DENOMINATIONALISM:
A Response to the Home-Church Movement
Introduction:
The word Denomination is defined as follows:
A) “An act of denominating.”
B) “A value or size of a series of values.”
C) “Name, designation, especially: a general name for a category.”
D) “A religious organization uniting local congregations in a single
legislative body.” (Courtesy of Miriam-Webster)
The term, when used regarding issues religious, is usually taken as the fourth definition; but the three prior, being more basic precursors to the religious usage, also apply. A Denomination is at root an axiological subscription— as descriptive of “values” (2nd def.) held in common by “a category” (3rd def.) of “congregations in a single Legal and Legislative body.” (4th def.) In its plainest sense, to “denominate” is to discern between categories of differing value. If one attains to any standard of Orthodoxy or holds any belief to be positively true, he then must in this sense “denominate.” (1st def.)
The Nature of the Case:
With the above definition in mind, it’s clear that a popular point of detraction for the Home-church proponent is from the “Legal and Legislative” distinctive. That is to say that they regard the concept of ecclesiastic protocols of church government to be wholly illegitimate. If the grounds of their declension were only based on disagreements as to the nature of mechanistic inner-workings, such as a dislike for Robert’s rules of order, etc., then the detractors would simply form their own Denomination with their own apparatus of protocols and by-laws. But such is not the nature of their complaint.
Rather, the popular complaint is one based upon Antinomianism. The aversion is to orderliness and structure in the Church. The theological make-up of this particular breed of home-church-goer is predominantly some form of Nonconformist-Arminian. These are the folks who when asked to what religion they belong, respond angrily that, “It’s not a religion! It’s a relationship.” That is to say that they take the Faith to be a very subjective concept— they unapologetically align themselves with the sentiments of Kierkegaard—that it be not the content of one’s faith but rather the experience of it. To them the Faith isn’t so much about what you believe as it is about how you believe.
As Libertines, they have a definite aversion to God’s Law and ecclesiastic order in general; this is due to a latent Gnosticism in which they reckon the physical order of things to be innately evil. Though they accept certain aspects of the material as “necessary evil” (a la one’s work, finances, civics, sex, etc.) their inability to reconcile this apparent dualism to the Incarnation drives them into deeper levels of anti-intellectualism. The noetic is viewed as synonymous with sin.
To the extent that it is possible, they tolerate little the encroachments of mundane reason in matters religious. This is the origin of their distaste for the terms denomination and religion: These words imply an established, codified and institutionalized Orthodoxy. They see the institution of Orthodoxy to be in itself, evil. They see the very concept of institution to be in itself, carnal. Therefore, in order for Orthodoxy to be orthodox a se, it cannot be instituted or ruled upon decidedly by anyone. Really, it can’t be known.
The irony is that in their attempt to expatriate from the institution they immediately congeal amongst a group of relatively like-minded people and a smaller communal authority. They simply trade one institution for another. They’ve in no way remedied the perceived ills of Denominationalism; they’ve simply started a new denomination, albeit likely a less organized one. Seeing as how such segregation in no way resolves the matter, it is a superfluous division and may rightly be called schism.
I Corinthians 1:10-12:
This brings us to the second and perhaps the most popular point of detraction: The accusation that Denominationalism itself be schism. This line of reasoning is the subscription of a much broader category than the one prior—even some Reformed have donned this perspective. While this point is more general and at first blush more persuasive than the one prior, it is still an erroneous one.
The home-church-goer cites the Apostle Paul who rebuked the Corinthian church for having “divisions among [them]…” (I Cor.1:10-12). This is their seminal text, the big gun—however; it turns out quite ironically to knock the load-stone out from under them. The Apostle is admonishing the Corinthian church (a particular congregation) to come to creedal solidarity. He isn’t telling them to turn a blind eye to confessional heterodoxy amongst them. And he certainly isn’t he telling them to avoid denomination (discernment) of such persons as run afoul of Christian doctrine. Rather, he’s commanding that they “denominate”. He is infact calling the Orthodox to discriminate along confessional lines. And if followed, the Apostle’s ruling will produce separations along said lines; by which the Orthodox are allowed to pursue the perspicuous teaching of scripture in assemblies of free association.
