The benefits of being in a denomination?
18 Jan 2010
I’ve been part of the association of vineyard churches for the past 22 years, more than half my life, and we have our annual national leaders conference next week, that I’m looking forward to. Over the past 22 years my enthusiasm for conferences has waxed and waned and I find myself in a different place this coming year.
One way I understand the cycles of my engagement with life and relationships is the ‘romance-disillusionment-joy’ motif. The first flush of excitement an engagement, that then leads to a period of where reality kicks in, and the honeymoon is over with the false understandings falling away, and then the rebuilding of relationship around better understandings, insight and growth, that leads to joy.
I’ve found there is no way around this process, no matter what we are engaged in and with, and as a church planter I think the same goes for involvement not just in church planting but in the relationship of being a church planter in a denomination. And I think that process is normal and healthy, the move from dependence to independence and into interdependence.
If the idea of being involved in a church as necessary for Christian identity and formation has been going the way of the dodo these past few decades in the UK, the relevance of denominations must be even more remote and unpromising. Yet I find myself 22 years later discovering the ‘joy’ of being in a denomination, and making a quick list of some of the immedaite benefits that I am re-discovering (and as I post this I am not romanticising denominations):
1. Shared beliefs & values: Having others who share the basics of what you think church is about, is excuse the pun, ‘invaluable’. Some of the most important values our community has, are the DNA of our denomination and movement.
2. Shared story and history: The vineyard movement is over 30 years old and interpretations of our history are much contested. But I;m finding the comfort of having my 22 years of memories to share with others who have been along similar roads. There is a comfort in reaching back over nearly 25 years of church planting experience around shared stories.
3. Shared Mission and action: Doing something things with others within our denomination comes quickly and easily. There is a short hand from your shared values and story that enables action around these values, that is easy to take for granted.
4. Accountability: Having a group of peers who will and have asked what I believe, and why I’m doing it, is a life saver. I’m talking about mutuality in accountability here, the asking of hard questions out of live and support, not control. I know my heart is deceitful above all things, and needs the questioning of people who are for me.
5. Training and Resources: I’ve been the beneficiary of some amazing resources over the years that only a denomination can put together and deliver.
Any other benefits to being in a denomination that you have experienced?
Tagged: denominations
18 comments
Trackback
Comment by Phil Robinson
4.57 pm on 19 Jan 2010
Having been a believer in Jesus for over 30 years I am well aware of the blessings and the problems denominations cause .
I agree with all you have to say on the benefits of denominations yet I feel they fail utterly to help those believers who “think out of the box”.Often religious denominations marginalise those who see things differently and then ever view them with suspicion from within an all too comfortable yet spritually stultifying box.
In the past (not too distant past either) some believers have been hounded from their town or city and have feared even for their life which too often to mention has been taken from them both publically and brutally .
Before A.D. 381 both Arians and Niceans sat together at eucharist .They may have been at loggerheads with each other but they were in the same room and the bread and wine taken in rememberance of Him with who we have to do must have had some effect on at least some of both parties curbing the animosity felt between them . However following the Nicean creed being written in stone many found themselves branded heretics… division followed and the rest, as they say is history !
Recently I read a Catholic classic work entitled “Enthusiasm” by Ronald Knox . Although informative and well researched I felt extremely saddened by what he wrote .In it Knox takes the line that the Roman church is right on the button with its emphasis on sacraments etc and that the religious enthusiasms of others such as Mennonites , Shakers , Quakers and Methodists to name but a few were foolish if not down right silly and deserved ( although not Knox never quite says this but is implied several times ) the condemnation of the chief “denomination”.
Denominationalism is so steeped in history that I wonder sometimes if people will ever finish with running whatever colours up their masts and instead ,stand ,despite their differences arm in arm underneath the same Banner of faith .
I personally have recently returned to the Anglican church mainly because there appears to be a greater appreciation of religious freedom with little if no “thought police” checking to see if you are thinking the party line.Sure ,the creedal vestiges and patristic notions and concepts of the past clearly are apparent but it appears someone is opening a window .I believe that someone is the Lord Jesus .If this is true , then all individuals must do their utmost to tear down the walls and barriers to fellowship and concentrate in a stronger and united front to evangelise their nation.
I would like to end this post with a quote from the German theologian Jurgen Moltmann from his wonderful book: The Spirit of Life .Following a quote from the late Chairman Mao :
” Let a hundred blossoms grow ” …he warns :
“As the fellowship of the Holy Spirit , the church is the last who should sacriligiously cast a blight on the buds , as the apocalyptic sniffers out of heresy and the timid condemners of “error” do .”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
5.01 pm on 19 Jan 2010
Great to hear from you Phil, Jason
Reply to this comment
Comment by ASD
5.03 pm on 19 Jan 2010
Jason, this is a great summary of how the ‘centred set’ theory works out in practice.
