Tony Jones has been receiving heat and attention for his comments on denominations and ordination in several spots on the web. What bothers me is that there appears to be two groups that have emerged from the clutter. One is deeply confused and even offended at the notion that in spite of a situation like Adam's, that he would persist with the PCUSA and further that there are those who support this persistence and even recommend it. The other group are those who are deeply committed to their denominational traditions and even defensive of maintaining the integrity of their denomination in spite of its relative failings. Tony appears favor the former position. For example, in response to Adam's public disclosure of his own circuitous ordination process, Tony replied in comments:
(T)hose of you who leave comments trying to help Adam negotiate the sinful, dehumanizing system are complicit in the sin.
In a further rejoinder, Tony says:
But maybe, just maybe, your loyalty to the system is blinding you to the abuses in your system and thus mitigating your ability to reform it.
The part where I find no disagreement is that denominations are sinful. It is part of the paradox of Christianity which Luther summed up perfectly in simul justus et peccator. There is no individual who does not live within this paradoxical tension and thus, there can be absolutely no human organization that can claim immutability in terms of its organizational structure, dogma, doctrine, etc. All fall short from the glory of God because all of this is simply not God. For those who place the social structures of any kind of human organization as somehow specially ordained to be the only place to receive God in effect does place God within the human organization itself. In the Hebrew bible this was symbolized by the Temple and the revolution that God was not literally located in the Temple, but outside of it too in the tabernacle. Now my Catholic friends and family may find this a bit offensive, and if it sounds reasonable, then a better understanding of Catholic ecclesiology may be in order.
However, two areas that are problematic are first, the label of "sinful" to denominations in particular. If the above holds true, it does not matter what organizational structure (or lack thereof) we appeal to, they are all sinful. Since we as human must organize, then all kinds of ways we organize ourselves are inherently sinful. We simply cannot favor or disparage a structure just because it is an organization to which people feel drawn and attached. Such is very normal human behavior. Humans require organizational structure even as the image bearers of God who, to use Barth's term describing the Trinity, "being-in-community." In the past, the movement against denominational identity did not result in some kind of meta-organization that got rid of denominational boundaries. Rather, the Disciples of Christ became one more religious choice for Americans.
Second, using "-ist" to describe a one who belongs to a denominational church couches it in ideological terms (e.g. an "ism") which may or may not be true. For example, I am not PCUSA because it suits a specific ideological need of mine. As with most Americans who are in denominations, it is a function of my shared past with my family, communities that shaped me, and so on. Upon learning more about the roots of the denominations and the core of it expressed in the Book of Order and the Book of Confessions, I found that it made sense to me. And by the time this happened on an intellectually satisfying level for me, I had already formed a network of strong, salient, and important relationships with those who were in the PCUSA and I enjoy continuing to cultivate those relationships – even in spite of those people in the organization that make we want to run away. Such people are everywhere no matter where you go.
The point is that denominations for most people, as numerous studies have revealed over the past 20 or so years, remain important influences because those organizations continue to work for them and nourish faith. People affiliate with denominations and are not affiliating with an ideology, they are affiliating with people in what is more and more a provisional expression of what God intends for humanity as post WWII generations continue to be persistent church switchers, hoppers, and shoppers.
It is important to remember is that all human beings are social animals. All social animals build social worlds with structures. Living without some kind of implicit or explicit organizational structure is the same as saying that one is not a normal human. Those who negotiate with the sinful are not complicit with sin, even Jesus had dinner with sinners and washed their feet. For if we are all sinners, we are all complicit since we are all social animals and must function together as a people. Running from one sinful human organization will lead you into the bosom of another, even if that organization of people intentionally eschews an organizational identity. The polity in the end should not matter and should only be useful to the church's function. Thus, what matters is that those in that polity strive to make their form follow their function which is to serve the Kingdom of God which is revealed through all of those who proclaim Christ as Lord.