The alternative to this interpretation is Universalist Unitarianism or “Kathenotheism” (as coined by Muller, “no Orthodoxy whatever”). Truly, aside from the interpretation (Creedal Denominationalism) which I’ve here proposed, we haven’t any recourse to the notion of “Orthodoxy” at all. If the home-church movement is correct in their exegesis of the text, they cannot insist upon it as a common ascription of the faith, because to do so would run contra the ethic itself. To hold emphatically to their position, as a tenet of Orthodoxy, is to deny it. Afterall, inorder for inclusionist-Unificationism to be pursued, censure of Exclusionism would still exsist; that is to say that even the Unity-at-all-cost ethos necessarily utilizes exclusionist creedal parameters—an hypocrisy which ultimately illustrates the incoherence of their system.
This is reminiscent of the “Non-denominational churches” who, while preaching unity-at-all-costs, operate to that end, under codified “mission statements” (out of fear of words like Creed, Confession and Catechism) and are overseen by their own elected authorities— they’ve become a self-denouncing oxymoron as a “Non-denominational Denomination”.
If the early Church had subscribed to such a superseding theory of unity, Arius would have won the day, hampering what we know to be the true doctrine of the hypostases (both 100% Manhood and 100% Godhood) of Christ in the concept of homouosion (being of the same substance with the father). Neither would the filioque (procession of the Spirit from Father and Son) have been accepted. In the big-tent of Arian unity the exclusionist doctrine of the Trinity would have been anathema.
The unificationist interpretation of the Corinthians passage is demonstrably false in the fact that the embrace of it is to immediately nullify all Christian doctrine. The two are antithetical and cannot peacefully coexist. It is for this reason that the highly exclusionist document The Definition of Chalcedon (451) opens with the assertion that they are “following the holy Fathers, all with one consent…” If they understood the Corinthians passage in the way that the home-church movement interprets it, they could not have consented to the above phraseology. If then one affirms Chalcedon, he cannot simultaneously affirm the Home-church’s interpretation of the scripture in question.
Certiorari:
Denominationalism is the prescribed net of accountability as exemplified in Acts 15; it provides a creedal umbrella of certiorari beyond the parochial government. If a Minister strays from the confession and the local Elder board proves itself unwilling to address the matter there exists recourse to the greater network of one’s denomination. Aside from that of one’s denomination, there exists no higher earthly court by which a rogue Minister may be censured or the abuses of a runaway Elderate adjudicated.
Certainly, there are those who’ve prosecuted such matters in the secular courts under charges of fraud or breach of contract but the Bible strictly enjoins Christians to avoid secular litany in regard to matters of Faith and between Believers. The state has no jurisdiction over the Church.
The option of appeal exists in the context of an authority structure: If one denies the jurisdiction of both Church and State the only other earthly authority is the Family. But if the family then becomes the highest earthly court of appeal in regard to things religious we would not have a lesser number of denominations; we’d actually have more. Every man would either assert his personal doctrine as the standard of Orthodoxy or he would abandon the idea of doctrinal importance altogether. Truly, the a la carte approach has already born its nominalist fruit in such quarters of the church which deny Creedal Denominationalism. Such an egalitarian view of authority results in every man’s insistence upon his own right to censure and ostensible excommunicate all others. Both Orthodoxy and the authority to rule based upon it are thereby dissolved entirely.
Pneumatika & Charismata:
And as the denial of Denominationalism strips the Church of one of its clear New Testament characteristics which have always been taken as normative (the federal authority of lawfully conducted church councils as presided over by biblically elected Elders of the respective churches in submission to and guided by the Scripture), the home-church movement regularly defers to the offices of operation outlined in I Corinthians12:28 (“And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.”) The problem with that is that those offices have historically been viewed as inaugural rather than normative by the first four ecumenical councils as well as the Reformation. The Reformation is especially direct in declaring Charismata defunct: “…those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.” (Wstmstr. Conf. I: I) Such is both biblically and historically the Christian position.
And as previously stated, even such ecclesiastic (and Pentecostal) renovations cannot resolve the issue because like-minded groups will still congregate together in their own institutions—and consequently (even if inadvertently) form their own denominations. Again, such would be a redundancy and rightly called schism.
