Just thought I would throw this out to anyone who wants to respond...It is a question that I have been pondering for a while.
What has the rise of denominationalism over the course of church history contributed to the understanding of the church as the body of Christ?
I know this question is very broad, but any of the wisdom of my readers would be appreciated. I personally see impact on all kinds of levels...I am just interested in your thoughts.
9 comments:
I think denominationalism could be understood in two ways 1) the hierarcy form of church government or 2) the segmenting of the christian church on the basis of similar doctrinal confession (over and against the dissimilar elements).
I think you are asking about #2. I think the negative impact is more readily apparent. The segmented body of Christ, the neglect of the weak by the strong, and the judging of the strong by the weak, the failure to love one another, failure to be one, etc.
I'll get the ball rolling for the positives to say that in the rise of denominationalism a truth is often treasured and exalted to such an extent, because others have denied/neglected/forgotten. Hence at the risk of sounding like a ecumenist (and not truly being one), you can look at the various denominations and see a truth of value. This might overshadow other important truths, but nonetheless is valuable.
For example, Presbyterianism- the covenant and the sovereignty of God, Baptists- the centrality of the local church
Bible Church movement- Scripture over confession
Lutherans- sola fide to an extreme
Catholics- a universal church
Tim, you identified a positive element...organizations are formed around a shared set of values - ie for presb., soveriegnty and the covenant; bapt., the local church; etc. These are good.
What happens, however, when the members of the organization hold the organization itself as the unifying factor, rather than the shared values?
"a shared set of values"...
is it safe to assume you are currently in a class w/ doc windsor?
as for "what happens, however, when the members of the organization hold the organization itself as the unifying factor, rather than the shared values?"
i could only say - fundamentalism.
Rob,
As with all organizations after successive generations of leadership the distinguishing characteristic is lost and people are just keeping the shop open. That happens in business or ministry.
Some individuals will value the distinctly shared vaule. In time the shared value will probably remain; however, it is safe to assume it will not be want the organization/denomination spends the bulk of its time on. This matter will be settled in their minds.
logan, you bring up a good point...we can all see that this happens in movements, but what about denominations?
How can we stop members of the church (body of Christ) from equating their organization/denomination with the church?
People use the term "church" in reference to all kinds of denominations: ie prebyterian church, baptist church, methodist church, etc. Does this use applied to a physical organization contribute to a skewed view of what it means to be part of the universal church? Does this use necessarily mean that people will identify the church as their organization and equate the church with their organization? If so (which I think it does), how can we keep an affiliation while still promoting a proper view of the body. (the affiliation I'm talking about is not fundamentalism :)
Barker,
you mention that the value will be settled in their minds. What are you thoughts about transfer of the value to succesive generations?
Rob,
I think that successive generations will often value different things and have different fights. The importance is on the biggies (e.g. the gospel, christology, etc.). The battle for separation of church and state per se was crucial in a previous generation. As a general clamor for pluralism reigns church v. state isn't as much an issue to fight for as dialogue on how a church impacts the state.
That's at least one thought of a distinction held to strongly, that is given mouthed acceptance by successive generations, yet isn't held passionately to b/c it's almost entirely irrelevant for the current culture of America.
Barker,
If I get the drift from what you are saying, the biggies (the gospel, christology) are things that are transferred from the vantage point of being settled, the little issues (separation of church and state) are viewed as a settled issue, and the succesive generations within that organization/denomination find new and different issues to yak about.
Seems like there would be a lot of issues oriented sludge after several generations that people would see as defining to their organization/denomination...while really the only thing that kept the organization/denomination from completely changing face from generation to generation are the biggies (christology/gospel etc.)
Would you agree?
rob,
sorry...
didn't mean to get off-track.
of course, the fundamental baptist fellowship is an organization.
yes, you've got a point
Post a Comment