![]() |
When an evangelism minded Arminian can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why should he stop in? |
The worst part
about being a younger sibling is inheriting someone else' reputation.
Other youngest children will relate to this – walking into high
school and the teacher saying, “Oh you're a Deane? I expect you to
get an A in this class.” It's the shadow-drowning shoe-filling
everyone dreads – being compared, for better or worse, to someone
else. Churches are no different, and there has been an upswing in
recent years of churches removing 'Baptist,' 'Methodist,' or other
affiliations from their name. It's the same simple logic - 'don't
want to ride the bad reputation of Bible-thumpers in days gone by.'
For better or for worse, no one wants to be judged by their name.
Here we will
examine the three most common reasons for becoming non-denominational
– reputation in the community, a history of fighting over doctrinal differences, and disunity
between churches - and defend denominationalism.
'The denominational name affects our reputation.'
“My neighbour doesn't want to come to church with me, he says he was badly treated once at a Baptist church.” We can all appreciate the logic of this thought, but does removing 'Baptist' from your name solve the problem? As long as you have 'church' in your name you'll encounter the same problem. Remove 'church' from your name and you'll lose all the people who love church and are searching for a home.
And what about people with theological convictions? Men and women who know their Bibles and know exactly where they stand – these are the kind of people you want in your church. When an evangelism minded Arminian can't see 'Wesleyan' on the sign, why should he stop in?
If you want to have a church that's worth attending, you're going to offend people. And if you don't do it with the sign on your front lawn, you'll certainly do it with all the things the sign stands for.
'Holding to a
denomination means owning a history of petty doctrinal fights.'
This is a common
reason for a name switch, and with good reason. No one wants to be
labelled as Bible thumpers just because their grandparents were. But
just because theological issues cause debate and heated feelings
doesn't mean they aren't important. Being 'one body' (1 Cor 12:12)
that is to 'all be one' (John 17:21) means to 'work out salvation'
(Php 2:12) together. Since working out salvation means discussing
(for example) what role God plays in the process, and the last 500
years hasn't found consensus on the issue, disagreement among God's
people should be expected.
Do you see the
value of the Luther's Reformation? Do you see the value of the
fundamentalist fight in the 1900s to reestablish the Bible as God's
inspired word? Then you see the value of holding convictions. All it
means to have a denominational name on your front lawn is to tell the
world what your churches convictions are. Saying 'we are the
Neighbourhood Christian and Missionary Alliance' is like saying, 'we
are evangelical and value sanctification and the work of the Spirit,
world missions and servanthood.' While saying 'Neighbourhood Church'
is like saying 'we might still be Catholic, you never know.' To be denominationless is to be (in appearance) convictionless.
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2unOjfi6796bqYTJYNESUFZKRyVWEhWWaOlIFbosqt6DSaFWmTM4Ard8rlO_ST9cU04TPUh699br_4n2zofvUQ5ynLru-bydWkO75dL82GVZ0xjzVU62gcQjLJDchLB9M1qBmkndOC8o/s1600/th.jpg)
'Being of a
certain school of thought affects the unity of our church.'
Individuals need to
explore theology at a deeper lever, form opinions, and present their
opinions – not to tear down other thought but to edify the church.
If you are so grace driven you don't see the value of repentance, and
I am so works driven I don't see the value of faith, then in the
proper format, we would do well learning from each other. If
individuals need it, why not churches? Arguing is of no benefit, but
neither is entrenching behind walls of opinion. Open discussion is
very valuable among evangelicals who agree on the fundamental issues
(authority of Scripture, grace through faith, etc.).
As Jeremiah
Burroughs once taught, it is unrealistic to expect that issues that
have been debated for two thousand years will be able to be sorted
out now. Furthermore, it is unwise to dismiss these 'secondary
issues' as unimportant. People must continue to hold opinions on
matters that do not pertain to salvation (politics, eschatology,
etc.) because to be forced to believe otherwise on these issues would
be to violate one's conscience. No single church structure can
represent the true body of Christ, but rather, independent churches
ought to be striving together to fully live out the Word of God. This
means denominations working together toward a common goal, while
being open to one another's critiques of their means. When there is
open dialogue about the means a church uses to pursue the common
goal, there is the greatest opportunity for unity among diverse
people.
A better solution
is not to remove from the churches the name which offends, but use
the differing opinions as a starting point for edifying theological
insight. If the left-wing churches could create compromising debate
with the right-wing churches we would be less likely to become
extremists. I'm not talking about universalism, I'm talking about
profitable clergy meetings among evangelical leaders.
Conclusion
If no one had
convictions, no one could debate. If we weren't allowed to take sides
on issues that have been the centre of hot discussion for thousands
of years, we wouldn't be able to explore the character of God, the
meaning of the cross, the process of salvation – everything
important would be unoffensive, convictionless and bland. Theological
issues need to have sides – and open conversations between those
sides. Hiding which side you're on only makes your church attractive
until someone walks through your door.