When Methodology Gets Confused With Theology

Posted by: Tom,

I think my denomination may believe in a right methodology more than they believe in a right theology. I was surprised to discover language in some our denominational documents that seemed to support this uniformity. My guess is that they wanted people to be able to find a familiar church no matter where they went.

Of course this accusation of mine would be vigorously denied. But talk is cheap, as they say, and in practice we have a hard time with this. I understand though. We all have a tendency to believe that we have the only answer.

The problem starts with a uniform evaluation. Once you determine how you are going to measure a church you have also pretty much determined the agenda. Sure, churches will use different programs, and thsoe programs may look very diverse, but the method is still the same despite all the cliches proclaiming the contrary.

I suppose that there are many who would make long lists to prove me wrong. Afterall I am making a strong statement with regard to the definition of methodology. But I am convinced that I can break down every item listed to a similar core. In other words, in the end, they will all fit within a specific set of rules, postulates, and values designed to attain whatever will be measured.

Perhaps that is a good thing for a denomination. The denomination I want to try is one that is more unified around Jesus than methods and is willing to let others be truly different in their expression of church. I believe that is the direction denominations must evolve but perhaps they don't want to evolve at all.


7
rev-ed said...
11:29 AM
I think that you are correct in much of what you've written here. Specified evaluation teaches us to value certain things. Yet adherance to Jesus Christ isn't easily evaluated. So in our efforts to do our best for Jesus, we typically do what others have done sucessfully and we forget about unconventional thinking.

Watch the evaluations of players in the NFL draft. A good combine in the "measurable skills" runs players from being a late round draft choice to an early-rounder. Yet there are plenty of Tom Bradys out there who excelled in "unmeasurables". How many churches are discouraged from excellence in unmeasurables due to an emphasis on the measurable?
sdennie said...
8:25 AM
I'm just curious--what denominational documents are you referring to?

steve
Steve, the phrase that really caught my eye was in the first paragraph of the denomination's constitution which includes, as a reason for ordaining the articles of the constitution, "...as well as to produce and secure a uniform mode of action in faith and practice,..." Obviously there will be many interpretations as to what that means but I also seem to remember that this was a discussion a long time ago (say 25 years). I think the discussion was not a change to our documents but about the advantages and disadvantages of having our churches practice in a similar fashion and I'm not sure what the conclusion was. Of course, I would have been a teenager at the time so it is possible that this discussion was in a different setting. That is quite possible if you don't remember anything of the like since you would have had a better view than I.
sdennie said...
9:04 AM
The Constitution is certainly a "denominational document." :) Can't get any more so. Clear back in 1969, there was talk of eliminating the separate bishops' districts and having just one national district (though still with conferences), with a major argument being that we needed more uniformity across the church. But that cat was already out of the bag. In 1993, we eliminated a ton of requirements for local churches, freeing them to organize in ways befitting their situation. We took it a bit further in 1997, and also gave conferences the same freedom in 1997. That's definitely the direction we've been heading, though I still hear occasional cries (unheeded) for more uniformity. I suspect that we aren't following the original intent of the founders when they crafted that statement for the Constitution.
Steve, I concur with everything you wrote but that was not the intended issue of my post. I am arguing that the type of changes you describe are not really methodological changes but repackaging in most cases. For just one example, we really don't use music all that differently even if the music sounds very different. Thinking of real methodological change is difficult and even harder to accept.
sdennie said...
10:02 AM
I guess I'm unclear about what you're pointing at. Our methods have, indeed, changed significantly over the years, and churches use different ways to conduct and manage their own affairs. But you seem to be aiming at something else. I guess I need examples.

Steve
Throughout church history there have been a few major changes as to how Christians went about being the Church that I believe were methodological changes and that is what I am referring to here. Allowing congregants to actually participate in services rather than just observe would have been such a change. I admit that they are difficult to think about because we can't get out of our 21st century mindset and that makes such changes even harder to accept. We like to to talk about an Acts 2 church but we do so with the modern church in mind. I think (and I have difficulty visualizing it myself)it would practice much different than most of us imagine. In the end I think we do very little in terms of methodological change (and yes, I sense we have different views on what that word means) and it is very difficult for us to accept such changes.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
photo

I'm Tom. I have a wonderful wife, 4 kids, a dog, and a cat. What more could a guy want.

@Tue 24 Feb, 2009 20:16Green Banner: 24 February, 2009Green Banner Vector Graphic http://tinyurl.com/an5ptx

Template and Icons by DryIcons.com