Ten reasons why your church plant should be denominational
1. Denominations are like families. When a new child enters the family, it shares the parent's DNA and surname. Except in disfunctional situations, the grown children remain a part of the family through adulthood. The church that a baptist church begets will be genetically baptist. A presbyterian church will give birth to another presbyterian church. For a parent church to encourage its daughter congregation to disown its heritage and name and become independant is a sign of disfunction. It is a very loud vote of no confidence in the denomination from the parent church and others are right to hear it as such.
2. Denominations provide a structure in which older ministers can guide younger ministers. This doesn't always work, but is very nice when it does.
3. Denominations are a way of acknowledging that churches do not exist independently of each other. Things like good quality theological education does not happen for free. Churches group together to form bible colleges. We owe a lot to the Sydney Anglicans for paying for much of our theological education. Yes, we paid fees, but these wouldn't have come close to covering the cost of the library books we used, the unit we stayed in, the buildings we learnt in, the lecturers we learnt from... Most likely, your independent church isn't actually independent at all.
4. Denominations are a way of humbly acknowledging that we didn't make it up. Our doctrines, our understanding of the bible, our pastoral skills, our way of running church services have all been handed down to us from others. Denominations put tags on particular traditions and stop some potential ministerial arrogance. (Perhaps for this reason, independent churches can tend to be more personality driven...)
5. Denominational churches are more stable than independent churches. There are clear process for dealing with issues and (while annoying) these are actually useful to have. There are allocated people outside the local church to help if things get tricky. Financial and theological accountability (though often poorly done) are available through denominational structures.
6. Theoretically, denominations should be better at defining the bounds of orthodoxy and stamping out heresy than independent churches. (Practically I'm not sure.)
7. Denominational churches have fewer financial decisions to make. Many churches struggle to know how to spend that left over 10% of income. Denominations take away the burden of this decision (by taking the cash!)
8. Denominations are a way of showing that we need and want each other. I'm doing my thing over here, but I care about what you are doing over there.
9. Denominations (should) co-ordinate our efforts in carrying out Jesus' big mission. If I know others are ministering in Mt. Isa, I'll be better able to focus on what I'm doing in my patch.
10. Denominations often come with cash and buildings. Not to be overlooked...
Welcome to mid life.
ReplyDeleteYou surprise me. But in a good way.
I absolutely agree with this. 5 in particular resonates with me. And 1. And 4.
I left a comment but it's disappeared:(
ReplyDeleteI said....
Welcome to mid life.
You surprise me. But in a good way.
I absolutely agree with this. 5 resonates with me particularly. And 1. And 4.
Comment's back! Blogger's been doing that a bit lately.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you surprised?
#1 looks like a circular argument - in that an independent church could plant another independent church...except then they become a denomination themselves anyway.
ReplyDelete#7 looks like you were stretching to get to 10! Leftover income?? Tee hee.
I'll add #11 - why should there be any burden of proof on this anyway? Surely some kind of association with other churches is not only natural but biblical. I'd say you need to give me one good reason to even start thinking about independence!
I've fewer problems with independent churches planting 'independent' churches. As you say, they'll eventually become their own denomination (if they stay in fellowship).
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm surprised whenever I hear anyone champion denominational church planting. Particularly when it comes from an independent thinker like yourself.
ReplyDeleteIt seems so ... well ... old fashioned.
Sorry, but I think this post would be better if you didn't put down independent churches in order to make your point.
ReplyDeleteAs for no. 5, just because a church is independent doesn't mean that it can have no accountability structures. Equally, poor accountability can occur in denominational churches leading to greater public scandal and shame on the wider church as the non-churched public see it as endemic to the "Christian Religion".
I don't think I put down independent churches. Many of my good friends go to independent churches. There are many that are fantastic and theologically sound and financially responsible and outward looking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with reason #6, possibly the most. I like the concept of denominations, if only for the concept of being able to turn up to a church and know that the minister has solemnly vowed before God and His people that he believes the Bible (and that the WCF is an accurate expression of the way in which he understands it).
ReplyDeleteOf course, this doesn't mean that he hasn't lied through his teeth before God and His people.
But it's a good start!
Hmmm. Here are some wise words about denominations from a former principal of a theological college not far from here.
ReplyDeleteHis support for denominationalism is, like mine, considerably more lukewarm!
I think he was writing a long time ago to address different issues than I am writing to address now. But if I were an anglican I might be more lukewarm in my support for denominations too! DBK really just wanted to be a presbyterian like me:
ReplyDelete"A denomination is seen in its best light when viewed from the service which it provides for the local Christian assemblies. Thus it normally provides expert advice and mediation in many areas; it provides training colleges for the ministers; it provides financial facilities for the purchase of congregational amenities, such as a church building to assemble in, a residence for the minister and suchlike. It also provides a channel for supporting missionaries in their ministry overseas, and in this respect it has a New Testament prototype in the aid the Philippians provided Paul for the full time exercise of his ministry."
Please note that my comments below are based on my personal experience in the Anglican, Baptist and Churches of Christ denominations and in independent churches, as well as reading about the Roman and other churches. [For everyone else, Simone said she's ok with my posting this comment - just in case this comes across as harsh. :-)]
ReplyDeleteI was responding to the following comments:
"Most likely, your independent church isn't actually independent at all." - Point 3
"(Perhaps for this reason, independent churches can tend to be more personality driven...)" - Point 4
"Denominational churches are more stable than independent churches." - Point 5
I find it unhelpful to word things this way. Perhaps for Point 5 you could simply say, "Denominational churches are stable".
