Denominations worth it?

[Blazin Bones]

Whether or not we willingly admit it the Christian church is in a shabby state when it comes to knowing what we believe, why we believe it, and why we know it's true. The Concern for doctrine and theology in the Church today is minimal at best. My Question is, just how big a role does Denominationalism play in the spiritual numing of our minds?

A few pro's for denominationalism:
1. It provides stable unity amongst those with fairly identical theologies
2. It provides a means of fellowship that the church might lack today without denominations
3. It provides some harmony as differing views at least agree to disagree.

A few Con' s of Denominationalism:
1. In agreeing to disagree, we agree that two Points of View are equally valid and that unity of truth is secondary to unity of opinions
2. Denominations often only present their accepted views, neglecting the need to train up Christians in false teachings as well.
3. Denominations can be tailored to Points of View which is a gross perversion of a constant God?

There are many other pro's and Con's of denominations. The Question is: In the End are Denominations worth it?

 

[handy]

I agree that there are pro's and con's, and I think you've done a pretty good job at summing up the main ones. However, I still think that denominations are "worth it".

One of the pro's you mentioned, stablility, cannot be over-rated. I've been to a few non-denominational churches, and the lack of stablility has caused problems, major problems, for each one. And, if there is no denomination, there is generally no recourse for the folks of the church to turn to in order to work things out. If there are problems in a non-denominational church, about the most one can do, after one has exhausted going to the pastor and other rulers (if there are any) is to leave. I was baptized in a non-denominational church. It is now a Karate school.

Another advantage of the denominations is that it does provide what Paul talked about "being all things to all people". Right now there is a big surge among many churches to become "coffee houses" rather than churches. And, while it might be popular, I know many Christians who simply hate it. I hate it myself, and cannot truly worship God in corporate worship when folks are walking around with their coffee and cookies, and dancing along to the rock music.

The only thing is, I think that a lot of folks, especially younger ones, might really meet God on that level. So, having differing denominations does fill the need of having different approaches to worship, from the very formal, liturgical style, to a formal, if not liturgical, worship service, to "Club Christian" approach. I find myself much more attune to the more formal style of worship and can't stand the "Club Christian". Yet, many testify today that this is where they meet God.

Yes, there are pro's and con's, and I think "agree to disagree" is probably the most egregious of the con's. (I hate the "agree to disagree" philosophy, it leads to theological laziness and a loss of sound doctrine.) However, pro's and con's aside, whether we want it or not, for now the Church is segmented into denominations. And, as different as folks are, the pro's probably do outweigh the con's.

 

[Imagican]

the 'saddest' part of denominationalism is the SEPARATION that results from ONE group 'believing' that it is 'right' and all others are 'wrong'. And when we 'boil it down' to it's basic premiss, we find that denominationalism is basically the thoughts and ideas of one or VERY FEW 'men' that have 'particular' ideas, (or what they BELIEVE to be revelations), deciding for MANY, the understanding of something of such monumental importance.

And doesn't the 'idea' of denominationalism destroy the 'purpose' of The Word to BEGIN with? For our relationship is decided WITHIN US, as individuals, NOT by some 'man-made' rules that we may or may not follow. We ARE 'sheep' meant to be LED by Christ, NOT by the likes of 'other men'. For there is NOT ONE that is 'perfect' NO, NOT ONE.

MEC

 

[handy]

But see, MEC, this is why denominations have become necessary. You reject the divinity of Christ. I cannot in good faith fellowship in any church that would teach as you teach. If you have your way, I would have too.

Or, would you rather it be the other way around? Come on to church with me and learn the full truth of the Trinity and how Biblically sound it is!

BTW, I do not, REPEAT DO NOT!, mean to hijack this thread into a discussion on Jesus is God. There are already plenty of threads devoted to that theme. My example is just that, an example of why denominations have become necessary.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Right now there is a big surge among many churches to become "coffee houses" rather than churches. And, while it might be popular, I know many Christians who simply hate it. I hate it myself, and cannot truly worship God in corporate worship when folks are walking around with their coffee and cookies, and dancing along to the rock music.

I agree that there are more pros than cons. But isn't the above a little like the situation that Christ walked into in the temple. You are correct that most real Christians hate it. I wonder why then it is happening. I can't help but wonder if Christ returned on a night that the church folks were gathered with their coffee, dancing and rock music if the people there would stand tall or hide in the shadows. Just a thought.

 

[Imagican]

Ok, so to keep with the premis of the thread:

Do you suppose God would rather we join a church, (denomination), EVEN if it's beliefs are 'askew', or would He rather that we simply accept Him, His Son and FOLLOW their teachings WITHOUT being devoted to a 'denomination'?

In other words, my quetion would be this: Is it better to join a 'group' that MAY be teaching and practicing something 'separate' from the WILL of God, or to simply FOLLOW the WiLL OF GOD?