Related posts:
I agree with all of this 100%. What concerns me, and what I speak out against, repeatedly, are those members of an "ism" who wear their "ist" as a point of pride and superiority.
We must be clear, this social organization did not occur organically, all at once, with groups here and there springing up spontaneously and coincidentally. We have "ism" and "ist" because of schism. We have denominations because Group A decided Group B was wrong, and decided to drive a wedge to separate the two. They placed purity of doctrine above unity of spirit.
The very inherent sinfulness of any human organization that you admit to here is woven into the very birth pangs of every single "ism" and "ist" in our 2,000 year history. If we celebrate the diversity of our expressions of faith, instead of lamenting our inability to remain a unified Body and Bride of Christ, I think we miss the consequences of our own actions. Schism is indefensible. If denominationalism did not flow from schism, but flowed organically from human diversity, there would be something in denominationalism worth saving and treasuring. But the only correct way to celebrate diversity is to -come together- first in unity.
There is no one, true, right, perfect sect to which we should all belong _in the sense that if you look at the creed or statement of faith of any given sect you could identify flaws or points of contention_. HOWEVER, were we to all unify and form one holy church, one Body and Bride of Christ -in spite of- our differences (not a lowest common denominator ecumenicism, but a genuinely heterogeneous mingling of beliefs) that would be the closest we could hope to achieve.
Good stuff Drew. One addition I would make is that polity can also help to buffer the sin inherent in being human and part of human social structures. It can never blot out all of our transgression, but at least it can mitigate them a bit and provide helpful reminders. My take is that this is precisely what our (that is PC USA folk) beloved Book of Order (praise be its name
attempts to do. Thanks for the helpful perspective.
Drew,
Great post. It is unfortunate that there has been so little theological work done over the last several decades to provide a theological understanding of denominations. (Let me show my cards here: I'm working on a doctoral dissertation on precisely this topic. Caveat lector is, I think, the appropriate warning here – if I have the Latin even remotely correct.)
The church has always been pluriform, just as creation itself is pluriform. We Presbyterians have given up on the claim that there is one form of organizational structure set forth by Scripture and to be followed by all Christians – we had entertained arguments that our system was the one divinely decreed order (see Book of Order G-4.0304). If Scripture does not specify a single order, then what other authority is there to tell us what one structure we all have to be part of? Christ? Speaking where – if not in Scripture itself?
When Jesus Christ prays that his followers may be one, does "one" mean "in one institutional structure?" At the very least, the answer to that question is not obvious. I think the answer is "no."
Let me state plainly at this point: there is no guarantee that it is or was right for a group of Christians to go off/split off and form a new denomination. Rightness or wrongness will have to be weighed in each case. As you note, it's likely that every case will be a mixture of sin and virtue, always in varying proportions.
Obviously, there's lots more to be said around this, much of it tentative and exploratory.
One last note. A suggested revision to tweak things a bit. You wrote "For those who place the social structures of any kind of human organization as somehow specially ordained to be the only place to receive God in effect does place God within the human organization itself." Yes . . . and we could also say that what it does is to place a particular human organization within God.
Discussion with Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are going to be tough at this point, no? Not impossible, but intense (if there is open and honest discussion).
Thanks again, Barry Ensign-George
Drew,
Great post. It is unfortunate that there has been so little theological work done over the last several decades to provide a theological understanding of denominations. (Let me show my cards here: I'm working on a doctoral dissertation on precisely this topic. Caveat lector is, I think, the appropriate warning here – if I have the Latin even remotely correct.)
The church has always been pluriform, just as creation itself is pluriform. We Presbyterians have given up on the claim that there is one form of organizational structure set forth by Scripture and to be followed by all Christians – we had entertained arguments that our system was the one divinely decreed order (see Book of Order G-4.0304). If Scripture does not specify a single order, then what other authority is there to tell us what one structure we all have to be part of? Christ? Speaking where – if not in Scripture itself?