I would only add that it is also very reasonable to argue that the currency of denomination has been devalued over recent years within Evangelicalism.
Perhaps, for more than some it has become little more than a denotation. Seeing more and more cross-denominational events appearing in the last 30 years probably make a good case for this.
Some more radicals will hate being thought of as part of a denomination, as they prefer the language of movement. It might also be argued as a barrier to true Christian unity.
For myself, I have have never had a problem with the term denomination. Only the ‘ism’ aspect of it.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
5.06 pm on 19 Jan 2010
I think evangelicals in trying to provide freedom in structures for mission, pragmatically, have handed over their understanding of all institutions to the logic of the market, and have no real theology for ecclesiology let alone denominations.
Movement, tribe, denomination, language is important but I use the word to cover them all
Reply to this comment
Comment by James Prescott
6.10 pm on 19 Jan 2010
There are, as ever, positive and negatives which come from being part of a denomination. Having literally grown up in church and not remembering life without church, I eventually became a bit cynical about denominations. They have seemed too restrictive and churches can lose their individual identity.
Vineyard is not like other denominations I have encountered. To a a degree they allow churches to be different, to have variation in their style and teaching. Church should be like that – all churches are going to be different depending on the people that make up that church and the community its part of. A church in the inner-cites where drug abuse and crime are rife is going to be very different from a church in upper-middle class Surrey or Sussex, because the people and the location are different – and Vineyard allows for this. Vineyard appears to be more of an umbrella rather than a denomination in the tradtional sense, with all the same liturgies and prayers, all trying to fit some pre-presribed format which may not suit the type of people who attend.
The way Vineyard works is much how a denomination should work, allowing room for individual expression and risk-taking, and not asking everyone to conform to the same model (indeed, VCS would not have been possible if that were their model). It is an umbrella which provides support, training and resources and then allows churches – to a degree – to go out and be the churches they are called to be in their individual communities.
Movement is probably a better word to describe Vineyard. It started that way and I think that’s what it is in truth (though I’m someone who doesn’t like lables that much).
Good post Jase, with some good points.
Reply to this comment
Comment by marc
5.10 pm on 20 Jan 2010
Jason
I feel at home whether it is an Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox Church.
I don’t consider myself part of a denomination but part of the Body of Christ.
This is actually very important to me and gives me a flexability that denominational membership can stifle.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Phil Robinson
10.55 pm on 20 Jan 2010
Good for you Marc.Perhaps the “Emerging “church will help to create a denominationless church ? Perhaps people in the future will just get on with showing love to all in the name of Jesus without attempting to force others into their own particular denominational mould in believing ?
Reply to this comment
Comment by marc
10.08 am on 21 Jan 2010
Hi Phil
Good to connect with you:)
I think part of the issue has been the explosion in protestant/reformed/evangelical denominations that go
unchecked and can basically teach what whoever starts it wants.
Apparently that’s in the region of 30,000 but that is not to say they are all bad, some are very good but all really can do what they want, teach their version of Christainity.
I would say I lean strongly towads Orthodoxu and Catholiscism because because of it’s hisotical and apostolic nature.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.03 pm on 22 Jan 2010
I find myself somewhat neutral on the question of whether a denomination is a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ thing. I guess it all comes down to what we mean by it, and most importantly, how it applies itself in practice to the life of the churches and the people within it. I certainly agree with ASD that denominational-ism is undesirable.
Evangelicals, particularly since the mid-twentieth century, have tended to centre on advancing the gospel together, rather than promoting particular denominational groupings, and have welcomed parachurch developments. Jason, though, is right, that evangelicals “have no real theology for ecclesiology let alone denominations.”
I would suggest that in recent decades, particularly in response to the perceived ‘threat’ of postmodernity, there has tended to be an increasing evangelical focus on doctrinal orthodoxy (what you believe about certain designated key doctrines) rather than experiential piety (what you have experienced of Jesus as transforming saviour, and your walk with him in new life). This is a relatively new concern in evangelicalism, and has moved the focus from a centered-set definition of an evangelical to a bounded-set approach.
If by denomination we mean an organised group that promotes and enhances – in both leaders and lay people – values such as ‘team’, ‘community’, ‘inter-mural conversation’, ‘mutual challenge and exhortation’, ‘resourcing’ and ’support’ then I am all for it. This type of group would tend to operate from within itself, from its centre, and be positively focused on ‘opportunities’. Its safeguards and corrections would be delivered through relationship and mutuality.
