Bob Cornwall defends denominations against those who consider them old baggage in a new ’postdenominational’ world. He agrees with Michael Kinnamon and Jan Linn that to be vital churches must affirm their heritage embodied in a particular tradition. He used to discount denominations, but now Cornwall embraces the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
He gives no other reasons, though, for embracing a particular tradition, nor does he discuss the pitfalls they present. The relevance of denominations is more ambiguous than this.
The earliest form of Christian community is the congregation, the ecclesia. Anything beyond this came later. In the Presbyterian Church, where my ordination lies, congregations in America first joined together to form presbyteries, and presbyteries joined together to form larger synods and a national church. But the matter began with local congregations. As for other traditions, no matter what structure or polity exists now, the movement began in Palestine with a loose collection of house churches. The roots of things are in the local congregation.
And whatever church structures exist now, their purpose is to serve the local congregation. I see denominations doing this well in specific ways. A denomination connects a congregation to something larger and older than itself — an antidote to a local church becoming narcissistic. A denomination can also engage in forms of mission, education and healing beyond the reach of a local congregation. Resources pool to water many fields.
But denominations carry dangers too. Chief among them is their resistance to necessary change. Witness how slowly music has changed in mainline denominations — for over a generation the musical instrument of our culture has been the guitar, acoustic and electric, but the mainline churches have been reluctant to embrace it, and they have paid a high price for this.
Denominations also, like any institution, tend to become an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. Their chief goal becomes to perpetuate their own existence. (This danger can also characterize the local congregation.) They become like the temple stones that impressed the disciples — Christ had to remind them all those stones wouldn’t last. They were never meant to. They’re ruins today.
The Shorter Catechism says Christ communicates his benefits to us in three ways: word, sacrament and prayer. Believers experience these in the communal life of a local congregation. As Christ communicates his benefits to them, so he also equips them to be his servants and ambassadors in a needy world.
The denomination that helps local congregations do this deserves our respect and loyalty. The denomination that doesn’t, that fritters its energies on other pursuits, should fall into ruins.
We do love the comfort of the way “we’ve always done things” don’t we? Especially aging into the comfort that our favorite pew, our favorite acquaintances, and our favorite organist offer us, the church may be the only thing that doesn’t necessarily change! Well, aren’t we archaic with that notion? Everywhere we are reminded that if we don’t change our exercise, our eating, our fashion, our elected leaders, our views on the environment, we will be left behind by our beautiful children and grandchildren! And what do we do?…..we change, not just for the idea of “going along with the majority” but because change expands our hearts, our minds, our bodies!
Your article is a wakeup call for congregations, reminding them/us that a new young priest serving our congregation does do things “differently” – yet, he/she respects and honors the congregation, the tradition from which we’ve come. A good thing and more good thing is that she/he’s beginning to make changes, adjustments, tweaks – there are “new and other” ways to do church…….all of this is to say, that I support the change, I could listen to music other than the organ – I certainly listen to “other” music every day, so why not on days in church? Yes, I agree with you whole heartedly that congregations must change or they must die……..it may feel comfortable until everyone like-minded is gone. But it won’t feel comfortable after that because there won’t be a congregation anymore!
Thanks, Dianna. I love organ music and will always associate it with churches. Only I’m aware more and more of the great gulf between church music and popular music. Some people argue this is as it should be — church should be a different world. There’s probably some truth to this. It’s also true that the type of musical instrument — organ or guitar — has nothing to do with the gospel. So why not use the instrument that resonates throughout our culture? There is so much wonderful contemporary Christian music being written now (Like Hillsong’s ‘Mighty to Save’). And the music issue, of course, is as much a local congregational as a denominational issue. Only there is a whole denominational ethos that supports on a thousand sides a particular style of music in local churches. Okay, I’m going on too much here and need to stop. Thanks for stopping in. I hope that young priest does good things. Peace to you today.
Chris,
I’m not sure it’s fair to say that I’m all for denominations. What I tried to say there, and say in greater detail in my effort to blog through the Kinnamon and Linn book on my own blog is that to consider how our understandings of faith are formed by our traditions. My own denomination is non-creedal and non-hierarchical, so I don’t deal with a lot of the issues found in more connectional and creedal churches.
But my question is, especially for clergy, why choose the tradition you’ve chosen?
While I agree that congregations are foundational, and denominational structures, to some extent serve the congregations. It’s easy for congregations to get focused on themselves unless there is another entity calling them to account and reminding them of their calling. Do denominations do this well? Probably not. But, I’ve been part of the nondenominational/independent church route, it’s not so great either!
Chris,
Second comment on music. Guitars, etc. are generational. We’re getting a new digital organ for the church — but we’re making sure that it can support a wide variety of music — including more “contemporary” forms. But, remember that what is contemporary today, is likely passe tomorrow, and yet we still sing A Mighty Fortress and Amazing Grace. I’m very eclectic in my musical tastes, so I can go either way!
Bob, thanks for your comments and clarification. I agree that independent churches have their problems, and you’re right that contemporary too easily becomes temporary. But it’s also true that one of the least observed biblical commands in more traditional churches is ‘Sing to the Lord a new song.’
On the your question about clergy and their traditions — some clergy choose their traditions (as you have), embracing them with fervor, and for other clergy it is more as if the tradition has chosen them, and they slowly come to terms with its strengths and limitations.
Thanks for stopping by. Peace to you today.
My 2 cents: The “church” music that we are talking about, isn’t it basically in the same style that Martin Luther sang? i.e., aren’t we basically using a style of music that is 500 years old? I bring this up because if I recall correctly, Martin Luther and his contemporaries used music that was “modern” to them. It seems then that we are stuck in a time warp because we are afraid of change. I should know…I was one of those.