This morning I was reading Len’s musing on the question “what brand are you?”, with respect to church. What flavour of demoni… sorry, denomination do you belong to (freudian slip there 😉 )?
His suggestion is that things have been fractured since Luther and the Reformation burst on the scene. Actually, I think he’s forgetting previous divisions. What about Constantinople and all the other seats of the various Orthodox churches? Indeed, even the New Testament account of the early church is full of warnings about those who were preaching other gospels (qv. Galatians 1:6-9).
However, I do like the concept of a “no-label” church. I’ve always been somewhat of a “no-label” person. I just can’t grasp the idea of paying a greatly inflated price just for a little logo that’s meant to grant me greater prestige.
The same goes for church. I worship in a baptist church, where I undertake a number of significant leadership duties. However, I know that if I had to do an exam to prove my baptist credentials I’d fail it!
Fortunately, it seems that there aren’t that many people around for whom it is a big issue. I’m ambivalent about whether that’s really a new development but I think it’s certainly a good thing. I suspect that the “no-label” church has actually existed all along. While a history book is more likely to pick up on the myriad divisions that make the narrative “interesting”, the church has survived all its conflicts because there have been people who’ve been bound together in one faith by one Lord and have been more interested in following him than in wearing party colours on their sleeve.