OSH;1291684 wrote:You must obey the preacher, pastor, priest, or whoever in the building, or what he/she has to say. You have to abide by the rules that the denomination sets -- i.e., when you have the Sabbath, when and how the Eucharist is taken, when and how baptism occurs, when and how you tithe, what you can wear, what you can eat, what you can do, where you can go, so on and so forth. Denominations have made this all happen.
I've been to a lot of churches across a pretty wide array of denominations, and I can only think of one or two where this was actually the case.
Denominations are defined more by ideology than form (in most cases), which is why you'll see VERY many denominations that look remarkably similar on a given day. There may be subtle nuances, but aside from that, there are stark similarities.
Good lord, the only "rules" that any church of which I've been a part has set were rules on core beliefs, and that was only for membership. Not for attendance. Hell, I attended a Catholic service for almost a year just for the experience of it, and while I'd never done confession, been baby-baptized, been confirmed, etc. I was perfectly welcome. And let's just say there are staunch differences between my worldview and the standard Catholic worldview in both ideology and function. I was welcomed as a brother from a different church, much like any member of the Philippian church would have been welcomed in the church at Galatia.
Not once have I been instructed by a preacher, pastor, priest, etc. to do anything ... except for my dad, who has been a pastor for most of his life, but that had to do more with the parental relationship.
I have been welcome to worship at Catholic mass, the Vineyard church, the Episcopal church, the Brethren church, several Baptist denominations, the Lutheran church, the Presbyterian church, the Nazarene church, various non-denominational churches (of which my current church is, technically), and the Grace Brethren church. I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but you get the gist. Not once would I have been required to live a certain way in order to be welcome to worship in community with them.
I've studied the development of denominations from the Reformation to contemporary times, and neither in form nor function was that ever the purpose or overwhelming result after the Reformation (admittedly, the Reformation itself had some ugly examples of this, with the killing of the Anabaptists over adult baptism, the killing of Jon Hus, the killing of Catholics by Luther and his followers, the killing of Luther and his followers by Catholics, etc.). Ultimately, when we place one denomination into a position of superiority, we are most certainly in the wrong, as Paul clearly stated when he chastised the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3 for boasting about whose party of thought to which they belonged.
Think of it like this: We, as a body, are like a football team. The denominations are like positions. You might be a right tackle, and I might be a tight end, but that does not make either one of us more or less a football player than the other.
OSH;1291684 wrote:You can pick anywhere in Paul's writings talking how each group is under the authority of ONLY Jesus Christ. There is no earthly rule. Acts 15 shows the prime example of a body that had unilateral authority, which Paul and Barnabas quickly figured that one group of believers spread false teaching to another -- things were taken care of and all was good again.
I agree that there is no earthly rule. I'm suggesting that denominations don't require an earthly rule. They're essentially formal schools of thought.
OSH;1291684 wrote: I'm glad you mentioned that. Does the title of "bishop" then have the same connotation that it does now? What about preacher/pastor only being mentioned once in the New Testament?
To the former question, it depends on who you ask, and the context. Within the Catholic church, I contest that it does not have the same connotation as it does now.
As to the latter, I can think of more than one example, so I'm curious to which one you're referring.
For what it's worth, I think the role of the "pastor" in the average church today is grossly misconstrued as something it wasn't intended to be.
OSH;1291684 wrote:How many times do you hear of denominations railing against how other denominations practice?
Virtually never, and like I said, I've spent time worshiping with a wide variety of denominations and fellowships (there is a difference
).
OSH;1291684 wrote:Not doing the Eucharist properly. Not baptizing by submersion. Not taking the tithe every week, month, etc. Telling others the "proper" way to worship -- with or without music, contemporary or not, etc. Boasting on what day is actually the Sabbath. Need more?
I have heard the music thing once, in a particular Baptist church whose pastor knew I disagreed with him, and I was still welcome to worship with them.
For what it's worth, "worship" isn't just singing or musical at all. Everything done in a service should be worshipful.
Even with denominations who have disagreed with me on some of the things you've mentioned, some of which even knowing that fact, I was always welcome to worship as a brother in Christ. Hell, I joke about our differences with many of the pastors/deacons/etc. of other churches, covering everything from Predeterminism to Millenialism to Trinity theory (the Pentacostal friend and I have fun with this one regularly). Those differences are in genuine belief. We still recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, no one inherently closer to God than another.
OSH;1291684 wrote: Sure hierarchical structure is a requirement of most denominations. What denomination doesn't have a hierarchy? Even having pastors, preachers, or ministers that stand up in front of congregations is included in that hierarchy. How many denominations have a leader above the pastor/preacher? Probably most, if not all.
In ideology, perhaps. Often not in form. And the ideology element is simply to maintain identity as an ideological unit. Sort of like the Evangelical Theological Society making sure all the members (ie, claiming to be part of the society) are indeed Evangelicals in ideology.
OSH;1291684 wrote: You may accept someone of a different denomination, but that's not a wide acceptance. Denominations want to "win" every other denomination over to their "church." That's not a healthy body of Christ.
Based on what do you draw this? It seems like you're making a slew of assumptions that don't actually exist. I have never been part of a denomination that sought that, and in most cases, what I've seen between different denominations within a small area is that they are happy to work together on community-building projects. Different ideologies, but not different cores, and so long as they understand that, I don't see the problem.
OSH;1291684 wrote:Correct. But those smaller groups of common belief systems are not to be identified other than "Christians" or however else one wants to call it (i.e., Christ followers, family of God, etc.).
That's not only silly; it's counterproductive. If my group has a unique theological belief, which might agree with others 90% of the time, but differentiates 10% of the time, there is nothing anti-biblical about distinguishing that fact. It's the beauty of the variety of minds that exist within the body. Disagreement is not equitable to dissension. You and I obviously have different ideologies. There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying with those camps of belief, so long as we, presumably both believers, treat each other as such.
OSH;1291684 wrote:Denominationalism tears apart the fabric of unity...no doubt about it.
No. People use denominations to tear apart the fabric of unity. Blaming denominationalism for fragmentation of the body is like blaming a knife for a stabbing.
OSH;1291684 wrote:The body of Christ should not have disunity in it.
I agree, but that doesn't mean that we can't have, and recognize, our differences.
OSH;1291684 wrote:Surely there are MANY who believe they are the only ones in good standing.
If there are, I have never, ever met one.
OSH;1291684 wrote:If you count Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in the "Christian denomination" category, they fall into that "good standing" thought -- and if you ask them, they are Christian.
Fair enough. That may be a question of core belief. Christian or not, given the difference in core belief, I'd say the distinction between a Mormon and an Evangelical view is more than simply denominational.
