This summer, many of us are heading to denominational assemblies and synods. I'll be gathering with other Disciples in Indianapolis in a year that marks the 200th anniversary of one of our founding documents, Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address. People of a Reformed bent will likely observe John Calvin's 500th birthday. Many of us mainliners will also be reminded that our national churches' coffers are a bit low, our attendance and membership dwindling.
The question of denominational identity runs through these events. How important is this identity to local congregations? In an increasingly postdenominational age, does it really matter that our churches have a particular denominational heritage?
National Council of Churches general secretary Michael Kinnamon and former seminary professor Jan Linn—both Disciple pastors— argue that if Disciples want to experience renewal and reform they must reclaim their heritage. Their book comes at a moment when Disciples are going through a major reexamination of the church's structure and purpose. They write:
Our concern is that any changes [in the denominational structures and practices] be consistent with our historic identity. Denominational identity can never be taken for granted. It can be lost easily as later generations seek to put into practice general beliefs and principles whose meaning must be interpreted in light of a given historical context.Contrast that with this post by young Presbyterian ordination candidate and Presbymergent coordinator Adam Walker Cleaveland:
For me, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is really a place that I just kind of found myself through a variety of connections and networks. In an age that is increasingly post-denominational, I just can't say that I have super strong ties to my denomination. Our slogan for Presbymergent is that we [are] "loyal radicals" – I'd have to say that I definitely fall more on the "radical" side of that, as opposed to "loyal."While Kinnamon and Linn place strong emphasis on identity and history, Cleaveland dismisses it. The sense is that denominational identity is little more than a brand name that churches borrow when opening a franchise.
There was a time when I would have agreed with Cleaveland. But now that I've reached middle age and been the pastor of a few established Disciples congregations, I'm much closer to Kinnamon and Linn's position. Granted, it may be easier to be a loyalist as a member of the Disciples, a movement that grew out of frontier antisectarianism, since it's committed to Christian unity and has only been an actual denomination for about 40 years.
Still, the question I posed to Cleaveland in his comments section is relevant for all of us: If we don't claim our denominational identity, then what is the point of being part of a particular tradition?
Bob Cornwall is pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Troy, Michigan, and editor of Sharing the Practice (Academy of Parish Clergy). He blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey, part of the CCblogs network.
18 comments:
Like so many things, denominational affiliation is often poo-pooed as something that has little impact or influence. Having grown up with two ordained ministers, I understood very early this is not the case. Denomination is not just a place to lay your hat, but comes with a whole set of understandings and processes for interacting with God and each other. To choose to be Episcopal over being Quaker is a significant thing. In the former, hierarchical structure is part of church life, while in the latter, you'd be lucky if you can figure out who is in charge. This is an oversimplification, however it speaks to the more subtle differences between choosing to be Methodist or Baptist and so on.
All this said, there is some reason behind choosing a denomination for convenience-sake. That is, denominations are at a cross-roads where they can either sign their death warrant or be reborn. Many denominations are ripping themselves apart over doctrinal issues.
For individuals seeking a new path or church start, denominational identity is almost like identifying with an HMO. The benefits are useful, but there are quite a lot of issues with it as well and none of them are remotely ideal.
I distinguish between the present day denominational structure and branding identity with the tradition. I think lifting up and living into the tradition is important. We need to do more of the latter and a lot less of the structural/identity stuff. Remember how the young Christians in India asked the North American churches in their mission effort to combine into something that was singular Christian because all of the different North American denominational entities were confusing and competing. Thus Indians were turned off by it. Thus in the 1940's the Church of South India and the Church of North India. I think Cleveland reflects what the "natives" of the present day American culture feel...which is the same as the "natives" of the Indian culture of the mid 20th Century. (I am UCC clergy. My Dad was E&R and then UCC clergy. My mother was Disciples until she married Dad. My uncle is Harold Watkins who exec of the Disciples Bd of Extension for years. My wife was Disciples until we were married. I served a joint UCC/Disciples church in Tenn and a joint UCC/PCUSA church in Houston.)
I have served in several denominational settings including Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, and Disciples. Each has its own approach to devotional worship. Each speaks to different personalities and experiences of God's presence. I guess I'm too idealistic to hope for the day when if someone came to me and said he liked the Disciples service but felt that he needs more ritual, I would freely point out the local Episcopal church. At the same time, the local Episcopal priest would point to our Disciples Church in response to a parishioner stating that the level of ritual is distracting to her sense of God and she needs something less ceremonial. Let's keep the strength of tradition and drop the "my way is the only way" that many younger seekers assume is part of denominationalism. Interesting that those who build large nondenominational churches sound more like the "my way only" folks that the main-line Christian folks.