For those that would answer that 'their group' does NOT go 'against' the Will of God, I ask this: How would one KNOW this? For EACH denomination, even though EACH teaches 'something DIFFERENT' than others, BELIEVES that IT is following 'the truth'. Since this is LITERALLY an IMPOSSIBILITY, (that EACH IS follow THE TRUTH), WHICH one IS the CORRECT ONE? And since ALL others would be WRONG, how is it that ALL the members of the OTHERS BELIEVE that THEY TOO are following THE TRUTH?

And HOW could ANY denomination be following THE TRUTH when in FACT they have chosen to SEPARATE themselves from their OTHER brothers and sisters in Christ?

For IF we accept the Catholic belief, ALL are lost and confused EXCEPT them. And it's the SAME with the Baptists, Methodists, etc, etc, etc..................

Now, HOW is this EVEN POSSIBLE? That EACH denomination has come to believe and teach that THEY are the ONLY ones that have FOUND The Truth? And IF there IS only ONE that IS truly following the Will of God, then that WOULD leave ALL others falling short of finding The Truth. So WHAT about those that AREN'T following The Truth. Are these too able to follow the WILL OF GOD?

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

That might be the wrong question to ask. Denominations are an unfortunate given but there is never justification for isolation from a body of believers, for it says in Hebrews we should not "forsake the assembling of ourselves together" (Hebrews 10:25). And for the record, even a non-denominational Church is a denomination (and I've been to a very good non-denominational Church as well. I've also been to a good Baptists, Methodist, and Conservative (Biblical & teaching based) Charistmatic Church. There are conservative and liberal Baptist Churches, Methodist, Pentecostal, and I would imagine even a more liberal (in the sense of freedom of worship style) Presbyterian Churches. You have to weigh each Church on its own and not blanket the whole denomination with a tag, as I've seen such tags can be misleading when the Spirit of God shows up in the most "unsuspecting" of Churches.

One day God will unite the believers together as the Bride but until then we must all serve God as best we know how. And even back in Biblical times each city had their own Church that was to be self-governing and not picking in the affairs of the next (aside from doing good deeds of course - like the Phillipians contributing to the offering to the poor Church in Jerusalem). And remember the Jerusalem Church was more Jewish (a denomination possibly?), as you can see from Acts 15 of the distinctions they make for the "non-essentials" (which each man observes as unto the Lord Romans 14) between them and the Gentile Churches. The ethnic Jews had every right to still refuse to eat the animals deemed "unclean" in the OT if they so chose (this is just one example of many), even under the freedom given them to Christ as Peter learned from the vision of the lowering sheet from Heaven. So can we look at denominations in such terms and from such a point of view?

Just a thought,

~Josh

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I maintain my belief that what we refer to as denominations, Scripture refers to as different members of one body. This is the passage that I believe supports that.



1Cr 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Cr 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Cr 12:17 If the whole body [were] an eye, where [were] the hearing? If the whole [were] hearing, where [were] the smelling?
1Cr 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Cr 12:19 And if they were all one member, where [were] the body?
1Cr 12:20 But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
1Cr 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1Cr 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
1Cr 12:23 And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness.
1Cr 12:24 For our comely [parts] have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that [part] which lacked:
1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.
1Cr 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1Cr 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

It is my belief that denominations are of God, making some of the denominations eyes, some ears, some feet and some hands. Because it is of God, it is the enemy of the body that attempts to tell us that we should all be exactly alike. The above passage clearly states that God did not crank us out with cookie cutters.

 

[Imagican]

Gabby,

What you offer 'sounds' good but IN FACT the scripture to which you refer ACTUALLY is in reference to THE BODY. Do you TRULY believe that the Catholics are ONE part of THE BODY, The Baptists ARE another and the Pentacostals are yet ANOTHER? And so too the MOrmons, JWs and SDAs?

Now THAT sounds GOOD to a world of 'itching ears' that LONG to BELIEVE that they are justified NO MATTER WHAT. But the indication of The Word is NOT that 'all that claim Christ AS Savior' WILL follow the TRUE Christ. For as we have noted previous; there WILL come a time that MANY will approach Christ with the words, "Look at all the WONDEROUS things we have done in YOUR NAME". And Christ does NOT only offer that their WORKS were in VAIN, but goes FURTHER to say that HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THEM. Now, WHO do you 'suppose' that the MANY 'are' that are being refered to here?

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

It is my belief that denominations are of God, making some of the denominations eyes, some ears, some feet and some hands. Because it is of God, it is the enemy of the body that attempts to tell us that we should all be exactly alike. The above passage clearly states that God did not crank us out with cookie cutters.

