Just a brief thought on the “God in a box” cliche…
“You mistakenly think we conceal what we worship since we have no temples or altars. Yet how can anyone make an image of God? Man himself is the image of God. How can anyone build a temple to Him, when the whole world can’t contain Him? Even I, a mere human, travel far and wide. So how can anyone shut up the majesty of so great a Person within one small building? Isn’t it better for Him to be dedicated in our minds and consecrated in our innermost hearts – rather than in a building?” Mark Felix in Octavius 2nd Century A.D.
You’ve seen the buildings built to contain the majesty of a person… palaces, castles, etc. And yet, they do not contain it, because said persons are still able to travel far and wide. If a King can choose to leave, or abandon completely, his opulent domicile, then it will never contain his majesty.
Some monarchs (most notably princesses) are kept inside their fortresses, unable to venture out, or move out, of their own accord. They are in effect imprisoned, and thus their majesty is stifled.
As Mark Felix said, if even a human cannot simultaneously have majesty and confinement, how much less can the King of kings? He has twice contained Himself… once in the Temple in Jerusalem, and once in the body of a Nazarene. By doing so He temporarily reduced His glory, but permanently increased it all the more, for our sake and for His own.
Shame on us when we think that God has called us to contain His glory in a temple, or a denomination, or a book, or a doctrine. Even the Bible, the greatest artifact of His glory that we have, pales in comparison to His true reality. Let Him then be “dedicated in our minds and consecrated in our innermost hearts…” for that is why He destroyed the Temple of stone and rebuilt it out of flesh.
The Core Revisited 
I agree…very well put. A question on the side of that subject. What are the feelings of the bloggers on denominations (purpose, power, dangers, etc)? EX: Should First Baptist Church remain just that, or is there more appeal if the denomination is dropped? Just wondering…
I agree…very well put. A question on the side of that subject. What are the feelings of the bloggers on denominations (purpose, power, dangers, etc)? EX: Should First Baptist Church remain just that, or is there more appeal if the denomination is dropped? Just wondering…
Two of your words stand out to me: “appeal” and “dropped”First, regarding “appeal”:One of the things that most bothers me about the church world today is the power of popular appeal. That is why entertainment has become such a driving force in the church; what better way to appeal to a “customer base” than through inspiring, mind-blowing entertainment? But I digress…Denominations are not a bad thing. When God commanded humankind to spread out and inhabit the earth, He certainly would have expected us to form affiliations and loyalties to certain people groups. In that day they would have been primarily based upon geography and family, but now that our speed of transit has increased and our family size has decreased, we are more inclined to affiliate with those who share our opinions , visions, and dispositions.The rub lies in how we treat those who are outside that group. Do we continue to see the set of all believes as the Universal Church, and a united brother- and sister-hood? Do we forget our pride and admit that we all have a common goal and common LORD? We’d better.And by the word “dropped” I wonder if you would suggest that churches a) disassociate from their respective denominations, or b) just remove the denominational indicators from their names. Many have done the latter, and many have recommended the former, though it’s been more rare. I think it all depends on the motive, pleasing God or pleasing men.Thanks for taking part. If you enjoy this blog, tell people. Maybe we’ll get something going.
Two of your words stand out to me: “appeal” and “dropped”First, regarding “appeal”:One of the things that most bothers me about the church world today is the power of popular appeal. That is why entertainment has become such a driving force in the church; what better way to appeal to a “customer base” than through inspiring, mind-blowing entertainment? But I digress…Denominations are not a bad thing. When God commanded humankind to spread out and inhabit the earth, He certainly would have expected us to form affiliations and loyalties to certain people groups. In that day they would have been primarily based upon geography and family, but now that our speed of transit has increased and our family size has decreased, we are more inclined to affiliate with those who share our opinions , visions, and dispositions.The rub lies in how we treat those who are outside that group. Do we continue to see the set of all believes as the Universal Church, and a united brother- and sister-hood? Do we forget our pride and admit that we all have a common goal and common LORD? We’d better.And by the word “dropped” I wonder if you would suggest that churches a) disassociate from their respective denominations, or b) just remove the denominational indicators from their names. Many have done the latter, and many have recommended the former, though it’s been more rare. I think it all depends on the motive, pleasing God or pleasing men.Thanks for taking part. If you enjoy this blog, tell people. Maybe we’ll get something going.