With respect to Point 4, the Roman Church's history of seeing the Pope's words as equivalent with Scripture in authority and the idea of rising while the vicar walks in and out in Anglican services are points against the cult of personality / position being more likely in non-denominational churches.
You may also find that many of the ways of running services have little to do with Biblical Christianity and more to do with cultural norms (including the norms of Roman judicial and pagan practises) that were handed down by past generations. Some practises may be useful and some may not but you'll find many examples of "but we've always done it this way" in any church because that's the nature of humanity.
However, we are perhaps using differing understandings of the term "independent". To me they are not mutually exclusive as, for instance, Baptist and Churches of Christ churches are independent congregations who join together in unions.
As I understand it, they are independent financially and in local structure but work together in a mutually beneficial way. This means that they aren't using large chunks of their budget to support a hierarchy of people who may or may not support them in return.
I guess I'm just saying that I see the comments I highlighted as being either un-necessary to your point or could have been worded better.
And yes, you get to call me on it when I say something that could be worded better too. The Good Lord knows I need it. :-)
Hey Laetitia.
ReplyDeleteI said denominational churches are more stable than ind. churches because that's what I think. I don't think denom. churches are particularly stable - just more stable, generally.
On point 4, I wasn't saying that a denomination's way of doing something is right and biblical. Just that it's not been made up by this generation.
I do class baptists and church of christ as denominations. They are churches acknowledging some link with eachother and working together. I like that.
Thanks.
2 points from Angry Young Man.
ReplyDelete#1.
Gotta love the company line from Sydney.
"It doesn't matter what denomination you are, as long as you're Sydney Anglican."
#2.
I don't understand how Evangelicals who love the bible, love Jesus and claim to love his church can setup 'independent' churches and keep a straight face. The desire for independence is somewhere near the heart of sin.
love it.
ReplyDelete"The desire for independence is somewhere near the heart of sin."
ReplyDeleteThat's ascribing a particularly nasty motive to those who plant churches because they are frustrated with the constraints of denominational structures on the work of the gospel - some of which are equally close to the heart of sin.
Agreed. Our power of self-deception knows no bounds.
ReplyDeleteIn a country where 80% of people aren't involved in any kind of church, I think there's plenty of room for both denominational and non-denominational plants. The question of affiliation involves an analysis of its costs and benefits to discipleship and mission. In order to do the analysis, you need to think about what your local denominational structure is really like (not what it should be like). And you need to see that while collaboration is unquestionably good, denominations are not the only way of collaborating.
ReplyDeleteOf course, for a certain style of plant, 10 is a real benefit. But not all plants need such things. (They also allow ineffective plants to limp along, when perhaps people, time, and money resources could've been better used elsewhere.)
As you have noted, the benefits listed at points 2 and 6 often just aren't there in reality. Regrettably, contra point 4, I haven't found that denominational affiliation has much influence on humility — arrogance and personality-cults are found in churches of every stripe. And often the collaboration you mention in 3, 8, and 9 isn't real, either. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but in my experience I haven't found that churches in different parishes do much together. (Even a Bible college is not necessarily a real collaboration between local churches: it's an independent entity, which can in fact compete with the interests of local churches, even though it is partially funded by them.) Further, in rural areas (where I have seen a bit more collaboration), it's churches in different denominations — and none at all — working together.
This illustrates that there are other ways to collaborate without being part of the same (or any) denomination — there are plenty of ways of getting collaborative benefits without paying the denominational costs.
Such costs might include: requiring permission or oversight from unbelievers (e.g. many Anglican dioceses); outdated, unbiblical, or obstructionist polity, and; the inability to change nimbly to meet the demands of local discipleship and mission. (What you list as a benefit at point 5 can actually be a cost for a start-up: we have been in two church plants which died at least in part because they relied on the mother-churches' sluggish decision-making mechanisms.)
Not all denominational set-ups are bad, of course: you have to look in detail at the real circumstances of the denominational structure where you are in order to make a sensible decision about the costs and benefits. And whatever our denominational affiliation, we should be looking to work together for the sake of Jesus' kingdom, rather than our own — something that's easy to say, but apparently very hard to do.
Hehehe - Simone, if you ever want to get your comment stat's up, it looks like talking about denominations is the way to go. :-)
ReplyDeletePoint 4 - a case of, "but officer, this old guy came up to me and gave me this can to carry"? :-)
By stable, do you mean "likely to be here next year and 50 years after that" or do you mean "likely to have the same set of beliefs as next year and 50 years after that"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHmm - I'm tempted to do 10 reasons why your church (plant or not) should not be donominational. Sadly I'm not clever enough to come up with 10, and it might be a tad hypocritical coming from a member of an Anglican church. So, here's to doing things by halves, purely for the sake of illusory balance. BTW I'm more mid-life than you...
ReplyDeleteA couple of the reasons would be.
1. The Church was meant to be united - "all men will know you are my disciples if you love each other". Denominations perpetuate our divisions by focusing around the issues that divide, even if these are becoming increasingly irrelevant with the passing of time.
2. Most people in any community are non-aligned and hence will be alienated by your label.
3. An increasing proportion of "ordinary" Christians are in practice non-aligned - they go to a denominational church because that's all that's available, but if they change churches will also happily change denominations.
4. Church cooperation need not be along denominational lines, and often isn't - a large number of mission societies and even some theological colleges are interdenominational.
5. Denominations entrench the history of the church - it is good to preserve tradition but bad to institutionalise and sanctify our mistakes.
The future of the church needs to be post-denominational and church plants, being fresh, are a good way to move into that future. But it's harder work to change something than to keep it the same.
I don't think I've commented on your blog before - I linked to you through Kutz.