A couple of my readers zeroed in on the usefulness of denominations when it comes to identifying distinctive qualities of a church. Here's what they wrote:
One aspect of denominations which deserves more attention is the idea of a name. Of course, the very word "denomination" has its source in the idea of a different name, and the only other common use of the word is for money, that is, denominations of currency. The way we use the word seems to be limited to Christianity; I've never read of Shia or Sunni as denominations of Islam. Further, there are arguments at the edges of Christianity, such as the Mormons, who might like to be called a denomination, although I do not recognize them as such.
The concept of a "name" is actually fairly useful. Martin Luther detested the name "Lutheran," but that has not stopped like-minded theologians from proudly taking it on. It was, though, originally an epithet, as you can see in Pascal's Provincial Letters, for example. The ancients put great stock in names, and for good reason. We have very strong psychological and spiritual ties to the names we have taken on or those given to us. It is for this reason that your self-dissolving associations would surely fail. Who gets to keep the name? Surely both sides in the Episcopal polarization see themselves as the "true Anglicans" and the others as those who have lost the right to the name.
Names are important because they make it easy to categorize people and organizations. It is a primary human need to simplify the world; it would be interesting to see how the early church developed its sense of identity, and how names were important to it. The fact that Luke gives the origin of the "Christian" moniker seems highly significant to me. To surrender the name is to admit that one has changed; even for those of us who acknowledge gradual change as a good thing, few want to think of themselves as having vacillated so far from earlier positions that the name no longer applies.
- E.G. Fredricksburg, TX
Although people do not like to be “labeled” because everyone wants to be unique – we are all very interested in having labels on our food: We want to know what we are getting! If there is an item to which we are allergic, we’ll avoid it. If we find something that the doctor has ordered, we’ll want to include it in our diet.
This is why denominational “distinctives” work – since the phrase “Christian” has such a varied scale of expression – if you happen to be looking for something more particular, you’d like to know about it up front on the label.
Historic churches have outlined their doctrines and polity in historic creeds. When people were more familiar with these specific histories, it made it easier to choose a church when moving to a new town or while on vacation. If for some reason you wanted to attend a church on a Sunday while on a trip, and couldn’t find the type of church you desired, at least you would understand the differences. Since you would know, “Where they were coming from,” you would not need be exercised over a practice or teaching with which you did not agree.
- Kent Moorlach, Irvine, CA. See communionpres.org
I agree with both of these folks in principle. Denominational labels should help folks to know what makes a church distinctive. Unfortunately, in practice, these labels are often less than helpful, especially when it comes to the mainline denominations. These denominations tend to allow for a wide range of theological and stylistic diversity. So a PCUSA church in one location might be theologically evangelical with worship led by a praise band, while in another place a PCUSA might be very liberal with a traditional choir/organ set up. If a church is part of the PCUSA, mostly this tells you something about the church's historical and family ties. I only wish things could be clearer.
Recent Comments