How Committed to Denominations are Lay People Anyway?

[Tim Bonney]

I know a lot of clergy who are quite committed to their denomination. But over the last 20 years or more I've noticed that a fair percentage of people sitting in the pew, as much as a 1/3 or more depending on the church, have been members of churches in multiple denominations and didn't grow up in the denomination they are now attending.

So, how committed really is the average person to being Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or whatever?

I used to teach Baptist distinctives and now teach United Methodist doctrine and wonder how committed most lay people are to either?

Do you all get a sense that you are more committed to your denomination than the general people in the pew are? If so, how does that effect what people in the pew really believe versus what the official teachings of the denomination are? And, how much difference then does it make?

Just pondering today.

[Jon Estes]

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

In many ways, I think the de-emphasis on denomination is part of a post-denominational world. As I have worked with churches as their interim pastor, one of the focus points from the intentional interim training that I like to use is a focus on Connections, how the church connects with the wider world. What I am finding is that local ministries seem to be the key for the church. In my current intentional interim, the church seems much more involved with a local interdenominational ministry to human needs and a backpack project providing food to students from a local elementary school who have been identified as not being fed on the weekend by parents of guardians or not fed well.

Part of my awareness is the virtual demise of local associations as the seat of denominational awareness. There are few full-time directors of missions in VA outside of metropolitan areas, and the missions emphasis that the associations used to provide, along with the absence of denominational programs that provide missions education, has left major information gaps. When I was a full-time pastor, I tried to have two or three events each year that focused on a denominational connection like having a missions speaker, someone from the state team, or an emphasis that brought a wider awareness. In addition, most pastors used to be fed through a denominational network of colleges and seminaries. Now, I am aware of pastors in VA and NC Baptist life from at least half a dozen different seminaries rather than from a denominational network.

Also, the diminishing of church financial resources as churches have moved from my parents' generation into succeeding generations has meant that smaller gifts through the local church that meant less money to denominational causes. That also has resulted in more focus on direct mission efforts over denominational ones. Sending a team somewhere gets more resources from the local church than does a denominational emphasis.


The scene is changing. I am not certain where it is going totally for the future.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Jon Estes]

[Dave Roberts]

Discipleship Training vanished along with Sunday night church. I remember the 1970's when churches were moving away from Sunday night activities because of the culture shift and because of the lack of attendance. I remember that the first church I served out of seminary wanted me to revive Sunday night worship, which they had stopped two years earlier when the previous pastor left. We struggled with this for over two years and never got the people back because they had built other patterns. The casualty in this was the loss of Discipleship Training.

My greatest problem with WMU groups was that many of them read something out of a magazine to their group about the denominational missions program but never looked for a way to do more than promote two annual missions offerings. In the church where I am currently serving in interim, one ladies group this past year became aware of a need in Slovakia for pencil cases for Roma children. They immediately got to work, made about 30 of them and had them in Slovakia within six weeks of hearing of the need. The labels were not nearly as important as the opportunity to respond to a felt need.

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

In the same vein, my church just lost a couple who are moving to another church simply because our denomination is talking about issues of human sexuality. It isn't that they expressed any opinion one way or another or seemed to care about the issue. It is that they simply do not want to hear about any denominational issues in church or from the pulpit. They only want to hear sermons that meet their own spiritual needs. In fact they don't want to really to hear much about denomination at all. Given that we are a connectional Church, the likelihood of that is close to zero.

They have no patience for the fact that the UMC is going through an important time in our history and we have a duty to keep the congregation informed. They just want what they want.

I found that very frustrating, as most people in the church would be pretty annoyed if I didn't tell them what was going on in the wider denomination. Doing so is part of my job.

[Dave Roberts]

In the church where I am serving as interim, a CBF congregation, I have found that the last pastor hardly mentioned anything about the wider church beyond its local manifestation. This intrigues me since he was moderator for a year of the local association, was active in the BGAV, and regularly attended CBF state gatherings. It seems, he did not want to disturb anyone with details about denominational life. (The church gave generously to all in their budget.

[Sandy]

With many of those in the mega church movement and in the media business as well, including television programs, being "non-denominational" because they need money from the widest possible audience, they also become advocates for a non-denominational approach to church ministry. Denominational affiliation means less money for buildings and monstrously expensive worship "performances." It also means less for the pastor and it generally carries with it a higher level of accountability. International missions and domestic missions support costs money too.

Of course, denominations have baggage that can drag local churches down with it. From the time I was in college, I observed the rush of SBC pastors who sought after denominational recognition, prestige and prominence by trying to get their rears into the seats of "powerful" committees and boards, and by hitching their wagons to the "kingmakers." And of course, controversy drives people away.

[Tim Bonney]

[linda]

I'm one of those no longer denominationally committed folks. I was SBC during the free grace non-fundamentalist but very conservative days. Geographic moves had us in the UMC a while, and in the ELCA for a time. We left due to the spiraling liberalism, but have visited from time to time. Haven't seen any in rush of younger liberal folks, either, so hope the UMC is not assuming the "progressive" side will pack younger folks in. We have been happily in another Wesleyan denom. Unfortunately to us it is following the UMC footsteps plus throwing in a lot of emergent church stuff, so we have recently left. We've been visiting all over our new town. There are still conservative Wesleyan churches and they are not predominantly old people like our church and the UMC are here. And the Baptists that are fundamentalist and/or conservative are packing in the young adults also. We found a Baptist church we enjoy but probably will not join as it is considerably more reformed/LS than we are (close to an even split with that and the free grace dispensational group.) As newbies not interested in a church fuss, we are happily attending at this point but keeping our options open while we decide between them and some a tad livelier than we enjoy Wesleyans that "fall out" as it gets called here.

I guess my take on denominational loyalty is this: the denoms show no loyalty to the tithing units when the higher ups keep changing the theologies and teachings. So why should we show loyalty to them? If a generally Arminian leaning Baptist was taught for years the "truth" of that view by Rogers and Stanley and Bro X down at the local church, why would they be loyal now to the the MacArthurs and Pipers and Pastor Y at the same church now?

We have met a lot of folks that feel they did not leave their denom, it left them.

But on the upside, I do think this has more people considering more than one point of view now days.

But as I said, we found a church we like but since we don't know what it will be teaching/doing in a year how can we commit?