Conclusion:
At basement level Denominationalism is either equivalent to, or the direct consequence of Creedalism. While the two may admittedly be distinguishable from one another, they aren’t separable. If one assents to Orthodoxy even in abstraction, believing that there is infact Truth, he cannot but be “denominating”. There is really no debate to be had over the legitimacy of Denominationalism because the concept and the practice thereof are built into the Christian Faith. The alternative is all conjecture about hobgoblins and unicorns—it can’t be taken seriously.
What the home-church movement actually proposes as the remedy for the standing divisions in the Church is a thousand fold increase of divisions! Their cure appears to be worse than the disease.
And while I might sympathize on a superficial level with their nonconformist sentiments, it is clear that their unificationist undertones are deleterious to orthodox Christianity as a whole. If the early church had been of the modern home-church perspective, there would be no creedal Faith. They would not only have denied the validity of councils with which they were at confessional variance but also with those which they found themselves in greater conformity; this is because they would still deny the appropriateness of a denominational judiciary. But that is assuming them to be consistent.
The foregone conclusion of this movement is a religion of the lowest common denominator because all standards of Orthodoxy are deemed “schismatic” and thereby, not orthodox at all.
Of course someone will counter with the “what ifs” of desert island ship-wreck victims and mendicant hermits but all such search for exceptions to the rule are grasping at straws and really quite moot. If one has the opportunity afforded them by providence to worship in the oversight of lawful church government, he should thus submit himself. If, on the other hand, he genuinely lacks the opportunity in his circumstance he may ostensibly find himself outside the visible church but none can speak to his status in the invisible church save God. But it is assumed that true believers will or ought seek to submit themselves to legitimate church authority.
But ultimately, this discussion must be taken beyond issues of utility and practicality—it must inevitably confront what are clearly Antinomian and Gnostic suppositions which lie back of the home-church ethos. Their discordant view of church polity springs not from a void; it is born of more basic theological convictions.
Perhaps we’ll pursue these motivations at another time but for now it is manifestly clear that the home-church movement neither remedies the ills of an allegedly fragmented church, nor can its primary tenets be found as anything but undermining of Christian Orthodoxy.
Introduction:
The word Denomination is defined as follows:
A) “An act of denominating.”
B) “A value or size of a series of values.”
C) “Name, designation, especially: a general name for a category.”
D) “A religious organization uniting local congregations in a single
legislative body.” (Courtesy of Miriam-Webster)
The term, when used regarding issues religious, is usually taken as the fourth definition; but the three prior, being more basic precursors to the religious usage, also apply. A Denomination is at root an axiological subscription— as descriptive of “values” (2nd def.) held in common by “a category” (3rd def.) of “congregations in a single Legal and Legislative body.” (4th def.) In its plainest sense, to “denominate” is to discern between categories of differing value. If one attains to any standard of Orthodoxy or holds any belief to be positively true, he then must in this sense “denominate.” (1st def.)
The Nature of the Case:
With the above definition in mind, it’s clear that a popular point of detraction for the Home-church proponent is from the “Legal and Legislative” distinctive. That is to say that they regard the concept of ecclesiastic protocols of church government to be wholly illegitimate. If the grounds of their declension were only based on disagreements as to the nature of mechanistic inner-workings, such as a dislike for Robert’s rules of order, etc., then the detractors would simply form their own Denomination with their own apparatus of protocols and by-laws. But such is not the nature of their complaint.
Rather, the popular complaint is one based upon Antinomianism. The aversion is to orderliness and structure in the Church. The theological make-up of this particular breed of home-church-goer is predominantly some form of Nonconformist-Arminian. These are the folks who when asked to what religion they belong, respond angrily that, “It’s not a religion! It’s a relationship.” That is to say that they take the Faith to be a very subjective concept— they unapologetically align themselves with the sentiments of Kierkegaard—that it be not the content of one’s faith but rather the experience of it. To them the Faith isn’t so much about what you believe as it is about how you believe.
As Libertines, they have a definite aversion to God’s Law and ecclesiastic order in general; this is due to a latent Gnosticism in which they reckon the physical order of things to be innately evil. Though they accept certain aspects of the material as “necessary evil” (a la one’s work, finances, civics, sex, etc.) their inability to reconcile this apparent dualism to the Incarnation drives them into deeper levels of anti-intellectualism. The noetic is viewed as synonymous with sin.
