What is a Denomination and a Nondenomination?

Do you ever wonder why some churches are called a denomination and others are called non-denomination?

Generally we associate denominations as part of the “mainline” which includes a wide range of protestant churches. I rarely hear anyone describe the Catholic Church a denomination. Usually, we drill down what our Christian faith tradition is in this sequence : Catholic or Protestant? If Protestant which denomination or non-denomination?

So what makes a denomination a denomination? Lets start with what a nomination is.

The word nomination come from the Latin word nominationem meaning "a naming, designation”. When we nominate something we name it or mention someone or something by name. It naming by what it is.

And so to “de-nominate” is to name by what it is not. A denomination in the Christian tradition is less defined by what it is than by what it is not. For instance, United Methodists are a denomination from the Church of England. The Church of England identifies seven sacraments. As a denomination of the Church of England, the United Methodists do not have seven sacrament, but there are two. What makes a denomination a denomination is not what it says, but what it does not say - what it denominates.

Another example is the denomination in the wings from the United Methodist Church - the Global Methodist Church (GMC). The current document that outlines this denomination is called Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline. If you are a United Methodist then you may feel like this document sounds like the current UMC’s guiding book called The Book of Discipline. Much of the Transitional Book and the Book of Discipline are so similar it is sometimes difficult to see how they are different. Again, a denomination is not marked by what it says, but what it does not say. One of the things the Transitional Book of the GMC does not say is what the Book of Discipline calls “Our Theological Task.” The ramifications of this is notable. The UMC affirms so deeply that doctrine and theology must go hand in hand to discern what God is doing in the world today. The GMC suggests that there is no new doctrine to be discovered and that every question already has an answer. To make the point even clearer, the only “restrictive rule” of the GMC reads:

In continuity with our Wesleyan heritage, the governing body of the Global Methodist Church shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or Confession of Faith, or establish any new standards of rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.

The GMC suggests that all that God has for humanity has already been stated and that theology is in service to doctrine - not a mutual partner. The UMC understands that there are questions that the world is asking that doctrine alone cannot address and doctrine must be in conversation with theology to discern God’s will. And so as a denomination, the GMC does not speak of the denomination’s theological task because doctrine is all that is essential. In this simple way, the GMC is denominating (not speaking) about theology, but is speaking about doctrine.

If a nomination is naming by what is, and a denomination is naming by what it is not, then what do we make of a “nondenomination”? (Que mind explosion.)

A non-denomination lacks a naming by what it is not. Or to put it another way, a nondenomination is doing everything it can to try to name everything. There ideal non-denomination is a place that has an answer for every question, problem, and vexation. That answer may be a bible verse or a statement of faith or a prayer, but the non-denomination works hard to teach that there is no lack, that there is an answer and that answer is found in the named sources of the nondenomination.

And so to recap:

• A nomination is a process of naming something by what it is.

• A denomination is a process of naming something by what it is not.

• A nondenominational rejects the idea of denominating and looks more like a nomination process.

And why does any of this matter? It matters to those of us who believe that doubt, unknowing and lack are not things that can be explained away but realities we must live with. This is the nature and role of theology. Through the art and practice of theology the disciple does not try to eliminate the felt sense of lack in their life, but come to see the lack as a friend. A friend who can teach us. Show me an organization that promises to make you whole and completely without lacking and I will show you an organization that is controlled by fear. Any nondenomination (or denomination for that matter) that suggests that all the questions to life are already solved is a Church that is ill equipped for the complexities of the world we are living in.

Orthodox, Heterodox and Heretic

I grew up in the “crazy” streets of a sub-urban cul-de-sac neighborhood. It was there, in those secure and safe streets that one rule reigned supreme among the neighborhood kids. Majority rule. When we all got together to play, the majority decided what will be played. It did not matter if you wanted to play soccer, the majority had roller blades and so it was decided that street hockey was to be played. Majority rule. It was the indisputable logic and rule of the “sacs” (the name we gave to the collection of dead end streets in our neighborhood).

By in large, majority rule is still the reigning rule of groups not just in group decisions or politics but even in theology. Of course, the Church does not call it “majority rule”, the Church word is “Orthodox”. What is considered orthodox is what has been agreed upon by the majority of people in a given time and place. Sometimes those majorities rule for a long time but others change with high frequency, however the underlying assumption is it is the will of the majority that rules.

Of course as long as you are in the majority you are probably happy, but once you come to disagree with the majority then what do you do? In the “sacs” the minority positions would be banished from the conversation and you either got on board or you went home. Thus, making decisions becomes a zero-sum game. There are those who “win” and those who “loose”.

In the life of the Church, this zero-sum approach shows up as there are those who are “orthodox” and those who are “heretic.” It becomes the task of the heretic to get on board with the orthodox and it is also the task of the orthodox to convince the heretic to join the majority.

The Heterodox Beauty

Many people in the Church do not hold the majority (orthodox) position but they are not heretical. For example the UMC upholds that women can be in any level of leadership. However there are many in the denomination who do not agree and refuse to accept a female pastor. Those who do not accept a female preacher hold a minority position in the UMC. Of course this position is the majority in another denomination.

Minority positions in the church are called “Heterodox”. The heterodox position is one that is of dissent to the orthodox position. It is the voice that challenges and critiques. It is not heretical, it is heterodoxal.

So what are we to do with those who hold minority positions in the denomination?

As a side note: I wonder why the majority/orthodox positions become frustrated with the minority/hertordox positions? Why would the majority be annoyed by the minority if not but out of fear of loosing the prestige of being in the majority? If the majority is really threaten could it be because on some level those in the majority know there is truth in the minority position?

Ecclesiastical Chemotherapy?

Not long ago Mark Cuban (the owner of the Dallas Mavericks) said that he feels President Trump is Political Chemotherapy. The point he was making is that regardless of how you feel about Trump, everyone in the American political system is having to examine what it is we want to be normative and what are values are and what it means to be a public servant today. This is for some, a painful process and for others a sense that this is the last chance to "fix" the sick system. It is an interesting metaphor regardless of how one feels about President Trump. 

The UMC faces among her more difficult future in the months ahead. The ruling of the Judicial Council on Bishop Oliveto, the Commission on the Way Forward, the called session of the General Conference, local churches voting to leave the denomination and the evolving of renewal/schismatic groups - just to name few of the challenges. While the future is not something that I would have desired for my denomination and I have no doubts that there will be a great discomfort and pain, but perhaps the UMC is not dying but going through chemotherapy?

Part of the intensity of chemotherapy is that it does not discriminate - even healthy cells are affected. All of this facing the UMC, of course there will be a number of good people who will leave the denomination, and perhaps the Universal Church. There will be indiscriminate pain and hurt across the UMC. So what do we do? 

I submit that we look to how we would minister to those going though chemotherapy. Sit. Pray. Be still. Cry. Find the moments of joy where we can. Remind one another we are not alone. Try not to get too bogged down in the days ahead, but be present right now. 

---

Note: It is not my intent to downplay the intensity of cancer, and I only offer this as a metaphor and like all metaphors it breaks when stretched passed its usefulness. I have witnessed the effects and in no way mean to imply that the struggles of the UMC are of the same level of pain and fear that come with medical chemotherapy.