What is "The Church"?

[Jereth]

This is a question that has been buzzing around in my mind for quite some time now, and some recent posts by Justin and Jordan bring it up again.

Justin wrote:

the visible church should be treated as the church of God. Each denomination is an expression of the Church universal, and as such, in damaging it we risk exposing ourselves to God's judgement.
...
Perhaps, for all our talk of 'realignment' and 'schism' it is actually not possible for anyone to break away without doing violence to God's church.

Jordan wrote:

We are justified in staying in and trying to reform the church until we are kicked out.
...
unless a church's official doctrine and practice is apostate and there is no reasonable hope of repentance, that church (or denomination) remains a true church, and I don't believe it is right to forsake it.

Some observations (in no particular order):
1. Both writers seem to assert some kind of equivalence between a denomination (such as the Anglican denomination) and "the church".

2. The Bible was written millennia before there were such things as denominations. Back then, there was just the local church and the universal church. It therefore doesn't directly address issues to do with denominations (such as when to leave, stay, schism, etc.). It was also written in an era when there was probably only one church per city, so changing church wasn't much of an option.

3. Luther and Calvin wrote at a unique time when there were just two denominations effectively -- Catholicism, and the Protestants. For them it was a question of whether to remain in Catholicism or leave it. That's a very different situation from today where there are literally hundreds of denominations to choose from and it is a small effort to move from one to another.

4. The vast majority of Christians my age and younger, whom I have talked to, don't believe in denominations. For instance, when you ask them "what denomination are you part of?", or "what sort of church do you attend?" they almost invariably respond like this:
"Oh, I just think of myself as a Christian. I currently go to a <mutter> kmmmfpphhfmm <cough> church, but I'm not attached to that denomination. I just follow Jesus and am happy to go to any church which teaches the Bible."

5. These aforementioned Christians, who don't feel allegiance to any denomination, freely move from one denomination to another depending on what is convenient for them when they move to a new place of residence, or life circumstances change.

6. A lot of "Anglicans" think this way too. Here's a quote from someone describing the phenomenon:
I suspect ... that most people don't really know much about gafcon or lambeth or what's going on in the Anglican world at all. The reality is that most people just want to come to church on Sundays to sit under the Word and be encouraged and to meet with friends. Most people don't have the interest in the Anglican world beyond this.

This fits with my own experience -- for example, thinking through the people in my homegroup, I reckon the  clear majority (if not all!) aren't particularly committed to Anglicanism and are simply at St. judes because it teaches the Bible well, has a dynamic ministry, is in a convenient location etc.; and they would move to another denomination without too much agonising or discomfort.

7. The large, dynamic and rapidly growing churches in the West tend not to be denominational. eg. Melbourne's largest church in terms of membership (City Life) is non-denominational. Many other large and rapidly growing churches in outer Melbourne (eg. Crossway) are part of denominations like the Baptists who only have a very loose/informal denominational structure. Statistically, you'd have to say that probably the majority of committed, practising Christians in the West these days aren't part of an "old" denomination (Catholic, Anglican, Uniting, Pressie, Lutheran, Reformed). And as I said above, even many of those within the old denominations don't feel much allegiance

8. The waning importance of denominations is evidenced in the plethora of thriving non-denominational ministries and organisations that exist and have far outgrown comparable ministries run by the denominations -- eg. AFES/IFES, Bible society, SU, Wycliffe, Pioneers, IVP, EA, Australian Christian Lobby, Promisekeepers....

Okay then. So if it is true that "denominations" are on somewhat shaky ground biblically, historically, and pastorally/experientially, is the question "Should I leave or stay in Anglicanism" really such a big question? Now of course, it is a big question for all the people who are ordained in the denomination, who have said vows and are committed to its ministry. I agree with Justin and Jordan that you guys (and gals) should stay until things are totally beyond repair. But for the rest of us (who are far greater in number!) is it a big deal whether we stay in Anglican churches, or quietly drift off elsewhere?

And the question that lies behind is:
What is "the church"? and how does a denomination such as Anglicanism fit into the definition of "church"?

