|
 When
sectarianism begins to put on fruit, and a denominational status
is developing, problems multiply. These are apparent in
struggling young denominations about us -- they are apparent
among our own brethren.
Early
signs of denominationalism are: (1) "we" and
"us" and "our" begin to denote a party
concept that is larger than a local church, smaller than the
whole body of Christ; (2) the "brotherhood" is no
longer a "hood" of "brethren" but becomes a
"churchhood" in reality; (3) this "churchhood"
begins to own schools, "homes", and other
institutions; and (4) to act collectively in their operation (5)
As these developments are taking place, a peculiar
"brotherhood" (?) doctrine is being formed -- the
consensus of opinion, or "great middle-ground of the
majority. At this stage it is not written -- and it may have to
survive by the same rules as "baptist usage" -- but it
is a denominational "creed" none-the-less.
One
of the first "problems" of a young and tender
denomination is nomenclature -- the "words"
to use. How does one speak or write of
"our" work or instittantns, when in the recent past
the single local church was regarded as the largest functional
unit among "us"? The older members still recall our
sermons on "no earthly headquarters" "elders over
one flock only" etc. How does one change "Bible
authority" to "Church of Christ doctrine" without
arousing the ire of a few remaining old-fogies?
Another
problem is "consulting the brotherhood."
When the "churchhood" needs (?) to be consulted about
something, how does one go
about this -- until the time
|
|
comes
"we" can have an honest-to- goodness conference. These
"area-wide" meetings help, and a well-organized series
of such can "feel out" the situation, but it is still
a sticky business.
And
how can "brethren at large" be represented,
as to doctrine or desire? Once we openly acknowledge
denominational status the machinery can be set up and this
problem will vanish; but how can the "brotherhood"
churchhood speak, while we still claim to have "independent
autonomous" congregations only? It's a real sweat.
How
does the "brotherhood" churchhood own property
-- such as schools, camps, orphan homes, etc? This shook the
brethren of Kentucky in 1875, who thought they owned the school
in Lexington, but found such was easier said than done (See
Search for Ancient Order, West; Vol.2). "Progressive"
brethren then found the solution in a United Society, after some
years and tears. But how does a tender beginning denomination,
not yet ready to acknowledge a "headquarters," handle
this? Is this why the "board" arrangement is so
embarrassing to some? The"alms"
to-a-(sponsoring)-"church-in-need" argument is getting
rather thin, brethren!!
Restructuring
is a long way off -- or is it? Anyhow, "we" have
enough problems for -- chief among them being to open our
eyes to the existence of this young fledgling
denomination, and cease to feed and encourage its growth and
development.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
