Table of Contents | Next Chapter 
Chapter Eighteen
Short of
I
could wish that this book would sell millions of copies and touch off a
mad stampede among Christians toward reunion of the one, true church.
However, to be honest, I really don't have the faith to believe that that
will happen. More likely, the book will stimulate some reflection, some
discussion, and in time God might use it, together with many other
providential factors, to lead his church toward some degree of deeper
oneness. Full reunion could be a long way off, perhaps not
until after Christ returns.[1]
And
indeed, probably most readers of this book will not be in a position to
wield significant influence to make major changes in the denominational
configuration. Many of you are not pastors, bishops, elders and the like.
I myself am a minister, but that only means that I have one vote in my
presbytery and one (sometimes) in General Assembly: one vote in a
denomination (PCA) that is in my opinion rather uninterested in, even
suspicious of, ecumenism.
So
what short term goals should we seek, by however small steps, as means
toward the long term goal of reunion? Let me make some suggestions:
Interdenominational
Cooperation
If
two denominations cannot merge, for one reason or another, the next best
thing, certainly, is that they fellowship together as much as possible in
order to get to know one another, break down stereotypes, persuade one
another when that is necessary, and so on. Often, where conscience
permits, this would include joint ministries of various kinds.
Among
the tiny Presbyterian bodies in which I spend most of my time, there is
the concept of a "fraternal relationship.” These relationships
vary in detail, but usually churches in this relationship
receive members from one another via letter of transfer,
without requiring any additional examination or profession of
faith. Ministerial transfer is somewhat more difficult, but usually
at least without any stigma. Fraternal churches also exchange pulpits
with a minimum of difficulty, and they send representatives to one
another's presbytery and general assembly meetings to bring greetings.
Indeed, even ministers other than official representatives can be seated
in the presbytery meetings of a fraternal denomination and be recognized
(by vote) as "corresponding members" of the assembly, with
privilege of the floor but not the right to vote.
The
fraternal relationship is actually a kind of half-way union. For it
presupposes that both denominations in the relationship accept the
doctrinal and practical soundness of the other. Each body recognizes the
soundness of the preaching, sacraments and discipline of the other, each
recognizes the wisdom and other gifts to be found in the other group.
Such
fraternal relationships are an excellent way of becoming better
acquainted, where that is thought to be necessary. My major problem with
it is that in many cases they seem to be used as an illegitimate
substitute for actual union. When two denominations recognize the
soundness of one another's ministry, sacraments and discipline to the
extent of permitting such levels of joint ministry, one may rightly ask,
why not go all the way to union? What can legitimately prevent union
when two bodies so freely exchange members and preachers?
Indeed
I have experienced the odd spectacle of sitting in a union discussion
where fellow elders criticized a fraternal church
as "not of like faith and practice." These elders wanted to
maintain the fraternal relation, but did not want to merge. But if two
churches are so different in faith and practice that they should not
merge, then they should not be fraternal churches either. And surely if
two churches are fraternally related, then the issue of whether they are
"alike in faith and practice" is already settled. Union talks
ought to focus on other matters.
Nevertheless,
fraternal relations are better than nothing, and they can provide a kind
of compromise when two denominations are considering union but want first
to overcome their skittishness.
Another
sort of pre-union relationship might be an organization of denominations
(most likely within the same confessional family) which covenant together
to work toward union. An example is the National Association of
Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (NAPARC) which meets regularly for
inter-denominational discussions and to share suggestions about ways of
pre-union cooperation. This is something similar to what I called earlier
an "Evangelical COCU." NAPARC has been a useful organization, and I
recommend this approach to other confessional groupings.
Para-Church
Ministries
Much
of the work of the gospel today is carried out, not through churches and
denominations, but through organizations not officially connected with
such bodies, known as "para-church" ministries. Examples would
be Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade For Christ, Young
Life, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, independent mission
boards like the Sudan Interior Mission, independent publications
like Christianity Today,
independent seminaries like Reformed Theological Seminary (where I teach),
publishers like Baker Book House without denominational connection.
Some
people are very critical of such ministries, arguing that all the work of
the church ought to be done by churches and denominations, not by
independent groups.
I
agree that only the church is appointed by God to carry out the Great
Commission. Only the church has the mandate to do the work of the church.