I believe Denominational identities are important to those of who already have them. I'm a UCC pastor and adore the heritage I can claim as such.
For those who are not already part of churches, I'll admit SOME may use the particularity of a denomination (UCC's open stance on marriage, PCUSA's love of order, etc) as a reason to get involved. But shouldn't the particularity we draw people to be the gospel of Jesus Christ? We focus too much on the arrow, and not enough on what the arrow points to!
There is still a need to understand the beliefs of the several churches. Historic Episcopacy or congregational, Calvinism or Free Will, Sacramental or auditory, biblical literalism or or criticism, etc.
I have observed the national structure of my denomination restructure itself several times over the past few years. Something about this restructuring seems to indicate that it is a result of anxieties, about scarcity of monies, and decrease in members in the denomination. I do wonder where God's Spirit is moving regarding denominations. However, people certainly seem to be more affiliated with communities than denominations. I am very bound to my denomination but I do not envision denominational identity to be something that will be crucial in 25 to 50 years. I think that the church in the U.S.A. will look very different and that denominational identity will not be a priority in the minds of church members.
Where did my comment go?
I had written a comment, but it somehow was lost, so all that was published was my befuddled question. I'm an old lady, so bear with me! Here's the gist of what I wrote before.
I am VERY attached to the Methodist tradition, but I think that's because I'm 73 (and a P.K.). There is no one in my local church (under 60) (that I'm aware of) who cares much one way or another about being a United Methodist. A handful of us are embarrassed by our denomination's stance on gay/lesbian marriage and ordination. Although I fear it might kill me, I may have to leave the UMC and go to the UCC over this issue.
It still surprises me, with 12 years of clergy experience in the UMC tradition, that many of the people in my congregations have no idea about even the basic traditions and structure of our denomination. It makes me wonder why they would choose to be United Methodist? Another curiousity is when an issue of goverance comes up in the church, many are not even aware that we must follow the Book of Discipline. What are we teaching those who are new in the church? Maybe this is a partial answer to why it seems as if denominational identity doesn't matter.
Bob, I'd drop the first part of your question and simply ask "what is the point of being part of a particular tradition?" Some wear the denominational label as a badge of superiority and in some fundamentalist circles denominational labels are actually rejected in the spirit of holier-(i.e more doctrinally correct)-than thou. To wit, I point such persons to I Cor. 1:10-13.
Jesus warned the Pharisees repeatedly regarding their inordinate valuation of tradition at the expense of heartfelt obedience. Some traditions clearly are not worth holding on to. If one requires change to be consisitent with one's history, as Kinnamon and Linn suggest, then wherein is the change? That's like saying we want to change but we're going to stay the same while we do.
Let me insert here that I am not suggesting Disciples traditions are not worth holding on to, but rather that tradition for tradition sake can be a spiritual trap.
If followers of Christ would adopt the practices of the church of Acts as a matter of tradition,
THAT would solve the problems of low coffers and dwindling attendence and membership, set the church back on its foundation, and fan the flames of faith across the world. Sadly, I don't ever see that happening.
I'm enjoying the comments to my piece on identity. In response to Lyric's comments about tradition for tradition's sake, I don't think that either Kinnamon or Linn would suggest that we slavishly follow our traditions. What I think they want to say is that our traditions/identity can and should help guide us as we seek to reform our selves for a new era.
The question is -- why am I a Disciple, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian? I expect that a majority of people choose a church for what it offers at a local level, irregardless of denominational identity. But, the question is, how do we as congregations express ourselves? Are we true to our identity or not? If not, then why the brand?
Where do those of us who count ourselves as "progressives" go if denominations are remain so significant? I am a Disciple and appreciate my denomination's emphasis on Christian unity, it's desire to reach out in compassion, and its work in interfaith dialog. However, the denomination no longer answers my need for re-examination of our theology, christology, and a shift in liturgy to match my new thinking. I would like to remain a Disciple, but I can't find a church that fits my progressive thinking. Where do I go?
Bob Eichenberger said...
I wonder if the answer is highly influenced by the person's relationship to the church. A person just looking for a church would, I'm guessing, be more interested in having been asked by a caring member to go, or actually being able to understand and use a sermon, or by the youth group really helping his/her kids. Most folks who are not clergy or highly invested lay folk don't really care how often the Lord's Supper is celebrated or what the governance structure of the church is.
I've been a pastor for a bit over 30 years and this question has always fascinated me. I'd like to throw a couple of insights into the mix just for fun.
