PART
ONE: THE ROAD TO DENOMINATIONALISM
Chapter One
The One,
We
must first be assured that Jesus Christ established on earth one church,
not many denominations. Further, the unity of the church is not merely
"spiritual," but also organizational.
The
First Churches
The
first worshipping community was a family: Adam and Eve expressing their
love to God and one another in the Garden of Eden before the fall into
sin. Adam, Eve, and God. Satan broke the unity of the family when he
tempted Eve to take the forbidden fruit. Paul later wrote "And Adam
was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a
sinner" (I Tim. 2:14). Sin was not a family decision, but a
unilateral choice on the part of Eve. She might have consulted her
husband, sought consensus. She might have submitted her will to his while
he submitted to God. Instead, she separated from her husband;
then under her influence he separated from God and made his
unilateral decision. And when God came to judge (Gen. 3:8ff), Eve blamed
the serpent, Adam blamed Eve, and ultimately both of them blamed God.
The
fall broke the unity that existed between man, woman, and God. The human
family set itself against God and against one another. Indeed, the earth
itself was estranged from mankind (Gen. 3:17-19). God then showed his
great love by promising a redeemer (Gen. 3:15). He would draw a re-created
humanity back to himself and back to relations of love for one another.
But the promise provoked more division, for many people rejected
God's love. The first son, Cain, was a murderer, and he became
a wanderer on the earth (Gen. 4:12). But in the days of Adam's third
son, Seth, and Seth's son Enosh, there was evidently a worshipping
community: "At that time men began to call on the name of the
Lord" (4:26).
Scripture
tells us little about this early church. But the later pattern of Noah,
Abraham, and Moses, together with the contextual preoccupation with
genealogies, suggests that the Sethite church was essentially a family congregation,
with the patriarch as the chief priest. Therefore it was one in an important sense, though
it was divided from the rest of humanity because of the unbelief of the
latter.
Even
the family of Seth, however, for the most part, fell into sinful habits,
leading to God's terrible evaluation in Gen. 6:5: "The Lord saw how
great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." But, we
learn in verse 8, "Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord."
Noah and his family were saved by God's grace from the judgment which
destroyed the rest of humanity.
Noah
and his family, therefore, were the next "church." The patriarch
with his family received God's covenant promise and law (8:15-9:17). And
Noah was also a prophet, telling by divine inspiration how God would deal
with his descendants (9:25-27).
The
overall pattern, then, is that sin leads to wandering, estrangement,
separation from God and from fellow human beings, even from life itself;
obedience to God leads to oneness with God and with God's children. God
does not, however, approve of every kind of unity. The Cainite cities described
in Gen. 4:17-24 represent unity in sin and unbelief, a unity
in which, evidently (as often in our modern cities) the effects
of sin are compounded. The
Generations
later after the flood, many of Noah's descendants had fallen away from the
true God (Josh. 24:2) (though not all; hence Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18ff)
and Jethro (Ex. 3:1)). But God again gathered a patriarchal family, that
of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. God's covenant separated them[1]
from all the other nations and therefore established them as a unified
body. Circumcision marked that unity. Later, under Moses, God gave
the people additional signs of unity: Three feasts, in which
the people were to congregate in a central location,
Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles. One system of sacrifices. One
priesthood, proceeding by hereditary succession from Moses' brother
Aaron. One order of religious workers and teachers, the tribe of Levi, also
united by heredity. One holy place, the earthly dwelling of God's glory.
Distinctive garb. Distinctive diet. Distinctive laws. Distinctive
promises. In summary, there was one covenant between God and one people: a
covenant that distinguished them from all the nations of the earth and
therefore united them as one people over against all the other nations of
the earth. Certainly all of this reflects the oneness of God himself:
a oneness which as such separates the worship of
The
Central Altar
Much
could be said about all the marks of unity, but let us rather consider
just one of them: the biblical emphasis on a central altar. Deut. 12
teaches that once
The
central altar did not, however, become a reality for another four or five
hundred years. Not until the time of Solomon, the son of King David, did
Jeroboam,
the First Denominationalist
But,
remarkably, this religious unity in
The
political split was God's doing (I Kings 11:26-40). But Jeroboam also
created a religious split, abandoning the central altar in
To
God it was truly important, therefore, that his people be religiously
unified: one God, one altar, one priesthood. Even political disunity could
not justify a religious division. Scripture makes the point over and over
again: worship at the central altar! Abhor the Jeroboam schism! Were we
writing the history of
Exile
and Restoration
The
unfaithfulness of
God
determined, however, that this time of exile would end. He prepared the
way for reunion by prophecy (e.g. Isa. 11:12ff, Jer. 31:1, 6, 33:6f, Ezek.
