Chapter Two
Where Did Denominations Come
From?
We
have seen that in the New Testament period there was one true church.
Sharply contrasting with that is our situation today, in which the church
is divided into many denominations. What has happened?
Even
during Bible times there were tendencies toward denominationalism.
Remember the sin-inspired separations beginning in the earliest days after
the Fall of Adam. Remember Jeroboam, the first denominationalist, who
made
Beyond
this, there were also people who left the one true church. Some left
involuntarily, as the result of proper discipline (I Cor. 5; II
Cor. 2:5-11). Others (whom John calls "antichrists") left at
their own initiative (I John 2:18f, 4:3-6). Still others fell away
from their initial profession of faith, the texts being inexplicit
as to whether these left the church voluntarily or under
discipline (Heb. 6:4-6, 10:26-31). Did any of these, perhaps, form sects
of their own, claiming to be the true disciples of Christ? We
simply don't know; there is no evidence either way.
A
Brief History of Denominationalism
In
the early centuries following the New Testament period, heresy and schism
were more or less synonymous.[1]
Heretics, teachers of false doctrine, were church-dividers, schismatics.
They sought to attract followers to themselves, either by
forming factions in the existing church or by drawing people to leave
the church and follow them. The heretic Marcion (approx. 80-160 A. D.) who
rejected the Old Testament and much of the New, set up many churches
dedicated to his philosophy. In the late second century, Montanus, who
claimed (but failed to convince the church as a whole) that he brought
new revelation from God, attracted many churches to his teaching.
In
the mid-third century, however, an event occurred that led to a
distinction between heresy and schism. During the Decian persecution, many
believers renounced the faith. Afterward, Novatian, a learned priest and
theologian, opposed any readmission of these people into the church.
The church, however, held that reconciliation could be granted
upon repentance. A Roman synod excommunicated Novatian, who then
set up his own church which lasted to the 8th century.[2]
The status of the Novatianist church was a matter of some discussion in
those days. Those in the Catholic Church agreed that schism, i.e.,
departure from the one true church and establishing a rival church, was
a serious sin. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, went so far as to deny
the validity of Novatianist baptisms, but his principle was not upheld by
the church in later years.
Novatian
was not considered a heretic, though he did hold a view with which the
church did not concur. In general, he was recognized as orthodox in
theology, indeed a very competent exponent of Christian truth. He was,
therefore, an "orthodox schismatic." "Heresy" and
"schism" were no longer virtually synonymous. Heresy was
considered a sin against truth, schism a sin against unity and love.
Another
persecution, in 303 A. D., gave rise to another schism. As in the earlier
case, certain people believed that those who denied the faith under
persecution were being treated too leniently by the church. Led by
Donatus, these formed a schismatic denomination which claimed to be, in
fact, the one true church. They rebaptized those who came from
the Catholic Church. The Donatist church existed until around 700.
In the original church, this group, like the Novatianist group,
was considered generally orthodox though schismatic.
Another
schism developed in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon (451)
which declared Christ to be one person in two natures, fully God
and fully man. The Council's statement was unacceptable to
the Egyptian and Syrian churches, and eventually fellowship was broken.
That division continues to exist today.
The
Eastern Orthodox Churches, under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the
Roman Catholic Church, under the Pope of Rome, broke fellowship in
1054 over the claims of papal authority and the western insertion into
the Nicene Creed that taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both
the Father and the Son (Latin, filioque). Patriarch and
Pope excommunicated one another. That division also continues to
the present.
The
excommunication of Martin Luther (1521) began a proliferation of divisions:
Protestant from Catholic, Protestant from Protestant, sectarian
from sectarian. Bucer, Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, and Calvin
sought unity among the reformation churches, but without success.
Additional
denominations came into existence when the denominations from which they
came were thought in some measure to be compromising the true doctrine.
Hence the many Reformed denominations of the
Evaluating
the Divisions
How
shall we evaluate this complex chain of events? It is not an easy matter.
Some evaluations, to be sure, are fairly simple. I do not hesitate to join
the ancient church in condemning the schisms of Marcion and Montanus. These men certainly were
heretics, and they had no justification whatever for forming their
own "churches." On both counts they violated scriptural principle. Same
for Novatian and Donatus, though these were relatively much more orthodox than
Marcion and Montanus. The church was right to reject the
"rigorist" position of these men. Novatian and Donatus should
have remained in the church, conforming their views to Scripture and/or
accepting the church's discipline for their errors.
The
post-Chalcedonian schism, however, is a more difficult issue. I do believe
that the Council was expressing an important biblical truth. At the same
time, their operative language was philosophical rather than scriptural.