“Appeal” might not be the right word to describe the reason for excluding a denominational label from some local church names. Honestly, i think appeal is too weak of a word. It’s not an issue of what is attractive to one person/group or another. It’s an issue of trust and mistrust. In other words, wearing a denominational name tag might be a barrier to certain types of people giving you a chance to build a relationship with them. For some demographics, however, a denominational title might help someone find a church body with whom they would more strongly identify. As a general guideline, denominational names are more beneficial to rural and suburban churches than they are to urban churches in some cases. But in other cases, they may not be.To get down to the root issue regarding names and labels, we need to give consideration to the reasons some people are turned off by those names and labels. It is not for us to judge why people might be turned off by someone else’s name, but rather, we should explore the ways our own labels, names and denominations might hinder some from knowing Christ.I’m all for self-reflection and self-evaluation here. I also would note that gleaning from historical successes and failures within Christendom as a whole should be explored to enhance our discussion. One caution i would render, however, is that the “once worked, always will work” is not a healthy framework to operate from. What i mean is that success in past years might not look exactly the same as it would today or in the future. But there are obviously countless lessons to be learned from within our faith heritage.On a side note, regarding the example you gave, daccmv (How should we refer to you? Do you have a nickname you’d prefer?), i’d like to think about the word “First” in church names. Whether it be First Baptist, First United Methodist, First Episcopal, First Assembly, First Church of Christ, etc. all of these names have one thing in common: they maintain bragging rights. “We were here first,” they say. Granted, they provide a point of reference and distinction between subsequent churches. But how might they contribute to a culture of competition between churches? How might they contribute to the frontier myth perpetuated by American/European culture? What might they communicate to the lost world? Do they communicate the unity that Jesus prayed for in the garden of Gethsemane? Do they communicate the teaching of Jesus that “The last shall be first and the first shall be last”?Maybe none of the above are accurate or fair representations of the reasons for such labels. But it behooves us to consider how the lost may interpret (or misinterpret) our names, and therefore the personalities and intentions of our churches.
“Appeal” might not be the right word to describe the reason for excluding a denominational label from some local church names. Honestly, i think appeal is too weak of a word. It’s not an issue of what is attractive to one person/group or another. It’s an issue of trust and mistrust. In other words, wearing a denominational name tag might be a barrier to certain types of people giving you a chance to build a relationship with them. For some demographics, however, a denominational title might help someone find a church body with whom they would more strongly identify. As a general guideline, denominational names are more beneficial to rural and suburban churches than they are to urban churches in some cases. But in other cases, they may not be.To get down to the root issue regarding names and labels, we need to give consideration to the reasons some people are turned off by those names and labels. It is not for us to judge why people might be turned off by someone else’s name, but rather, we should explore the ways our own labels, names and denominations might hinder some from knowing Christ.I’m all for self-reflection and self-evaluation here. I also would note that gleaning from historical successes and failures within Christendom as a whole should be explored to enhance our discussion. One caution i would render, however, is that the “once worked, always will work” is not a healthy framework to operate from. What i mean is that success in past years might not look exactly the same as it would today or in the future. But there are obviously countless lessons to be learned from within our faith heritage.On a side note, regarding the example you gave, daccmv (How should we refer to you? Do you have a nickname you’d prefer?), i’d like to think about the word “First” in church names. Whether it be First Baptist, First United Methodist, First Episcopal, First Assembly, First Church of Christ, etc. all of these names have one thing in common: they maintain bragging rights. “We were here first,” they say. Granted, they provide a point of reference and distinction between subsequent churches. But how might they contribute to a culture of competition between churches? How might they contribute to the frontier myth perpetuated by American/European culture? What might they communicate to the lost world? Do they communicate the unity that Jesus prayed for in the garden of Gethsemane? Do they communicate the teaching of Jesus that “The last shall be first and the first shall be last”?Maybe none of the above are accurate or fair representations of the reasons for such labels. But it behooves us to consider how the lost may interpret (or misinterpret) our names, and therefore the personalities and intentions of our churches.