[Andrew Bowles]

I think for your question talking about denominations is actually a red herring. You probably need to focus more on what you see is the relationship between the local and the universal church. The question is whether the universal church should have visible unity. If you don't think so, then you'll be comfortable with thousands of different denominations and there's no particular reason to stay in the Anglican church, or any church for that matter. If you're not, then you move more back towards the need for some kind of 'catholic' unity amongst Christians, and see the different denominations as an expression of a failure of love and faith.

[Andrew Bowles]

Also, the way in which this issue is framed needs to be thought about. Your presentation of the history of denominations and the current situation was structured along the lines of an increasing 'market differentiation' of choices for Christians, amongst which one is 'Anglican-brand' church, a brand that is failing to capture a particular youth market at the moment in competition with 'non-denominational' brand churches. Our society trains us to think as consumers, but that is not the way to approach the church. One of the reasons people want to 'stick with it' even in difficult situations is that they see loyalty to their local church or denomination as expressing their loyalty to the whole Church.

[Andrew Bowles]

And my final contribution to this thread! Here is a helpful way of thinking about our beliefs about church that I came across on a blog today:


"From my perspective there are two basic polarities which define the shape of a given ecclesiology.  The first is what I term the High-Low polarity, the second I refer to as the Strong-Weak polarity.  Within this framework any given ecclesial body could potentially fall in one of four categories, High-Strong, High-Weak, Low-Strong, and Low-Weak.  Here are my descriptors of these categories and my attending attempt to put various Christian ecclesial bodies in their proper place.  

Types:

High Church Ecclesiology:  High view of church history and tradition.  Emphasizes the liturgy and above all the Eucharist.  Churches are generally structured episcopally (i.e. through a hierarchy of bishops who stand in communion with each other).  Emphasizes salvation as membership in the church through participation in the sacraments.  Generally holds to infant baptism.  Close connection between baptism and initiation into the broad community of faith.

Low Church Ecclesiology:  Generally suspicious of history and tradition.  Emphasizes the Bible as the church’s ultimate authority and preaching is more central then the Eucharist or the liturgy.  Churches tend to be structured congregationally (i.e. governed by the local congregation itself or through one or more elders appointed by congregations).  Emphasizes salvation as the subjective appropriation and confession of faith in Christ.  Generally holds to believers’ baptism.  Close connection between salvation, baptism, and committed discipleship in community.

Strong Ecclesiology:  Holds a high view of the role of the church in the economy of salvation.  Understands that the church is the means by which God is at work in the world.  A strong view of the church as the ongoing embodied presence of Christ in the world.  The church participates in the mission of God to redeem the world.  Membership in the visible church community is indispensable to Christian life and the shape of Christian salvation.

Weak Ecclesiology:  Holds a humble and limited view of God’s role for the church in his plan of salvation.  The church exists to strengthen and instruct the believer and to witness to God’s work of salvation that takes place solely through God’s action.  The church does not participate in God’s action, but points away from itself to God’s action outside of human effort.  The emphasis is on the invisible church, the universal body of all people who believe in Christ throughout the world.  All Christians are members of this church and that is what is primary.  Membership in a local congregation is for edification and growth, but is not central to salvation.

Examples:

High-Strong: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican Communion, Some Lutherans.
High-Weak: Episcopal Church (USA), Methodists, Independent Catholics, Some Presbyterians, Some Lutherans.
Low-Strong: Anabaptists/Mennonites, Some Baptists (esp. British), New Monasticism, Some Evangelicals, House Churches, African American Churches.
Low-Weak: Most Evangelicals, Most Baptists (esp. USA), Pentecostals, Charismatics, Holiness Movement, Nazarenes."


Depending on who I'm speaking to, I'm probably either 'High-Strong' or 'Low-Strong'. I think, Jereth, from what you say, that you might be 'Low-Weak'?


Andrew

[Jereth]

Hi Andrew,

I appreciate your input into my question. Here are my thoughts in response.

The question is whether the universal church should have visible unity. If you don't think so, then you'll be comfortable with thousands of different denominations and there's no particular reason to stay in the Anglican church, or any church for that matter. If you're not, then you move more back towards the need for some kind of 'catholic' unity amongst Christians, and see the different denominations as an expression of a failure of love and faith.