When Jesus Christ prays that his followers may be one, does "one" mean "in one institutional structure?" At the very least, the answer to that question is not obvious. I think the answer is "no."
Let me state plainly at this point: there is no guarantee that it is or was right for a group of Christians to go off/split off and form a new denomination. Rightness or wrongness will have to be weighed in each case. As you note, it's likely that every case will be a mixture of sin and virtue, always in varying proportions.
Obviously, there's lots more to be said around this, much of it tentative and exploratory.
One last note. A suggested revision to tweak things a bit. You wrote "For those who place the social structures of any kind of human organization as somehow specially ordained to be the only place to receive God in effect does place God within the human organization itself." Yes . . . and we could also say that what it does is to place a particular human organization within God.
Discussion with Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are going to be tough at this point, no? Not impossible, but intense (if there is open and honest discussion).
Thanks again, Barry Ensign-George
Barry,
I do think that this is a sticky point with Catholics and Orthodox, however, there is enough in Scripture and enough material from a rational standpoint to suggest that their initial interpretation of the origin and function of tradition is wrong. This is why I am Reformed now (I was baptized Catholic and have deep familial roots in Eastern Orthodoxy as well…!).
My point really is one of pragmatism. I think we latch onto traditions that best work for us – even if that "tradition" is the formation of a new one that rejects traditionalism. Even emergents have been forming their own traditional language in order to oppose traditional"ism". I think this is a good corrective for this time. But the danger is that it can become one ideology opposing other ideologies. Then it becomes one choice among others; an alternative in a set of equals among post-industrial believers.
In other words, you have to stake a claim on your organization at some point if you choose to persist in a functional relationship with people. If it is too sectarian or too ambiguous it will not survive and the research on new religious movements bears this out as basically axiomatic of human behavior.
I agree with all of this 100%. What concerns me, and what I speak out against, repeatedly, are those members of an "ism" who wear their "ist" as a point of pride and superiority.
We must be clear, this social organization did not occur organically, all at once, with groups here and there springing up spontaneously and coincidentally. We have "ism" and "ist" because of schism. We have denominations because Group A decided Group B was wrong, and decided to drive a wedge to separate the two. They placed purity of doctrine above unity of spirit.
The very inherent sinfulness of any human organization that you admit to here is woven into the very birth pangs of every single "ism" and "ist" in our 2,000 year history. If we celebrate the diversity of our expressions of faith, instead of lamenting our inability to remain a unified Body and Bride of Christ, I think we miss the consequences of our own actions. Schism is indefensible. If denominationalism did not flow from schism, but flowed organically from human diversity, there would be something in denominationalism worth saving and treasuring. But the only correct way to celebrate diversity is to -come together- first in unity.
There is no one, true, right, perfect sect to which we should all belong _in the sense that if you look at the creed or statement of faith of any given sect you could identify flaws or points of contention_. HOWEVER, were we to all unify and form one holy church, one Body and Bride of Christ -in spite of- our differences (not a lowest common denominator ecumenicism, but a genuinely heterogeneous mingling of beliefs) that would be the closest we could hope to achieve.
Good stuff Drew. One addition I would make is that polity can also help to buffer the sin inherent in being human and part of human social structures. It can never blot out all of our transgression, but at least it can mitigate them a bit and provide helpful reminders. My take is that this is precisely what our (that is PC USA folk) beloved Book of Order (praise be its name
attempts to do. Thanks for the helpful perspective.
[...] Notes From Off Center: on denominationalism [...]
Drew,
Great post. It is unfortunate that there has been so little theological work done over the last several decades to provide a theological understanding of denominations. (Let me show my cards here: I'm working on a doctoral dissertation on precisely this topic. Caveat lector is, I think, the appropriate warning here – if I have the Latin even remotely correct.)
The church has always been pluriform, just as creation itself is pluriform. We Presbyterians have given up on the claim that there is one form of organizational structure set forth by Scripture and to be followed by all Christians – we had entertained arguments that our system was the one divinely decreed order (see Book of Order G-4.0304). If Scripture does not specify a single order, then what other authority is there to tell us what one structure we all have to be part of? Christ? Speaking where – if not in Scripture itself?