But what is the church? I have argued in this book that the church is the
one, true church of the New Testament; a church which has been marred by
denominationalism but which has not been entirely destroyed. The highest
court of the one, true church still exists, and, indeed, it is doing its
job very well! I speak of the throne of Jesus at the right hand
of God in heaven who rules his church as the head of the body.
And the "lowest" courts of the one, true church also still exist
and still function: the rulers of the local congregations. The problem
is in the middle-level courts. To whom may a local congregation appeal
when they have a problem too hard for them to resolve (as in Ex. 18:26)?
God's plan was to have united rule of the church within larger regional
units; but that rule has broken down. Replacing it has been denominational
rule. So a church in this position cannot appeal to a court of the church as a whole; it can appeal
only to a denominational court,
i.e., one which rules those within a particular faction of the church.
Christians
recognize almost instinctively, I think, that there is something wrong
here. God's intention is not to restrict us to using the wisdom and other
gifts only from believers in our own denomination. His intention is that all Christians share their gifts
with one another as members of Christ's body. Denominationalism naturally,
unconsciously, frustrates this purpose of mutual sharing. But do
denominations have the right, beyond this, consciously to prevent such sharing from
taking place? That is what happens when denominations demand that we work
in ministry together only with people from our own denomination. Do they
have a right to demand that?
We
need to recognize that in an important sense, denominations themselves are para-church organizations. God did
not authorize denominations. As we have seen, they play no role in the
government of the New Testament church. Denominations are the result of
human sin. It is not wrong for us to use them, to approximate somewhat the
sort of government ordained in Scripture. But they do not have the exclusive
right to govern the ministry of God's people. Indeed, as I have argued, it
is wrong for them to call themselves "churches," as in
"Church of the Brethren." Nothing like a denomination is
ever called a church in the Bible.
Denominations
are, to put it paradoxically, para-church organizations that we have set
up to govern the church and to carry on much of its ministry. But there is
no reason why, in the current fractured condition of the church, there
shouldn't be other para-church
organizations, formed for purposes other than basic government, uniting
Christians at other levels than those of denominations.
I
can agree, again, that only the church is to carry out the Great
Commission. But that is very different from saying that only denominations may carry out the Great
Commission. That second point is the one being made by critics of
para-church organizations, and I think it is quite wrong. Scripture does
not give to denominations exclusive rights to govern
Christian ministry.
Para-church
ministries are the result of an intense hunger within the church to get together. We know in our hearts
that we don't have the resources within our individual congregations and
denominations to do everything that needs to be done. We need to be able
to benefit from all the gifts
Jesus gives his body. We know that total reunion is not likely,
humanly speaking, in the near future; but we rightly ask, why
shouldn't we unite to meet some special needs that cannot easily be met
by denominations working separately, like college ministry, city-wide
evangelism, etc.?
Another
argument against para-church ministries is that they are not subject to
church discipline. But that is not necessarily true. Certainly the
general rule is that leaders of para-church organizations are members
of churches and of denominations and therefore subject to
church discipline. Doubtless there is some awkwardness in the fact
that the same organization may have leaders who are members of
many different churches and denominations, and that the total organization
is not answerable to any church. But that is an awkwardness created by
denominationalism itself; and that sort of awkwardness is certainly not a
compelling argument against the concept.
Like
fraternal relations, but in a different way, para-church ministries are a
kind of half-way house to union. They allow us to share gifts, as
Scripture provides and requires, without actual organizational union. They
provide opportunities to fellowship and minister together, opportunities
which, for many, are prerequisites to union.
All
in all, I encourage the development of para-church ministries. I see
nothing against them in Scripture, and experience shows that God has made
good use of them, for the most part. We should not, however, be satisfied
with them. We should work toward the day in which a reunited church will
take all its ministry responsibilities back upon itself.
And
of course a warning is in order to those Christians who avoid the churches
and seek to get all of their Christian fellowship and edification in
para-church organizations. That too is not God's way. To paraphrase a
Christian cartoon I recall from some years ago, Jesus founded a church,
not a Christian coffee house. He wants his people to be under the oversight
and teaching of ordained elders and to receive the sacraments.
Partial
Unions
We
need to think more creatively about possible steps to reunion. There are
various ways short of total union that denominations can move in the
direction of reunion.
