Postmodern Christianity: Part I

In a recent conversation with a former church planter, we ran into a bit of a impasse about the place of denominational churches in post-modernity, especially in terms of church planting and newly-developed churches. To shed even more light on the topic, the conversation had implications for me as a future pastor of such a church and the flexibility of the CRC or any denomination with a church order to enfold a church plant as an "organized" member. Of course, there are monumental things at stake here: the accountability of individual churches to a denominational body, the theological cohesion of a new church to the church order of all the other member churches, the ability of self-determination within a congregation, the integrity of the church planter and Elisha pastor and the theology of church splits.

The issue centered around this idea: if a newly-developed church has theological convictions or even polity convictions that are contrary to the receiving denomination, the new church should either override its own convictions for the sake of the denomination or find a new denomination. I understand the concept, at least in theory. For one, most church plants are denominational, meaning that they are funded by a denominational body with set governing rules and creedal or confessional statements. In addition, the argument is put out there that people should join a denomination with which they fit theologically. The rules are there; if you don't like them, find another denomination! There's 25 churches in this zip code, after all! This is the "don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out" approach. In fact, it might even have a nice ecumenical face: we're all part of the body of Christ, but this part has its own way of doing things.

I have several objections to this argument laid out by my professor. On the one hand, theological congruency is necessary in practice for the sake of unity. However, theological congruency in theory should not be nearly as absolute. If the above concept of "just find another denomination that fits your beliefs" holds, then we should have never experienced any change to church order, no change to confessional standards, and no change to church structure. In fact, we've experienced each of those to such an extent that we can't even publish a hymnal with the RCA because our confessions look so different. To put a face on this issue, take something like women in office. If you hold to the line of thinking that says "try the church up the street", a change should never have happened in the CRC's interpretation of women in office. It did. Why? Because people believed in the denomination enough that they weren't willing to leave it over one non-salvific issue. Now take an issue like infant baptism. You might be inclined to tell a new church that if they want to dedicate infants instead of baptizing them that they should just find a new denomination, the system is not working. There is a system in place where churches or individuals can appeal to governing bodies, both regional and national, to challenge such a non-salvific issue. That these processes are in place is evidence in and of itself that the system was meant to be elastic. Maybe the challenge is denied. Then that church must make a decision to stay and comply or disagree and go.

In reference to my last post, we also differed on what it meant to be ecumenical. In a way, polite denominationalism is a form of ecumenicity. Their definition includes keeping the status quo and shuffling people into pre-existing categories according to theological conviction. My theory on ecumenicity is a communal one, one that that seeks the combination of denominations, however idealistic. In their mind, they were more ecumenical than I was, and in my mind, I was more ecumenical than they were. We were speaking different languages.

What we acknowledged, as well, is that there is a deeper philosophical difference that we had. Both people on the other side of the table from me were 55 or older and here I was as a (new) 24-year-old. Their mindset is logical and denominational. My mindset is post-modern and communal. As one of the men talked with disgust about the tendency of "emerging" churches to gather together and decide on what direction their body should take, I thought to myself how similar this sounded to my own convictions and how similar it sounded to the church language of creating a vision or mission for our churches. Of course, this concept is dangerous for denominationally-planted groups. While, out of the one side of their mouth they say to join the church that fits them theologically, they have to acknowledge that a denominational church planter who does not tow the party line and allows theological or administrative incongruencies is irresponsible and reprehensible. Why? At the heart its all practical. We commissioned this planter and we paid the bills. They have a point.

Many people ask me why I'm still in the CRC, or in a denomination at all. Why subject yourself to three years of onslaught? Why subject yourself to the pains of Greek and Hebrew exegesis? Why subject yourself to the narrow theological viewpoints of the education at Calvin? Why join and pastor in a denomination where you don't completely agree?

Firstly, I love the Church - the holy catholic and apostolic one. Second, the CRC has faults like any other denomination, but it is one heck of a solid product. I mean, from top to bottom, this is a well thought-out, well organized, efficiently run, perspective-laden, quality and faithful organization. Other than the Mennonites, no one can boast a program like CRWRC. No other denomination can pull off the kind of publishing quality that the CRC does. No other denomination can initiate a version of the Bible that replaced the KJV. No other denomination can survive the kind of split the CRC did in the 90's without missing a step.

And I believe this denomination is elastic enough to endure much more change than it already has. I think that the next 25-50 years in the CRC will bring forth an unprecedented rate of change. I think Christian education will decline on a national level, infant dedications will happen within our denomination, strictness in church polity will be abandoned, theological congruency will be held less high, and that homosexuality will prove to be much more of a non-issue than we previously thought. And I would be surprised in 50 years if we had not joined with the RCA.

Elasticity of theological congruency is a post-modern value and will lead to more and more questioning, more and more re-evaluation of things that had previously been accepted at face value. People shouldn't be surprised that I'm a post-modern thinker and remaining in a denomination. People should realize that the only reason I can remain within a denomination is because I am a post-modern thinker.