There's lots of talk these days about being "missional" and "post-denominational." These are rhetorically wonderful words and carry lots of excitment and, perhaps, even hope. But the philosopher in me likes to chew on things before swallowing them. So what do these concepts really mean?
An Aside:
Wherever there are conceptual vaccuums, we tend to fill them with images and dreams...not a bad thing, necessarily, but its like an engine only running on half its cylinders. For best Kingdom performance, we need to run our brains from both "sides." We need both concepts and images; logic and passion. I'm worried that after the Babylonian captivity of modernism, we are no closer to the Promised Land than before, as we are in the process of selling ourselves out to a different master.
Back to the Question:
So what does "post-denominational" mean? Here's some possibilities: (Of course, I welcome your further ideas.)
1) It means returning to a pre-reformational/pre-denominational ecclesiology. In other words, we should all quit being Protestants and return to the Holy Mother Church headquartered in Rome....but that hardly seems likely.
2) It means protesting protestantism by becoming a Restorationist. The Restoration Movement deplored creedalism and the institutional church and sought to restore a "primitive" Christianity unsullied by history's corruption.
But alas, we've been there and done that, and now the Restorationists have fractured into three main groups, including the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ and Independent Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ. Is there a lesson here for churches today that similarly consider themselves "post-denominational?"
3) It means facing up to the nominalism of our day and embracing it, by admitting that the "universal" of a denomination is a fiction or worse. Thus, each individual faith community becomes it's own island. Any talk of it as part of an "organism" betrays a lingering belief in something greater and more universal...and the real possibility of it morphing into a dreaded Institution.
Put it this way: if what is really real is the individual, how can there even be a "universal" like a "faith community?" If we're in this business of deconstructing, let's not stop half-way. Let's not only deconstruct denominations, but these "communities" as well into the discrete, unique individuals that compose them. Then we'll certainly never again be plagued by institutionalism. We'll not only be post-denominational, we'll be post-ecclesiastical! (How about that for a Radical-Modest Proposal?)
Oh. Sorry. I've gotten carried away. Let's start this over.
There's an interesting dialogue here http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/2005/06/have_denominati.php
An Aside:
Wherever there are conceptual vaccuums, we tend to fill them with images and dreams...not a bad thing, necessarily, but its like an engine only running on half its cylinders. For best Kingdom performance, we need to run our brains from both "sides." We need both concepts and images; logic and passion. I'm worried that after the Babylonian captivity of modernism, we are no closer to the Promised Land than before, as we are in the process of selling ourselves out to a different master.
Back to the Question:
So what does "post-denominational" mean? Here's some possibilities: (Of course, I welcome your further ideas.)
1) It means returning to a pre-reformational/pre-denominational ecclesiology. In other words, we should all quit being Protestants and return to the Holy Mother Church headquartered in Rome....but that hardly seems likely.
2) It means protesting protestantism by becoming a Restorationist. The Restoration Movement deplored creedalism and the institutional church and sought to restore a "primitive" Christianity unsullied by history's corruption.
But alas, we've been there and done that, and now the Restorationists have fractured into three main groups, including the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ and Independent Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ. Is there a lesson here for churches today that similarly consider themselves "post-denominational?"
3) It means facing up to the nominalism of our day and embracing it, by admitting that the "universal" of a denomination is a fiction or worse. Thus, each individual faith community becomes it's own island. Any talk of it as part of an "organism" betrays a lingering belief in something greater and more universal...and the real possibility of it morphing into a dreaded Institution.
Put it this way: if what is really real is the individual, how can there even be a "universal" like a "faith community?" If we're in this business of deconstructing, let's not stop half-way. Let's not only deconstruct denominations, but these "communities" as well into the discrete, unique individuals that compose them. Then we'll certainly never again be plagued by institutionalism. We'll not only be post-denominational, we'll be post-ecclesiastical! (How about that for a Radical-Modest Proposal?)
Oh. Sorry. I've gotten carried away. Let's start this over.
There's an interesting dialogue here http://www.spcc-storrs.org/blog/archives/2005/06/have_denominati.php
about "post-denominationalism" between Ben Dubow from St. Paul's Collegiate Church at Storrs and Kevin Flannery that I find quite instructive. For Dubow, "denominational" is a negative thing. He writes,
"most denominations seemed more interested in organizational and institutional survival than in authentic Kingdom-building. ..
it seems to me that almost every denomination--for good or for bad--was born polemically.
And this is the problem. Their very nature is to be defined by what or who they are not (negative), as opposed to what or who they are (positive). Lutherans aren't Catholics and Baptists aren't Lutherans and Penetecostals aren't Baptists, and on down the line---but always defined in the negative.
In today's increasingly post-Christian world, I am not sure that
we can afford to be so polemical."
While heartily agreeing that denominationalism has its problems, Flannery responds, gently suggesting that Dubow has committed what philosophers call a "self-referential absurdity:"
"Seems that your comment that... '…almost every denomination--for good or for bad--was born polemically'… shows that this 'post-denominational' approach is subject to the exact same criticism. It is born out of a polemic against denominations. Denominationalism can without a doubt be problematic. I agree!... but I don't know that you have jump this hurdle by adopting a prefix."