In my view, philosophical language is not necessarily a wrong means of
expressing theological truth, but it tends to raise as many questions as
it answers. The Council said that Jesus is "one person in
two natures;" but what, precisely, is a "person?" What is a
"nature?" How should we interpret the "one person" so
as not to compromise the "two natures," and vice versa? The
answers are not obvious. Lutherans and Calvinists later accused one
another of different sorts of failure to do justice to
The
Egyptians who rejected
In
retrospect, too, it is evident that there was a lot of sheer power
politics going on in the developments leading to
The
schism was certainly an evil. But who was to blame? Those on both sides
who mixed up theology with partisan loyalty? The Egyptians, for their
unwillingness to accept the verdict of the whole church, even though their
own convictions were not, perhaps, substantially different? The Council,
for imposing upon the people's consciences a difficult philosophical,
highly debatable formulation capable of various interpretations
and uses? Perhaps there is plenty of blame to go around.
In
my Protestant bliss, I can say fairly complacently that the 1054 split
between east and west was due to papal arrogance. My Roman Catholic
friends are welcome to try to set me straight. But as for the
doctrinal issue, whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or
from the Son as well, it is hard to imagine why that should be the
cause of so momentous a division. It is a very difficult question, one
hard to resolve from Scripture. And the concept of "procession"
is mysterious indeed, part of the mystery of the Trinity itself. The
meaning of it is not at all obvious. I think I can defend the western
position, but I cannot see why it should be made a test of orthodoxy. Certainly
one can be a knowledgeable and effective minister of God's Word whichever
position he takes-- or without taking any position at all.
Granting
that Luther was right in his doctrinal dispute with
The
best justifications for starting a new Lutheran church, I think, were
these: (1) the Roman Catholic Church was requiring, as a condition of
membership in good standing, commission of sin, namely participation in
what Luther came to regard as idolatry in the mass. (2) The church
required as a qualification for teachers, subscription to a view of
salvation which Luther believed was flawed at its very core.
Objection:
why should he not have remained a Catholic, while recognizing that one
with his views could not be in "good standing?" Then as a
"renegade Catholic" he would continue to teach and preach what
he believed to be the truth hoping and praying that in time the church
would come to accept his position. But the difference between this and
starting a new denomination is not great. One might indeed argue that this
is in fact what Luther did: He remained Catholic,[4]
though not in good standing with the Roman authorities; he taught,
preached and administered the sacraments to those who would hear him.
Whose
fault was it? Certainly (in my own view, of course) it was the fault of
the Roman church for allowing its theology and practice so to degenerate.
Was Luther also to blame for, perhaps, impatience? Could he not have found
a more subtle, gradual way in which he could have brought his ideas to a
church for whom justification by faith was shocking and new?
I
don't know. Evaluating these matters, especially at more than four
centuries' distance, is very difficult. And it is even more difficult to
evaluate the various Protestant-from-Protestant splits of the later
centuries. It is clear, however, that all denominational division has been
due to sin, somewhere: either among the founders of the new denomination,
or in the previous denomination, or both.[5] The difference between the church and the
denominations is indicated by this fact: that the birth of a denomination
is always attended by sin, but the birth of the church was
attended by rejoicing among the angels of heaven.
Where
is the One,
The
difficulty of evaluating these events means that today it is difficult, if
not impossible, to locate the "one, true church" which Jesus
founded in the first century. It would be so nice if we could pick out one
denomination today and say, "This is the one." That would be the
denomination that had never been guilty of unjustified division from any
other body, nor had ever provoked justified division of anyone from itself.
No, there is no such beast. All denominations, so far as I can tell,
are guilty in some measure, at some point in their history, of
schism or of provoking schism, in some degree.[6]
I'm
confident in saying that the one, true church up until the post-Chalcedon
divisions was the Catholic church, the main body of Christians. To say
that is not necessarily to deny the authentic faith of the members of
the Novatianist and Donatist denominations. It is, of course, to say
that those people committed sin in leaving the one, true church. But
after
Such
ambiguity plagues the history of denominationalism as I see it. Therefore
I doubt very much if any denomination today represents uniquely the
"one, true church" of the New Testament. The one, true church
does, however, still exist! Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell
will not prevail (Matt. 16:18) has not been broken. But the
true church exists today in many denominations, rather than one.
It exists in broken form. It exists, but its government has
been injured.
Not
entirely, of course. In some ways, the church is still governed the way
the one true church was governed in the first century. For one thing, we
still have local congregations, as they did then. The local congregation is,
as it was then, the central bond of Christian fellowship.[7]
This represents the "government by tens and hundreds" of Exod.
18. For another thing, the church today still has the same supreme court as did the church in
the first century. That is the court of heaven where Jesus, the one head
of the church, makes the final decisions. At that level, the
church is still united, and, indeed, at that level it has a
unified government!
The
injuries to the church's government appear, then, at the middle levels,
the levels of "thousands" and, we might say, of "ten
thousands," "hundred thousands" and "millions." At
those levels, the courts of the true church no longer function. In
How
do we restore what Christ intended? That is a difficult question; I don't
have any very good answer to it, though I will suggest some preliminary
steps in Part Two of this book. Perhaps there are others with more
practical gifts than mine who can suggest a more complete step-by-step
procedure. For now, I want only to insist that we establish unity as
our goal. Goals are not enough;
but they are important. By meditating on them, longing for them, praying
for them, we sometimes gain some wisdom on how to achieve them. May that
be so in this case.