite another to bless the local church and celebrate its vitality within the larger christian community and local (‘secular’) neighborhood. In this way the Word of God is preserved and is truly catholic. Thanks Chad for not being afraid to criticize those with whom you normally agree. Grace and Peace.
Jerry, thanks.
Just so that I am clear, I am not criticizing the local church which may have no ties to a larger, historical model. And I certainly would find it difficult to criticize any local body of believers of which I have not vested interest or shared community (which is one of the reasons I would not sign the petition online to ordain Adam – he is not nor never will be my pastor or someone I will be in “connection” with in ecclesial ways).
This post was an attempt to start discussion on how both sides of the coin can and should be celebrated. By “both sides of the coin” I am referring to those churches that consider themselves non-denominational or congregational churches and those of us who are in denominations. Tony has calls the latter “sinful,” a characterization that I find not only surprisingly uncharitable from someone like him but also just plain wrong.
grace and peace to you.
Chad,
I’m sorry–internet doesn’t convey proper emotions. I wasn’t saying you are doing those things. I’m saying that’s how I understand the work of ‘ADM’s’ and this particular effort by Jones. Don’t get me wrong. I agree with what you wrote. Phew. Close one there. We agree here, friend.
jerry
lol, Jerry. I figured as much. In fact, I had typed out that I did not think you were saying that and then I deleted it. We are thinking alike. As scary as that may be for either or both of us
peace.
Chad, you said, “If we maintain that denominations are “sinful” (the position Tony Jones has taken) and should be done away with and the process of ordination should be made easier and more grass-roots, the church will die.”
You and I have talked about this a little on Facebook and I’m wondering what takes you to the conclusion that the church will die?
Hey, Jonathan.
I’m glad you bring this up. I wasn’t under any delusions that the rest of my post fleshed that out fully. True confessions: I was watching Dane Cook’s stand up comic performance last night while finishing this up
(I hope I didn’t inadvertently transcribe any of his verbage!)
In the grand scheme of things I don’t believe the Church will ever die. Christ promises as much. However, I think we can both agree that there are many churches that have the outward trappings (or dressings) of a church but are not really truly a Church. They have the form and function but neither the love or the spirit.
I think that one of the graces of a denomination and the process of ordination is that they keep particular, local communities of faith rooted in a larger narrative than their own. If local congregations, on the other hand, were to produce from within themselves their own pastors and teachers then over time the church would become a denomination unto themselves. The only difference is they would be smaller and lack a potential prophetic voice from the outside (while still connected via historical/theological/ecclesiastical ties) who can call them out of their self-sufficiency and/or myopic vision of God’s story for them.
I grant that this is worse case scenario, but we see this happening in many local churches that are perhaps rural, self-enclosed, congregational (a bulk of American churches, I would argue). What I am suggesting is we need both. Neither way is sinful but both serve to critique the other and provide a viable tension for us to live faithfully into.
How do you think denominations and free-churches can best live into the God-given reality that there are such callings and giftings as pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists, etc? How can we better recognize each others gifts and graces without resorting to judgments of either as “sinful”?
peace,
Jonathan,
Perhaps you or someone could narrate for me (and others) what a church that does not affiliate itself with a denomination or have ordination boards/requirements might look like? How is a pastor chosen? How is “orthodoxy” (how ever that looks) maintained? How is critique brought or prophetic vision?
Those are just some questions off the top of my head. Feel free to share whatever you wish.
Chad, I would only suggest Jesus’ model of ordination, which is a three year discipleship process, whereby the elder leads a small group in the practice of love and trust. And then after three years he commissions them to go and do the same.
Unfortunately that looks nothing like our current model of church.
Jonathan, thanks.
I’m glad you said this because I think it brings up 2 things worth discussion, one theological and one practical.
First, I am a bit suspicious of any attempts to draw one-to-one correlations with the biblical world and ours. For instance, I would not attempt to make the moral world of the Old and New Testaments the normative standard for us today. To do so would be to condone polygamy, patriarchy and myopic views on sexuality to name just a few. If I die I don’t expect my brother-in-law to marry my wife nor do I expect the woman who is raped to be forced to marry the rapist after he pays a dowery to her father. The moral world of the Bible is very different from our own and we can be thankful for that. It is perhaps a testament to the reality that the Holy Spirit is still leading us into truth.