To the extent that it is possible, they tolerate little the encroachments of mundane reason in matters religious. This is the origin of their distaste for the terms denomination and religion: These words imply an established, codified and institutionalized Orthodoxy. They see the institution of Orthodoxy to be in itself, evil. They see the very concept of institution to be in itself, carnal. Therefore, in order for Orthodoxy to be orthodox a se, it cannot be instituted or ruled upon decidedly by anyone. Really, it can’t be known.
The irony is that in their attempt to expatriate from the institution they immediately congeal amongst a group of relatively like-minded people and a smaller communal authority. They simply trade one institution for another. They’ve in no way remedied the perceived ills of Denominationalism; they’ve simply started a new denomination, albeit likely a less organized one. Seeing as how such segregation in no way resolves the matter, it is a superfluous division and may rightly be called schism.
I Corinthians 1:10-12:
This brings us to the second and perhaps the most popular point of detraction: The accusation that Denominationalism itself be schism. This line of reasoning is the subscription of a much broader category than the one prior—even some Reformed have donned this perspective. While this point is more general and at first blush more persuasive than the one prior, it is still an erroneous one.
The home-church-goer cites the Apostle Paul who rebuked the Corinthian church for having “divisions among [them]…” (I Cor.1:10-12). This is their seminal text, the big gun—however; it turns out quite ironically to knock the load-stone out from under them. The Apostle is admonishing the Corinthian church (a particular congregation) to come to creedal solidarity. He isn’t telling them to turn a blind eye to confessional heterodoxy amongst them. And he certainly isn’t he telling them to avoid denomination (discernment) of such persons as run afoul of Christian doctrine. Rather, he’s commanding that they “denominate”. He is infact calling the Orthodox to discriminate along confessional lines. And if followed, the Apostle’s ruling will produce separations along said lines; by which the Orthodox are allowed to pursue the perspicuous teaching of scripture in assemblies of free association.
The alternative to this interpretation is Universalist Unitarianism or “Kathenotheism” (as coined by Muller, “no Orthodoxy whatever”). Truly, aside from the interpretation (Creedal Denominationalism) which I’ve here proposed, we haven’t any recourse to the notion of “Orthodoxy” at all. If the home-church movement is correct in their exegesis of the text, they cannot insist upon it as a common ascription of the faith, because to do so would run contra the ethic itself. To hold emphatically to their position, as a tenet of Orthodoxy, is to deny it. Afterall, inorder for inclusionist-Unificationism to be pursued, censure of Exclusionism would still exsist; that is to say that even the Unity-at-all-cost ethos necessarily utilizes exclusionist creedal parameters—an hypocrisy which ultimately illustrates the incoherence of their system.
This is reminiscent of the “Non-denominational churches” who, while preaching unity-at-all-costs, operate to that end, under codified “mission statements” (out of fear of words like Creed, Confession and Catechism) and are overseen by their own elected authorities— they’ve become a self-denouncing oxymoron as a “Non-denominational Denomination”.
If the early Church had subscribed to such a superseding theory of unity, Arius would have won the day, hampering what we know to be the true doctrine of the hypostases (both 100% Manhood and 100% Godhood) of Christ in the concept of homouosion (being of the same substance with the father). Neither would the filioque (procession of the Spirit from Father and Son) have been accepted. In the big-tent of Arian unity the exclusionist doctrine of the Trinity would have been anathema.
The unificationist interpretation of the Corinthians passage is demonstrably false in the fact that the embrace of it is to immediately nullify all Christian doctrine. The two are antithetical and cannot peacefully coexist. It is for this reason that the highly exclusionist document The Definition of Chalcedon (451) opens with the assertion that they are “following the holy Fathers, all with one consent…” If they understood the Corinthians passage in the way that the home-church movement interprets it, they could not have consented to the above phraseology. If then one affirms Chalcedon, he cannot simultaneously affirm the Home-church’s interpretation of the scripture in question.
