I was in a class this semester that spent a third of the time dealing with American Presbyterian history. That time was devoted especially to those who are seeking ordination in a Presbyterian church, because they are required to know the tradition's history for their candidacy exam. While the seminary I attend is not affiliated directly with the Presbyterian Church in America, a large number of students come from that tradition, myself included. And although as a whole the history is not particularly stimulating, it was by all means helpful to learn some of it.

In wrapping up the class today, the professor, John Muether, issued a warning to the PCA and to us who were seeking to be good churchmen (a favorite word of his) and to do ministry within the denomination. He said something to this effect:

If I were in the PCA I'd be concerned about the increasing diversity in the PCA. To me it seems the issues that divide the PCA are similar to those that have split other Presbyterian denominations in the United States the past. At this point, I don't know where the PCA is going to find its theological identity.

Is there division in the future of the PCA? I don't know. But there are some difficult times ahead in terms of establishing a proper alignment of Presbyterian faith and practice. You are beginning to see lines of affinity drawn ideologically, and your real committment is less to your regional presbytery than to these other groups to whom you find the closest ideological agreement.The PCA is Balkanizing, and is in danger of doing so even further as these affinity groups gain their strength.

While I was somewhat surprised to hear him say this, in a sense I understood what he was saying, and do incline towards hearing his words as somewhat prophetic. As a denomination or ecclesiastical body grows larger, it inherently grows more diverse. This is historical reality. As such, a bigger ship becomes increasingly difficult to steer.

By "lines of affinity" Muether is referring to such groups as the Tim Keller's Redeemer Church Planting Network, or the very conservative groups surrounding Greenville Seminary and Joseph Pipa, or J. Ligon Duncan and Twin Lakes Fellowship. I apologize to those of you outside Reformed and Presbyterian circles who are likely not aware of these different divisions, but these are some of the different camps that exist within the PCA. A classmate of mine made the further observation that theological cohesion is beginning to erode within the denomination, and the yearly General Assembly is becoming more of a rubber-stamping bureaucracy instead of overseeing and leading the denomination with diligent and biblical efforts to guide its life and mission.

Recently I completed a research paper on the Christian Reformed Church, another denomination I have close ties too, having been raised in it, and I observed similar trends to what Muether observed in class about the PCA. The CRC has suffered from a lack of cogent theological identity, and thus has splintered and fractured throughout the years. Although it still exists as an entity, it is arguably held together by tolerance rather than mutual agreement, and as such it is a bond that is bound to break at some point in the future.

What of denominations, then? One would think that thirty-thousand plus denominational divisions is more than enough for one world. But it appears that groups like the PCA and the CRC (just as reference) are headed towards division again. There are undoubtedly other denominations facing the same circumstances. Muether, a member of the substantially smaller Orthodox Presbyterian Church, maintains that a smaller denomination is easier to keep unified both theologically and in its mission. I think he is right, and in that respect perhaps dividing the larger denominations would be helpful.

I do not say that wholeheartedly, however. As the Church looks outside its own walls, it is easy to perceive the distrust and suspicion that unbelievers hold in regards to the Church as an institution. Our endless debating and fracturing leaves our witness severely compromised. If we are to effectively witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ, it involves us laying aside differences and uniting in his name to battle the forces of the prince of darkness. There is strength in numbers, as the saying goes. Our focus necessarily must shift from understanding the Church as an institution to an organic body, as I have stated before.

Perhaps, then, we are seeing what some people have been advocating for some time--a breaking down of the organizational structure of denominations. I do not know that I would be entirely opposed to that, though I also hesitate to throw my full support behind this notion. Having been the witness of splits and divisions before, I do not care to see that happen again. If we are to reclaim the idea of the local church and restore an emphasis on community, then maybe we ought to consider linking our churches together in some sort of more flexible alliance. What that looks like, I am not entirely sure. Theology and truth remain important to me and I believe there has to be some degree of common agreement in regards to this, but I do not know exactly where to draw the line on that. Drawing it too close will result in fractures and splinters. Drawing it too far will result in an unrecognizable and eclectic organism that is unmanageable and ineffective.

There are two things that are for certain, however. First, we must be sure that we do not entrench ourselves in a posture of isolationism and self-preservation because we are so bent on ensuring that our theological boundaries do not move in any way. I am in no way arguing that truth be compromised, just that we are passionate about sharing that truth we hold dear with the world outside our walls. Second, whatever issues our denominations, alliances, or federations deal with, our ultimate concern is and always must be the gospel. We must never neglect the task that Christ has given us.

Do denominations have a future? The answer is uncertain to me. What do you think?