# Doing away with denominations?



## Richard King (Sep 11, 2006)

This continues.
Any thoughts on specifically what drives it? 

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/12religion.html


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> This continues.
> Any thoughts on specifically what drives it?



Ignorance.

At one time I would have stood along side these people and condemned denominations and simply proclaimed I am a Christian with them.

What changed was my awareness of the mass disunity within Protestantism. That frustration led me eventually to the original Protestants and the reformation. It was disunity that opened my eyes to the reason for denominations and how unity is only achieved through adherence to creeds and confessions.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 11, 2006)

Interestingly, check out this clip from Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. He argues that we're going to see decreasing emphasis upon demoninational allegiances and more emphasis placed upon "networks."

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/video/2006_National/national2006_driscoll_interview13.mov

I have some substantial problems with it even though I grant that what he describes will likely continue to take place.


----------



## BobVigneault (Sep 11, 2006)

Ten years from now the label "Christian" will be considered too exclusive and people will opt for something like "follower", or "human", or will that seem exclusive toward animals? Oy!



[Edited on 9-11-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 11, 2006)

One thing that was lost with the start of the Protestant Reformation was fear of authority and respect of elders.

A 'Doing what seems right in our own minds' mentality is the norm of the day and any submission at all is received as unnatural and unhealthy.

The common man does not know what ordination even means or why anyone at all would need any "right hand of fellowship" to do anything.

Although it was certainly not the intent, the Protestant Reformation took away the fear for our leaders and promoted individualism within the catholic Church. The illustration is, "If we can break away from the mighty Roman Church, then what's stopping us from breaking away from those that originally broke away? So we have those that are of Luther and then those who are of Erasmus, and those who follow Calvin, then Wesley, Spurgeon, etc.

Today with any knowledge of history being obsolete, the common man simply turns toward himself and what he _feels_ he must do.


----------



## Swampguy (Sep 11, 2006)

Here is an interesting article on denominations:
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/denominations.htm


----------



## JohnV (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> One thing that was lost with the start of the Protestant Reformation was fear of authority and respect of elders.
> 
> A 'Doing what seems right in our own minds' mentality is the norm of the day and any submission at all is received as unnatural and unhealthy.
> ...



Although I agree with the the premise that the basic result we have today has roots in the Reformation, which you're trying to convey, I disagree that it can be blamed on the Reformation. The Reformation, in fact, did quite the opposite in intent. 

One of the residual effects of the Reformation, in breaking with the authoritatian rulership of the Roman Church, was that it spread that breaking to more than those who wanted to return to the authority of Christ and of His Word. Those with no real interest in Christianity, other than as a religious and communal environment, were also freed from religious serfdom to the Roman Church. Those who had been without religious training but still maintained a semblence of the Christian faith were also freed to pursue their Bible studies on their own, by their own standards; they even used the Reformers as an excuse for such things, thinking that the Reformers were pulling their own teachings out of thin air, I suppose. I agree that people used the Reformation as a pretext for their own licentiousness, feeling freed from a disreputable authority, both public and religious.

However, the Reformation had no such intent or grounding. It was precisely by submission to true authority that people dared to challenge earthly authority where it was opposed to the authority of Christ. The Heidelberg Catechism makes it abundantly clear that the Reformation was via a humbling of the soul, not an arrogating of personal convictions. 

Blaming the Reformation for each going his own way, or for breaking the rule of authority, is a misrepresentation of the Reformation. It is, in fact, an attempt to justify the opposite of what the Reformation intended and taught via the Reformation. 

When the Reformers broke the power of the Roman church, they broke only the unreligious and irreligious power of it. Some took advantage of that to form their own churches apart from the strict Biblical standards of the Church, but the Reformers did not. To blame the Reformation for the destruction of authoritative structures and respect would be the same as to blame the Reformers for causing civil and other wars for believing as they did. It was the intent of the Reformation to return to authority, not to break with it; to propose peace through Christ, not to cause wars.


----------