Are you perhaps proposing a false dichotomy here? You seem to be implying that the multiplicity of denominations is a failure of unity, or "catholicity". I don't think it is. Theologically, there is only one church (Ephesians 2:19-22; 4:4-6). Practically and visibly, I think this is true too. I'm suggesting that all the "brand names" may be just an illusion. If you can get past the signage in front a church, inside there are believers worshipping Christ, hearing his word, receiving his sacraments and responding in true faith and obedience -- regardless of whether the sign outside says "Baptist", "AOG", "Anglican", "Catholic", "Church of Christ", "Brethren" or "<no brand>".

The fact that Christians of different "brands" can work together in all the organisations I mentioned above (AFES, SU, etc.) just proves that this unity is real. Someone will say: "but the different denominations are always squabbling with each other, which proves they're divided". To this I respond: "but Christians are always squabbling with each other, whether they are in different denominations, or the same denomination, or even the same church building -- that's just our fallenness at work (cf. 1 Corinthians 1-3). It doesn't mean real, visible unity isn't there."

NB. I don't deny that outsiders may see the different denominations as competing brands, like NAB, Commonwealth and Westpac. But do (or should) Christians see them thay way? I'm suggesting that for many people in the younger generations, the answer is "no". When young people transition seamlessly from Baptist to Church of Christ to Anglican and back, this typically occurs without any feelings of disloyalty or rebellion; rather, the subjctive feeling is simply that of moving from one faithful community to another -- that's what I'm getting from dozens and dozens of people.

Our society trains us to think as consumers, but that is not the way to approach the church.

I wholly agree with you mate. I'm not wanting to suggest that we ought to choose churches in a consumeristic way. I'm simply pointing out the reality that for many (if not most) Western Christians in 2008, denominational identity isn't important, and thus we have witnessed a mass movement to congregational and non-denominational churches. There's little to be achieved by getting on our Anglican soapbox and crying out: "Woe unto you, you deserters of the one Holy, Catholic church with its Apostolic Succession of Bishops -- come back hither lest you rend the body of Christ in twain..." Those folks down at Planetshakers and City Life will probably respond: "are you serious?!"

And here's anothing thing. It would take a brave man indeed to claim that the Holy Spirit isn't working to save people and bring them into the Kingdom down at Planetshakers and City Life. What does this say? Does this perhaps say that, for all our differences, Anglicans and City Lifers are actually part of the oneness of Christ described in Ephesians? And if that is the case, is it possible that we are even part of a visible unity? It may just be that "visible unity" looks somewhat different from what we were trained to expect by our parent's generation, with their mentality of denominational exclusiveness.

I think, Jereth, from what you say, that you might be 'Low-Weak'?

I'm "medium-rare"

Seriously, I admit I'm still in the process of figuring all this out. Hence my starting this thread with this question. I look forward to seeing what others have to say.

Jereth

[Andrew Bowles]

We're probably coming at this from different directions - you are excited in the fellowship that everyone who has faith in Christ can share, which is of course true, and I'm exasperated because the denominational system we've inherited virtually condemns us to be limping, deaf, blind, 'dis-membered' churches (1 Cor 12:14-26). When I talk about catholicity I'm hoping for a bit more than that.

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

Theologically, there is only one church (Ephesians 2:19-22; 4:4-6). Practically and visibly, I think this is true too. I'm suggesting that all the "brand names" may be just an illusion.
...
NB. I don't deny that outsiders may see the different denominations as competing brands, like NAB, Commonwealth and Westpac. But do (or should) Christians see them thay way?

Hi Jereth,

I see that you've acknowledged the fact that outsiders see the visible disunity of the church, but this doesn't seem to be a focus. I think if the mission of the church is to proclaim the gospel, this is surely one of the most important thoughts. I have to keep reminding myself that before I was a believer, I didn't even understand that Baptist, Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist even fell under the category of Christianity. It seems such a basic understanding of the church that even I now assume unbelievers understand it, but I think that's a valid reason for saying that denominations are a practical and visible failure of unity.

It strikes me with denominations, as well, that once you've made a division between two organisations, it's very very difficult to bring them back together again. I think you're right in saying that happens with non-denominational organisations, but there's something about a denomination (and especially one like Anglicanism) which has the potential to reach a whole city in a way that individual churches may struggle to do.