You think schism is from God? The letter you quote from, 1 Corinthians, has a lot of bad things to say about schism, division, and such. The many parts of the Body refer to parts of ONE Body, not many parts in different bodies.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

fran IS absolutely RIGHT. And Corinthians also explains the TRUTH of 'the gifts' which, by the the way, totally deny that which is 'taught' by Pentacostal churches. So the premiss that ALL denominations are divisions of the ONE Body CANNOT be refered to in the scripture that you quote.

In the beginning of Paul's letters to the Corinthians he offers that 'the church' in Corinth has BEGUN to digress from the TRUTH in that they are allowing members to participate in behavior that even UNBELIEVERS wouldn't take part in. He is SPECIFICALLY offering that the church in Corinth is 'falling apart'. His statement asking if he should RETURN WITH A ROD, is PURE indication that the letter that wrote was NOT a letter of 'praise' but of REBUKE towards a people that were GIVEN The Spirit but had reverted BACK into previous paganism. Allowing themselves to become SEPARATE FROM The Spirit ONCE AGAIN.


Gabby, you offering is a PRIME example of 'just HOW, scripture can be taken OUT OF CONTEXT and be 'used' to show 'something' that DOESN'T EXIST. For your belief offered here doen NOT exist in the text that you offer to support it. NOWHERE does The Bible offer such a belief and EVERYTHING contained within The Word points to a 'different truth' than that which you have offered.

From the Hebrews and Jews of the OT to the Christians of the NT there HAS been information GIVEN that THERE IS NEED for the separtation of 'religion' from TRUTH. For when the two 'become mingled' the line between them becomes TOO blurry to recognize one from the other.

God couldn't CARE LESS for religion. What He has attempted to impart is TRUTH. The formalities that man chooses to honor and practice mean LITTLE compared with the MESSAGE.

And PLEASE do NOT misinterpret 'what' is being offered here; for I am NOT stating that to 'practice' the rituals offered by the apostles is WRONG in ANY way. I am simply offering that the MOST important part of accepting and following the WILL OF GOD IS NOT how often you drink and eat but HOW you LOVE God, His Son, and your neighbor. For the message WAS Love and NOT 'religion'.

Men that "TEACH" religion teach it NOT for truth but the sake of 'ritual'. And MOST of the 'ritual' IS man-made.

For those that would argue against what I have offered; Look at ANY and ALL 'religions' on this planet. The ONE THING that EACH has in common with ALL OTHERS is RITUAL. Not the 'same ritual' but the participation IN RITUAL. Yet the entire Bible and ALL the prophets were for ONE PURPOSE. For ''ALL the law and all the PROPHETS hang on THESE TWO"; love God with all your heart mind and soul!!! and love your neighbor AS YOURSELF". The law was to TEACH LOVE and Christ came to offer the PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS LOVE. And NOW, we ARE to live by FAITH in these teachings and HIs EXAMPLE. NOT by following 'man-made' ritual that offers NOTHING but a 'semblance' of TRUE FAITH.
MEC

 

[handy]

So then, again Imagican, we would need to join with Fran and return to the RCC, as it is the only 'denomination' that has it's roots directly from the first church.

Just making a point here, I tend to agree with both Gabby and with Josh. The early church, spread accross different nations and in different cities, were just as different in their approach to living out their faiths as we are today. They struggled with those who didn't believe Jesus as God, they struggled with those who accepted Jesus, but then felt that we needed to still follow all aspects of the OT Law. Each had things to commend them, most had things for which they were rebuked. We can see all of this in Christ's letters to the churches in Revelations. What they were joined by though is the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who calls forth the Church, and all who are born of the Spirit are born into the Church.

Pretty much all of the 'denominations' accept that whosoever believes the central truths about Christ; that He is Lord, that He sacrificed Himself to purchase our redemption, that He rose again from the dead, that He is returning; whosoever believes in these things are of the true Church, the Body of Christ. Or, as the Compendium of the RCC puts it, "The word Church refers to the people whom God calls and gathers together from every part of the earth. They form the assembly of those who through faith and Baptism have become children of God, members of Christ, and temples of the Holy Spirit."

I don't think that Gabby means that we are many bodies, but is in agreement with Francis, the denominations are many parts of the same body. The problem isn't the denomination, because I don't know of ANY denomination that states that they are the ONLY true way and that all other members of all other denominations are of a "different body". The problem lies more with 'us', when we treat each other as less than a brother or sister, because we are of a different denomination.

I guess the reason why I've the opinion that I have is because I've been member of various denominations and see the Spirit active and involved with them all. And, though I've never been a member of the RCC, I see the Spirit active and involved with the Catholics that I know personally.

As long as one has the Spirit, one is part of the Body. The denominations are just different aspects of the same body.

Naturally, there are false churches out there, but they would be the one's who reject the essential truths about Jesus.