When Jesus Christ prays that his followers may be one, does "one" mean "in one institutional structure?" At the very least, the answer to that question is not obvious. I think the answer is "no."
Let me state plainly at this point: there is no guarantee that it is or was right for a group of Christians to go off/split off and form a new denomination. Rightness or wrongness will have to be weighed in each case. As you note, it's likely that every case will be a mixture of sin and virtue, always in varying proportions.
Obviously, there's lots more to be said around this, much of it tentative and exploratory.
One last note. A suggested revision to tweak things a bit. You wrote "For those who place the social structures of any kind of human organization as somehow specially ordained to be the only place to receive God in effect does place God within the human organization itself." Yes . . . and we could also say that what it does is to place a particular human organization within God.
Discussion with Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are going to be tough at this point, no? Not impossible, but intense (if there is open and honest discussion).
Thanks again, Barry Ensign-George
Drew,
Great post. It is unfortunate that there has been so little theological work done over the last several decades to provide a theological understanding of denominations. (Let me show my cards here: I'm working on a doctoral dissertation on precisely this topic. Caveat lector is, I think, the appropriate warning here – if I have the Latin even remotely correct.)
The church has always been pluriform, just as creation itself is pluriform. We Presbyterians have given up on the claim that there is one form of organizational structure set forth by Scripture and to be followed by all Christians – we had entertained arguments that our system was the one divinely decreed order (see Book of Order G-4.0304). If Scripture does not specify a single order, then what other authority is there to tell us what one structure we all have to be part of? Christ? Speaking where – if not in Scripture itself?
When Jesus Christ prays that his followers may be one, does "one" mean "in one institutional structure?" At the very least, the answer to that question is not obvious. I think the answer is "no."
Let me state plainly at this point: there is no guarantee that it is or was right for a group of Christians to go off/split off and form a new denomination. Rightness or wrongness will have to be weighed in each case. As you note, it's likely that every case will be a mixture of sin and virtue, always in varying proportions.
Obviously, there's lots more to be said around this, much of it tentative and exploratory.
One last note. A suggested revision to tweak things a bit. You wrote "For those who place the social structures of any kind of human organization as somehow specially ordained to be the only place to receive God in effect does place God within the human organization itself." Yes . . . and we could also say that what it does is to place a particular human organization within God.
Discussion with Roman Catholics and the Orthodox are going to be tough at this point, no? Not impossible, but intense (if there is open and honest discussion).
Thanks again, Barry Ensign-George
Barry,
I do think that this is a sticky point with Catholics and Orthodox, however, there is enough in Scripture and enough material from a rational standpoint to suggest that their initial interpretation of the origin and function of tradition is wrong. This is why I am Reformed now (I was baptized Catholic and have deep familial roots in Eastern Orthodoxy as well…!).
My point really is one of pragmatism. I think we latch onto traditions that best work for us – even if that "tradition" is the formation of a new one that rejects traditionalism. Even emergents have been forming their own traditional language in order to oppose traditional"ism". I think this is a good corrective for this time. But the danger is that it can become one ideology opposing other ideologies. Then it becomes one choice among others; an alternative in a set of equals among post-industrial believers.
In other words, you have to stake a claim on your organization at some point if you choose to persist in a functional relationship with people. If it is too sectarian or too ambiguous it will not survive and the research on new religious movements bears this out as basically axiomatic of human behavior.
[...] A graphical representation of denominationalism – And some good commentary as well. [...]
[...] Andrew Tatum, Mike Morrell, Tim Ghali, Emerging Methodists, Amanda Cash, Greg Bolt, The GA Junkie, Drew Tatusko, Chad Holtz and last but certainly not least, the Christian Research Network now has even more [...]
[...] Notes From Off Center: on denominationalism [...]