Some of the distinctive themes that emerge from this book surround the effects on the church in this shift from modernity to postmodernity. Be it a shift away from partisan politics, a theological shift that affects foundationalism, or a transformation in the way we train pastors, these shifts all effect the future of the church in profound ways.
One of my biggest questions then for the Emerging Church is, “What hope for denominations?” The institutionalization of Christianity, especially within denominationalism is clearly a construct of modernity. Our denominational structures reflect the dominant structures of our culture, one built upon enlightenment and modernity. This is true for mainline denominations that reflect a more centralized view of leadership and structure, for free church denominations that reflect more individualized leadership in churches, and in the new megachurch associations that reflect corporate models of the later part of the 2oth century.
If these structures are modern in the construct, how does a shift to postmodernity affect their ability to survive and thrive? Most of the emergent churches that Tony writes about are independent or non-denominational. It isn’t that there aren’t denominational emergent movement (here is a post from emergent village talking about this very thing) but within this book and the majority of emergent writings I have encountered there isn’t really any hope offered to the majority of churches that are connectionally bound to one another through denominations.
So I ask again, “What hope for denominations?” The answer can’t be to just watch the death of denominations and accept it as part of reality. It is not God’s will for the church, anywhere, to be ineffective in living out the Gospel. If there is hope for the future of the church, especially in North America, within the emerging church, it must have hope for denominations.
So how do we overcome the limitations of the modern structures of denominations? How can we inform the ways denominations function by using the best of our postmodern world? What does the shifting theology of the emerging church have to say to those of us who are called by God to serve connectionally within our present contexts?
Now is the time to speak! Let’s find some hope for tens of thousands of churches and millions of people seeking God. Any thoughts….
March 31, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I’m a bit confused. Why CAN’T the answer be “to just watch the death of denominations and accept it as part of reality”? Do you mean (a) that denominations MUST survive in order for the church to effectively live out the gospel? Or do you mean (b) that instead of just sitting back and watching it happen, we need to actively participate in the transforming of denominations into something more effective… even if that means actively helping them dismantle and “die”?
If you’re talking about (a), then I guess I’d just have to disagree. If you’re talking about (b), then the reality is that some denominations may refuse to make the changes necessary to effectively live out the gospel here and now… much like some local churches refuse to change and gradually die as their members move away or die.
Just checking… I don’t want to misread you!
March 31, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Rich,
Thanks for the clarifying questions. I am experiencing a bit of Sunday hangover today, so my thoughts may not be very clear.
I definitely meant your second conclusion which is that we cannot abandon or dismiss the future of denominations or churches just because the institutions that connect them are holdovers from modernity.
I believe strongly that you are right and that some denominations will die. Unfortunately, like many churches, denominations that are no longer viable will probably, through efficient bureaucracy alone, be able to stay on life support for a long time. My hope is that we can prevent as many denominations as possible, especially our own the COTN, from having to go on life support and death watch.
April 1, 2008 at 3:29 am
I figured the whole thing out! I have the answer you are looking for, Greg! Just kidding. I do have one thought, though.
I see hope in the many efforts to break down the walls that divide denominations as ways to make the church’s transition into the postmodern world as painless as possible. Ecumenical movements that acknowledge the diversity of denominations and celebrate that diversity (rather than ignoring or trying to wipe out the diversity) can be productive in giving denominations some room to maneuver through the winding roads of the postmodern world.
Within denominations these are often baby steps, but every once in a while a few denominations agree on a point of doctrine or acknowledge the legitimacy of another’s practice of sacraments or just work side by side doing the works of service that they have all faithfully equipped their members to do. In these moments, I see hope.
I believe this can happen within the structure of denominational churches, but I also see para-church ministries as vital for this process, as well. I work with youth so I will give a positive and a negative example of para-church influence in ecumenical efforts. Youth Works is an intentionally multi-denominational ministry that invites and encourages youth groups from a variety of denominations (and non-denoms) to work and worship together for a week in various locations across North America. This allows young Christians to see the variety of parts of the Body of Christ that exist and to celebrate this together. On the other hand, Young Life is meant to introduce high school students to Christ and be a bridge for them into the Church. They have always prided themselves on being unaffiliated with any denomination, but a recent publication, “The Non-Negotiables of Young Life Proclamation” have caused certain belief systems to be excluded from their ministry even though Young Life itself acknowledges the alternate theology to be orthodox and perfectly acceptable outside of their particular ministry context, so instead of standing as an example of denominations working together for the common purpose of proclaiming the good news, they have rooted themselves firmly in the world of modernity with no intention of ever moving.
April 1, 2008 at 11:29 am
Greg,
OK, I’m going to have to slightly disagree with you, to a degree. I think. Hear me out for a second. I may not have completely been on par with you in your original post. And if so, I’ll blame a long drive yesterday.
