Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog

I like the sentiment in this article except for one aspect. Like many, I'm part of the growing number of people who left institutional church and became sick of denominational fights.

On a side note, I question your implication that it might be beneficial to have a "Newt Gingrich-style slash-and-burn legislator to turn loose in them, ridding us of waste, over-spending, self-maintenance, and bureaucracy." Did Gingrich really rid waste or did he simply cut valuable services and outsource them to for-profit entities making government less effective in the following decade, resulting in a bigger, unregulated, unresponsive mess?

Wes gives me hope too.

I struggle with denominations even as I have decided to tie myself to one (the RCA). I like what you have to say, with two quick comments:

1) Working together as various arms of the Universal Church needs to be the focus of the new century in the American church... for too long Baptist, Reformed, Catholic, and Pentecostal churches have all worshiped on the same city block, seeing each other more as competitors than as co-participants in a shared mission and vision for their communities. Whatever part of the family we claim, we are first and foremost linked to Christ's body by the same Spirit... but we need to go beyond lip service at this point, and get to the hard task of actually living out our unity, for the good of the communities in which we live.

2) Interesting comment regarding the church roof... My problem is that from my own experience, your rationale is rarely the rhetoric that we hear... and I wish that weren't the case. We in church staffs and governing bodies don't talk about infrastructure as a missional endeavor (how our churches tend to idolize such things is another discussion), and even when we do, we do not contemplate the fact that this money could be used another way, at least not seriously. In other words, the conversation is far more often about financial feasibility and promoting the growth/stability of that particular church (not the universal church), than it is about the calling God has for the entire church. I guess I'm simply wishing that those kinds of conversations would take precedent, to bring up the kind of things that you mention, when considering a new building addition... but perhaps I'm simply not giving churches enough credit at this point.

I like this post as well, Jason. One (perhaps not-so-minor) point:

Just beacause the building will still be there in 100 years, does not equate to ...there will be vibrant ministry in that place. People will be fed. Houses built worldwide...

All too many of our congregations are obessed with their own survival (including supporting an extensive and no longer needed infrastructure) that they rarely have the energy to reach out. All energy is turned inward.

Perhaps they could leased a storefront for a small fraction of the roof cost and used the rest for the mission and ministries you describe.

And I write from the perspective of a regional denominational staff member, watching with sadness as more and more declining congregations focus the energy they have left inward, on survival.

Thanks everyone. Mike: no love from me for Newt's actual practice, more the rhetoric of 'smaller government is better,' from the vantage of a former local church pastor who often found myself wondering, "What do they DO at headquarters?" I know some of those folks now and know a little better. I guess the economy is serving the function Newt and friends used to talk about.
Jim & Josh I agree entirely that spending money to maintain a building by itself is not helpful. I should have contextualized this: this is a downtown church with vibrant leadership that's had a turnaround and is now thriving. If this was just a matter of replacing the slate I can think of lots else to spend it on too. I do think, Jim, that there's something to the beauty of a space inviting people into God's own life and sending out for ministry that is hard (by no means impossible) to do in a storefront. I'm reminded of Dorothy Day receiving a diamond ring from a rich visitor and giving it to the next poor person who came in. "The poor need beauty too," she said. Whether that supports your position or mine I'm not sure, but I like the story...

I am a Unitarian Universalist Christian who made a 75-mile trip to San Diego Sunday morning to hear Brian McLaren speak at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral. I was struck by something he talked about in his Forum. Brian showed a picture of a bridge in Honduras after a huge hurricane had struck the area. The roads on either side of the bridge had been destroyed. The river itself had moved, leaving the bridge still strongly standing. However, it was no longer usable as a bridge. The metaphor: we can have very well-made structures, but when the storm comes (change), those structures might last but be unusable. Food for thought.

Leasing a storefront would not be a fraction of the cost as you pay for the roof in the lease payment. I think the problem is spending money on single or limited use space. Flexibility of uses is the way to go, then use the increase potential to meet local needs.

I've heard Brian use that image also, it's a powerful one. Note in the interview with him to which I link here that is very much NOT how he views denominations as such. They can be that way, for sure, but are not essentially so.