Long ago there was a Covenant video entitled "A Great Ambition." (It's now available on DVD.) I remember a scene in it where the screen flashes from a baby being baptized to a group of mourners standing over a fresh grave. The voice over went something like this: "soon, every movement discovers it needs to marry and bury...it becomes an institution..." (the screen flashes to an old fashioned letterhead from the early days of our denomination) "...this is how the Mission Friends became a denomination: the Evangelical Covenant Church."
Such an understanding of "denomination" is not polemical, but indead positive. Postmodernism, suffering from a surfeit of skepticism, tends to see negatives; after all, deconstruction is its very DNA. Flannery, however, argues for positives:
"most denominations seemed more interested in organizational and institutional survival than in authentic Kingdom-building. ..
it seems to me that almost every denomination--for good or for bad--was born polemically.
And this is the problem. Their very nature is to be defined by what or who they are not (negative), as opposed to what or who they are (positive). Lutherans aren't Catholics and Baptists aren't Lutherans and Penetecostals aren't Baptists, and on down the line---but always defined in the negative.
In today's increasingly post-Christian world, I am not sure that
we can afford to be so polemical."
While heartily agreeing that denominationalism has its problems, Flannery responds, gently suggesting that Dubow has committed what philosophers call a "self-referential absurdity:"
"Seems that your comment that... '…almost every denomination--for good or for bad--was born polemically'… shows that this 'post-denominational' approach is subject to the exact same criticism. It is born out of a polemic against denominations. Denominationalism can without a doubt be problematic. I agree!... but I don't know that you have jump this hurdle by adopting a prefix."
Long ago there was a Covenant video entitled "A Great Ambition." (It's now available on DVD.) I remember a scene in it where the screen flashes from a baby being baptized to a group of mourners standing over a fresh grave. The voice over went something like this: "soon, every movement discovers it needs to marry and bury...it becomes an institution..." (the screen flashes to an old fashioned letterhead from the early days of our denomination) "...this is how the Mission Friends became a denomination: the Evangelical Covenant Church."
Such an understanding of "denomination" is not polemical, but indead positive. Postmodernism, suffering from a surfeit of skepticism, tends to see negatives; after all, deconstruction is its very DNA. Flannery, however, argues for positives:
The church that I am with joined a denomination recently (technically this denomination prefers to be called an affiliation—they sidestep things by rejecting the word denomination so that they wouldn’t have to defend its negative connotations). We wanted to join because we wanted to be a more dangerous church to the kingdom of darkness and a more glorifying church for the Kingdom of Light. We have formally only been members a few short months, not even a half of a year, but I think we are already better for our affiliation. Our kingdom perspective has broadened. Our teaming with other churches to advance the cause of Christ is more a reality today. The resources we have to advance God's kingdom have grown. For us joining an affiliation seemed clearly to be “a” way to be a more powerful church for God. This may not be the case for all churches that are unaffiliated, but it has been ultra positive for us.
Thus it seems like "post-denominational" may be more of a buzzword than a helpful concept. Dubow's reply is chastened:
... I guess, the key issue may be "good denominations" vs. "bad denominations" (though this seems a bit to black and white...)
At the end of the day, I would say that the key issue for me is mission. It used to be that denominational affiliation was so powerful because it linked one local church with many local churches with the shared mission. Unfortunately, increasingly today there is often less and less shared mission within many larger denominations (though, this is not universal).
At the end of the day, I would say that the key issue for me is mission. It used to be that denominational affiliation was so powerful because it linked one local church with many local churches with the shared mission. Unfortunately, increasingly today there is often less and less shared mission within many larger denominations (though, this is not universal).
Notice how the discussion pivots from "post-denominational" to "missional." Now we need to examine what is meant by "missional," and ask, "Can we be missional without being nominalists?" But that is another entry.
1 comment:
I think we in the Covenant are a long way from becoming “post-denominational.” I also believe those churches that are independent or unaffiliated in title or orientation have indeed bound themselves to a group through us organization as the Willow Creed Associate which resources them, gathers them to event and connects them to others in the association.
I am not seeking to be post-anything. I am saying that given its current direction and behavior our denomination has distanced itself from its churches. By relying on connect methods which are ineffectual and ignoring or underutilizing modes available they have inserted a distance which makes an on going relationship challenging. I understand that the home office and primary representation of the denomination is understaffed but still some intentionality in strengthening the connections with local congregations ought to be high priority.
I am also advocating that the denomination narrow its focus. We do not need the denomination to resource us except in a few instances. We do not need them to provide workshops or materials on general Christian living, which can be obtained cheaper and easier from a multitude of avenues. They do need to provide materials for identity or some other denominationally specific cause. While they are worthy while entities we as church do not need hospitals or retirement communities. I am not say cut them loose at this point. Just pointing to examples.
I do not believe these issues make me a nominalist, although I had to look that one up and read the article a few times to grasp the idea.
Post a Comment