well said
well said
There is a nickname for you. The artist formally known as d_a_c_c_m_v.I think “appeal” was the word I was looking for- but a little clarification is needed. Generally speaking (writing) – when you ask an individual why he frequents a certain denomination he will answer- “Because I believe like they believe” or “They believe like I believe.” This is true in most cases but not all. When one looks at the definition (synonyms) of “appeal”, you find- influence, attract, draw… That is what I meant by appeal. If one chooses to attend a Baptist church because they agree with its doctrine and teaching one goes there because that church appeals to them. This does not necessarily make that church the “perfect denomination” but it is the church that appeals (influence, attract, draw) to that individual. I cannot say that there is a “perfect denomination” out there, but there is one denomination that seems to be closest to Biblical teachings and my convictions-thus it influences, attracts, and draws me in-it appeals to me. In my first post on this subject, I was questioning (dropping the denomination) whether the “appeal” would be greater in the fact that an individual can choose a place of worship without the connotations that go with the term “denomination”. Will it give an individual more freedom than classification? Coreman-I also digress…
There is a nickname for you. The artist formally known as d_a_c_c_m_v.I think “appeal” was the word I was looking for- but a little clarification is needed. Generally speaking (writing) – when you ask an individual why he frequents a certain denomination he will answer- “Because I believe like they believe” or “They believe like I believe.” This is true in most cases but not all. When one looks at the definition (synonyms) of “appeal”, you find- influence, attract, draw… That is what I meant by appeal. If one chooses to attend a Baptist church because they agree with its doctrine and teaching one goes there because that church appeals to them. This does not necessarily make that church the “perfect denomination” but it is the church that appeals (influence, attract, draw) to that individual. I cannot say that there is a “perfect denomination” out there, but there is one denomination that seems to be closest to Biblical teachings and my convictions-thus it influences, attracts, and draws me in-it appeals to me. In my first post on this subject, I was questioning (dropping the denomination) whether the “appeal” would be greater in the fact that an individual can choose a place of worship without the connotations that go with the term “denomination”. Will it give an individual more freedom than classification? Coreman-I also digress…
Deek,Like many, i see denominations as both positive and negative. I see the Cooperative Program of the SBC as extremely helpful for those who are venturing out in faith and starting new works, domestic or foreign. It certainly promotes the unity that Jesus expects of us. Denominational tags, like any label, helps us in many cases to identify or categorize things, people, places, etc. Sometimes that is to our benefit; sometimes it is to our detriment, particularly if those labels carry a negative connotation (the opposite of appeal)… which is what you’re talking about.I think there are at least two ways to deal with the problem of denominational stigmas (in the case where stigmas exist). The first is drop the name. But that may only be a temporary fix or cover up for the problem that lies underneath. Which brings me to the second option (the better one in my opinion): Change the things that turn people off (provided that you’re not changing the message of Christ or the potency of that message) and those labels will slowly begin to acquire a more positive connotation.Christ promised us that the world would hate us if we were His disciples. We can be confident in that. But there are some reasons for the world’s (and even some Christians’) hatred that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Those are the things that need to be addressed. Any suggestions to what some of those might be?
Deek,Like many, i see denominations as both positive and negative. I see the Cooperative Program of the SBC as extremely helpful for those who are venturing out in faith and starting new works, domestic or foreign. It certainly promotes the unity that Jesus expects of us. Denominational tags, like any label, helps us in many cases to identify or categorize things, people, places, etc. Sometimes that is to our benefit; sometimes it is to our detriment, particularly if those labels carry a negative connotation (the opposite of appeal)… which is what you’re talking about.I think there are at least two ways to deal with the problem of denominational stigmas (in the case where stigmas exist). The first is drop the name. But that may only be a temporary fix or cover up for the problem that lies underneath. Which brings me to the second option (the better one in my opinion): Change the things that turn people off (provided that you’re not changing the message of Christ or the potency of that message) and those labels will slowly begin to acquire a more positive connotation.Christ promised us that the world would hate us if we were His disciples. We can be confident in that. But there are some reasons for the world’s (and even some Christians’) hatred that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Those are the things that need to be addressed. Any suggestions to what some of those might be?
By the way, Deek…Do you know Coreman or me personally? If not, how’d you come across the website? How do you feel about our ministry approach? Are you interested in helping us carry the vision? If you’re not sure… check out my blog, The Incarnate (also on the “Gallery”-> “Words” page).
By the way, Deek…Do you know Coreman or me personally? If not, how’d you come across the website? How do you feel about our ministry approach? Are you interested in helping us carry the vision? If you’re not sure… check out my blog, The Incarnate (also on the “Gallery”-> “Words” page).