On the topic of large churches which are not denominational, I think some do an okay job of affirming other churches and the work that goes on there (I found Hillsong to be fantastic at encouraging ministry in local churches and not trying to 'convert' people to Hillsong-ism). However, I think one of the biggest failure of lots of emerging churches is that they condemn more traditional churches and fail to affirm gospel ministry which is going on in those places.

As you can see, I think unity (and visible unity!) is incredibly important. I was particularly struck reading Titus 3 in my Ministry Development Group the other day. After describing in detail the sin which we used to commit, Paul goes on to speak of God's grace and mercy spurring us on to good deeds. He finishes with a final warning:

'But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.' (Titus 3:9-10)

I was struck because it wasn't the previous sins which he pulled out as being reason for excommunicating someone. It was actually divisiveness. It certainly upped unity on my list of important, core issues, and made me think that we should fear God enough to be very careful before talking about splitting his church.

Sorry, I've deviated somewhat from the topic of what the church is. But it is relevant to the topic of unity and divisiveness!

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

2. The Bible was written millennia before there were such things as denominations. Back then, there was just the local church and the universal church. It therefore doesn't directly address issues to do with denominations (such as when to leave, stay, schism, etc.). It was also written in an era when there was probably only one church per city, so changing church wasn't much of an option.

Actually, I wonder if there were a few different options available for early church-goers. Paul addresses the idea of people in Corinth following himself or Apollos - divisions in the church. If Timothy ended up being the only faithful teacher in Ephesus and there were many false teachers, then there seem to be different options about who to follow. Presumably there were differing levels of faithfulness, especially since there were some people who he was to correct gently - I assume these weren't people who were opposed to his more faithful teaching as such, but just weren't competent.

John warns often of the false teachers who are around, and warns people not to offer them hospitality - which I assume means that there is a real danger of John's audience showing support for these teachers (and with that, fellowship).

Jesus himself focussed his prayer in John 17 on the unity of his followers (and interestingly gives mission as one of the reasons for unity): 'May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.' (John 17:23)

So I think the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, has much to say on the topic of the church and unity, and therefore denominations. It seems to me that Paul, given his words to the Corinthians, would have been incredibly distressed to have seen the state that our church is in today.

You're right that the Bible doesn't spell out when to leave/stay/etc, though. I think that means that we need to just think very carefully about the implications of what it does say - and respect that others might do the same thinking but come to different conclusions.

[Jereth]

G'day Cat,

Thanks for sharing your impression of denominations as an unbeliever. It is sad that denominationalism is such a poor witness to the outside world.

However I do rejoice that denominationalism is meaning less and less to younger generations -- as I've been laboring in this thread. One of the things which convinced me of the authenticity of Christianity at uni was the way that people from many different denominations could fellowship together at CU under the word of God, and that people didn't give a rat's ass about church brand names. I had grown up in a denomination with a powerful sense of exclusivism, and so CU's inter-denominationalism was a breath of fresh air.

Given this, I get uncomfortable when I hear Anglicans these days speak as if the Anglican Communion is the be all and end all. For example, when people say things like "let's remain within the church", "let's not split God's church", "let's maintain the unity of the church" -- where "the church" or "God's church" equals Anglicanism. Sometimes there is an undercurrent which isn't usually explicitly stated, but implies that churches outside Anglicanism (especially independent and non-denominational churches) are by nature schismatic. I think it would be healthy for us to take a step back and realise that our beloved denomination is not "God's church", either in the visible or invisible sense -- and that his Spirit is at work in many places outside Anglicanism -- and thus reconsider the sort of language we use in these discussions.

Perhaps also, for every time we talk about departing communion from apostate Anglican provinces, we should also think seriously about how we can strengthen ties with true Christian churches which have different brand names to us.

Interestingly, at Jordan's encouragement I've been reading Calvin's Institutes book 4 chapters 1-2 and, to my mind, the idea of "denominations" is totally foreign to him. I might be misreading him, but he seems to sanction a rather "independent" or "congregational" model of ministry! I can quote a few sections later on if anyone is interested

Jereth

[Cat Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

Given this, I get uncomfortable when I hear Anglicans these days speak as if the Anglican Communion is the be all and end all.