1. I heard Joan Chittister say, in response to a seeker's query about denominations, that one should "find a faith community whose liturgy celebrates one's spirituality." I did and landed among Quakers. I like to worship with others who experience God's presence in the silence.
2. To missquote Jesus, "Those who try to save their denominations will lose them and those who risk their denominations for my sake will save them" From my somewhat limited point of view, I believe many of us have let the survival of our denominations and their distinctives become the bottom line. If all that denominational pride were put aside, and we were to risk everything to be faithful to Christ's call to take up our cross...? I'm all for it, but not until I retire.
Stan
Thanks Stan. That was what I was hoping someone else would validate by personal experience.
I remember being told as I began my now 30 years of Disciples service, that if Disciples churches closed because people were worshiping elsewhere, we would thank God that they are finding God where they are worshiping. It was this ecumenical spirit that drew me to them in the first place. Hope we don't loose it following Stan's paraphrase. Stan, don't retire yet!!!The Kingdom is a comin'!!
I believe that Ed's point is well taken, and stated. As an attempt to illustrate, from a historical perspective, my sense is that Disciples (the Stone-Campbell movement) may have lived its "high water" mark, prior to its becoming a recognized, and organized church movement. Ironic, however - consider.
In 1804, a year after a group of Presbyterian congregations, disenchanted with the restrictions imposed by their governing Presbytery, withdrew and formed a new Presbytery -- The Springfield Presbytery, unrest and discontent still troubled the consciences of some of the leaders.
It was more and more apparent, particularly to Barton W. Stone, one of the withdrawing clergy, that their action had the result of further splintering Christ's body -- not their realizing of greater Christian unity, which they desired to foster through their congregational lives and practices, and which they were seeking the freedom to accomplish by withdrawing from oversight by their former Presbytery.
Thus, in a rather, unique statement, the clergy, who a year earlier had formed a separate Presbytery with their congregations, penned a document entitled, "The Last Will & Testament of The Springfield Presbytery", in which they stated, "we will that this body die, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large."
In one sense, the document was the essence of "letting go" of loyalty to a denominational identity. On the other hand, however, it was a unique, courageous living out of the values inherent, in the movement ideals, that have given birth to today's Disciples of Christ denomination.
And this was a generation prior to the January 1, 1832 agreement between the Stone and Campbell representatives who agreed to join forces, at their meeting in Lexington, Ky.
Thus, my sense in which the Disciples "high water" mark may have preceded their formal organizational event, as known in history.
This is a fascinating conversation. I teach history and polity for the UCC at Harvard Divinity School, and have just been asked to create a course for lay people ie. church leaders, CE Directors, church administrators, Ordination Committees in our denomination called Church and Ministry Committees, etc. I was asked to do this by the MA Conference and there is the expectation that lot's of folks will be interested in learning more about the UCC, our core values, organizational structure and history that people will be standing in line to sign up. But I wonder if that's true? Are there people in our local churches who are yearning to learn more about the denomination, and if so, who are they? I'll let you know! The other comment that I wanted to make is that when I was growing up in Kirkwood, MO, some 40 plus years ago, I knew exactly what denomination my neighbors were. The Wilbers were Roman Catholic, the Munches were Lutheran, the Kluges were Lutheran, the Campells Episcopalians and the Hollaways were Presbyterian. And we were Methodist. As kids we had the sense that this was the primary way in which we were different from one another. We respected one another's traditions, and saw one another at ecumenical services, but it was an important source of what made each of us different-maybe even special, while similar in terms of race and class. I also remember that all through primary and secondary school we had a very competetive summer softball league composed of the separate churches in town. Playing for that many years, we knew who played on which team, so we knew one another's denominations. It was a primary source of identity for all of us. 40 years later, I confess that I have no clue what denominational affiliation my neighbors have, if any. Although when we first moved in, we enjoyed a close friendship with our neighbors next door. I credit Frank, in his late 80's now, with one of my all time favorite quotes, "God is love, all the rest is crap." I think he's got a point!
The identity that matters is -- Christian. What the world needs to see and hear is the witness of -- Christians.
If people within denominations have, by and large, a fuzzy sense of their particular heritage and doubts about how much it matters, how much less does it matter to the unchurched and secular population. Can we not say that there are many ways to be a Christian, and many ways to worship, leave it at that and not worry about denominational labels?
I retired last year after 38 years as a UM pastor -- and many things look very different from the other side of the pulpit.
Post a Comment
We don't currently require registration, but we do prefer that you include your name. If you don't have any of the login types listed in the pulldown menu, select "Name/URL"--the URL field is optional, so leave it blank if you don't want to hyperlink your name to another site.