I appreciate your perspective on the issues facing denominations. I agree with the way you have articulated how denominations should function. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case and many believers and non-believers have become turned off to denominations. This world needs Jesus more than my denomination. If it comes down to an either/or scenario, I know which way I'm going. It would be nice to have a both/and scenario. This would be a tall order for many, but worth the effort. We can do so much more together.

It's not either/or (as you say, John, if it were it'd be obvious). For two reasons, one, historically you can leave a denomination but you just end up founding another, whether of a handful of people or millions, and unfortunately it's as full of sinners as the one you left. Two, more theologically now, one cannot love Jesus without loving his bride, the church, who is no more separable from him than one marriage partner should be from another.

denominations do not = buildings. Your points to "work with the people you have," for the sake of unity, and to submit to the wisdom found in ways of approaching problem-solving, governance, liturgy, etc... are all well taken.

But, when it comes to the "need" for buildings, that's where I have questions. Can the church be a community without a building? If we lost our buildings, (even if we kept our social structures and our polities, etc.) would that make a difference in the way that we conceived of CHURCH? Are our church buildings conceived of as OURS, or as missional tools? Can we create "beauty," as you (Jason) say, without a building? I don't have easy answers to these; I'm just throwing them out there.

In my experience, denominations and the institutional church are iconic of a generational struggle. With the movement from the modern to the post-modern era, there is a tug-of-war between the generation who currently controls how things are done (boomers) and who wants to control how things are done (gen y?). I believe that denominations and the institutional church are symbolic of that struggle (i.e. boomers want to keep the old ways...gen y wants to get rid of them).

It would be my guess that the author is somewhere close to 30 because between those two generations are the Xers who believe there is a way to bridge these two views; keep the best of the old and the new. The only problem, as I have discovered, is that the boomers don't want to give up anything (hence the, "why don't young people come to church anymore?" questions) and will label any alternatives as heretical and universalist (just look at our political media). Meanwhile, the younger generation can only see the bad things and have already turned their backs.

I can see why getting rid of denominationalism is attractive. It allows the next generation to dream without borders of what the church will look like. While I appreciate your argument, I think it is driven by a sentimentality for what was instead of a true concern for what could be.

The only thing you've mentioned is church doing church. Any two churches could accomplish what you've described if they were built outside of a hierarchical model of leadership. I'm not throwing away denominations, but I know for sure nobody around me cares what denomination you're from, that was only relevant 50 years ago. When the majority of people or non-Christian rather than un-churches we'll quickly find out that denominations are irrelevant. Hopefully we can keep whatever 'efficiency' we have going on and retune that towards a Kingdom purpose rather than 'IN the name of the *insert denominations here*'

Al, as it happens, you're right, I'm 35. But it's guessing entirely too much to say that's why I think the way I do--I can find you a train full of 60's liberals leftover who've hated denominations a lot longer than any Gen-Y'er, and there are ministers a good bit younger than me who are plenty institutionally loyal. As for your divining what I have "true concern" about, you're just absolutely wrong, and anyway it's a mistake to guess an interlocutor's motivation rather than engage their argument.

I agree entirely Pomo that a chruch can be beautiful without a building. I also think it hard to maintain community or institutional shape over time withotu a building, but I'm no expert in that. Actually in my experience no one (really: no one) in a denominational setting pursues the denomination "rather than" the Kingdom of God. You can accuse someone of doing that unwittingly, but even the most cartoonish denominational bureaucrat doesn't say "we Methodists will endure! Who cares about the kingdom Jesus announced!" Would that our opponents served themselves up so foolishly for our rebuttal.

Jason, you are correct, I am projecting my ideas, also being a 32 year old gen-Xer, on you and I apologize. I do not have any right to assume your "true concern" and, to me, it sounds like your true concern is the furthering of the Kingdom of God.

With that being said, I would like to clarify that I felt your argument, not your concern, was sentimental for the church that was; the one I assume you grew up in and most certainly the church I grew up in.

That church, for me, did all of those positive things you made a case for and I believe that we lived at a high point for denominationalism. With that in mind, I think that is why so many gen-xers (my argument) want to try and reconcile some form of the institutional church we remember.

However, the experience that I have found is that church budgets, no matter the size of the church, dedicate more than 50% of their earnings toward staff, administration, and building, denominations are more involved in politics and ethics rather than social justice and human rights, and the congregations are social clubs for the specific socio-economic group.

