The Future of Denominational Affiliation....
With some time to reflect I have come to believe that denominational churches will become less and less in the future. With a prophetic gifting I see some changes over the next hill and just beyond the horizon. Here are just a few random thoughts:
*Denominations will become less and less needed in the future.
*Churches will become more and more autonomous and independent.
*Larger Churches will see the need to keep their money and ditch their loyalty to the denomination that birthed them. This departure from their birthing denomination will be over money and the desire of the local Church to control it all and not have to gift a percentage to the home office.
*Smaller churches will become smaller and smaller and less and less effective. This is largely in part to the success of the attractional and entertaining larger church. Smaller churches will not be able to compete.
*Denominations that survive a rapidly changing environment must be willing to put the mission of reaching lost people first while also releasing movements of people from their flock for the sake of the spread of the gospel.
*Denominations who fail to release God's redemptive work will cease to be growing and effective. Who needs a controlling God limiting denominational system or structure?
*If the denominational office is to survive these changing times they must hold the church loosely in their grip and be willing to release her for the sake of the spread of the gospel through life transforming Holy Spirit work.
*Denominations who fail to release God's work for the sake of their own existence will seal their fate and die a slow death.
The future of the Church in America will become a less and less controlled and structured work. It must become a releasing Holy Spirit empowered and disciple making driven work. Denominations and Churches who refuse to release this Holy Spirit work will seal their own fate and lead themselves into decline and eventual death. Others may just end up lukewarm with a great show and little glow.
God is birthing a renewed Holy Spirit led disciple making movement that is non-geographical in all aspects. Thus it cannot be controlled or hindered in any way by structures. Any attempts to reel her in will lead to pushing her out.
If denominational systems are to survive these changing times they must release the work of God for the sake of God's mission and not for the sake of self or denominational preservation. We exist for the mission and not for ourselves. Selfless and putting the mission first is the only hope for the church and her denominational affiliation. Anything less that releasing the work of God into a Holy Spirit shaped wine skin is not enough. We are God's Church and it is never my Church.
Do you think denominational systems and structures will survive these changing times? Or will she control herself to death. I'm thinking the latter is inevitable. What think ye?
Can denominations as we know them survive this rapidly changing landscape? I believe if it is to be possible they must release, release and then release the church to do what she was created to do. That is, fulfill the mission of God with the unleashing of the Holy Spirit in all power and messes that may arise.
posted by Bob Carder @ 8:30 PM
26 comments
26 Comments:
2 quick questions.
1. How do you define denomination?
2. Depending I guess on how you answer number one, can you think of a time in the past 2000 years when there has not been denominationalism amongst Christians?
well, when i think of denominations, i truly think of the body of Christ separated by focus. typically (and i know i am stepping on dangerous ground here, but im feeling in the dark here, so bear with me) most people of denomination will view Christ and the "Christian life" through their particular lense. of course, this could also be true from church gathering to church gathering.
But i think denominationalism can be best described by an episode of family guy (i know, its a bad show, and i dont really watch it anymore, but the illustration works) when the main character's father, a devout catholic, bashes his son for marrying "a protestant whore". of course this is an extreme example but still i holds. the fact that there are stereotypes that we judge other believers on (i.e. the southern baptists and their buffets, the 'crazy pentecostals', the charasmatics rolling in the aisles, so on and so forth) the difference between the two is that denominations themselves are not ENTIRELY divisive. Denominationalism does nothing BUT divide. if there is anything inherently flawed with my thinking, tell me. i dont like flawed thinking
it is difficult to define denominations. Some exist because of differences that are often stereotyped but others came into existence because of a particular call or mission. Nevertheless the systems that denominations have created in order to be more effective, reach farther and deal with stewardship has placed most of them on the endangered list as Bob says. I believe that they can survive but there will be some changes and adjustment like the releasing Bob mentioned. Some will, some won't. But I do not think the change is as close as some feel.
I love your perspectives here. Both Zach and Marty have something to offer. JR leaves me wondering why he is asking these questions? You ask like you already know the answers. Is that true? Tel me!
I do believe God is working as we allow Him to work in whatever system allows Him freedom to work.
I do believe that the process of less denominational impact is on the horizon unless we cease from controlling God's Holy Spirit out of the Church.