Hi Jereth - I agree 100%. It's probably the danger of all organisations to see their own growth as equivalent to the growth of the kingdom. Necessary humility is needed to avoid this.

Jereth wrote:

However I do rejoice that denominationalism is meaning less and less to younger generations -- as I've been laboring in this thread. One of the things which convinced me of the authenticity of Christianity at uni was the way that people from many different denominations could fellowship together at CU under the word of God, and that people didn't give a rat's ass about church brand names. I had grown up in a denomination with a powerful sense of exclusivism, and so CU's inter-denominationalism was a breath of fresh air.

I think you illustrate well the point that the fractured nature of denominations in the first place is a failure, and what you appreciated is a beautiful re-uniting of faithful Christians to work together for the Gospel. Rather than continuing to split and divide, it would be great to keep working towards reformation and renewal of all parts of the church. Organisations like AFES  do a fantastic job of raising up leaders for lots of different churches, and hopefully the strength of one denomination in a city can affect others through inter-denominational organisations like AFES. I rejoice with you, and hope that both within and across denominations we can seek to strengthen 'the church'. However I don't think that aim is served by putting energy into splitting and dividing existing denominations. (Interestingly, what is served by pulling all 'faithful' believers out of a denomination is the strength of their new denomination - but not the renewal of the churches they leave behind. I don't think the wider church is served by separating all the 'faithful' believers and concentrating them away from others, with little power to influence, strengthen and correct  'weaker' ones.)

[Justin Denholm]

I don't see that valuing denominations needs to take something away from participation with and appreciation of the church universal. While my first allegiance is of course to Jesus, and I welcome fellowship with believers from any denominational persuation, I'm also not ashamed of saying that I value and identify with Anglicanism as a particular expression of that faith. There a number of reasons for this. Some are pragmatic; for instance, my past experience with churches from another denomination with a more congregational structure has led me to value a church governance structure that is less democratic (however imperfectly it is utilised). Some are historical; identifying with a denominational history allows me to own a tradition that connects me with great teachers, martyrs and reformers who have worked to create the church within which I now worship. Some are theological; while I believe, for instance, that there are faithful Christians in the Roman Catholic church, I also think that some of the structures and positions that the church adopts are problematic and I would have trouble worshiping as part of a RCC on a regular basis.

None of these things are me saying that other demoninations are bad, or that they are not full of faithful Christians. What I am saying, though, is that we can both be committed to a particular 'brand' of church and work for its strengthening and renewal as a means to contributing to God's kingdom. I don't want to build up the Anglican church because it is the best church, I want to see it built up so that God is glorified through it. The Anglican church is a mode within which I can try to build up God's church, while others will need to do the same in other denominations along side.

I think it is likely (although others can disagree if they want!) that we will be more effective in our mission in the long run by working within a denomination, rather than outside or parallel to it. This is perhaps not the case for para-church organisations (eg AFES etc), but I think this is a somewhat different question. Operating within denominational structures allows up an opportunity to contribute to God's kingdom in a much broader way than simply at a local church level. Both are important, but its hard to change a city as a solo unaffiliated church.

As a gedankexperiment, would life be any better if all Christians were part of the same denomination (ie if we took the ecumenical movement to its extreme and we all came under the same banner)? While we would gain some things through this display of unity, we would probably lose some other important elements of church life, and we would risk a great deal should this one church be 'derailed' - a real possibility before Christ comes again! At the other extreme, would life be better if all churches were only local and independant? Maybe there would be some things gained by this, but I think we would lose a lot of the momentum and ability to work across cities and countries that denominationalism allows, and the accountablility that structures provide. Having a variety of denominations, all holding to central beliefs of the Christian faith but permitting a range of expressions of church probably keeps us all honest in our ecclesiology.

[Andrew Bowles]

Jereth wrote:

However I do rejoice that denominationalism is meaning less and less to younger generations -- as I've been laboring in this thread. One of the things which convinced me of the authenticity of Christianity at uni was the way that people from many different denominations could fellowship together at CU under the word of God, and that people didn't give a rat's ass about church brand names. I had grown up in a denomination with a powerful sense of exclusivism, and so CU's inter-denominationalism was a breath of fresh air.

