The De-evolution of a Convention

I don’t even think de-evolution is a word, but that is my word for the present state of many denominations in our culture.  I define “de-evolution” as a reverse progression resulting in a negative impact on the future.  In this case, the current role, functions, mentality, approaches, etc of church denominations may actually be hindering the global kingdom growth of the church.

I went into my doctoral studies without any hypothesis or anticipation that denominations would even be a factor in the emerging missional churches and their ability to reach this postmodern generation.  I was ambivalent to the thought.  However, I have seen enough on the parameter of my research that I am developing some “ground theory” that denominations, actually denominationalism, is a hidden disease in a church that can kill the work of God within and slow the work of God without.  When saving the denomination for posterity becomes the focus of church leadership and it becomes the chief conversation of the local churches,  it begs the proverbial questions is the tail wagging the dog?

Denominations have provided structure for missions for over 300 years.  They have provided the ability for churches to link together for a common cause.  As one denominational leader has said in our state, “we can do more together than we can do a part.” I agree with this thought in theory and origin, but due to the de-evolution effect, I strongly question the real practice of this unified work today. When 52% of the minister’s feel there are “too many differences in opinion” among churches within their denomination, there appears to be more divisions than rallying points in many denominations today.¹.

As you can see from the  statements, of some of the early English movement leaders, questioning the validity of denominations is not a new question:

John Bunyan – “I would be, as I hope I am, a Christian.  But for those factious titles of Anabaptist, Independent, Presbyterian, and the like, I conclude that they come neither from Jerusalem nor from Antioch, but from Hell or Babylon.”

George Whitefield – “Father Abraham, whom have you in heaven?  Any Episcopalians?  No! Any Presbyterians?  No!  Any Independents or Methodists?  No, no, no!  Whom have you there?  We don’t know those names here.   All who are Christians…Oh, is this the case?  Then God help us to forget party names and to become Christians in deed and truth.”

William Wilberforce – “Though I am an Episcopalian by birth, I yet feel such a oneness and sympathy with the cause of God at large, that nothing would be more delightful than communing once a year with every church that holds the Head, even Christ.”²

Denominational leaders and churches must be willing to ask some tough questions if they going to have a future in the emerging church.  Here are a few that I am asking…

1. Are denominations going to be content with a “demotion” to para-church status? Denominations and associations have had an entiltlement mentality for a number of years.  They have subtlly, over time, become the “gate keepers” of their causes, funds and work.  Some have become the kind of gate keepers that international missionaries greatly dread.  Denominations must be less focused on the churches sending more money to them for their instiutions so they can stay their course and preserve their future.   Instead they need to shift to being a para-church ministry to the local church to help the local church fulfill its mission and therefore “earn” their support and loyalty.
2. Are the denominations willing to go so far as to eliminate some posts and merge others to streamline the organization for greater effectiveness? Yes, this will mean “upsetting the apple cart” of people and families in ministry.  It will force some to close their doors and find a new line of ministry.  There is a lot to say for longevity in ministry, but there is also a lot to say for a willingness to adjust to the demands and needs of the culture.  We should never get so comfortable in any position that we aren’t ready, willing, and excited to change.
3. Are denominations willing to work alongside other denominations and para-church organizations outside their own strict doctrinal statement without feeling the competitive push-back or superiority of doctrine between each other? To say the least, this will take some creativity and innovation to preserve one’s doctrinal convictions.  I would hope we could determine what are our 1st  tier doctrines that our non-negotiable and allow for cooperation between 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines.  Exclusivity to the Kingdom of God based on 2nd and 3rd Tier issues must go away.
4. Are the denominations and it’s agency willing to undergo the extreme total make-over necessary to stay current with the culture. It’s  important that believers, churches, and denominations be rooted in Scripture.  It is also vital that they stay relevant to the culture.   We live in a state of discontinous change that is random and chaotic at times.  Insitutions are going to have to reinvent themselves regularly and become comfortable with change in order to remain fluid in this dynamic mileu.   Many denominations are having conversations among themselves instead of taking the time to have conversations with those far from God before determining what course they need to take.
5. Is the “old guard” willing to allow the new generation to help shape the denomination of the future.  The younger generations of 20′s and 30′s have little or no interest in denominations.  They are more interested in Kingdom work and what is effectively helping them fulfill the mission.  The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) recognized the need for change and voted overwhelmingly to move forward with a A Great Commission Resurrgence this past June.  Great!  However, they largely appointed “old guard” people to the Task Force .  Outtside of maybe one or two appointees, it looks like a typical SBC institutional or past pastor’s conference president’s retreat gathering.  I would like to know how are you listening to new voices for a new direction if all you have on the Task Force are people steeped in institutional Baptist life?  Why aren’t Steve Stroope, Ed Stetzer, Erwin McManus, Bob Roberts, Matt Chandlers, Reggie McNeal, Andy Stanley’s etc. sitting at the table and on the Task Force.  These people have history in the SBC, they understand Post-Christendom, and are solid theologically.

The denomination that I support and have been a part of since my birth is the SBC. I love and appreciate the doctrinal values they affirm, the focus on missions globally, and I would hate to see the denomination dissolve.  Yet, as a Pastor of a missional church, my umbrella is much larger than a single convention.  Recently, I heard Dr. Al Molher speak regarding the life and future of the SBC.  He did an amazing job of painting a stern and realistic course for the convention by comparing the direction of the SBC with the direction and course of General Motors.  I have provided a link to his speech.

Click here to hear Al Molher’s address on the future state of the SBC Convention

There is no doubt in my mind that the church will move into the future.  The question of today, will denomations go with us?  Maybe the effect of de-evolution is devaluation.

1. Religion Watch, Feb 2004, Vol 19, No 4. Pg 5 [↩]
2. Os Guinness, The Call, pg. 97 [↩]