If on the other hand we mean a central organisation exercising ‘control’ and ‘direction’, ‘policing’ for doctrinal error, ensuring that the churches ‘do the right things’ and ‘don’t do the wrong things’, then I would be concerned. This type of group would tend to think in terms of top-down oversight, and be more negatively focused on ‘threats’, especially (supposed) doctrinal ones.
Denominations can very easily become hardened wineskins, moving almost imperceptibly from yesterday’s pioneer-mode to today’s settler-mode. It is more biblical to be nomadic, like Abraham, I suggest, than to be a city-dweller, like Lot. It’s so easy for a denomination to see its key role as defending the walls of the city that it’s built around its distinctives. Which are probably yesterday’s advances.
Or, as someone once put it, the name defines where the revelation ran out.
Just a quick final comment in relation to James’ statement (about Vineyard) that “to a degree they allow churches to be different, to have variation in their style and teaching.” The question here is, who is the ‘they’? To the extent that it’s the community of Vineyard leadership, fair enough. To the extent it’s a person, or a very small controlling coterie, I would be concerned. Particularly in terms of controlling the cultural expressions of evangelical Vineyard churches working within different communities, and exploring an emerging evangelical theology in those contexts.
That Vineyard seems to have a very conservative, and extremely detailed (prescriptive) statement of belief (which goes well beyond the traditional requirements for Christian creedal orthodoxy) – drafted, I believe, by the conservative, modern theologian Wayne Grudem – that could prove problematic at some future point in Vineyard’s development.
It may well be that this statement was originally commissioned to ‘prove we’re doctrinally sound’ (new and independent initiatives always face a pressure to prove their orthodox credentials), but if applied prescriptively by the denomination – I can see some people thinking, “if not, what’s the point of having it?” – then it could crush a lot of post-conservative theological engagement and purge the movement of some of its members.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
1.08 pm on 22 Jan 2010
Tnx Steve, your comment opens up a wider topic, the nature of denominations, and many issues. In this post I was trying to focus on some pastoral possibilities and positives.
We don’t use the wayne grudem statement of faith, and there is no compulsion to use it as a vineyard church, at least in the UK. At our community we refer to the first three main creeds for our doctrinal orthodoxy.
And in practice most vineyard pastors have no theological training and wouldn’t know what the grudem statement meant
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.18 pm on 22 Jan 2010
Hi Jase – didn’t mean to hijack the thread, or take it ‘off beam’; and, I should have explicitly said that I fully subscribe to your five cited positives, as you’d have gleaned.
Didn’t realise that the Grudem statement was optional for the UK churches (at least) – that’s very encouraging, particularly as we grapple with the question “To be Vineyard or not to be Vineyard?”
I like your traditional creedal approach.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
1.21 pm on 22 Jan 2010
well no-one has made it compulsory or told me that it is
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.32 pm on 22 Jan 2010
So … watch this space …?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
2.00 pm on 22 Jan 2010
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
2.54 pm on 22 Jan 2010
In that context, the values of the SVS initiative are especially important, quoted in your post ‘New community for theological conversation and learning’ as:
* deep, collaborative theological reflection on crucial issues through the lens of the Kingdom of God
* sound, mature publications that critically engage matters of importance to the life and thought of the Vineyard movement; and
* relationships of inclusion and constructive dialogue for all scholars, seminarians, and graduate students who want to participate in the growing theological discourse of the Vineyard movement.
To be fruitful, these values must be allowed to transcend any static contemporary Statement of Beliefs that goes beyond historically required Christian orthodoxy – i.e., the theologians must be allowed, and indeed, should be encouraged, to critically challenge existing theological assertions, as manmade constructs open to revision, as we continue to listen to the voice of the Spirit speaking through the Scriptures.
I hope that continues to be the case, and that the Grudem statement is not at some point accorded an controlling role over what is acceptable for theological reflection.
The big questions, of course, are those pertaining to the timeless-ness of particular expressions of ‘truth’, and cultural engagement in a postmodern world.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Clark
2.55 pm on 22 Jan 2010
You and I can test that out in February
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
3.00 pm on 22 Jan 2010
If I haven’t officially ‘joined’ before the conference (however one goes about that), then they can’t throw me out…
At lunch, after my paper, it may be “table for one, sir?”
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Is there any ‘move’ left in the vineyard church movement? at Deep Church
10.14 am on 31 Jan 2010
[...] I was at annual national leaders conference for my denomination, and I posted some thoughts about the benefits of being in a [...]
Reply to this comment