I do believe my own denomination is at the crucial decision like a T in the road. Which way they go will determine our (there) future.
Will my denomination lead the way as she has in creative skins or will she continue to limit and control what God is doing? Or, will she realize that this Holy Spirit work of disciples making disciples must be a released work? I can only pray for the latter.
God is doing a new work in America that will require a wine skin that is much more flexible and pliable than any ever imagined. It is a non geographical and Holy Spirit released work. Both the old and new wine skins must be able to bless and encourage the other. Novel thought.
Marty, I was hoping someone would offer suggestions for denominational leaders here. You did bring us closer to that wish. Thank you!
Anyone else want to chime in?
As for JR.
I view denominational control beginning with Constantine and when he made Christianity the official church the organic free flow of the Holy Spirit became stifled. Even more stifled today, much like we are afraid of the Holy Spirit.
I see denominationalism beginning with the rule and reign of Constantine. The Church connected through denominational name tags and certain descriptors for identity are what I refer to in my use of the term denomination.
Pre Constantine is not what I am concerned about here. Before Him was a released work of God. With his reign came control, order and hierarchical structures of Holy Spirit limitations. That control is what concerns me and is actually limiting the rule and reign of the Holy Spirit today.
Jr, please answer your own questions, I'd like to see where you are coming from.
I've said enough for now. Does anyone else see my concerns here?
No bob, I don't already have any answers. I asked you questions because it was your post and I wanted to make sure I was understudying your prophetic assertion about denominations disappearing and what that meant in practical terms.
Thanks for your answer though.
Before i start, i want to say that i know very little about the people commenting on this blog, with the exception of bob, and i dont know the generational, occupational, or personal backround of any of you. What i say now i say out of genuine belief and what i have witness. I genuinely believe the days of the "denomination" as we know it are numbered. I am in the twentysomething generation, and among the most of us, denominational affiliation has become somewhat of a joke, using the stereotypes mentioned above (yes, my generation looks at those qualities and jest). For example, my current church is part of the Missionary Church denomniation (or if thats a sub division of a denomination i have no idea), but none of us in my church consider ourselves "Missionary Church Members". we consider ourselves part of the Body, the Bride, the Church and disciples of Christ.
I see a generation of beleivers rising up who care nothing for the old system, only for genuine faith, pure and holy and acceptable to the Lord. The only advice that i can think of giving to the leaders of the denominations is that the end of the denominations is NOT the end of the faith, only, in many ways, teh beginning.
Oh Zach I am blessed to have you in my church family. Thanks for accepting this old fart.
J.R. You have made me a believer in that you are a godly man. You seek the truth. So many play games here, but you are sincere. God bless you.
I am concerned about denominations because the only way for them to succeed is for them to release a movement of the Holy Spirit without geographical boundaries. Holding on to control is only moving the remnant out of her midst.
Well Zach, I guess I am an exception to your assessment of our generation. I too am in the 20 something group and do not see the downfall of denominations in the near or distant future. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that denominations are valuable parts of the church universal.
First, I need to comment on what was said about Emperor Constantine. Constantine did not stifle the growth of the Church, but in many ways enhanced it! It would have taken a much longer time for the Church to spread to the frontier parts of Europe had not Constantine converted. Yes, the Church did experience tremendous growth in the first couple centuries, but the growth was limited and primarily local. Constantine helped take the gospel to the far corners of the empire through missionary sponsorships etc. He also helped the Church to really define itself and what it believed by calling the Councils. It was here that the heresies of Arianism and the Gnostics were officially called heresies. It was here that the canon was organized. It was in the time of Constantine that the Church really grew up and became what it was meant to become. Constantine took a hodgepodge of various forms of the Way and unified it under common creeds and structures. This helped it spread and endure. The Church would continue unified until the great East-West Schism. That is really when denominations began. From there the West would split into Protestant/Catholic. Then a little while later, Anglicans would leave the Catholics. And now we have a healthy tree of denominations. Denominations did not begin at Constantine, nor did he stifle the growth and importance of the church in daily life. If anything, he promoted it.
