Churches are a Hindrance
By Brian on Aug 25, 2005
Ben at St. Paul’s Collegiate Church in Storrs, CT asks a provocative question: SPCC::Blog: have denominations outlived their usefulness?. In a reply to a comment posted, Ben asks this pivotal question:
But the broader question we need to ask as a universal missional church is this: in the coming years, how do we become “more dangerous” for the sake if the Kingdom? and do traditional denominations still help us get there or are they a hinderance?
I’m going to take Ben’s question a step further:
Do traditional churches help us become more dangerous for the sake of the Kingdom? Or are they a hindrance?
I’m becoming more and more convinced that institutional churches are a significant hindrance to our mission of living out the Gospel. Institutional churches don’t cause a lot of negative things (people do), but institutional churches create an environment that encourages many negative things.
- It encourages safety instead of danger.
- It encourages the status quo instead of revolution.
- It encourages compartmentalization instead of integration.
- It encourages attractionalism instead of incarnation.
- It encourages cultural isolationism instead of engagement.
- It encourages building temples instead of being temples.
- It encourages obedience to a pastor instead of to the Holy Spirit.
- It encourages the priesthood of pastors instead of the priesthood of all believers.
- It encourages deception instead of confession.
What else does it encourage?
• It provides a support system for churches
• It provides a support system for pastors
• It facilitates a community of fellowship among like-minded believers
• It facilitates a safe-haven for growing by providing a framework of like-minded theology
• It encourages a support base for long-term missions
• It encourages new congregations through support ministry
• It encourages the growth and fostering of younger leaders
• It labels certain beliefs so that I know what ‘type’ of congregation into which I am entering
• It encourages the establishment and maintenance of creeds and belief systems
So. . .I guess your point is made - denominations clearly suck and have no intrinsic value. Except that when we commit the common error of finding fault with something and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Can any of my points be taken to excess and be corrupted? Certainly. Can any of your points be proven to be overly sensitive of those who have not lived up to the highest Christian standards? I believe so.
We must remember that we are indeed fallen persons entrusted with a very important task. But failure does not necessarily require abandonment. Denominationalism can be a good thing - whenever denominations are the means and not the end. Even our better attempts to establish ‘non-denominaitonal’ coalitions end up resembling denominations. And that’s o.k.
I challenge you to reconsider. Be frustrated with the failures, but seek to change rather than abolish.
mic | Aug 25, 2005 | Reply
Mic makes a good point… but also misses the broader point…
All that he says can and is accomplished through some good denominations AND also through more informal affiliations of mission-minded churches, often across denominational linesHave Denominations Outlived their usefulness?”) is that we need to at least ask the question… and in our case, as a new church plant in New England, the answer was yes, they have.
Blessings!
Ben
Ben Dubow | Aug 26, 2005 | Reply
I understand the intended message raised in your concerns. However, as one who has had many run-ins with various denominations (even “BAD” ones), I still believe it is quite erroneous to charge that this means that all denominations have become hinderances.
Other groups have acheived similar objectives - good for them. Other groups also share the same pitfalls described throughout your post.
Methinks I am not the one who has missed the bigger picture. . .
mic | Aug 28, 2005 | Reply
I hope I didn’t double post.
Denominations serve a valuable purpose on earth. When it comes to “safety” the firt thing that comes to mind is you’re right, there is a certain degree of safety denominations encourage. Denominations preserve doctrine through dialog (which goes against the idea of “status quo” and “compartmentalization” also). I can tell you the differences between COC, SBC, AG, COGIC, PCA, PCUSA, etc. because they have clear doctrinal standing in their respective denominations. Of course not everyone COMPLETELY agrees in any one denomination, but you get a pulse on the theology of any church by their denominational affiliation.
Not all churches are equal. Some churches are more pure doctrinally than others. Denominations serve us greatly as believers by allowing us to serve and worship according to our convictions. Maybe it’s easier to consider the alternative than it is to go point by point.
If you suggesting a “one world” church, then I have to say we’ve tried that and it didn’t work. The Reformers can tell you all about that. If you suggesting that we eliminate the church as an INSTITUTION here on earth, then I have to say that no only is this unbibilical, it’s just plain silly. These are really the only two choices we have without denominations: A one-world church, or else some kind of “blob” with no earthly leadership or structure, which is clearly not biblical.
Denominations do not preserve the status quo; they encourage “semper reformanda” by keeping open dialog over doctrine and practice. Back when we had a “one world” institutional church, this logically led to a theocratic dictatorship complete with burnings at the stake for differences in belief over baptism. The alternative (I will call it “the blob”) is fertile grouds for cult activity. With no institutional accountability on earth, any and every doctrine of the Christian faith is up for grabs. Every single cult leader says “God (or the Holy Spirit) is my teacher; I submit to NO man and I learn from NO man.” This idea that “the Holy Spirit is my teacher therefore I do not have to submit myself to my pastor” is also completely unbiblical.
The “priesthood of the believer” is a terribly abused truth that became prominent during the Reformation. I does not mean that all Christians are ordained ministers, or that ordination of ministers is unbiblical. It means that refusing to translate the Bible from Latin into German, English, etc. under the premise that only priests were meant to read it is false. It acknowledges the power and conviction in a believer’s life apart from the need for a priest.
I doesn’t mean we are our own authority.
We haven’t had real persecution in the western church in a long, long time. The problems in the church in America come from sin and laziness, not denominations. A one-world church or “blob” is highly undesirable. Even if you insist that no “blob” would emerge, then you end up going back in the direction of denominations. They serve a practical purpose, particularly in missions and local ministry and everything in between. If people worship and serve according to their convictions (the true form of the idea behind the individual priesthood of the believer) then they are naturally going to cooperate with those who are like-minded to better serve their community, the world and to facilitate Christian fellowship beyond their own local church. It’s practical and it’s Biblical.
The biggest factor I see behind the criticisms of denominations come from a lack of understanding. There is a difference between the insitutional church (the physical representation on earth) and the spiritual church (the unseen body of Christ consisting only of believers.) Until we have perfect knowledge, we will have a need for the institutional church on earth to preserve the purity of our doctrine and maximize our effectiveness to accomplish the mission.
“Denominations are bad”, “theology is bad”, “I don’t need no pastor!” and “the Holy Spirit is my teacher” are all ideas born out of immature minds that fail to realize that the foundation of their reasoning is built on the rebellious ethics of our hippie parents. It’s cliche Christianity and pop theology. Slick people who know better encourage the flock to believe these things because it makes them easier to take advantage of. It’s the staple reasoning of any good televangelist. (Not saying that’s the motivation here because I don’t know.)
ed | Oct 11, 2006 | Reply