In a similar way I am suspicious of attempts to make the social order of the Bible (and with that the “systems” for “doing” church) normative for us today. Even within the pages of scripture we see room for change and growth and adaptation. In Acts 6, as the church grew, concessions were made to allow for some other people to care for the widows and orphans while the “elders” devoted their time to study and preaching. The Jerusalem Council was started by the same people who were discipled by Jesus for 3 years in an attempt to keep false teachings at bay and there is historical evidence that suggests John of Patmos ordained the likes of Polycarp and others who went about planting churches. All this is only to show that if there was a model to adopt it is a model that allows for adaptation to contextual needs.
Secondly, on a practical level, why do you suppose that the model you suggest isn’t happening to some extent within denominational structures? As for commissioning others to go and do the same does that mean everyone must start a group and be their shepherd? What of the many other faithful ways in which members of churches serve Christ and neighbor without ever being in charge or taking the lead? Surely they are every bit as important to the body of Christ as we, yes?
Just some thoughts. Thanks for the chance to dialog about this.
peace.
Chad,
I appreciate this conversation and am going to attempt to explian why the Methodist model of ordination (suprise, suprise) might be the best one for balancing the local and the global.
The Methodist ordination process begins at the grass roots level. Laity from local churches, who are already called to ministry by virue of their baptism, begin to discern a special call to ordained ministry. The first step is to seek the guidance of the pastor, and then the approval of the local congregation. No Methodist pastor is ordained who has not first received the affirmation of the local church in which she is an active member.
Yet, the ordination process does not stop at the grass roots level. Once the local church affirms God’s call on an individual, that individual is recommended to denominational boards of ordained ministry who mentor, educate, and evaluate the indiviudual throughout the entire ordination process.
That’s a simplified explanation, but I think what it shows is that in the Methodsit church, ordination requires first grass roots support, and then denominational approval. Both are necessary. Such a process roots ones ordination both in the local and global contexts of the church’s mission.
A second point to consider is the sacramental nature of ordination. Ordiantion is not simply a human act, it is an act of God’s grace. In ordination, God pours out grace such that individuals are empowered for pastoral ministry. To eliminate ordination, and seek a congregational vote, takes the sacarmental nature out of ordiantion, and places too much emphasis on human initiation. To be ordianed is to be set apart by God…we don’t set each other apart, God sets us apart.
Chad, I have no problem or issue with any faithful way a church attempts to serve Christ and neighbor.
To me this is a systems issue. Structure always produces exactly the fruit it was designed to produce. The one of the basic laws or organizational dynamics. An example is a motor in a car. it’s designed to produce combustion that transfers to movable energy.
My concern is not with our interpretations of how to do church, ordination, and leadership, etc. It’s first asking are they producing fruit. And the fruit the church produces today is pretty good in some respects and pretty bad in others.
My wonder is then this: What would it look to actually do it the way Jesus did. We don’t have to. We get to. And the more I explore that, the more I realize that Jesus created an amazingly simple process that produced maturity. It was a leadership development process that had a built in trigger mechanism for ending cliques, leadership traps, etc. It produced growth in a very systemic way. But that system is in many way in direct competition with the current model.
The question is then our response as leaders. Are we interested in taking the risk to follow Jesus, or are we interested more in what we’re doing?
I think that question is for each person to answer.
Tom, I think this is my concern for the ordination process. Who ever said ordination was for some. We humans did. And the hierarchy creates a class system, of those in leadership and those outside leadership.
I really like the ordination process but it doesn’t support or further the idea of the priesthood of all believers. It is my judgment that it actually stunts growth in people because it creates a natural barrier for people.
Tom, thanks for that offering. You highlight the many aspects of our system that are worth celebrating (and spared me from doing it myself!)