Now on denominations: Denominations, first of all, keep us committed to doctrine. When we lose doctrine, when we lose the creeds, we as a result lose Christ and his message. We must stay committed to sound doctrine. If we stray or consider it unimportant, we are in danger of falling to our own ideas and experience. The traditions of the Church have a lot to say. Why would we want to throw that away? Denominations --especially the conservative ones like the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Wesleyans, and Nazarenes among others-- keep us committed to the traditions of the Church, which safeguard against falling to an infinity of possible heresies.
Secondly, it is with denominations that we can get a valuable start in defining our faith personally. If we start by rejecting what we gather from denominations, we lose all of Christianity. Denominations give us our beginning in authentically claiming Christ's message for ourselves. Denominations help to define what Christianity is. Though the members may sometimes fall short of this, rarely do the mainline/sound denominational doctrines.
These are just two areas in which denominations are important to the Christian faith. Limited space and time prevent me from expounding. But I'm interested in what you guys have to say.
And Pastor Bob, do not distance yourself too far from your denomination (but if you do, come back to the Wesleyans and FM's *wink*). If you stray from it too much, you are in danger of believing any new idea that comes along in a bestselling book. Orthodoxy is what will remain in the end. As one of my favorites writes, "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own" (G.K. Chesterton). You keep your head when you keep your heritage, when you keep the doctrines and dogmas. You lose your head when you forsake what brought you here. And that is why I think denominations will continue. That is why I will remain true to that which I have found to be true in the Wesleyan Church.
thanks bob
I don't have any major disagreements about denomination vs. denominationalism. I have written on this extensively related to some of the Pentecostal tradition in the US, but certainly it is something that has plagued the church across all faith traditions.
To the extent that I denonimationalism must end, I agree.
Too much to ignore!
“It would have taken a much longer time for the Church to spread to the frontier parts of Europe had not Constantine converted.” – pure assumption!
“growth was limited and primarily local.” – if by local you mean the known world at the time
“It was here that the heresies of Arianism and the Gnostics were officially called heresies” – both teachings still exist to some extent today. However, when the church was running under apostolic leadership instead of councils they eradicated heresy such as that of Marcion. The point is that councils do not stop heresy – I leave you with dozens of councils throughout history – many of which confirm heretical teachings – can you pronounce anathema on all Protestants?
“It was here that the canon was organized”- Recognized yes – organized no!
It was in the time of Constantine that the Church really grew up and became what it was meant to become – yet the structure that resulted has its roots in roman tradition not scripture.
“The Church would continue unified until the great East-West Schism” – I have never seen the Dark Ages used as a supporting argument for unity?
“And now we have a healthy tree of denominations” – this claim must be tested further.
“Denominations --especially the conservative ones like the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, Wesleyans, and Nazarenes among others-- keep us committed to the traditions of the Church, which safeguard against falling to an infinity of possible heresies” – WOW – just the few denominations listed here cannot agree on even the basics of doctrine. Do these agree on baptism, the nature and security of salvation, the means of salvation, the essence or working of communion, church authority, the Holy Spirit etc… Need I go on? Denominations have done little to safeguard doctrine. Instead they have spread confusion. Talk to some outside the church and you will quickly see why many think all roads lead to heaven.
“If we start by rejecting what we gather from denominations, we lose all of Christianity” – how did the church have Christianity before denominations?
“Denominations help to define what Christianity is” – Question? Does the Holy Spirit need their help and where did God give them the authority to do this?
Though the members may sometimes fall short of this, rarely do the mainline/sound denominational doctrines. – WOW – again.
Orthodoxy is what will remain in the end - Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away – Jesus.
whoa whoa whoa....i didn't mean to start a holy war here!
anonymous--I appreciate your phrase by phrase critique of my argument. Though I clearly disagree with most of it, it has made me think harder about what I said. However, I do not take back any of what I said. I feel that I have the backing of hundreds of years of Church history and a strong number of respected theologians, historians, and writers. Clearly you must disagree. You have that privilege and I will respect that.