I see a lot of problems within denominations. There is a lot wrong and it drives people away. I’m reading a book now (for class) that talks about how we are driving more people away from the church by not being true examples of Christ’s love.
But, I don’t support the elimination of denominations. I do think they serve their purpose, just what that is don’t ask me. My hope is that we can foster more relationships between denominations to foster love, communication, and mutual service in our communities and perhaps a transformation of not only Junction City, Ky., or Wilmore, or Chapel Hill, N.C., but the North American mission field as well. (Still feels weird to consider North America as a mission field, but it is.) We don’t do this enough.
But, how can we expect to fix denominations if we’re not in relationship with each other? We have to improve communication with each other and I’m talking about myself just as much as anyone else.
Finally, I’m a big believer of working from within and changing the way things are that way. I don’t think you can necessarily, and I don’t think you are doing this at all, work from the outside to change a denomination. For instance, I’m not in a position to make recommendations to Duke University regarding the condition of its theology program. (Sorry, Shay, just run with it for a second.) I’m outside Duke’s realm of authority or interaction to have any kind of impact on any needed changes. If we want to seek transformation in a denomination, we have to get our hands dirty and “fight the good fight” so to speak.
It’s not going to be easy, but if we are to live to the Gospel of Christ, then we must be prepared for a season of hard work.
April 1, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Fortunately, here on our district (of the Church of the Nazarene), our district superintendent believes that the denomination exists to serve the local church, not the other way around. He knows that the local church is where the action is happening, so our district attempts to function as a supportive, encouraging network. Something like that, anyway.
As for ecumenical movements, I see most of that happening on the local level, not on the denominational level. I participate in our local ministerial association, and over the past few years, we’ve seen churches partner together in wonderful ways. We’ve moved away from trying to do joint worship services, which were always problematic, and focused more on serving together. So there’s ShareFest, an annual service day that involves folks from 12-20 churches in town and has spread to other cities in our county. 8-10 churches recently joined forces to do a test run of a rotating men’s shelter that provides a place for men to sleep at night in different area churches. It went well enough that we’re planning to do it for 6 months this coming October-March. That kind of thing is reaching across all kinds of denominational lines. But our own denominations aren’t playing any role in it. it’s all at the local church level.
April 1, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is one example of denominations coming together on common ground. I also believe that tradition can be a great way to bring denominations together since they all came from the same place, we can look back to where we used to stand together and hope to stand there together again (i.e. The various Wesleyan denominations could easily make steps toward unity.)
April 2, 2008 at 12:33 am
Sorry, busy day so I haven’t been responding. Here you go….
Shannon, I think you had your Spring Break goggles on when you were reading this. You were agreeing with me most of the the time. We can talk about it at lunch tomorrow.
Rich, good to hear about a D.S. who gets the role of the church. It does seem that too often the problem with bureaucracies is that they seem to exist just to maintain their existence. Certainly many those working in the bureaucracy of the mainline denominations seem most committed to furthering their existence, not expanding the kingdom. The only way denominations can thrive in our changing context is to reconsider their purpose.
Instead of top down leadership denominations should be working to support and augment the successful ministries of those who are on the ground level, not hand down programs and ideas from on top that may have no relevance to the day to day work of those denominations.
Shay, I think that para-church organizations wouldn’t have to exist if the church did its job. I long for the day when para-church ministries have been rendered redundant by thriving churches.
I do think that especially within closely linked theological camps, like us Wesleyans, there is better potential for systematic unity. However, in ministry partnering, churches sharing the same local context seem an easier partnership.
I really like what the churches in your area are doing Rich.
April 5, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think that denominations are, barring sudden world changing events (Tribulation, giant meteors hitting the earth, Michael Jackson finally starting the alien invasion for his species) are going to be with us for at least several centuries more.
While denominations have certainly brought centuries of insularism and division with them, they also present us with a wealth of knowledge about variety in how we can and cannot serve God through various structures and techniques.
I also think that the existence of denominations, and the financial/corporate structures they set up gives us a useful network for those who are now more and more working together to actively live for and service Christ in the world. It is perhaps too much to hope for that we will achieve a level of activity on the level of the first 300 years of the church, but certainly activities and groups which return to that level of concern and involvement are necessary, and will provide those who wish to leave the safe haven of the denominational church an outlet for true discipleship.
Quite frankly, in light of the aspects of discipleship made clear by Dallas Willard, it becomes unclear how many denominational Christians are actually in any way disciples of Christ, and thus known to Him, but their culture is so inset in the world that it will certainly take centuries of active work to undue their damage and condition in a connective, communitive, loving manner. This is God’s Kingdom we are bringing to earth, and we do it in His time, not ours.