I agree that CU and AFES are great demonstrations of inter-denominational unity. They are, however, largely unified by a shared evangelicalism. No-one really has to experience discomfort to join them if they come from an evangelical church. The real gold for me would be if they went to the Catholic group on campus and said 'Hey, you're Christians, we're Christians, sure we disagree about some things, but let's stop meeting separately, and work together for Jesus!'. Now that would be a real witness to the death of denominationalism!

Andrew

[Jereth]

JustinD wrote:

As a gedankexperiment, would life be any better if all Christians were part of the same denomination (ie if we took the ecumenical movement to its extreme and we all came under the same banner)? While we would gain some things through this display of unity, we would probably lose some other important elements of church life, and we would risk a great deal should this one church be 'derailed' - a real possibility before Christ comes again! At the other extreme, would life be better if all churches were only local and independant? Maybe there would be some things gained by this, but I think we would lose a lot of the momentum and ability to work across cities and countries that denominationalism allows, and the accountablility that structures provide. Having a variety of denominations, all holding to central beliefs of the Christian faith but permitting a range of expressions of church probably keeps us all honest in our ecclesiology.

I think you're close to hitting the mark there, mate.

Here's that Calvin quote (Institutes 4.1.9):
the church universal is a multitude gathered from all nations, but agrees on the one truth of divine doctrine, and is bound by the bond of the same religion. Under it are thus included individual churches, disposed in towns and villages according to human need, so that each rightly has the name and authority of the church... If it has the ministry of the Word and honors it, if it has the administration of the sacraments, it deserves without doubt to be held and considered a church. For it is certain that such things are not without fruit. In this way we preserve for the universal church its unity, which devilish spirits have always tried to sunder; and we do not defraud of their authority those lawful assemblies which have been set up in accordance with local needs.

My current feeling is that Anglicanism is in the strife it's currently in because it has leaned too far in the "top-down massive imposing superstructure" direction -- just as Roman Catholicism did -- and consequently minimised (or "defrauded") the legitimate "name and authority" that local congregations have (according to Calvin). On the other hand it is possible to err too much on the side of "bottom-up independence", as you say, which plays into the hand so the sundering devilish spirits.

So back to the corporate analogy: rather than having competing independent brands like Westpac and NAB, or an absolute dictatorial monopoly like Microsoft, it should be like: Myer, Coles, K-Mart, Target and Bi-Lo. Catering to different needs and tastes, but all owned by the same people!
(I'll let everyone decide which of these corresponds to Anglicanism, ha ha!)

Jereth

[Jereth]

Ah, someone agrees with me! From the article by Peter Corney, posted on another thread by Danny.

(3) The myth that people under 45 are denominationally loyal. Denominational
tags are increasingly irrelevant to contemporary people and of little influence in
their decisions about attendance of a congregation. That will be decided by the
variety of programs offered, the quality of worship and teaching, and whether
there is a healthy children’s and youth ministry.

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

I agree with the observation, but we should not assume that 'does' equals 'should'.

Those who freely flit about from church to church inevitably have a lower level of commitment to the denomination to which their present church belongs. At its worst it belongs to a consumerist approach to church. Even at its best, while they might be quite passionate about getting involved in local church ministry, such people fail to look beyond to the broader structures that shape the ministry available in local churches over the long haul. So they make no contribution to the wider denomination because they have no ownership of it. And then they wonder why all the large denominations are turning liberal and tut tut at them!

Would that more evangelical lay people under 45 did have more sense of denominational loyalty, and interest in reforming all the denominations to which they belong, rather than leaving the denominational structures to others.

I don't deny the trend is there, but I think it ought to be taught against. A sound doctrine of church ought not be abandoned because the new generation happens to assume a bad one.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

Hi Matt

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of people having a high commitment to their churches (local churches that is, not denomination). I do not favour people "flitting" from church to church without good reason to make a move. And I'm not favouring a consumerist mentality.

But I'm not convinced that denominational loyalty is all that important; much less that we should preach against denominational apathy. I do not see how a "sound doctrine of church" equates with valuing denominations, while a "bad" doctrine of church does not. Is it possible to show from scripture how this is the case?

My view is that if denominations are functioning usefully and are fruitful they should be made use of, however if they are no longer functional or fruitful (as seems to be  increasingly the case in the 21st century West) then they've outlived their usefulness and there's no reason to keep propping them up.

