Last night I met with an amazing young couple who are in the process of becoming married. I had a great time talking with them-- getting to know about their backgrounds, how they met, etc. But more importantly, I was intrigued by the discussion we had about Church in Southern California. One grew up United Methodist, the other, Roman Catholic. Both place great value in finding a church community that they both feel comfortable in, and sense they can grow spiritually. My church is the closest thing they've found in their year-long search.
Both hail from other parts of the country where Church is more a part of life. One said, "We're used to being in larger churches. Every church, except the Catholic Church out here is small." "And old," the other commented.
It became clear the more we talked that the Church denominational label or brand was not that important to them. As the groom said, "We're all Christians. It's about sensing God and growing." They are in their twenties and a part of growing movement of folks in the U.S. according to an LA TIMES article, based on a Pew Study, that says people really don't care that much about denominational labels anymore. In fact, those labels don't seem to help much at all.
I know there are plenty of people in the UMC who'd like to think that our brand label is enticing to people. I'm sure it is to some, but to newer folks, not so much.
So it goes back to a question of ecclesiology-- are we helping ourselves or hurting ourselves when we focus so much on the denomination, the Annual Conference over the local church and the small groups happening therein?
As we think about the future of the Church, this is an important thing for us to wrestle with-- especially for Conference and denominational leaders who keep hammering us about pushing our label...maybe in this one case, a "designer label" really isn't that sexy....
What do you think?
My 411
- Erika Gara
- Torrance, California, United States
- I long to be a part of a Church that will work to create the Church for the next generations.
Disclaimer
Some blogs I really like
Things I am digging right now....
Resources
Followers
RevGalBlogPals
google analytics
3 comments:
When I was becomming a Christian and choosing a church, I actually was using the denomination names more like warning labels than designer labels. Since I know that there is a a lot a variety within church interpretations of big concepts like "sin" and "grace". And I had some good ideas, based on my understanding of these differences, of where I didn't want to go. And I was happy those churches put their denominations in their names. So I could avoid them. Don't know if that helps.
Thanks, Marian...very helpful to hear from your perspective on the topic...
Great post, Erika. I thought the Pew Study was really interesting, and in some ways it confirms with data what we have been seeing in the church for awhile now.
In regards to your question, I think denominational identity is important (and will continue to be important) insofar as we believe that the theological tradition wrapped up in our denominational heritage offers a special insight into our understanding of salvation, the church's relation to God, etc.
So for instance, if we believe that Wesleyan theology offers critical resources that can reflect God to us in ways that other traditions do not, then the Methodism (insofar as it is Wesleyan) continues to be important.
That said, it is not at all clear that the UMC (or many other denominational traditions) will continue to care a whole lot about the distinctives of their tradition. As they grow more bland and accommodated to the surrounding secular culture, they lost their ability to do what they did originally - i.e., witness to the gospel of salvation in a way that others did not.
And if we continue to slide into milquetoast-ness, I think it will be a great cause for grief.
Post a Comment