*At least, not in the way people seem to want to use the term (including some Southern Baptists). I regularly hear people call the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) a "denomination", including its "denominational leaders" (tongue-in-cheek), moreso at the local and state levels. Depending on how they are using the term, they might be right. If you just want to pull out the dictionary definition, denomination, n. 1. a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things then yes, you could call the Southern Baptist Convention a denomination. Likewise, if you are using the classic Weber church/sect typology (some interpreting it as "church" being an all-encompassing social monolith, "denomination" being a set of competing church-institutions on good terms with society, "sect" being more of a protest movement and less organized, and "cult" being more centered around an individual), you could also call the Southern Baptist Convention a denomination, though I think that would overplaying the intent of the classification and overselling the organization of the SBC (I still think we would be termed a "sect" even under that system as compared with denominations).
In my opinion, the real issue the relationship between a local church and a denomination. If we simply say that denominations are associations of local churches, then fine. But that's not the way I hear people use the term. Rather, I hear people speak of a church as a local chapter of a denomination, like a franchise or a chain. Do you see the difference? Our two options: A denomination is an association of local churches (fine) -OR- a church is a local chapter of a denomination (ergh). If you are using the term in the latter way, and I think many people are without necessarily realizing it, then you are using it inappropriately with Southern Baptists. A World of Chains and Franchises It's not hard to understand why people would use the term in this way. The truly independent store or restaurant doesn't have the influence it once did. Either it has been marginalized by a competing franchise (cf. Walmart) or it has been so successful that it has decided to reproduce itself (cf. McDonalds). Most of us live and operate in a culture dominated by a "parent company" in our workplace, where we eat, or where we shop. It's natural for us to think in these terms. In the case of a chain, a parent company assumes the risk of creating stores at new locations, staffing those stores, and maintaining central management for each store. In the case of a chain, a parent company offers a business model for purchase by individual investors who assume the risk of new locations and pay some sort of franchise fee. In the case of a chain, the parent company maintains "quality control" authority. In the case of a franchise, the parent company has "sold" that authority to the local franchise owner. Frankly, quite a few denominations operate according to the chain or franchise model, though they may have been doing it long before there were business chains or franchises. {Brief historical aside: both the chain and the franchise models started in the mid 1800s partly through observing the success of denominations in the United States. Over time, denominations have modified their practices to emulate the success of certain chains and franchises. There's nothing wrong with that. They're simply finding answers to questions the Bible doesn't address. My concern is that they perhaps shouldn't have been asking some of those questions to begin with, but more on that later.}
0 Comments
|
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|