Denominations

In case you did not have a chance to read yesterday's post, I ended with the following thoughts:

There has been discussion about the need and usefulness of denominations lately (more on that in tomorrow's post) and many of the observations I agree with.  I truly believe in a Kingdom of God agenda rather than a tribalism mentality.  That being said, however, I look at all the support that has been key to starting and maintaining our work in these early days and I recognize how significantly God has provided through our denomination.  We have experienced just how significant it can be when there is a collection of individuals and churches, as diverse as we are, who agree on basic tenets of the faith and importantly on God's mission for his church.  When there is such a group, with such a common cause, who then agree to co-operate together, I believe that God is honoured and great things can happen for His Kingdom and His fame. 
The discussions of denominations that I was referring to was discussion around a recent Huffington Post on-line article entitled "Do Christian Denominations have a Future?"  You can read it by following the link below.


Huffington Post - Christian Denominations


The article raises some great questions for discussion and makes some important observations for the church as it moves forward, especially here in Canada.  In particular, the observations that denominations are really confusing in a post-christian world is a very poignant point, as we consider how it is that our culture sees and understands the church.  I would agree as well, that theological differences across many denominations are quite minor which may then play into the articles first point about how confusing denominations may be.  I am, however, quite aware that as I consider churches across my area, that there are denominations with quite significant theological differences.  It is here that I begin to diverge a bit from the observations being put forth.  When we begin to diverge on matters of sin, Jesus, His divinity, His atoneing sacrificial death, His resurrection, and the authority of scripture we are no longer talking about minor theological differences.   These are foundational issues that shape who we are and what we do.  They also lead to our understanding and emphasis on Mission which is the arguement put forward by the author which I have found myself questioning the most.  

Firstly, without a common theological understanding of the biblicial story there will be no common understanding of Mission.  Simply put, there are churches around me who don't believe in the need for salvation, in what Jesus has done for us through the cross and the need to share that with the world around us.  We can not assume that we share a common Mission.

Secondly, the article is certainly correct in stating that denominations can create bureaucracies and structure which take resources that could be better spent on Missions.  This does not change the fact, however, that Missions take money, they take time, they take energy and they take resources.  If we take an honest look the need around the globe,  we recognize the size of the task.  We have to admit that we can do more together than we can individually and that the need requires joint operations and co-operation.  So, at some point and at some level we need to be working together.   It is here that I recognize the significant difference between the denomiational structure of the author (Lutheran) and of my context (Baptist).  Our denomination functions under the premise of the autonomy of the local church.  When done correctly, this means that each congregation is autonomous and makes its own decisions and governs itself, but then chooses to willingly associate with other likeminded congregations in order to co-operate on larger tasks such as missions.  It is not perfect, prone to misunderstanding, abuses, and risks about missing the biblical need for community and unity when understood incorrectly, but when it works, it can work well.   I think that Missions would be one way that we do well and are continually learning to do better.  As I mentioned in my first paragraph above, I have been blessed by this co-operation.  I realize this is different than other denominational structures with a more of a top down approach and with many different levels of governance.  I am not sure how those denomination do Missions.    One could argue that, yes, we need organization and co-operation but not denominationalism.  If we are to co-operate and organize it takes some kind of structure, some kind of organization and some kind of common goals and understanding.  Any such organization runs the risk of bloated structures, mistakes and waste.

I must say here, that although I have seen the benefits of denominational association that I have also been blessed by another association here in Hamilton called True City.  It is a multi-denominational network of churches who have Jesus in common, who are working together for the good of the city.  It is not a "denomination" and in fact most churches participating still have their denominational affiliations, but it is a co-operation around some common purposes that serves the churches and the city well. 

Denominations are the not only way, nor the be all and end all of church co-operation.  
I recognize, that denominational-ism has often been more like tribalism.  We create us and them camps that defy the unity of the church as discussed in scripture.  We can be more concerned with our camp than the Kingdom.  We do well to ask where have we gone wrong in the past, what abuses have occurred and where can we see more co-operation and unity.  I do wonder, however, if we see the need for co-operation and organization around common tasks, if not denominations then what?