I am regularly asked if denominations still matter. Actually, I am asked often why I work for one. And, I answer consistently for the same reason - I think we can do more together than we can alone.
However, denominations are in an important time of rethinking right now. I believe that many denominations, including mine, will look significantly different twenty years from now.
In Breaking the Missional Code, we wrote about denominations:
If they exist for more than the (very important) task of sending intentional missionaries, they need to consider how to partner with the churches and their leaders. Lyle Shaller comments, "The denominational systems that were designed to serve the clientele of 1955 and to work in the cultural, social, religious, economic, and demographic context of that era have failed when the unanticipated became the new reality." The old system, Schaller says "collapsed because they were designed to serve a foreseeable set of circumstances." That is what he means by the "new reality." (Breaking the Missional Code, pg. 174)
We suggested that there were four things to consider:
1. How they define the basis for cooperation. Denominations that insist on specific forms of programming and expressions of church will be challenged in the near future. On the other hand, those that define their cooperation around biblical beliefs and missions as a foundation for cooperation will continue to have a bright future.
2. How effective will they be at staying out of the headlines for things that do not matter? Over the past few years, a growing number of churches have chosen not to align with a denomination due to bad publicity in their denomination...
3. How effective are they at developing meaningful partnership with churches, networks, and parachurch organizations? The denominational agencies that learn to "dance" with other organizations can play a significant role in the future, especially if they are willing to bring their resources to the table of other potential significant partners. Networking and partnering is the future. The potential for great synergy is hard to overstate. Those that are going to navigate the transitions of the church must become effective at such partnerships, networks, and relationships.
4. How effective are they at adding value to the mission of the church? Denominations can play a number of key roles to add value to those committed to breaking the code. In short, denominational agencies that catch a vision for local churches and their apostolic ministries have a bright future. Will they have to be reengineered? For the most part, yes, but at the same time, there are several key roles they can play.
(pp. 175, 176)
Now, Lyle Schaller has some clear advice for denominations.
I am convinced that for denominational systems to produce the desired outcomes in the twenty-first century, and to be able to do what we know must be done, will require radical changes in denominational systems including moving evangelism and missions to the top of the agenda. (pg. 176)
I agree.
We suggested that denominations can and should be engaged in a series of activites:
Cast a vision for a new tomorrow. Denominational agencies for the most part have a unique vantage point from which to see the world. Often, those of us who are in the church can be too close to the trees to see the forest. At other times, we are too close to the forest to see the trees. Denominational agencies can serve a vital role in keeping us informed of our progress in regard to reaching the many unreached people living in North America. Someone has to monitor the pulse if we are going to make a difference. Casting vision and informing that vision with real time research is essential to our future.
Lift up apostolic heroes. Denominational agencies can continue to tell the story of real apostolic heroes...
Conduct relevant research. Few churches are equipped to do the kind of research required to break the code. Sure, some of it is intuitive and other aspects are simply Holy Spirit-led. But how do we begin to see the need and develop a holistic strategy for discipling an entire city or region? Who and where are the hidden people? How do we reach them? If we do not know, where do we begin? What do we do with our new findings? How do we communicate with others coming behind us? Denominational agencies can come alongside these apostolic leaders and ministries and help provide good research.
Supplement the local church in equipping apostolic leaders...
Network learning communities and reporting results...
Provide financial resources for apostolic leaders...
Help leaders move beyond their own ethnic, economic model or other ghetto...
(pp. 176-79)
Denominations can help bridge the gaps, bringing different kinds of leaders together for kingdom impact.
Denominations are in a challenging time right now... and I believe things will get worse for denominations before they get better. However, I believe the best denominational partnerships are yet to come when denominations get re-focused on serving churches and helping them fulfill the Great Commission. Lyle Shaller explains that denominations will thrive when they ask churches, "How can we help you fulfill the Great Commission?" Schaller says that our ultimate goal is a "customized evangelistic strategy" for every church. (pg. 179)
The bottom line is that churches are pointing to a different future. Denominations need to serve churches to accomplish their mission. The "customers" of every denomination are its churches and church leaders. The mission of every denomination is to help churches accomplish what God has called them to do. Denominations matter because they don't have to amount to a splintering of the church, but can be a means of unifying churches around gospel and mission.
When denominations are focused on churches, churches will network with them and other partnerships for kingdom impact.
Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:23 PM ~ 12 Comments
Tagged with: denominations, missional, sbc
I have thought for some time we need some research on how to GROW a denomination. We know how to grow a church. How do you grow a group of churches? What are the most effective Associations / State Conventions doing to grow a group of churches?
Josh Hunt
Helping groups double
www.joshhunt.com
Ed,
Good thoughts. The problem that I see comes from the fact that the people that work for the denomination are beholden to the denomination. Change cannot come from within because people who draw their paycheck from the denomination are conflicted in their views. People will not come up with the idea of cutting their own job, for example. It is kind of like government in that way.
The people that could really reform the denomination are the ones who are in it, but they sit outside of the apparatus. Unfortunately, they have no voice.
I wonder about the actual shelf life of these things. Like empires, denominations might have a life cycle that is impossible to break. The creative energy needed to renew it does not exist toward the end because it has been pushed out by the bureaucracy. Ultimately, a survival mindset sets in and the hard things that need to be done are not done because no one has the courage to do it. We just work harder at what doesn't work.
Creative people don't want to fool with that, nor are they allowed to. So, an impasse is reached and something new emerges.
How would you see this renewal actually happening? Besides ideas, what means can be employed to do what you are saying here? Where do the creative people come from to bring renewal?