Consider
a union discussion between a Presbyterian body which sings only musical
arrangements of Old Testament Psalms (such as the Reformed Presbyterian
Church of North America) and a body that rejects that restriction
(such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church). Let us say that tolerance
is not an option in this case, the RPNA representatives demanding that
their convictions be maintained in their churches with the force of
discipline.
In
this case one solution might be to allow congregations to discipline
according to their convictions on this matter, but that persons
disciplined by a local congregation would not have the option of appealing
to a higher court. Another possibility, more favorable to the RPNA
position: group the former RPNA congregations into "Psalm-singing presbyteries," which
would use their discipline to require exclusive Psalm singing in their
congregations. These presbyteries would be linked to the former OPC
presbyteries in a General Assembly governing both; but discipline cases
over Psalm singing could not be appealed to General Assembly, but would
have to be resolved at the presbytery level.
That
is not really a complete church union, but it is a union for most
practical purposes. Similarly, Episcopal churches could set aside certain
dioceses for the enforcement of minority positions which cannot otherwise
be honored. Congregational churches, of course, would not have this sort
of problem, since therein each congregation is relatively autonomous in
any case, and since appeals, when possible, are handled only by ad
hoc assemblies.
Voluntary
Realignment
In
the late 1960s, when renewed discussion began of merger between the
northern (PCUSA) and southern (PCUS) Presbyterian churches, some people (mostly
conservatives) proposed that instead of merger, the churches be open
to "voluntary realignment." What that meant was that
ministers, members and congregations would be free to join whichever of
the two denominations they pleased. These people expected
that liberals would leave the southern church to join the
northern church, and conservatives vice versa, leaving the
southern church more conservative and the northern church more
liberal, but allowing both to function as nationwide bodies. That idea
was never approved or implemented.
More
recently, as I have mentioned, several congregations of the OPC have left
to join the, seeking to "realign" with others with more
similar priorities. I was among them. Comments:
1.
In some ways, realignment is counter-productive to eventual reunion. For
it leaves denominations more different from one another than before. It
also often stirs up resentments within the denomination from which a group
departs.
2.
Normally, realignment is not desirable, when it is merely a means of
finding a denomination more in agreement with one's own priorities. In
general, it is better to have different kinds of priorities represented in
each denomination. Homemakers and breadwinners should be
together. (Recall Chapter Twelve.)
3.
However, these considerations must be balanced against the overriding
importance of the Great Commission. If the priorities of a denomination
keep someone from carrying out the ministry to which God has called him,
then he ought to realign.
4.
In general, it is best that realignment be made easy, as I argued in the
last chapter. This is not only permitted by Scripture, but it is important
to the prospect of reunion. I
do believe that Christians instinctively want to "get
together." When they are allowed to move easily from one denomination
to another, they will tend to form large groups in which
the diversity of the Spirit's gifts is maximized. That is helpful
to the prospect of reunion.
Intra-denominational
Policies
There
are many denominational policies that need to be rethought in view of the
points I have been making; for many of these policies are detrimental to
the prospects for reunion and have nothing to recommend them except
denominational chauvinism. I mentioned some of these in the last chapter,
e.g. the policy of some churches to insist that the denomination has a
"proprietary interest" in its congregations. Another example:
The Christian Reformed Church requires that all its candidates for
the ministry attend its own seminary, Calvin Theological Seminary, for
at least one year, even if they have a seminary degree from another
institution, and that they be recommended to the church by the seminary
faculty as a prerequisite to ordination.[2]
Calvin Seminary has among the most difficult entrance requirements of any
seminary. These requirements make it very difficult for anyone not of CRC
background to enter the ministry of the church. Doubtless this requirement
was formulated at a time when the heavily ethnic Dutch church, wary
of American cultural influences, desired to safeguard its future orthodoxy.
Ironically, it has now happened that Calvin Seminary itself has come under
fire by some in the denomination.
I
will not here try to determine who is most correct in the controversy
between Calvin's supporters and detractors. The very fact that suspicions
exist, I think, is a problem, because it shows that there is lack of trust
within the body. That lack of trust, I believe, is itself related to the
denomination's seminary policy. On that policy, not on the theology of
the Calvin faculty, I do intend to express an opinion.
There is, for one thing, no way to keep
"outside influences" out of a denomination or a seminary.
