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.

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

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

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.

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.