For me, I cannot reconcile the few positives that you cited (all of which are being downsized in the Baptist denomination in favor of survival of the church building) that "some" churches are doing for a system that is in large part run in fear.

And yes, you are right, there have always been detractors and promoters that don't fit the bias. But what does fit the bias is that denominations as well as many of our churches are slowly dying due to lower offerings and reduced attendance and involvement. People are giving more charitable contributions directly to organizations who publicly show their work rather than trusting denominations and the church with their offerings. The church has a negative connotation in our American culture due to our heavy handed interpretations of ethics, our double standards, and our general apathy to the socially estranged.

I have two questions for you to consider:

1. If your church were to burn to the ground tomorrow, who would mourn its loss?

2. Isn't God big enough to do the big things denominations did before in a new way?

Hey Al, thanks, no need to apologize at all. To offer what may be a specious distinction: I'm trying to give thanks for denominations, but not for denominationalism (put -ism on anything and watch it wilt). Maybe it's better said that I'm arguing for the church. It's not just that something is lost when one traipses off to start over, promising to get it all right this time. It's that it's a fantasy. We react to one batch of sinners, incorporated, by building another with ourselves and a smaller batch of sinners. Good luck with that. So to your questions, 1. It's not just my local church in a congregational sense, but my denomination, Methodism worldwide, which I think still has work to do in God's economy of salvation, and as such its loss would be . . . ok. That is, if God still needs us God will bring us back, if not, well. 2. No, God's not "big enough" to leave behind God's prior promises and bring about something ex nihilo. The danger in that way of thinking (and your comment helped me see this) is it's an old Christian habit to speak in a supersessionistic way regarding Israel, then Catholicism, then . . . God keeps God's promises, as non-supersessionistic Christian theology is right to argue, and it would not be a "bigger" or better or whatever deity who could simply hit the restart button and blow up what precedes. It'd be an arbitrary deity, a monster, and not one to be liked, let alone worshiped.
I'm assuming a lot: a) that Methodism (or whatever) can be shown to have a place in God's ongoing salvific work in the world and b) that it or whatever other denomination has an open face to others and means to work to be the church Jesus prayed for in John 17. If those two things aren't present then forget the rest.

I really appreciate this commentary. It made me stop and itemize my own list of reasons why I'm part of a mainline denomination. It wasn't part of what I understand my call to be, but it has been the most effective method for God to use my gifts to this point. If God decides that my gifts can be used outside of a denominational setting more ... See More effectively, then I pray I have the courage to go. But until that day, as mainline denomination members and clergy, we should remain steadfastly committed to doing all that we can together for the sake of the Kingdom, even while we hold our denominations accountable to God.

Nice piece, J. Not an easy thing to defend, but very well done. I do worry, though, that the quotation of Niebuhr at the end might lead some folks to think that you can only think institutionally if you have a Niebuhrian sensibility. But that's really more their problem. Thanks for the great piece.

I should have used Wendell Berry from the Mad Farmer Liberation Front poem: "Plant sequoias."

We've always had denominations. Or the equivalent. The Jewish Christians of the First century Church, and the Greek speaking Christians were not even on speaking terms, much less institutionally united. So it's probably healthy to recognize that our cultural and intellectual and social differences mean we'll always cluster together in affinity ... See Moregroups. Which would be my definition of a denomination. The challenge now is to find ways for these affinity groups to recognize each other as fellow Christians, from which they have something to learn, and to find ways to cooperate rather than compete.

I challenge anyone to take an honest look at the world both past and present and conclude denominations, much less so called "Christians" are to the benefit of humanity. More blood has been shed due to the result of fanatic, misguided "Christians" than any other force in the history of man. And it still continues. They seldom listen to, nor act in a manner consistent with the true Christ Jesus. Jesus said any two or more people gathered in His name are a church. I think Brian Mclaren has taken a bold and valuable step in the right direction. But there is still a very long and narrow path to travel. I will truly be surprised if the world changes without a cataclysm which is so shocking that people will have to take notice. Then it will be who to follow. And there is only one correct answer.

