What’s Wrong With Denominations?
For years, I've assured people that Newfrontiers is not a denomination. I've taught Joining the Church courses and laboured the point; I've tried to explain to my friends that I'm non-denominational; I've deliberately left hospital forms blank in the "denomination" box. But I've been wondering recently why I do those things. And I'm not sure I've got a very good answer.
By any dictionary definition, Newfrontiers is a denomination. (This isn’t to say that people can’t use words with anything other than their dictionary definition, but it is to say that we should make it clear when we aren’t. If words only mean what we want them to mean, and the listener has no way of knowing what that is, then we end up like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, and that confuses everybody). The dictionary says a denomination is “a religious group, usually including many local churches”, or alternatively “a name or designation”, which is the meaning most connected with its etymology. Both of these definitions, very obviously, apply to Newfrontiers: it’s a name we give to a religious group including many local churches. So unless we avoid the word “religion” altogether, which I’ve already argued we shouldn’t, the folks at Chambers and the OED think we’re a denomination.
Personally, I was never really comfortable with that, and I’m now becoming curious as to why that was. Clearly, the word evoked (to me, at least) a whole world of ideas that I didn’t want Newfrontiers to be associated with, so I resolutely resisted applying the word to the family of churches I was a part of. Significantly, I didn’t simply prefer a different word, like “family” or “network” - which I still do, because I find their connotations so helpful - I also actively objected to having the D-word used with reference to me or my church. Presumably, I was taking the word to have connotations that were almost entirely negative, even though the mainstream usage is inoffensively neutral. But what were those connotations, and why did they bother me so much?
At one level, the word “denomination” simply sounded hierarchical: it made me think of a group of churches in which decisions emanated from a board, or committees or subcommittees, rather than through authentic Christian relationships. But I’ve since noticed that all organisations have to operate with small groups of people who make big decisions, and the fact that we tend to call them “apostolic teams” (or, formerly, “regional teams”), instead of boards or committees, doesn’t necessarily make us more relational or less hierarchical. I hope we are; but I’m sure there are self-identified denominations built on warm and meaningful relationships, just as there are undoubtedly some apostolic networks in which a hierarchical structure has displaced friendship as the way in which things are held together. That’s not a basis to reject the D-word, anyway.
At another level, it sounded confessional, by which I mean it sounded like unity came from a doctrinal statement rather than from shared mission. Again, though, I’ve since noticed that almost all movements/families/networks/denominations of churches are confessional to some degree, whether or not such a confession is explicit. The range, depth and amount of consultation of the confession can vary dramatically, but ultimately the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Baptist Confession are very similar types of statements to the Newfrontiers seventeen values: they express what is believed, what is not believed, what is of primary importance, and (by omission) what is of secondary importance. Even in groups of churches where none of this is written down, it is very rare to find no shared set of values or theological convictions; groups that try to avoid doctrinal commitments altogether end up compromising their mission, and usually fragment within the first generation.
One other thing that grated with me about using the word “denomination” was the connotation of establishment. Denominations, I felt, were old, established, set in their ways, stuffy, officious, dusty; movements, families and networks, by contrast, were fresh, radical, challenging, forward-thinking and flexible. This assumption was far easier to unravel. After all, the distinction I had made here was entirely one of age - new good, old bad - and had nothing to do with whether one self-identified as a denomination or a network. Not only that, but the underlying assumption of the superiority of novelty is becoming less plausible to me as I get older (and I’m only thirty-three). There is something very powerful about praying in a section of a cathedral, as I did recently in Chichester, where daily prayer meetings have been held for eight hundred years. There is also rather more merit to lots of things that Christians have done for centuries - the sacraments, keeping silence, liturgy, confession, lectionaries, hymns, creeds and so on - than I used to think, and it’s not clear that our modern replacements are quite as effective, or quite as innovative, as I liked to believe. So the superiority of novelty, as a reason for disowning the word “denomination”, didn’t seem to hold water.
(Interesting side note at this point: it’s remarkable how many Newfrontiers churches are reintegrating the old and the new at the moment. I keep hearing of places where breaking bread has become regular practice again, and where reading Scripture or prayers together has re-entered church life. Silence has made a comeback in certain circles, as has greeting people in the church during the meeting. Newfrontiers leaders have recently been heard to extol the virtues of the creeds, or even the Reformed confessions, as worthy of study. And a surprising number of our churches are even meeting in old church buildings, particularly in global cities. Who’d have thought it?)