Certiorari:
Denominationalism is the prescribed net of accountability as exemplified in Acts 15; it provides a creedal umbrella of certiorari beyond the parochial government. If a Minister strays from the confession and the local Elder board proves itself unwilling to address the matter there exists recourse to the greater network of one’s denomination. Aside from that of one’s denomination, there exists no higher earthly court by which a rogue Minister may be censured or the abuses of a runaway Elderate adjudicated.
Certainly, there are those who’ve prosecuted such matters in the secular courts under charges of fraud or breach of contract but the Bible strictly enjoins Christians to avoid secular litany in regard to matters of Faith and between Believers. The state has no jurisdiction over the Church.
The option of appeal exists in the context of an authority structure: If one denies the jurisdiction of both Church and State the only other earthly authority is the Family. But if the family then becomes the highest earthly court of appeal in regard to things religious we would not have a lesser number of denominations; we’d actually have more. Every man would either assert his personal doctrine as the standard of Orthodoxy or he would abandon the idea of doctrinal importance altogether. Truly, the a la carte approach has already born its nominalist fruit in such quarters of the church which deny Creedal Denominationalism. Such an egalitarian view of authority results in every man’s insistence upon his own right to censure and ostensible excommunicate all others. Both Orthodoxy and the authority to rule based upon it are thereby dissolved entirely.
Pneumatika & Charismata:
And as the denial of Denominationalism strips the Church of one of its clear New Testament characteristics which have always been taken as normative (the federal authority of lawfully conducted church councils as presided over by biblically elected Elders of the respective churches in submission to and guided by the Scripture), the home-church movement regularly defers to the offices of operation outlined in I Corinthians12:28 (“And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.”) The problem with that is that those offices have historically been viewed as inaugural rather than normative by the first four ecumenical councils as well as the Reformation. The Reformation is especially direct in declaring Charismata defunct: “…those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.” (Wstmstr. Conf. I: I) Such is both biblically and historically the Christian position.
And as previously stated, even such ecclesiastic (and Pentecostal) renovations cannot resolve the issue because like-minded groups will still congregate together in their own institutions—and consequently (even if inadvertently) form their own denominations. Again, such would be a redundancy and rightly called schism.
Conclusion:
At basement level Denominationalism is either equivalent to, or the direct consequence of Creedalism. While the two may admittedly be distinguishable from one another, they aren’t separable. If one assents to Orthodoxy even in abstraction, believing that there is infact Truth, he cannot but be “denominating”. There is really no debate to be had over the legitimacy of Denominationalism because the concept and the practice thereof are built into the Christian Faith. The alternative is all conjecture about hobgoblins and unicorns—it can’t be taken seriously.
What the home-church movement actually proposes as the remedy for the standing divisions in the Church is a thousand fold increase of divisions! Their cure appears to be worse than the disease.
And while I might sympathize on a superficial level with their nonconformist sentiments, it is clear that their unificationist undertones are deleterious to orthodox Christianity as a whole. If the early church had been of the modern home-church perspective, there would be no creedal Faith. They would not only have denied the validity of councils with which they were at confessional variance but also with those which they found themselves in greater conformity; this is because they would still deny the appropriateness of a denominational judiciary. But that is assuming them to be consistent.
The foregone conclusion of this movement is a religion of the lowest common denominator because all standards of Orthodoxy are deemed “schismatic” and thereby, not orthodox at all.
Of course someone will counter with the “what ifs” of desert island ship-wreck victims and mendicant hermits but all such search for exceptions to the rule are grasping at straws and really quite moot. If one has the opportunity afforded them by providence to worship in the oversight of lawful church government, he should thus submit himself. If, on the other hand, he genuinely lacks the opportunity in his circumstance he may ostensibly find himself outside the visible church but none can speak to his status in the invisible church save God. But it is assumed that true believers will or ought seek to submit themselves to legitimate church authority.
But ultimately, this discussion must be taken beyond issues of utility and practicality—it must inevitably confront what are clearly Antinomian and Gnostic suppositions which lie back of the home-church ethos. Their discordant view of church polity springs not from a void; it is born of more basic theological convictions.
Perhaps we’ll pursue these motivations at another time but for now it is manifestly clear that the home-church movement neither remedies the ills of an allegedly fragmented church, nor can its primary tenets be found as anything but undermining of Christian Orthodoxy.
posted by Ehud would | 10/17/2006 10:41:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home