A friend and I meet for lunch every few months. We were both raised in a large denomination where most of the churches are in the southern US. We also were colleagues at a denominational entity. As we talked about the denomination we once served, it was clear that he no longer considered himself or his church part of that denomination. We both had chosen to distance ourselves from that denomination for different reasons. One thing we agreed on was the fact that this denomination no longer placed the local church at the center of its mission. It had become more concerned about control of institutions and political influence.
In the 21st century, the denominational brand is not as important as it once was. Certainly, there are still those who, if they choose to be part of a local congregation, select one related to the denomination of their childhood tradition. More often, the choice is based on other considerations—worship style, core emphasis, mission involvement, or friendships in the church.
If a denomination still thinks it is the most important factor in church growth and health, its leadership is living in the wrong century. In keeping with an old axiom, the dog’s tail wags when the dog is happy. iI the church is the dog, and the denomination is the tail, what’s source of the tail wagging? In most cases it is the health of the local church not the health of the denomination.
There are churches that have maintained a denominational identity, but their growth and health are not necessarily tied to that denomination. Saddleback Community Church in Southern California is an example among Southern Baptists. The Church of the Resurrection in Kansas City is an example among United Methodists. They are thriving churches more because of who they are as local expressions of the body of Christ than because of their denominational ties. Perhaps the denomination needs them more than they need the denomination.
Another change in connectionalism is in the perception of the importance of local church leaders to be involved in the denomination. At one time, churches felt it was important for their clergy leaders to have active roles in the national denomination and made allowances for that involvement. It was, in fact, a matter of pride. This is not as true today. Church members expect their clergy to give priority to congregational leadership. They want their leaders to focus on the work of the church.
Local congregations also tend to have difficulty grasping more than one “big idea” at a time and doctrinal purity is not one of them. The “big idea” may be the Great Commission, social justice, or (unfortunately) political ideology. Doctrinal purity for the denomination is probably not one of those.
Add to this the fact that most congregants today have little involvement with the larger denominational structure. Few connect with local, state, or national entities on a regular basis. Training and resources are plentiful and rarely connected to the denomination with which the church may identify.
My denominational background emphasized two key ideas—local church autonomy and cooperation. We are now in a time when the two may no longer be compatible or perhaps both should be seen in a different light. Local church autonomy means that a congregation must discern its own unique calling in the God’s mission rather than accepting a denominational edict. Cooperation may mean working with those who have a common goal even if those are people of other faith traditions.
Ultimately, the key to Kingdom work is to keep the dog healthy and let the tail wag as a result.
Comments