 

[Imagican]

And handy,

I CANNOT agree with what you offer. For one; The Catholic church IS NOT the 'first church'.

Secondly. From YOUR perspective all who 'claim' Christ as their Savior are following the TRUE CHRIST. Yet we KNOW that there WILL BE MANY that do NOT follow yet 'claim' Christ as their Savior.

So, it is certainly to be expected that there be MANY that will NOT accept truth but follow rather their OWN understanding or the teachings of men. I continually attempt to 'point this out' throughout the postings that I have offered.

And NO, I have no NEED to join or be 'part of' ANY denomination. For I maintain that a FOLLOWING of God's WILL is SO MUCH MORE to BE DESIRED than a 'following of men' and their 'beliefs' that they 'create'. The Body IS STILL intact. And there is LITTLE of 'it' to be found in the churches that so many FLOCK to. For The Spirit is NOT going to dwell among a 'group' of people following 'self-will' rather than the Will of God. 'A' spirit, NO DOUBT, but The Spirit does NOT congregate with 'people pleasers'. For The Spirit IS The Spirit of God. And The Spirit is NOT ignorant of the hearts of those that profess a 'belief', but is able to weigh those hearts and discern the TRUTH regardless of the 'words' that they use.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

And NO, I have no NEED to join or be 'part of' ANY denomination

Imagician, who teaches you what scripture means?

 

[cyberjosh]

Has anyone considered my point of view given in my last post? Denominations would be permissible in that sense. I believe it is biblical above all, however, to gather together with fellow believers, as I explained.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[handy]

I did, Josh, and agree that your post is sound. While I don't have problems with denominations (although admittedly there are the "cons") I do get discouraged when I see some members of the body reject other members of the body because they are not of the same denomination. I don't care if one is Catholic (Greek or Roman), Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist or Calvary Chapel. If you've confessed and recieved Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I'll gladly call you brother.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Gabby,

What you offer 'sounds' good but IN FACT the scripture to which you refer ACTUALLY is in reference to THE BODY. Do you TRULY believe that the Catholics are ONE part of THE BODY, The Baptists ARE another and the Pentacostals are yet ANOTHER? And so too the MOrmons, JWs and SDAs?

Now THAT sounds GOOD to a world of 'itching ears' that LONG to BELIEVE that they are justified NO MATTER WHAT. But the indication of The Word is NOT that 'all that claim Christ AS Savior' WILL follow the TRUE Christ. For as we have noted previous; there WILL come a time that MANY will approach Christ with the words, "Look at all the WONDEROUS things we have done in YOUR NAME". And Christ does NOT only offer that their WORKS were in VAIN, but goes FURTHER to say that HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THEM. Now, WHO do you 'suppose' that the MANY 'are' that are being refered to here?

MEC

MEC
To be part of the body, one must be part of the body. Cults are not part of the body of Christ. And while one may sit inside a church whose denomination is considered part of the body (Baptist, Pentecostals, etc) the individual person might not be.
True body parts are true body parts, yet the hand, the foot, and the eye all have different functions. Just as the passage I quoted goes on to discuss how different Christians have different gifts of the Holy Spirit, yet are of one body.

When the op uses the word "Denominations", I believe it referred to Christians. Not cults.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

It is my belief that denominations are of God, making some of the denominations eyes, some ears, some feet and some hands. Because it is of God, it is the enemy of the body that attempts to tell us that we should all be exactly alike. The above passage clearly states that God did not crank us out with cookie cutters.

You think schism is from God? The letter you quote from, 1 Corinthians, has a lot of bad things to say about schism, division, and such. The many parts of the Body refer to parts of ONE Body, not many parts in different bodies.

Regards

Are schism and denomination the same thing? :o

 

[cyberjosh]

I did, Josh, and agree that your post is sound. While I don't have problems with denominations (although admittedly there are the "cons") I do get discouraged when I see some members of the body reject other members of the body because they are not of the same denomination. I don't care if one is Catholic (Greek or Roman), Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist or Calvary Chapel. If you've confessed and recieved Jesus as your Lord and Savior, I'll gladly call you brother.

Amen. I agree completely.

~Josh

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Are schism and denomination the same thing? :o

I think I will try to save some time here and go ahead and answer my own rhetorical question.

SCHISM n.
1. A separation or division into factions.
2.
a. A formal breach of union within a Christian church.
b. The offense of attempting to produce such a breach.
3. Disunion; discord.

DENOMINATIONn.
1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
2. One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.
3. A name or designation, especially for a class or group.



Perhaps we have gotten to the root of the debate. Many are using the word denominations thinking that the definition is that of Schism.

Schisms are not of God.
Separation, division into factions, formal breach of union within a Christian church, The offense of attempting to produce such a breach, disunion, and discord. These things are not the definition of denominations.

Denomination
A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
2. One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.


See the difference?