What I hope to see happen here is that both sides of this coin, especially those of us who have an affinity for the emerging church, can express where they see God at work in the midst of their particular system. My prayer is that we can reach some sort of consensus that celebrates our diversity while steering away from strident language such as Tony Jones’ which, IMO, only serve to create a wedge between us.
Oh, and Tom? Go Pens! (Wish you could be here tonight for the game. Maybe game 2?)
Jonathan, this will be abbreviated as I have to get out and weed my garden before I lose all desire!
What are some examples of the good and bad fruit you see in both ways of doing church? I agree with you that in this we can find a good way of evaluating whether what we do is working. So you do think it possible that denominations and ordination can produce good fruit?
Help me understand this, please. You said:
The question is then our response as leaders. Are we interested in taking the risk to follow Jesus, or are we interested more in what we’re doing?
By this you don’t mean that those who are in denominations and find value in ordination are more interested in what they are doing more than they are in following Jesus, correct?
grace and peace.
The story reveals that Jesus’ process got lost very quickly. The question is then what has been the outcome of the shift? The answer to that question is an opinion. Some see it as a good thing. Others see it as a bad thing. And we get what we get.
So when I say as leaders, which is what I was trying to say on Facebook, we have the responsibility to look inward and ask the hard questions. What kind of fruit are our systems producing?
It is up to each leader to determine if what they are doing is working.
I agree, Jonathan.
Perhaps this is one of the many reasons Jesus said “to those whom much has been given much will be expected.”
I take it we can both agree that painting with a broad brush and calling denominations “sinful” is not very helpful?
Chad,
All these conversations are interesting. It is more interesting to me to realize that what is happening to the church is happening. There is no one making this call. No one saying, “Oh, I see. Yes, let’s keep denominations.” And no one saying, “Nope, sorry. Our committee is destroying denominations.”
If they have a function, they will stay. If not, they will go. And if their function is needed but can be best done otherwise, they will go and something new will arise.
We’re talking about meta forces here with a lot of inertia. I’m interested in the conversation as long as we don’t fool ourselves about our lack of power to change what is happening.
Oh, the above comment was mine. Gordon Atkinson, aka Real Live Preacher
Gordon Atkinson
I also featured this post today at CCblogs. http://ccblogs.org
Hey Gordon,
Thanks for stopping in and for your comments.
I like what you say here:” I’m interested in the conversation as long as we don’t fool ourselves about our lack of power to change what is happening.”
Very true – and frightening! I think the Church has for too long been scared to live into the reality that God invites us (even commands!) us to live into. With Pentecost Sunday soon upon us I am hopeful that pastors and lay people alike will take the opportunity to challenge themselves and others to live into their baptisms more fully. Jesus said what we bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What does that mean for us today? How do we go forward? With humility, obviously, and with love. But we certainly do have the power to make change. Exciting, isn’t it?
grace and peace.
Dear all,
These are great discussions and–as always!–it is very encouraging to realize that we’re all in this together in trying to work out how the church is transforming (because, after all, ‘it’ is actually a ‘who’, a collective, a ‘flow’…so many metaphors…).
Movement and transformation are so integral to the faith with which we all engage (trusting, doubting, questioning, being human), in my understanding, and we in turn make up the church. I do think the church goes through a natural process of becoming more and more structured only to “shake things up” and then gradually build back up into a new structure. As you said above, there is a useful tension of sorts between denomination and congregation.
We are, after all, the church of both the oppressor and the oppressed. We are the church that used our beliefs as an excuse to colonize the world, but also the church who fights oppression with love. We are both of these. I think even our structure reflects this. While it’s not structure per se, I’d love to see more churches not being afraid to face history (contested, confusing, contradictory), if I could choose one new way of “doing” church. It’s not enough to teach “the Christian way” of living as though what we do is just the same as what early Christians did.
Not to say there can’t be a common thread through history, but just to say we’re human and our understandings transform…and maybe that’s how God intended it. We are limited beings who rely on one another to fill in the pieces.
Sorry, that was longer than I intended.
Thank you for the thought-provoking post!
Cassandra,
Thank you for that, and welcome!
You said: “We are, after all, the church of both the oppressor and the oppressed.”