So there’s three reasons why I wanted to avoid the word “denomination”, and three explanations of why I don’t think those reasons were very good. In short, I think that any gathering of local churches that shares a name and a set of values or doctrinal commitments - even if they call themselves a network, a movement, a family or even a fellowship of independent evangelical churches! - is functionally a denomination as far as the English language is concerned. And personally (I’m clearly not speaking for the whole movement/network/family here), I don’t think denominations are anything to be ashamed of. Except, that is, for the fact that the word is an anagram of ‘not made in Sion’.
———————————————————————————————
Andrew’s next book, If God Then What? Wondering Aloud about Truth, Origins and Redemption, will be released in April, published by IVP.
Comments
By David on 29/02/2012 at 16:13
I’d like to think my comment on the Tim Keller post (07/02/2012, 18:27) had some influence on this post - but I expect that’s vanity speaking!
I think the comparison between Tim Keller’s use of the word ‘religion’ and the Newfrontiers use of ‘denomination’ is instructive. In both cases, the claims made are probably false - understanding the terms as they’re used in ordinary English. But in using the term, the speaker is trying to distance what s/he represents (Christianity, Newfrontiers) from perceived (derogatory or unhelpful) connotations of the term.
And maybe it’s defensible to use a false statement to make a point. A possible comparison would be someone with red hair saying, “I’m not ginger”. She’s not denying a claim about the colour of her hair - rather, she’s rejecting a term she thinks is derogatory to refer to that colour (‘ginger’).
So I think Andrew’s absolutely right in (1) saying that Newfrontiers is a denomination and (2) focusing for much of his post on the *connotations* of the word, rather than its literal meaning.
I suppose my question would be whether there’s still something helpful about saying Newfrontiers isn’t a denomination. A number of commenters on the Tim Keller post thought Keller justified in denying that Christianity is a religion because of the connotations of the word ‘religion’. Might something similar apply here?
I think Andrew’s right that hierarchy (first reason) doesn’t exclude meaningful relationship – but words like ‘hierarchy’ and ‘denomination’ could have unhelpful connotations in that regard. And on the establishment point (third reason), I completely agree that things aren’t automatically better in virtue of being new, and that there’s a great deal of value in established institutions. But those who deny that Newfrontiers is a denomination are saying something significant. There’s a real danger that in becoming established we lose our zeal and sense of God-given, God-centred commission (and so on). Denying that Newfrontiers is a denomination could be a way of avowing that we won’t do these things.
But I might be mistaken. And perhaps avoiding the term ‘denomination’ would be a better response than denying that Newfrontiers is a denomination. (I note that Terry Virgo does something like this in a 2010 Magazine article, sidestepping the term without claiming Newfrontiers is not a denomination! See: http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Groups/115284/Newfrontiers/Magazine/Previous_Issues/Vol_3_14_Jan/The_future_of_Newfrontiers/The_future_of_Newfrontiers.aspx).
In any case, it’s certainly worth thinking about the language we use. Thanks for the post!
By Andrew Wilson on 29/02/2012 at 17:49
@David: you’re right, that’s what got me thinking about it, along with a conversation with Matt Hosier about confessionalism and denominations. I think your response is spot on: denomination is not a “wrong” word, but there are better ones to use. Thanks.
By Stuart on 29/02/2012 at 20:07
@Andrew: I think David makes a good point regarding the use of language and its connotations. Another thing to consider is the fluidity of language. Although we have dictionaries that seem to be prescriptive, there is a large body of thought that suggests language is continually evolving, based on use (i.e. corpus-based). We see evidence of this as new words and meanings for words are added each year to the various dictionaries. This suggests that over time the connotations of a word are increasingly incorporated into their meaning (or alternate meaning). It also suggests that what is important is not so much a technical meaning but more how it is understood by a particular audience.
Another thing to consider is that New Frontiers was established by those who came “out of the denominations”. The house church movement in the UK was a fresh vision for new structures (i.e. new wineskin for new wine). It was a rejection of all the negative connotations that are often associated with denominations. To re-adopt the term would seem to lose sight of this. It would seem similar to the protestant church wanting to refer to themselves as catholic again as they realize they are part of one holy “catholic” church. Of course technically correct, but not so helpful to distinguish themselves from what they broke away from
By Paul Hunnisett on 02/03/2012 at 14:08
Do connotations not give meaning to words. A word may, initially have one meaning, but gains additional or different meanings as connotations are attached.
