Response to Doug--Chapter 4

You note, in response to Frame's list:

1. Denominationalism has greatly weakened church discipline. The hypothetical example he gives could be all too real. Without a sense of mutual belonging to a greater Body, or a shared vision of responsibility to that Body, such a situation could easily happen – and does. One could argue that sociological factors (such as our individualism, drive for growth uber alles, etc), also feed into this problem.

This is my personal vote for "number one problem of denominations." It is the same problem as comparison-shopping, really, as all of these amount to a replacement of submission with selection in our relationship to the church. (I'll get to your number one in a moment.)

In a previous post, I used a similar example, that of a church which remarries divorcees who were refused marriage by a neighboring church. I am still looking for the suggestion which improves on this situation; in any scenario I can foresee, the church with the popular view will simply assimilate the less popular, but more biblical, church--effectively annihilating the witness to that particular truth in that culture. We have to have more than "abolish denominations" in play, if we wish to avoid that; yet it is clear that the status quo, in which the adulterer can simply "shop around" until he finds a "tolerant" and "inclusive" church that "accepts" him and shows him "unconditional love," is unacceptable.

Now, as to your number-one problem with denominations, regarding the maldistribution of gifts in the Body (among the denominations):

The problem is that we’ve essentially divided the Body up by its functions, as Paul explicitly warned us in I Corinthians 12 NOT to do.

I basically agree, with a caveat insofar as I still think that God will give the local church what it needs. The question is, though, are we using everything He's given us? Or are we hiding and distorting certain things to fit our frameworks and distinguish ourselves from others?

I think there's something in that side of the critique, though, especially where the old "It takes evangelistic unction to make orthodoxy function" sort of problem crops up. I know that, as a non-Calvinist intellectual, it's frustrating to me to find myself compelled to consult Reformed, Catholic, or Orthodox sources for well-reasoned historical judgments about doctrine, while at the same time having to systematically disagree with key elements of their arguments. Where are the great dogmatists on "my side"? The sad answer is, virtually nonexistent. The temptation to "join the club" doctrinally in order to get in on the discourse is strong; the temptation to reject the discourse altogether so I "don't rock the boat" is, on the other hand, also strong. It's no wonder I've seen Christians from non-liturgical traditions running off to Rome or Antioch to replace that tension with "ours is the one, true church" pride.

Is the answer to create a "one, true church"--as Frame seems to think it is--though? You and I seem to agree it isn't. So how can we insure that our local churches are not suppressing the Lord's work in their members?