The notion of a “denomination” is not Biblical. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it appeared in the English language sometime during the 13th century and was linked to different groups of religious believers during the 17th century.
We should recognize, then, Jesus was not a member of any one “denomination.”
Yet “denominations” are prominent features of religious life today for many believers. We attend this “denomination” and not that one. We give time, money and loyalty to this group and not that one. We follow what this “denominational” leader says and not that one. And so on.
“Denominations” are powerful sources of division among followers of Christ. Even worse, the problem is that we risk being more loyal to a particular “denomination” than we are to the word and way of Jesus as revealed in the Gospels.
This point was made most clear to me in a short article written by Dan Kimball in the August 2007 issue of Next Wave. Responding to a statement by Al Mohler who said:
I can assure you of this: if you are associated with the use of beverage alcohol, I think I dare exaggerate not to say that 99% of all doors of ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention will be closed to you.
Kimball asked: “would Jesus then have 99% of the ministry doors shut on Him?”
It seems to me that what Kimball is pointing out is a denominational loyalty that is valued more highly than the way of Jesus as told in the scriptures. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus attends parties and drinks wine. Jesus is even referred to by some pious detractors as a “drunkard” (see Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34).
To be clear, my point here is not to advocate alcohol use, but to point to a tension between “denominational” demands and between the way of Jesus. The Southern Baptist prohibition against alcohol is just one example where “denominational” limits over-ride the scripture.
Where does that leave an emerging faith in Jesus?
I think that the word and way of Jesus must be valued more highly than particular “denominational” loyalties. To call Jesus Lord, to identify oneself as a follower of Christ and as an agent of the kingdom of God entails that “denominational” loyalties take a back seat. One may well identify as a Methodist or a Southern Baptist, for instance, but that connection is secondary to following in the way of Jesus—or it should be.
So, part of an emerging faith includes scrutinizing our own “denominational” loyalties and comparing them to the word and way of Jesus.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
Jacob, I fully agree with the view that the emerging church must find a way to prioritize loyalty to Jesus over denominational loyalties - and I would add that this must include, in a rather convoluted fashion, loyalty to itself as a distinctive movement within the church and amongst other denominations.
I would also argue that it is misleading to think of Jesus as the starting-point for determining our identity and purpose. I realize that this can get rather difficult theologically, but I think it is important that we see in Jesus’ death and resurrection the recovery of the promise to Abraham that he would be the progenitor of a creational microcosm - a people that would represent both actually and prophetically how the creator God intended humanity to exist in the world.
I hope the emerging church will foster this sense of being called in the first place as a people, an ethnos, an alternative humanity, with a broad missional purpose that is contradicted by internal conflict and division. But that doesn’t mean that this people will not manifest tribal distinctives or the diversity that inevitably arises out of communal re-imaginings of what it means to be new creation.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
Thanks for your comments.
Why should the emerging church remain within the church? Could it not emerge beyond the limits of the church? I mean, neither Jesus nor Abraham were members of the church.
Something worth considering, I think, is just what are the limits of “the church”? What is “the church”? Is the modern church not composed of “denominations”? Once we move beyond “denominations” does “the church” remain the same? Is it still “the church”? Or is it becoming something else?
Also, if the emerging movement is amongst other denominations, does that not suggest the emerging movement is just another denomination? I guess what I’m saying is that I see the emerging church as a post-denominational and trans-denominational movement. It is neither a denomination unto itself nor is it strictly speaking a group among the other denominations.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
Limits of the church? I don’t think I have a better definition of the church than the community of those who have been baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection - of course, we can argue the toss over what constitutes authentic baptism, but I prefer that sort of objective definition to one that focuses on personal faith in Jesus, say. Not least, it helps keep the concrete existence of a called and missional community in view.
That definition also makes your statement about Jesus not being a member of the church rather pointless. It is not that he is a member of the church; rather we are members of him - and through that made heirs of the promise to Abraham.
I see the emerging church movement as one prominent response to the slowly dawning realization that the Christendom/modern paradigm has finally run its course and something is needed to replace it. I think this realization is too diffuse and too widespread to become a denomination - at least, I hope that is the case. I suspect that the transition from the old to a new paradigm will come in waves, the current ‘emerging’ phenomenon being just one of those waves - preceded perhaps (in the UK at least) by the alternative worship movement and a passing fascination with Celtic spirituality, though arguably this whole shift, like postmodernism, has its origins in a much earlier period - but I’m not a historian.
I see today’s divisive denominationalism as characteristic of the Christendom/modern paradigm and I don’t expect it to survive the transition. But that change will not come about quickly, and I see nothing to be gained by the emerging church sharply dissociating itself from the wider church. It’s much more important that people are able to ask the questions and explore new answers from within their current context, though I would accept that a bit of healthy separatism could bring clarity and urgency to the witness of the emerging movement to the state that the church is in.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
That definition also makes your statement about Jesus not being a member of the church rather pointless. It is not that he is a member of the church; rather we are members of him - and through that made heirs of the promise to Abraham.