I'm not one to get too excited by experience (against scripture), but experience does say that the Spirit is working mightily outside of denominations to redeem sinners and bring them into God's church. This is the case in western nations like Australia and the US, and most definitely in places like China. In view of this let's not squeeze God into the denominational box of our fathers.

See: http://blogs.theage.com.au/thereligiouswrite/archives/2007/06/

JEreth

[Justin Denholm]

Jereth,

I think that there are many pragmatically good reasons to be in denominations, but I don't think that this is simply a pragmatic question. I guess my question would not be 'can we prove that denominations need to exist from the Bible' but, given that we have them and are all part of them now, do we have a strong Biblical call to abandon them? If we don't have a clear and scriptural reason to abandon the denominational structures that now exist, then I'm not sure that pragmatism is a good enough justification. This is especially true given how little evidence we have that abandoning denominations would be any more effective in evangelism or building up mature disciples of Christ.

A few pragmatic questions, though:

I would be interested to hear whether you have a viable alternative to denominations. The individual person who is a faithful Christian but happy to move between different churches and denominations is one thing, but it is hard to see how the church could exist if everyone was like that. Surely the ability to move between churches in this way is a luxury that can only be sustained by the presence of many others working within denominations to build strong churches?

How does the unaffiliated Christian contribute to building up the church at large? I think that working within denominational structures is a natural way for Christians to be involved in a mission that is bigger than just ourselves. Sure, there are para-church organisations and other cross-denominational groupings, but these are not churches and don't replace them.

Another question is how non-denominational churches are to be sustained and replicated? Individual churches may be strong and faithful, but probably won't be forever. When a grouping of churches holds together, though, the others can support and sustain one that weakens for a time. New leaders need to be raised up as time goes on, and denominations can sustain theological colleges and other structures that are bigger than the individual church. Although cross-denominational theological college exist, there are relatively few of them and it's easy to see why. It's hard to consistantly raise up and train new leaders in one place without any outside assistance.

I think that denominations are a sensible way for us to participate in the Church of God, and that, on a deeper level, in rejecting the visible church we run some risk of rejecting the true church as well.

Justin

[Andrew Bowles]

Jereth wrote:

I'm not one to get too excited by experience (against scripture), but experience does say that the Spirit is working mightily outside of denominations to redeem sinners and bring them into God's church. This is the case in western nations like Australia and the US, and most definitely in places like China. In view of this let's not squeeze God into the denominational box of our fathers.

There probably needs to be more coherent ideas about tradition and denominations in these sorts of discussions. You seem to be making tradition and denomination synonymous with high, established churches. Congregational churchmanship is also a tradition, one that is several hundred years old at least. Low-church worship styles are a tradition. Many of the denominations that practice them have histories that span centuries. Even the Pentecostal movement is over a hundred years old.

For social and cultural reasons, a significant proportion of the younger generations in Australia are more comfortable with low churches and congregational governance. How significant that is depends on how you slice the statistics. Likewise, for historical reasons, in Australia churches that have low-church worship and congregational government have also been those that have been more strategic with regards to evangelism and church growth, because they had to be to survive without mainstream social acceptability.

These facts leave wide open whether or not churches with high-church worship or episcopal government can be effective missional groups. The indications are that the Anglican church is responding to the situation, and time will tell whether with success or not.

The reason I think it's important to make these distinctions is that it avoids us mistaking temporary cultural trends for enduring historical laws or the immanent voice of the 'zeitgeist', or even the work of the Spirit. A generation ago, who thought that Pentecostals would be the fastest growing religious group in Australia? Likewise, in a generation from now, who knows what the situation will be? By then, what we consider now to be 'relevant' low-church worship will, if it sticks around, be the dated preoccupation of fifty-something fuddy-duddies. Hillsong may be using Gregorian chant and the Latin Mass to pull in all those kids who are part of the 'retro medieval' scene.

The old saying is 'vox populi, vox dei', 'the voice of the people is the voice of God'. Of course we would disagree with that, but we should also be wary of 'vox statistici, vox dei', 'the voice of statistics is the voice of God'. The voice of God is contained in other places altogether.

[Jereth]

G'day Justin,

I ho