There was a mythology about the church that it is responsible for all good in the world and will continue to be until the kingdom comes. Now, with the new atheists, there is a mythology about the church that says its responsible for all ills in the world and will continue until it destroys the planet. Actually that mythology is older than the new atheists of the last few years' bestseller lists--it was deep in the thinking of much of the more irreligious parts of the Enlightenment, who enlightenedly went around destroying churches to destroy this evil. That enlightenment continued in modern Russia and China. And, in fact, the modern nation-state, both communist and capitalist, has far more blood on its hands than even the quite bloody Christian church. The only difference is the church, since Augustine, has not claimed itself sinless. The secular enlightenment often has, as John Kindel does here. The church has resources for talking about its and others' sin, confession, reconciliation and pursuit of holiness. Secular antagonists of religion have only their own ashen promises of delivering humanity from the ravages of religion. The remarkable thing is that anyone with even a dash of history can make such claims with a straight face anymore.
McLaren, much to his credit, does not speak of himself or his movement in anything like the messianic overtones you ascribe to him here.

I’d like to share a word I coined – well, I think I did; I’ve not seen it before – “cohortism” (OK, spell check confirms it’s unknown). Cohortism means that we think we can predict people’s preferences based upon their age. Hence, Boomers must prefer X, Millennials Y, etc. I suggest that cohortism underlies a lot of conversation about church – I see it creeping in here in these comments. It’s certainly accurate that fewer Millennials prefer a Bach fugue before worship than would a similar covey of Boomers, but that preference says nothing about a particular Boomer or Millennial. Every now and then I run across an article suggesting that 20 something folk are migrating toward highly liturgical worship, which runs counter to the standard cohortist narrative.

My misgivings about what I’ve identified as cohortism began years ago in my Methodist annual conference, when the church growth expert du jour would stand up at some mandated-by-the-bishop gathering of clergy and discourse upon the particularities of ministering to this or that age group. Parking lot conversation after (always a useful barometer, of something) usually confirmed that the cohortist’s suggestions were not confirmed by parish pastors’ experiences.

Great stuff, Jason.

The last several months I have become increasingly weary of the anti-denominational rhetoric coming from the more vocal leaders (or bishops) of the emerging church (even though I consider myself a friend of emergent). Voices like these, and others, give me hope that some balance is trying to be struck.

In January I wrote a response to Tony Jones calling denominations "sinful." That can be read here: http://chadholtz.net/?p=705

Dr. Moore - ever since you used that term in our worship class a few weeks ago I have been chewing on it and thinking about what it means for us today.....thanks!

peace,
Chad

I really like this blog post, it has some great info. Thank you and keep up good work.

It reminds me of the beautiful metaphor that goes something like this...

All religions are rivers that all eventually flow into the ocean of God

Bacchus thanks for the comment. I do have to disagree. All "religions" are not the same; in fact, the good desire for harmony between people of strongly discordant views is not helped by telling them they "really" believe the same thing deep down. I'd more readily amen if we said all TRUTH comes from God and returns to God; I'd even be ok saying different religions approximate this truth to greater and lesser degree. Of course, for us Christians, this truth has a Jewish mother. That doesn't mean we Christians are more righteous than people of other faiths--we've often been worse! In fact, with Karl Barth, 'religion' is often a fine defense mechanism against the incarnate Word. But it is far too abstract and inattentive to speak of all "religions" as coming from and going to God. I'd much prefer a description like yours that had as its subject all human beings.

I like the content of this post. Thanks!

Hey Jason!
I really enjoyed reading this post, big fan. Keep up the good work and please tell me when can you publish more articles or where can I read more on the subject?

Bob Rock

Hi Jason: I think you raise sme very interesting points. A question that I have always asked myself as a Christian, is who is right? It all came clear when I moved to Mexico to work on my como bajar de peso rapido blog. If you dedicate your life to helping others, that should be enough to live the life of Christ.

Like others who posted, I disagree that we need denominations to accomplish your list of reasons they exist. Every one of those things could easily be accomplished by a unified church, with or without a denominational tag.

Remember, the same people who now work for a denomination do not disappear when the denomination ceases to exist. it is not the denomination which does the work, it's the people, and the people will do their work for the church when the denomination is gone.

This is critical thinking/logic 101.