But let me make myself clear and help to clarify the discussion here. First of all, I still feel that denominations are a vital part of who the Church is today. I think that's really how it's always been--even before Constantine. We see in the New Testament that each of the apostles had their own following. We see that some followed Paul, some Peter, and some Apollos and Cephas etc. Christians have always disagreed on some points. In a way there has always been some extent of denomination. Now whether these disagreements recognized themselves as being clearly distinct from other Christian groups is of course something different. But differences existed nonetheless. Like it or not, we are still human and no human has the ability to grasp the WHOLE Truth at a single given time. Some grasp more truth than others. Some grasp different parts of the truth as well. I think the important part is that we are at least grasping at the Truth, who is Christ. You will see that all denominations agree on the absolute basics of Christianity. Every denomination agrees on Dogma...If they disagree with the dogmatic claims of Christianity, then they are not Christian.
To be honest, the problem is not the fact that denominations exist. The problem is not even that they disagree on so many things. Denominations are what the Church is. It is good and healthy for us. Sometimes we can get so focused on one part of the Bible and neglect other parts. Other denominations often help to keep us in check. It is this networking of the various denominations taken together that helps us as the Body and Bride of Christ. We have many parts and one Body, whose head is Christ. The Pentecostals might be the arms, the Evangelicals the feet, the Catholics another part, the Lutherans another part. This is a healthy body when it works like this.
The problem, however, comes when it doesn't work. And this might be called denominational-ism. When one part of the Body considers himself more important than another; in this case, another denomination over another. When the denominations begin to work independent of the others, the Body works against itself. This is perhaps the problem we have now and should be discussing. BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT GETTING RID OF DENOMINATIONS. When Jesus prayed in the garden for our unity, He wasn't praying that we would be unified on every single moot point. Rather, that we would be unified in devotion to Christ and his message and in mission to spread that gospel. We may have different methods and ideas about theology, but that is not the problem here. That disagreement and discussion is probably the most healthy part of the Church.
The problem is with differing mission and purpose. The problem is when our denominations stop acting as a Body and start acting as little independent bodies (plural). And this is where your revolt against denominations is leading. The non-denom advocates are, in actuality, cutting themselves from the Body. They say they are keeping true to the Bible, but who is there to keep them accountable? At least in a denomination, single congregations are accountable to the denomination as a whole and that denomination is accountable to other denominations too. But who helps keep the independent non-denoms in line? No one. And that is a problem. The hand cannot cut itself off and survive. We must remain linked together and accountable to each other and accountable to Christ. We need to be less concerned about shedding denominational labels and more concerned about those who try to separate themselves from the Body of Christ and fellow believers.
Denominations are not the problem. Denominationalism is a problem. Nondenomination is unacceptable. The Body must work. Christ be praised!
Phil Carder: Welcome to the blog, dude! I love your thinking. Bob is totally whacked! You are totally sane! I follow Phil! Anonymous follows Bob! We all follow Christ! Yeehaw! (Yes, Bob, I know, I've exhausted my share of exclamation points for the rest of the year.)
Seriously, Phil, thanks for the good solid thoughts. I appreciate them very much.
Zach: I am also Missionary Church, but I am 49. I know. Ancient. Here's the thing. I've also been Church of the Brethren, Church of God (Anderson), Southern Baptist, and now Missionary (I may have forgotten one). But I don't consider myself a Missionary Church Christian. I am a Christian who is a member of a Missionary Church...not THE MIssionary Church, just a. I'm a member of a local congregation, not a denomination.
My denomination doesn't give me much more than a theological peg to hang my hat on. But I am grateful for it for all the reasons that Phil pointed out, including the accountability and the adherence to some basic doctrines I consider essential. Saying I go to a Missionary Church is merely shorthand among my brothers and sisters in Christ to let them know my general doctrinal adherences.
I am not bound to the Missionary Church -- I am bound to Christ. Hallelujah.
Are denoms perfect? No. Neither am I. Neither are any of the posters on this blog. But that doesn't mean we toss you out on your ear and negate all the good you've done for the Kingdom.
OK, done. Phil, again, welcome. PLEASE stick around.
let me elaborate on my point, i am not waving a banner procaliming "DOWN WITH THE DENOMINATIONS!!!!!!", not at all. I merely responded with observations from my life, walk with the Lord and my brothers and sisters. Im not on a crusade to destroy an establishment, i simply beleive that it's already dying, and that change is inevitable.
