(Edited for clarity 5/19/2009, LEK)
As I was following links in various blogs the other day I ran across this interesting post on conveyance metaphors over at Father T's blog. He is commenting on this article over at Episcopal Life On Line. Father T is commenting on the author's questioning of the ship metaphor and his suggestion that we may need to change our conveyance metaphors to airplane metaphors since few people use ships as a means of travel while most do use airplanes. The questioning of metaphor is a questioning of denominational identity loyalty and the fierceness with which Christians including mainline and liberal Christians hold their opinions.
Given my conversation with the Diocese of Chicago the following observation caught my attention; "The [Pew Forum's]survey points up an interesting countertrend worth pondering. The one bright light of significant growth in the mainline group of churches is – are you sitting down? –"nondenominational.
We might summarize the trends the report identifies in a simple statement: The denominational structures that we inherited, those traditions once central to shaping our identity and sense of community, are answers to a question fewer and fewer people are asking." While I am not found of the label "non-denominational" and we have avoided such terms as non-denominational, inter-denominational, or post-denominational in our self-definition at Reconciler in preference for the label "ecumenical". However, I have to admit that most of those who come through our doors either just for one visit or who end up staying around do really fit the label "non-denominational", and this has influenced how Reconciler has developed as a congregation. Though I was arguing something similar to the above article though it seems that the author like the Canon to the Ordinaary can't quite envision a strong Christian identity that is that is strong but not denominational and also welcoming. We the pastoral team of Reconciler have always sought in working with those who can be called post-denominational or "non-denominational" to offer a strong identity grounded in a broad ecumenical orthodoxy.
I ultimately though find the article heading in a direction I think is mistaken: seeking to find a firm distinction between form and content, through setting in opposition "church" and Gospel. The Gospel should in my opinion produce a particular form, that form may have a certain malleability, but it also can't take on any form. For the Christian faith I insist that message and medium are closely linked. The division of Christianity up into distinct groups we have come to call denominations is it self our failure to truly embody the Gospel, and is to have legitimatized what Paul criticizes the Corinthian church for doing: thinking that they were being faithful by claiming to be primarily identified with one or other of the apostles or itinerant preachers of the Church, which ends up essentially displacing our proper identity with Christ and the universal body of Christ. (1 Cor. 1:10-17) So, I do not believe that denominations need to change and hold more lightly their identities simply because the surrounding culture fails to find value in those identities. Rather, I believe change needs to happen because I see in the surrounding cultures reluctance to embrace denominational identities a true insight into the nature of the church and the Gospel, and thus a recognition that denominational-ism compromises that nature.
Regarding ships and aeroplanes one who weds the times is widowed. What if one were stuck with translations talking about the zeppelin of salvation? Oh, the humanity. (Or the Space Shuttle?)
ReplyDeleteAlso although the mainliners are merging in practice and parishioners don't really care much about brand identity I wouldn't have called the nondenoms mainliners, for one because many of them are conservative, non-mainline, theologically. And aren't the nondenoms really only reinventing congregationalism?
I agree with the point about being too concerned about the ship aeroplane metaphor and being weded to the times. And I was reminded of the song sampled on "One of Us" in which a plane is used as a salvation metaphor. However, I don't think the author was necessarily thinking in terms of revising the metaphors of salvation (thought his point could extend there), but the way in which people were talking about the predicament of the Episcopal church, and the non-theological ways his colleagues were out of touch.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it odd at first that non-denom's would be labled mainliners by the study. But then again I did realize that a number of non-denominational churches I know of personally don't exactly fit the conservative or evangelical label either and often call UCC or other mainline pastors. There are also a number of "community churches" who are part of mainline denominations, but whose members are mostly not from the denomination and whose association with the denomination in question is tenuous or at least in theology and ethos unrecognizable as coming from a particular denomination. So, upon reflection I let that slide it may be that non-denominational is a wider phenomenon that cuts across the various ways we divide up American Christianity.