The Christian church could be seen as a river. Yet this river has some streams flowing from her source. It used to be that those streams might be defined by the three major branches- Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Then those streams would have branches snake off. Protestant might then branch off in denominations- Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist. But this river is changing.
We might instead of thinking of denominations consider labeling those Protestant branches as faith personalities or traditions. I wrestled with this. Consider. Methodists who leave a Methodist church are not necessarily going to join another Methodist church. Folks are not staying with a denomination. A person might be a member of a Baptist, Presbyterian, and then a Methodist church in his/her life. This is a growing trend. A person may not see himself/herself as Presbyterian or Baptist anymore. Now I teach Baptist heritage/history so this of course troubles me because I believe each denomination does have something to offer the larger church and does define how each local church ‘does church.’ Yet I don’t think we’ll all blend into one church. Hardly! I believe the personalities/traditions define us and are larger than denomination.
So what are they? Mainstream, evangelical, etc? Those terms no longer work either. So here is what I propose:
Liberal Moderate Conservative Fundamentalist
Bear with me a moment. A person may not know this but when he/she visits a church he/she has a certain faith perspective/personality. And when visiting they may not know why but they ‘connect’ in a church and do not in others. Now programs, preachers, and friendliness play a part but yet for real commitment and involvement something has to connect to make the person feel this is ‘right’. They can’t always articulate it but it is there. So JOHN SEEKER is Presbyterian and visits a Presbyterian church but yet he is very conservative (not quite fundamentalist but leaning that way) and finds the local Presbyterian church personality to not ‘fit.’ That church is more moderate to liberal and he doesn’t know why but it isn’t ‘home.’ They deal with social issues, have women in the pulpit, and are not preaching about politics. He visits a Bible church that has a local congressman visit that day. They talk about major moral issues. They pass out voter guides. They use the KJV Bible and there is much talk about getting saved. He feels at home. He is a kindred spirit. SUSIE VISITOR tries a local Lutheran Church. She was Lutheran in the mid-west and tries this church. Women can’t lead. They are not fundamentalist but seem to be very conservative. She doesn’t connect. She goes to another Lutheran church that is welcoming to women. They aren’t extremely liberal but are more moderate. She has found her home. She stays Lutheran but it is more about the connection than the denomination. Are you seeing what I see?
The landscape is shifting. Now churches do not fit neatly in either of the four boxes. Some might but not all. A church can lean between moderate and conservative. A church can be conservative with moderate and fundamentalist members. But the further away from one category you get the less likely you’ll find folks from the outer categories.
For example- a church that is moderate strongly may have a few folks on the moderate/liberal side and a few on the moderate/conservative side. But far fundamentalist will lead to conflict and fighting. A church that is conservative leaning fundamentalist will not have strong moderates or liberals. And on it goes.
When calling a pastor the minister and church need to consider this. Can churches changes? Slowly and with bloodshed. A church that is moderate might move either to the left or right (but not far left or right without much blood or years). A pastor who is fundamentalist should consider this before taking a strongly moderate pulpit. A moderate who is leaning liberal should consider this before taking a conservative leaning fundamentalist church. Making sense?
What about defining those labels. That’s tricky. I hesitate to try. The more left a person/church is the more it is open to higher criticism of the Bible, women, social issues, working with other denominations/faiths, etc. The more left the church/person is then the issue of homosexuality being open and accepted- from welcome but not affirmed to welcome and affirmed. The more to the right one is the more women can’t lead, moral issues are conservative, politics show up more, evangelism trumps social issues, etc. And homosexuality goes from loving the sinner/hating the sin to open damnation of homosexual from the pulpit. Folks who are moderate to conservative obviously would move in appropriate directions from those two poles.
I hate to define but this is what I’m beginning to muse/ponder. The Hartford material I recently commented on indicates that spiritual vitality being felt in a church shows up more in more liberal and more conservative churches (The two ends of the poles). Why? I believe because they know who they are and mainly in unison on issues folks usually fight about. The rest of us are diverse on a host of issues which opens the door for conflict and conflict leads to spiritual distress. I have no solution for that one!
So what does this mean? I’ll muse on that next blog.