Seminary professors, even those born and raised within a
denomination, usually go outside the denomination at some point for advanced training.
That training is often considered a necessity, for theological professors
are supposed to be aware of the latest scholarship. They often receive
this training at the hands of scholars with theological views that would
not be acceptable in a conservative denomination. We like to hope that
such advanced students have the discernment to judge rightly what in
their instruction is compatible with orthodoxy and what is not,
but such hopes are not always fulfilled. Where students have not
been discerning, the church must be vigilant to exercise its
proper discipline. But one thing is certain: certainly those who
accept such opportunities for training are going to bring back with
them "outside influences," for better or worse. Otherwise, what
is the point of the training?
For
other reasons, too, it is impossible to keep "outside ideas"
from influencing a denomination. In the modern world, information is
spread rapidly and widely, by many media. More seriously, God himself
opposes the insulation of denominations from others; for his true church
is not limited to one denomination, and he wants his sons and daughters to
communicate freely to one another their love and their knowledge. Indeed,
the best protection for denominational orthodoxy is not to bar the doors
against invasion from outside, but rather to be open to what God is
teaching the whole body of Christ
through the Scriptures. Denominations need new blood from time to time,
to facilitate this process; or, to change the metaphor, they need
to be cross-fertilized by other segments of the body. Left entirely
to itself, no denomination has sufficient resources to guard its orthodoxy
or vitality. From this isolation come problems of unorthodoxy, or of
unjustified suspicion
of unorthodoxy-- lack of trust.
Evangelical
denominations that try to bar the door against the influence of
evangelicals of other backgrounds, but which welcome college and seminary
professors with training in institutions (usually liberal or outrightly
non-Christian) outside the denomination have the worst of all possible
worlds. They open themselves on the one hand to the possibility
or suspicion of liberal influence, but on the other hand they deny to
themselves the help of God's gifts to the body outside their own circles.
Let
us seek to break down those structures in our denominations which serve
only to discourage outsiders from joining us. A denomination has the right
to examine ministerial candidates, to guard the orthodoxy of its ministry.
But it should not keep people out of its ministry only because they
have different background, have not mastered denominational
buzzwords, have different priorities from the majority of the
denomination.
Toward
a Trans-Denominational Loyalty
Finally,
I urge that we discourage the tendency in our communions toward
denominational chauvinism: that is, wasting God's time promoting
the interests of our denomination over against those of others.
In
the events noted earlier, when several congregations moved from OPC to
PCA, a lot of tears were shed. Tears are appropriate at any parting; see
Acts 20:36-38. But these tears were not simply mourning the loss of
close contact. Rather, they often had a different meaning.
One
man wept because some of his family had been part of one of these congregations
for many years, had made many contributions to it, and now their church
was being taken away from them. Now they would have no place to go to
church! I tried to sympathize with my brother, but I confess to some
feeling of outrage. No place to go to church??? It wasn't as if the
church was going defunct, or merging with a liberal congregation. It
was only changing from one evangelical Presbyterian denomination
to another! Surely the past contributions of this family were not going
to be lost or negated; rather they were going to be fulfilled in a new
phase of the church's ministry. The tears, I fear, were tears of
denominational chauvinism-- tears for which the Scriptures show no sympathy.
Another
man wept because he and his church had supplied money and leadership to
one of the churches that were leaving. Now, said the elder, that church is
"gone." "Gone????" I thought? Only gone to another
denomination!
Another
man, noting that two of those advocating the transfers taught at
Westminster Seminary in
But
my prize for denominational chauvinism[4]
goes to the OPC General Assembly several years ago which determined that
no home missions aid be given to any congregation that fails to use the
name "Orthodox Presbyterian Church" in its church name. Many of
our churches had not used that name, because it was not well understood in
their communities and was "turning off" visitors. That
particular General Assembly evidently put a higher value on
denominational publicity than upon reaching communities with the gospel.
It
is right to promote what God is doing in your own denomination, and to
seek to attract workers and new members there. It is wrong to promote your
denomination at the expense of others that have a common faith and
practice.
Much more could be said on this
subject, but I trust the reader has the main idea by now. Let us think of
ourselves more and more as members of the body of Christ, and less
and less as denominational partisans. When we make plans, let us
ask ourselves seriously how these plans will help or hinder the
unity of the church. And somehow, let's get together.