36 and 37) and by reformation and revival (Mal. 3:2-4, Zeph. 3:9, Ezek.
11:18f, Isa. 19:18, 21, 24, Ezek. 36 and 37, Zech. 13:8f), by removing the
causes of disunity.[4]
And then, of course, he moved the heart of Cyrus to reopen
the promised land to Jewish rule and immigration (II Chron.
36:22ff, Ezra 1:1ff, Isa. 44:28, 45:1). God removed the sin of the
land (Zech. 3:9). Thus the people returned, no longer
divided according to northern and southern kingdoms. They celebrated
the Feast of Tabernacles, the feast of ingathering and reunion
(Cf. Ezra 3, Neh. 8, Hag. 2, Zech. 14:12-21, Mal. 3:7-12).[5]
The dry bones came together (Ezek. 37:1-14) by the Spirit of God; Judah
and Ephraim again become one (Ezek. 37:19-- M'Crie's theme text).
God's
Spirit takes away sin and brings revival. Revival removes old divisions
and brings God's people together again. That is the scriptural pattern.
The
Church in the New Testament
Unlike
my dispensationalist brothers and sisters,[6]
I believe that the church of the New Testament is essentially the same as
the church in the Old, with some changes, of course. It is the
"Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). It bears the same exalted titles
given to
Of
course there are also changes, because major events have taken place: the
incarnation, earthly life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus
Christ, God's eternal son. The Aaronic priesthood, the "one
priesthood" of the Old Testament, gives way to the new priesthood of
Jesus himself, a priesthood disconnected from the Old Covenant in the way
that the story of Melchizedek in Gen. 14 is disconnected from
its historical context (Heb. 4:14-5:9, chapters 7-10). The earthly tabernacle
and temple, the "central altar," give way to the reality of
which they are but shadowy images, the heavenly temple to which Christ
brought his once for all sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-28). Similarly the feasts,
the sacrifices, the distinctive garb, the dietary laws.
But
what of unity? Did Jesus come to establish one church, as in the Old
Testament, or many denominations? Does the Old Testament emphasis on
church unity fall away with the coming of Christ? Certainly if that is the
case, it is very difficult to imagine why it should be so. Jesus' one
sacrifice obviously eliminates the need for animal sacrifices, a central
altar, a continuing human priesthood.[7]
But why should it eliminate the need for unity among God's people, that
beautiful unity about which the Psalmist spoke so eloquently (Psm. 133)?
The
need is still there. The New Testament is concerned about it as much as is
the Old. Please consider the following:
1.
As in the Old Testament, the New Testament believer worships at a central altar.
For Christ himself fulfills the central altar of the Old Testament, and
there is only one Christ (Acts 4:12, I Cor. 1:13, 8:6, Eph. 4:4-6). Same
for the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices. The church has a
single location in one sense, though it is scattered throughout
the earth; for it is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph.
1:3, 20, 2:6, 3:10, 6:12).[8]
2.
Jesus does come to build one church. "Church" is regularly used
in the singular to refer to the whole New Testament people of God (Matt.
16:18; cf. Acts 2:47, 5:11, 12:5, I Cor. 10:32, 15:9, Gal. 1:13, Eph.
1:22, etc.).
3.
The New Testament church is a unity of a higher order than that of Old
Testament
4.
Other ways in which Scripture teaches church unity: (a) The New Testament
images of the church: a temple, the body of Christ, the bride of Christ,
the flock of the good shepherd, the branches of the vine, the people or
family of God-- all stress unity: unity in the above senses, but doubtless
in many other ways as well. (b) There is one Spirit in which we have
been baptized, who gives gifts to the church (I Cor. 12). (c) It
is God's love in Christ which binds us together (John 13:34f, I
Cor. 13, I John 4:7ff). (d) There is one gospel (Acts 4:12), (e)
one revelation (I Cor. 2:6ff), (f) one baptism (Eph. 4:5), (g)
one Lord's Supper (I Cor.10:17).
5.