"pointless"—that seems like a rather sharp swipe. One could say that to be members of Jesus has nothing to do with Church per se and Church has everything to do with a tradition initiated after Jesus’ death. What does following in the way of Jesus mean? Does it mean doing as Paul did? Or does it mean doing as Jesus did? If the latter’s the case, then the fact that neither Jesus nor Abraham were members of the church is something that can’t be so lightly stepped over. But then again, you and I are coming at this from two different angles—you identify as a church member and I do not.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
Sorry, ‘pointless’ was a bit too pointed. But my point was that if the church is that community which is by definition baptized into Jesus’ death and resurrection, then we cannot really conceive of Jesus apart from the church.
I think that the commonly made distinction between a Jesus Christianity and a Paul Christianity has been greatly overstated and has arisen largely because we have missed the eschatological structure that connects the two. So, for example, if we take the story that we find in Isaiah 40-66, Jesus is the suffering servant figure who reconfigures Jacob around himself during the course of judgment, whereas Paul sees his role primarily as facilitating the response of the Gentiles to the salvation of Israel (Rom. 15). Much of the difference between the two can be explained along these lines. The Old Testament rationale is quite coherent.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
Again, I think much of our different readings emerges from our different positions. You speak from within the church and I do not. That difference, I think, is crucial.
But my point was that if the church is that community which is by definition baptized into Jesus’ death and resurrection, then we cannot really conceive of Jesus apart from the church.
I think we can conceive of Jesus apart from the church. I mean we can see in the book of Acts that the name "Christian" was a post-resurrection name and mode of organization. It takes a step over this fact, which many make without a second thought, to connect the church to Jesus. I want people to have that second thought. There is room for multiple readings of Jesus’ relationship to the church—that’s my point.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
And this is sort of nit picking, but what makes baptism objective? It seems to me that baptism is a practice—something that people do or have done to them because it signifies certain meanings about community status. A baptism marks one as an insider, as part of the church community. Baptism is social, it seems to me. There is no need to resort to objective/subjective dichotomies.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
OK, so baptism is social, but still the emphasis is on something public, visible, acted, community-based, in some measure independent of interpretation. The New OED gives as one definition of ‘objective’ ‘not dependent on the mind for existence’. That’s more or less what I was getting at. The significance of baptism lies in the fact that it is an object to an audience; it is a community event not a subjective event.
I really don’t understand your fear of these dichotomies. Life is made up practicable polarities - good-bad, necessary-unnecessary, objective-subjective, meaningful-meaningless, and so on. I agree that they are never quite what they seem and often they can be synthesized or superceded, but that doesn’t make them unusable in practical terms.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
It’s not all dichotomies, just the Platonic dichotomies that bother me. The reason I want to move away from them is that I think an emerging church should be joined with an emerging vocabulary—indeed I think that one is dependent on the other. To trade on entrenched distinctions serves only to reinforce the entrenched distinctions. Life is indeed made up of “practicable polarities.” And these polarities have effects in practical terms. So the polarities that we use not only reflect but also reproduces a way of life. To say things differently is part of the process of forging a new way of life.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
…in some measure independent of interpretation
As far as I’m concerned, nothing is "independent of interpretation." Insofar as we see, write or speak about some action (e.g. baptism), then we are interpreting it or making sense of it. In other words, the meaning of the act of baptism varies and that variation depends on how a person or group of persons interprets that act.
Re: The Way of Jesus and the Problem of Denominational Loyalties
One Israel, twelve tribes. In our case, one church, many, many denominations. We just need not forget we are all connected, and even if we have theological disagreements, we still have one calling and mission we need to carry out together. I think the problem is many denominations let their unique theological understandings get in the way of the larger scope of the church. We should talk about those disagreements, but sometimes we must simply agree to disagree. There are many things going on in my mother’s church I theologically disagree with, but I still have a strong desire to remain as “one” with them as much as I can.
Though it can be extremely hard, I need to focus on the things I do agree with, and contribute in that manner. For example, though I disagree greatly theologically on many levels with the church I sometimes attend, the church still agrees with me that we must help the poor (though I may have a different understanding of why we must help the poor), so I can help them with it. Theologically, just by being at the church even if I do not participate in the things I disagree with, I may have an indirect influence. In other words, I think we must avoid the cut and run strategy people follow when they find themselves in a church they disagree with theologically. On the other hand, one must also attend a church that edifies himself and allows him to edify the rest of the congregation in turn. Who ever said one must attend only one church, anyway? I hope I am not found to be a hypocrite, because I have been considering stopping attending the church I mentioned (at least as often) because of the fact it in no way edifies me; that, of course, does not mean I do not consider many of the people in the church friends and fellow Christians.
Here’s a possible problem: how can we get denominations to work together for one mission if they do not even agree on what that mission is. How many layman Christians do you know (particularly in America) who even know what “new creation” is? Many Christians I know just talk about “going to Heaven,” which sometimes hinders the kingdom of God calling of the church to deliver God’s justice, love, and good news to the outside world. This is the problem I face with the church I mentioned: sometimes we disagree so much theologically, not just in detail, but in the overall picture, that it is extremely hard to remain one in calling.
Does any of what I said make sense?