Calling ourselves a denomination may not force us to include all the negative things associated with the term, but it would, in some instances, communicate that we do include them.
Given that, is it not reasonable to say that we are not a denomination - as that term would probably be understood?
By Colin Perkins on 03/03/2012 at 20:33
Andrew, this is a really great post and I find it tremendously encouraging to read this. There’s a lot I want to say in response, but won’t go on as much as I usually do, so just want to fully agree with you about so many of the positives in ‘traditional’ denominations. Also, it is worth pointing out that such denominations are not nearly so hierarchical as many in the ‘new church’ movement presume. Read up, for instance, on the independence of the role of ‘rector’ in the Anglican Church, and have a look at why that independence developed - partly, at least, so that the rector could preach the gospel without fear of losing his job if the gospel he preached fell on deaf ears or received a hostile response. And yes, I agree that many of our new worship practices do not ‘do they job’ as well as those that have developed over centuries; particularly around Communion, confession, and the incorporation of doctrine in worship (especially the use of the Creeds; picking up on your point of praying in a spot that has been used for prayer for 800 years, there’s also something pretty powerful about declaring the essentials of our faith using a form of words that reaches back to the very earliest centuries of the church).
Thanks so much for this post, hugely encouraging! (And, whilst I’m sure you’ve already read it, the Gospel Driven Church covers many of these topics and is worth a re-read!).
By Guy Bernhardt on 06/03/2012 at 15:24
I found this blog very useful and it certainly helps me understand Newfrontiers as an outsider. When I started to meet people from Newfrontiers and they told me that they we not a denomination, it might have been counter-productive for two reasons. Firstly, it looked a bit unintentionally dishonest as if they were trying to present themselves as something that they were not, so there was a problem of credibility. Secondly, it sounded as if they were saying, rather like the Pharasees prayer, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men..’ - in this case other church groups who were denominations – and so reinforce the divide between Newfrontiers and other churches who rightly accept the label denomination. It was like saying ‘we are the true church – unlike other churches.’ But now I understand; I think not using the denomination word is probably a form of ‘denial’ in which the people objecting to his label cannot face up to the thought that they are not yet another church movement, with their own code, rituals and hierarchical structure – nothing wrong with that but an unpalatable true to some. As Newfrontiers matures and develops greater self awareness, the word denomination is becoming acceptable and so this article is now published on a Newfrontiers website.
By Al Shaw on 17/03/2012 at 22:32
The Rubicon has been crossed.
Sigh….
By Matthew Tuckey on 25/04/2012 at 18:27
@Andrew
Interesting blog Andrew. One of the reasons that i chose my church, CityChurch, is because of the values it holds as a member of New Frontiers and as an individual church. To me the church seemed integral, honest, un-religious, accepting, modern and truly God centred. Since joining the church i have prided myself as being ‘non-denominational’. However i was suprised to see that Worship Central Spirit Breakout had New Frontiers listed as a denomination.
I guess your point is that it’s not the lable that matters but what’s inside the box. In this case, the bible believing values of New Frontiers. To the point, we can call ourselves a denomination that is striving to reform the church as set out in New Frontiers Mission statement.
However the problem to me is this: if we split the church into denominations and doctrines then we become allegiant to that denomination or doctrine therefore becoming ‘Catholic Christians’, ‘Baptist Christians’, ‘Anglican Christians’, ‘Presbyterian Christians’, ‘Methodist Christians’ or ‘New Frontiers Chrisitans’ and so on. So this arouses the question of whether we are seeking God’s will and the credibility of Christianity and the Church as a whole, or the credibility of a certain doctrine or indeed denomination.
The Bible is very clear that as of the Fall, man cannot fully understand God’s will and how to live a perfect life. We are blessed with leaders who have been blessed with wisdom and prophecy, but as it says in 1Cor13:9-10, we can only do so much untill the second coming.
My point is this, striving to make the Church ‘fully reformed’ is impossible. But so is godliness, and the bible commands us to seek this with all our hearts so that we can please our Father. Splitting the Body of Christ into denominations is not helpfull in preserving the church as one Body (1Cor12). Therefore i urge us not to be split into another legalist or liscence denomination but to be a movement, as set out by the New Frontiers mission, to reform the Church and strive for Godliness in doing so.