The New Testament uses "church" to designate not only the
universal body of Christ (above), but also the Christians in a region
(Acts 15:3), those in a city (Acts 11:22, 14:23, 18:22, Rom. 16:1, etc.),
those worshiping together in a household fellowship (Rom. 16:5, I Cor.
16:19, Col. 4:15, Philemon 2), indicating unity among the Christians at
various geographical levels.
6.
The Lord gives his church a church government. There are first
the apostles and prophets (Matt. 16:18, John 20:21, 23, Eph.
2:19-22, 4:11), but also evangelists, pastors and teachers (same
verse). Elsewhere there are references in other terms to church leaders: elders
(=bishops) and deacons (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9; cf. Acts 11:30, 14:23,
15:2ff, 22f, 20:17, 21:18, I Tim. 5:17). Obedience to such leaders is not
an optional matter; it is God's command (I Cor. 16:16, I Thess. 5:12f,
Heb. 13:7, 17). We do not, therefore, have the option of choosing when we
will or will not submit to the government of the church. This is Christ's
church, Christ's church government. If we do not like it, we dare not
set up our own government to rival his. Thus, Christ's intention was to
unite all his people under his officers. One Lord, one church, one church
government.
7.
Do denominations play any role in New Testament church government? Well,
look up "denomination" in a concordance! You won't find it
there! More seriously, whether by "denomination" or by some
other name, the New Testament says nothing at all about what we would
today call denominations. Denominations, in the sense of groups of
Christians who differ from other Christians by some distinctives of
doctrine, practice, ethnicity, or historical background, play no role in New Testament
church government[9].That
is especially remarkable when we consider that there were
many diversities in the early church that might have led its
leaders to consider a "friendly" denominational division: great differences
of ethnicity, languages, etc. But the New Testament seems to make a
particular point of stressing that such differences are not to be the
basis of divisions in the church (Acts 10, 11, Gal. 2, 3:28, Col. 3:11).
8.
To carry the point even further: the New Testament rebukes the mentalities
and practices which were later to produce denominational division in the
church. These mentalities and practices are (a) autonomy: picking and choosing which leaders in the church
will have one's respect (I Cor. 1:10-17, 3:1-23); (b) factionalism: forming partisan groups in the church to advance
the program (or supposed program) of one's favorite leaders (same
passages); (c) lust for power: seeking
to be boss (Matt. 20:20-28, Acts 8:9-24, 20:30, Phil. 2:1-11, I Pet.
5:1-3, III John 9); (d) unwillingness to
seek reconciliation (Matt. 5:23-26,[10]18:15-20,
Rom. 12:18, Eph. 4:3, Phil. 2:1ff, 4:2, I Thess. 5:13, Heb. 12:14, James
3:17), (e) failure to maintain
church
discipline: (Matt. 18:15ff, I Cor. 5); (f) inattention to doctrinal and practical purity: (I Tim. 4,
6:11-21, II Tim. 1:13f, 2:14-4:5, Titus, etc.); (g) failure to help fellow believers in need: (Matt. 25:31-46, III
John.[11]
9.
When Scripture speaks of the church as the body of Christ, it contrasts
the harmonious working together of the parts of the body with
"schism" or "division." See I Cor. 12:25, in the
context of I Cor. 12, Romans 12. The figure of the church as a temple
points in the same direction (Eph. 2:21), as does that of the family (Eph.
4:6).
10.
Jesus prayed that the church would be one, as he and his Father are one
(John 17:20f). Now some exegetes understand him here to be referring to
"spiritual" unity rather than "organizational" unity.
Certainly organizational matters are not the emphasis of this prayer.
The emphasis is upon the vital union of the believers with Christ
in the Spirit. However, that union is not wholly invisible; it
is visible in the conduct of Christians in their relationships to one
another as well as to God himself. Therefore,
(a)
It is doubtful whether ancient readers would have naturally made, in such
a context, the "spiritual"/"organizational"
distinction which we today make so easily.[12]
(b)
The unity of which Jesus speaks clearly has a visible dimension, for it is
something that even unbelievers can see, and which indeed drives them to
faith (verse 21).
(c)
The spiritual and the organizational cannot in fact be sharply separated.
Our lack of organizational unity is caused by, and in turn causes, that
lack of fellowship, harmony and cooperation which are certainly aspects
of, or manifestations of, spiritual unity.
(d)
Since it is plain from other texts (above, #3 - #6) that Jesus gave a
particular government to the church, it is hard to imagine that this (and
only this) form of oneness would be excluded from his prayer. Surely he
was praying that the church be one in every way that he has established.