I agree with Alan wholeheartedly. Most denominations become monsters in the same way as most governments. We fuel the machine until we run out and then we figure out a way to find more fuel.
I was recently at a state convention when an employee of that state convention made the statement (from the pulpit) that if churches did not start sending more money to the Cooperative Program then they were essentially voting to bring missionaries home. The greatest concern I have is with this mentality. Maybe the better question is, "Which jobs within the state convention and within other SBC entities could we cut or which salaries could be cut in order to keep missionaries on the field?" I am almost certain that this is the better question to ask!
The problem is that just like the government, we want to continue spending without giving up anything. We want larger salaries, better benefits, and bigger expense accounts more than we want to have missionaries on the field.
By the way I serve at a church that gives 10% to the CP. I am not against it but I am against the waste that goes on within the different agencies. Maybe we should form a new organization - Southern Baptists Against SBC Entity Waste!
Challenging words.
I do not think that you can expect a denomination to reform itself when its leaders work for the system they are supposed to reform.
Ed
um Ed...the SBC is not a denomination...sheeesh!!!
Dito on the above statements.
I think we should be in it for the mission agencies, seminaries and campus ministry. A great deal of the rest could disappear an no one would even notice.
I totally agree that we can do more together. I love the fact that we can get things done by using each others strengths. It lowers competition within. It creates unity. Helpful within that organization.
I also agree with Alan. He has raised some valid questions. My concern is that eventually people may bypass all denominations for the sake of moving forward. That stings me.
We tend to get stuck on these ideas of 'keeping' people, rather than inspiring them forward. Rather than letting them be the creative people that God created. People are skeptical of organizations that just want to keep them. Count them? Herd them? I am guilty of this.
Perhaps this is too 'big picture'.... but I think it should be on the radar. I suppose I am torn because I see people being reach and not being reached because of denominationalism. Do we cancel ourselves out?
There are no perfect systems or earthly organization structures, but instead of trying to perfect the imperfect, why not use the tools available (right now, denominations) to reach people?
Cripes, we're imperfect but still useful to God, right?
..linked this article to http://www.newchurchreport.com to share it with others...thanks!
I really have to disagree here with Ed's comments in the main. The Church is the Church and denominations are mere shadows of what the Church already is. We don't need denominations to work together--we need denominations to dissolve and have the Church be one--'one holy and apostolic church'.
I've written more here at my own blog about this but the other thing that really bothers me is why this post would show up on a Southern Baptist blog since the Southern Baptist Convention is not really a denomination anyway.
If anything, the Cooperative Program ought to serve as an example to churches in America as to what independent and local churches can do together. We should never see it as yet one more denominational attempt--that just isn't viewing the matter rightly.
Kevin,
You do get a little testy over at your blog. Grin. But, I like your enthusiasm for the local church. I share it!
My favorite part is, "I’m amazed that a LifeWay employee and resident 'expert' can write so sloppily about such a question as if the Southern Baptist Convention really is a denomination."
I will have to try harder.
Anyway, I think people argue all day about whether the SBC is a denomination or a convention. At this point, it is largely semantics, though the founding documents might give a clue. Search for the word "denomination" in the documents below.
And, I know the differences between a convention and a denomination. I wish the SBC operated MORE like a convention and less like a denomination, so I think we agree... but that is another story. I will be writing more on that later. We have become too much denomination and not enough convention and cooperation.
But, for me the bigger issue is why we partner together and what is needed to do more effectively. I will be writing more on that later, too.
Anyway, enjoy these very old docs:
An ACT to incorporate the Southern Baptist Convention.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same. That from and after the passing of this act, That William B. Johnson, Wilson Lumpkin, James B. Taylor, A. Docrey, R. B. C. Howell and others, their associates and successors, be and they are hereby incorporated and made a body politic by the name and style of the Southern Baptist Convention, with authority to receive, hold, possess, retain, and dispose of property, either real or personal, to sue and be sued, and to make all bylaws, rules, and regulations necessary to the transaction of their business, not inconsistent with the laws of this State or of the United States – said corporation being created for the purpose of eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the Baptist denomination of Christians, for the propagation of the gospel, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary not withstanding.
Approved, December 27th, 1845 (1845 Georgia Laws, Page 130, Paragraph 3)
The messengers from missionary societies, churches, and other religious bodies of the Baptist denomination in various parts of the United States met in Augusta, Georgia, May 8, 1845, for the purpose of carrying into effect the benevolent intention of our constituents by organizing a plan for eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the denomination for the propagation of the gospel and adopted rules and fundamental principles which, as amended from time to time, are as follows...
Ed,
I can just hear you saying the same thing about being testy to the prophets--guys like Elijah, Micaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the like. Not that I consider myself in the same category but sometimes things must be expressed in plain or even grating ways or people will just pass on paying attention to what is being said. There is a method to the madness in other words.
As to whether the founders of the SBC intended the Convention to be considered a denomination--really, it is of little importance to me--things today are defined differently than they were back then and I am quite sure that the founders were not working to give up the freedom and authority of the local churches otherwise their identity as Baptists would have been compromised. Plus, they didn't have the unfortunate experience of the last hundred and fifty years of denominations so totally messing with the Church and her purpose here in our society otherwise I'm quite convinced they'd never have used that term in the first place.
Kevin,
On the autonomy of the local church, we agree. And, I share your concern about the erosion of that value in our denomination (or, if you will, convention).
The Great Commission is given to the local church and it is time for her to take back the responsibility.
Ed