That rings so true with me. And it a very humbling, challenging, description of us. It reminds me of Donald Miller’s book Blue Like Jazz. In it he shares a story how he and his friends set up a confessional booth on the campus of their secular college during an annual party-fest. The catch was, they were not taking confessions from these “sinners” but were confessing the sins of the church to those who stumbled into their booth. It was recognition that the church is never perfect and has always made mistakes. But that recognition and confession made an impact on the lives of those who listened.
Thanks for sharing.
Chad
I was just wondering, why would we want to follow Calvin, Luther, Wesley etc, if the doctrine which they taugh is not scripturally accurate?
Who determines if it is “scripturally accurate”, Dean?
Chad, your post here is so reflective. No doubt, the landscape of American Christianity is changing. I like so much of what your saying: the meta narrative under which we stand, the way your particular brand or denomination gives shape to your faith, how baptism immersed you into a larger narrative; all these are very powerful reflections.
I do, however, wonder if the systems that our denominations have put in place have come to the conclusion of their usefulness? Protecting the flock is one thing, identifying calling and anointing with extraneous (while somewhat useful) criteria has done great harm, in my opinion. How many “professional” ministers have passed their ordination exams with flying colors only to be appointed to a local church and in no time, see that church harmed and demoralized further?
I really get what your saying, and so much of it I love. But, where I do take issue is that ministry is and always will be a calling. Preparation for such is relative and when we make it so hard for gifted men to get to where their needed, we’re doing the kingdom an injustice.
btw, I posted this over at Century Network… not sure how often you check your comments over there.
my site addy was wrong in the above post. Sorry!
Christopher,
Welcome, and thank you for your comment. It is very gracious.
I agree with you that pastors have done harm to the flock who have passed their ordination boards with flying colors. I think this is indicative of the fact that ordination boards, seminary, good grades, etc. do not a pastor make. I do feel, however, that they are very useful. Perhaps you would agree that there has also been great harm done to the flock by pastors who have had no requirements from a communal body placed upon them? I have often cringed at some of the things I have seen and heard from pastors with little to no theological training or any accountability. Yet they felt they were called to this, despite the evidence to the contrary. I am skeptical of pastors who feel a sense of call to be a pastor and yet shy away from the demands placed upon them to fill that role.
I agree with you that ministry is always about a calling. John Wesley affirmed an inward and an outward call to ministry. I concur with him. I think that one’s calling should be evidenced by the community of faith that has nurtured us and should include, but not be limited to, my own personal sense of call. You can probably testify to this as well as I can, but I can’t count the number of times I have been steered in a better, more Spirit-led course because I listened to the counsel and wisdom of a collection of saints over and against my own feelings or intuitions.
I’d love to yours or anyone’s feedback on this. The system is far from perfect. There is always room for improvement. I welcome your critique.
grace and peace,
Chad
There is certainly some truth in what you say; I believe that there are valuable assets to proper training and preparation. And, I certainly do not want to devalue that. However, having been in the UMC and explored their rigorous process, I found it ultimately too cumbersome for me and I lost interest quickly. My mentor was the only redeeming part of whole process; a friend that I still hold dear to this day.
In the New Testament, we did not see three year seminary programs or the rigors of sitting before this or that committee. The Holy Spirit identified those who were called to serve and they were thus sent by the body to do a work. Paul and others were sent out this way, and I would argue that they were mostly highly educated men. Yet, of the disciples, the indictment was levied that they were ignorant and unlearned men.
Somehow, we must strike a balance if we are to resurrect the church in America. Sterile, regurgitated seminary food isn’t going to cut it or make our churches grow. I don’t say that with any malice toward education, I thank God for it. But, we’re going to have to begin to promote men, not simply because they complete a rigorous set of criteria and thus “earn” their ordination, but because they posses the gifts and talents and as such, those gifts and talents make room for them in the body. Does that make sense? I hope so! LOL
And your point is well taken about those who respond to a perceived call without confirmation from any body and end up making a mess and mockery of the ministry of Jesus. That is equally as disturbing!
blessings!
christopher