Sam Hamstra

Bill, I think you caught me! Right or wrong, I have a very high view of the local church (which I think reflects my pneumatology, my love for Paul's letters to the Corinthians, and my friendship with the late, great John Williamson Nevin).

I have observed, perhaps you have as well, that many view the church politically or organizationally as a voluntary society or collective of like-minded individuals. I suggest that this type of thinking flows from the politics of American republications with its inherent call for the separation of church and state. But maybe there is more to it than that.

In contrast, I take the apostle Paul's teaching to the messed-up Corinthians church at face value. I believe the local church is the people of God the Father, the bride and body of Christ (the presence of Christ in a community), and the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 3:16) consisting of individuals who are also temples of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6:19). By the promised presence and power of the Holy Spirit at work within the local church, she can do far more  abundantly than she can ask or imagine. 

No other group, not even a denomination, can claim to be the temple of the Holy Spirit consisting of many individuals who are also temples of the Holy Spirit. (Granted, a group can claim that some of its individuals are temples of the Holy Spirit.) No group other than the local church can claim the promises made to churches like that of Corinth or those in Ephesus or to contemporary local congregations. That's why, for me, the local church is the hope of the world.  

To your second point, I have had the privilege of witnessing many congregations throughout North and Central America minister effectively to the poor, the weak, and the forgotten. That is not to say, however, that a cluster of congregations wouldn't come together to do so together, or that a congregation wouldn't initiate a conversation with its denomination for help in this area. This may be an area where a denomination could help its local congregations better fulfill its mission.

And I affirm your emphasis on the importance of confession and accountability. I would  hope that local congregations would find value in both accountability and shared confessions.  In my estimation, those are two essential functions of  a denomination.

Thanks again, Bill. 

Thanks Bev.  You raise some good points about the relationship between the organism (the local church) and the organization (the denomination). 

As you note, the denomination is a human construct that, we trusts, helps the local church join with God in his mission to seek and save the lost by making disciples, even among the least of these.  But as a human construct, I find helpful and even necessary to, at least, protect churches from pastors and pastors from churches. Congregations, like individual Christ-followers, benefit from accountability, don't you think?

Thanks 

And your last comment seems to me right on.

Thanks for your response. It confirms that the crcna is taking the repair option discussed in part 1. I hope the efforts are successful. As I noted in part 1, I lean towards the reform option though it is nothing more than an idea, though the ECO suggest that it may work.

Darren, I hope I did not suggest that "repair" was a judgment, and hence fair or unfair.  The reject, repair, reform triad is simply a typology that helps us interpret history. As types they do not describe reality, they simply approximate it.  And institutional responses can be a mix but seem to land in one of the three categories. For me, the primary indicator that one has taken the repair option is that efforts are made to repair or, as you put it, reform current structures. The reform option tends to operated from ground zero and builds up from there (ECO or ARC as examples). Again, they are simply typologies that help us understand the ecclesiastical landscape we live in.  While I have a preference, I meant no moral judgment to those who choose the reject option or the repair option.

Thanks much for taking the time to weigh in on this important conversation. 

Thank you, Eric, for your post.  In my initial post I noted that the fundamental purpose of most denominations has been "to do more together."  With your comment, and that of Doug, I more clearly see that such a purpose may produce denominational advocacy groups, such as the Office of Social Justice (CRCNA). Perhaps it is my own insecurities, but these groups feel patronizing and paternalistic to those of us in the trenches serving local congregations. Plus, and more importantly, the very existence of advocacy groups at a denominational level suggests that the prophetic function of the church lies with the denomination and not within the local church which has been gifted by the Spirit with the prophetic.     

I wonder if that option was considered?

THanks for feedback, Tim.  I can see where my use of the non-compete clause led you to conclude that I was addressing competition between churches. Sorry about that.  My point, however, was not about competition and, therefore, I agree with your statement. We all need to keep our eye on the priize and seek first the kingdom.

My concern is with pastors who break their vows/promises and, in the process, divide congregations. (It is hard for me to see God at work in such behavior.) Plus, as you know, the unfortunate fruit of such actions is often divisions which, as Jesus warned, hinder, rather than advance the witness of Christ to the communities they seek to reach. 

Tongue in cheak, for sure.  

But trying to find a way to address a significant problem in the American Protestant Church.  How do we encourage pastors to be faithfil to their promises and committed to unity?  Perhaps one way is to talk about it.  Hence, my post.

But trying to find a way to address a significant problem in the American Protestant Church.  How do we encourage pastors to be faithful to their promises and committed to unity?  Perhaps one way is to talk about it.  Hence, my post.