Phil-in all honesty i appreciate your sincerity, i.e., youre not just blowing smoke for conversation sake. people who talk about what they dont know about TRYING to sound smart always infuriate me. But simply,as youve already stated, we disagree. I think the heart of our disagreement is a disagreement between a conventionalist and a revolutionary. I see a division in this blog between those that see and are called to work towards a new vision for the Bride, and others who have not received that vision, reacting in the only way they can. no offense intended, once again an observation.
THANK YOU Michael!! I truly appreciate your comments and compliments!! but I have to correct you on one point: Bob is not totally wacky...he really does have some good ideas and it is good that he starts these discussions. Plus, I owe him a debt of gratitude for my own relationship with Christ, as he was instrumental in bringing Christ to his home (my grandparents home) and to my dad (his brother) which then comes down to me :) Uncle Bob, thanks you for the good that you bring to the table!!
And than you, Zach! I enjoy reading your perspective. These discussions are good for the Church to have. And I love having them.
Thank you again for your great welcome to the blog. I am happy to be here!
Constatine nearly destroyed the church. How is it that you think he enhanced the growth of it? He helped with the spread of the new pagan religion that had mixture of pagan and Christian traditions. That's what he helped spread. Certainly not the true Churhc, correct?
If we define the church as "the institution then yes Constantine enhanced the spread of the church. If we define "the church" as the Bride, the Body of Christ, those who seek God's glory, then he deluted the power of the Church by structuring out the Holy Spirit.
We do we keep blaming Constantine for everything? Like most history, theology, and ministry, this is a mixed bag. Lot's of gray ... little black and white. We discussed parts of this on my blog a few months back. Here's the link if you're interested:
http://honest2blog.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/urban-legends-of-church-history/
Phil
No, Bob is not wacky ... but he is whacked. Totally. And I love him for it. He's a good friend who I wish lived closer. My house is for sale Bobert...come buy it! Move back to northern Indiana...
Don't know jack about Constantine, except the dude who was on American Idol couple seasons back. I'm sensing that is not the one we're all fired up about here.
Denominations serve a place and can be very useful. Denominationalism does not.
No one's blaming Constatine for everything. We're discussing one aspect of what he did.
Ok, obviously 'everything' doesn't mean literally 'everything.' But many people give the impression that if it weren't for Constantine we wouldn't have church buildings, denominations, etc. It's just not true.
It's largely true.
it's largely false. i don't know what kind of books you guys have been reading, but perhaps church history classes could help clarify the issue. also the NT to a great extent shows structure and even divisions in the early church. the only reason for not having church buildings was persecution. had there not been persecution, there would likely have been church buildings and regular meeting times etc.
but in the end, this whole "Constantine killed the Spirit-filled, Spirit-lead Church" thing is really not even worth the effort of arguing about.
thanks friends for the dialogue.
I used to think Constantine was my hero in that He sanctioned the Church and made her the national religion of her day only to find that I was wrong.
In my membership classes I praised Constantine only to find that I was wrong.
It is now apparent and well documented that Constantine was not even a believer. He was glorifying Christianity to have unity. He wasn't glorifying Christianity because He believed in Jesus. He was an unbeliever just playing politics.
He set up a system for the institutional church to flourish and in that the church became more and more institutional. Satan's scheming for sure.
The underground movement of the Holy Spirit was in turn squelched and denominational and or institutional structures began to limit the Holy Spirit's work.
For Phil, I ask only that you open your mind to the fact that Constantine was not a hero but in fact a zero when it comes to spreading the Gospel with Holy Spirit freedom. He needed Jesus but apparently did never find Him.
The books I read in college never showed me this truth. But history is on my side here. We can prove that Constantine was not a hero but a ZERO for the cause of Christ.
An out of control move of God's Spirit was squelched under Constantine.
Amen, Bob. It's truly astounding that people can think what Constantine did was of the Holy Spirit.
How exactly do they think we got the Catholic church?
to phil,
every instance i see in scripture about division in the body was explicitly AGAINST it.
also... "had there not been prosecution"? Jesus promised us that there would ALWAYS be persecution, didnt He? isnt the fact that the institutionalization of the church removed persecution just show that Jesus was not behind it? or am i missing something? if i am, please tell!
btw, i meant "persecution", not prosecution
Post a Comment
<< Home