Minor Discouragement

Ugh.
I was just talking with one of my friends – a Bible major, who feels called to international missions – about a non-denominational missions organization that I’ve applied to for a summer job (note: they actually describe themselves as “multi-denominational” but it amounts to the same thing: they’re unaffiliated with any one church or denomination.  In our conversation, we used the term non-denominational, so I’ll use it here).
He said, “Wait, how can they be non-denominational?  I mean, how can they have NO affiliation?”
I explained that they focus on service work, etc.  He eventually conceded – “Yeah, I see that.  I just don’t understand how any long term missions organization can be unaffiliated with a denomination.”

The more I think about this conversation, the more disappointing it is.  To overgeneralize, the American church has gotten too tied up in doctrinal differences to the point that my friend cannot envision a missions organization that does not bind itself to one specific doctrine.  I understand the need for laying out doctrinal beliefs, but I also believe that there are a lot of gray areas where pretending we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we’re right seems foolish (frequency/style of communion, type of baptism, etc.).

This is not to say that I have no beliefs in those areas, only to say that when you study historic Christianity, you begin to understand the origin of such practices.  For example, sprinkle baptism became popular in areas where water was less abundant, and it would have been a poor use of resources to bathe for baptism.  Learning that enlightened me, and while most American churches have no lack of water, I now understand its origin.  You also learn that church fathers did not necessarily see eye to eye, but they would still respect and worship with one another.

What about the creeds, Nicene and Apostles‘?

Another way to think about it:  Martin Luther did not leave the Catholic church in order to start Lutheranism, he left because the church authorities would not step in to stop injustices by church members even where blatant; even where they took advantage of the uneducated and less fortunate.

I appreciate the freedom that Protestantism allows.  I understand the need for denominations and doctrinal statements and beliefs.  What saddens me is the fact that my friend cannot imagine a world without denominational distinctions, or a Christian organization that is united by a “purpose to provide life-changing, Christ-centered youth mission opportunities” and not a series of doctrinal beliefs, despite the fact that he (like me) attends a school with a similar focus on unity.

Filed under: Uncategorized , Church, college, faith, friends

Foreshadowing

Chapel today has people talking.  I was thinking through it as I heard it, and forming my own opinions, but I’ve now spoken to or read several reactions to it and have found most felt as I did.

Sorry for the crypticism, I plan to elucidate all this in a later post.

If you’d like to hear this morning’s chapel, go here.  Today’s speaker was Ted Kluck.

You might also want to listen to the January 19th message from Bryan Loritts on MLK day, which I recommended previously, first of all, because it’s good, and secondly, because Bryant brought it up as a contrasting message to Kluck’s.

Once you’ve sorted this all out, please read Josiah’s take.

EDIT/UPDATE: Anne on Kluck.  Twice.

Filed under: Uncategorized , chapel, Church, college, friends, spring 2009