(e)
Some have argued that since Jesus' prayers are always answered, this
prayer must be a prayer for spiritual unity (which has, in some sense,
always existed in the church) rather than organizational unity (which has
not always existed). Do we really want to say that the Father did not
answer Jesus' prayer? I have no doubt that the prayer of Jesus will one
day be fully answered, that God will unite the church in his own time,
and will unite it organizationally as well as in all other
respects. That seems plain from many other passages. But we also know
that God does not always accomplish his own will (and that of his
Son) immediately. For some reason, God often accomplishes his
purpose through a historical process which sometimes tries our
patience. There is always at least the beginning of a
fulfillment. Biblical theologians speak of "the already and the not
yet." God has begun to unify his church
(even organizationally!),[13],
but there is more unity to come in the future.[14]
11.
Is unity given by divine sovereignty, or is it something that
requires the efforts of human beings? Both! God's sovereignty in Scripture
does not negate, but rather underlies the efficacy of human efforts. The
passages cited earlier make it plain that the establishment of unity is
God's work[15]. Yet God
himself in Scripture exhorts us solemnly to "keep the unity of the
Spirit through the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3) and to avoid attitudes
(above) and actions detrimental to that unity.[16]
We are always to seek reconciliation with those whom we have offended or
who have offended us (Matt. 5:21-26, 18:15-17). God's sovereignty does not
entail human passivity. Scripture's emphasis upon God's sovereignty
in
restoring unity does not undermine
human efforts in that direction; rather it encourages them.
New
I
have already established that God gave to the church a government, that
Christians were obligated to honor that government, and that denominations
played no role in the government of the church. But perhaps we should go
into some more detail about the form of government God gave to the church.
The
form of church government is, of course, itself one of the debated matters
that has led to denomonational division. I shall not try here to resolve
the long-running disputes within the church concerning government. I
shall, however, summarize the major views on the subject and seek to
ascertain the bearing of each on the question of denominationalism.
Congregationalists emphasize the autonomy of the local
church body. They do not deny the value of gathering representatives of
various churches to help each other in making hard decisions, but they
deny that there is any continuing institution which has perpetual
sovereignty over the local church. In their view, all associations of
churches with one another are purely voluntary. In one
sense, Congregationalists are extreme denominationalists, for
they regard each congregation as a denomination unto itself,
in effect. On the other hand, if congregationalism is to
function well, it is important that each congregation be in
fellowship with all the others. When fellowship is broken, one
congregation will be unable to associate with another congregation,
even voluntarily, to do the Lord's work. Thus Congregationalism is,
at another level, anti-denominational. A congregationalism
which measures up to the standards implicit in the congregational reading
of Scripture would put all the world's churches together in one
"Congregational association" or "Baptist convention."
Episcopal
government is even more anti-denominational in its basic thrust.
Episcopalianism holds that the churches in each geographical region ought
to be ruled (with some checks and balances) by a single bishop. But if
this sort of government existed in the early church, then the
bishop ruled over all the churches in his area, not just those of a particular
denomination; and that must still be the ideal for an Episcopalian. This
anti-denominational thrust will be even stronger for those Episcopalians
(mostly Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics) who believe that the
bishops are the successors of the apostles and thus have an additional
mandate to rule the churches in their region.
I
am myself a Presbyterian. Most likely, I believe, the church was
originally organized in a way analogous to the organization of
This
structure, like the Congregationalist and Episcopal alternatives, requires
organizational church unity. For if the church is divided into
denominations, then (a) There is no highest court by which controversies
can be ultimately decided; there are, instead, rival courts. (b) Leaders
will be available to help resolve problems only within their own
denominations. Denomination B will lack the gifts of the leaders in
denomination A, and vice versa. That will be a great disadvantage
for both denominations. The resources of each will be less than
what God has promised to his people.
Biblical
Presbyterianism, then, requires the abolition of denominationalism. In a
biblically Presbyterian church, all the
area Christians in good standing would vote to elect the elders and
deacons. Those officers would rule all
those Christians, not merely those of one denominational faction. All the gifts God has given his people
in the area would be available for the ministry. We can see that
biblical Presbyterianism is rather different from Presbyterianism as
it now exists; so different that the latter's biblical warrant
is questionable.
So
all three of the major views of church government among Christians require
for their best implementation the organizational unity of the church and
the elimination of denominations.