Chapter Four
What's Really So Bad About Denominationalism?
In
the preceding chapters, I have given a number of reasons why the church
should not have been divided into denominations. First, Christ founded one
church and commanded us to preserve its unity. Denominations have no role
to play in biblical church government; rather they are destructive
of that government. Second, the denominational division of the church
has always been the result of sin: either sin on the part of the founders
of the new denomination, or on the part of their original denomination, or
both. The people involved should have solved their problem by biblical
reconciliation, not by denominational division. Third, denominationalism
has imposed upon us the burden of subjecting ourselves and our
congregations to human organizations, organizations which cannot claim in
full the promises and the gifts of God.[1]
Those
should certainly be sufficient reasons for us to seek the abolition of
denominationalism. Clearly denominations are contrary to God's will. Those
who are servants of God need to know nothing more.
But
some will complain, "Wait a minute. Denominations aren't really so
bad in practice. Whatever else can be said, we can live with them. We are
able to worship, preach, teach, evangelize, plant churches, share the
sacraments, carry out discipline, support Christian social action in the
present denominational structure. Indeed, denominations have often
been helpful to the ministry of local congregations, giving
them financial assistance, encouragement, fellowship,
leadership, mobilizing believers to pray, helping to resolve difficulties.
If the system ain't broke, why fix it?"
This
kind of talk is, I think, usually a symptom of ignorance or spiritual
immaturity or both. It rejects scriptural principle on the basis of
essentially pragmatic considerations. Yet it does have some legitimate
force. One might agree that denominations are a problem "in
principle" (which many mistranslate "in theory") but feel
at the same time that since denominationalism is not doing much practical
damage the problem may be placed on the back burner. Though God has
mandated us to reunite the church, someone might say, we may rightly
give that project a lower priority than others that are
more immediately pressing.
As
I shall indicate later, I do believe that we must make priority judgments
even among divine commands, though we certainly may not
"prioritize" any of God's commands out of existence as some
might prefer in this case. However, I must reject the premise that
denominationalism is not doing any "practical" damage. Indeed it
is doing a great deal of damage, and the fact that that damage is
invisible to so many people makes it all the worse.
Disobeying
God always leads to practical damage. Obeying God brings blessing,
disobeying him brings curse (Psm. 1). One of my working titles for this
book was The Curse
of Denominationalism. I rejected it as too much of a negative,
"downer" type of title, though it certainly had the appropriate
kind of shock value. The issue is serious and the church is asleep to it;
we need rousing language at times such as these. But even more we need to
see the curse up close, the concrete damage that denominationalism does in
our midst.
In
the next chapter I will discuss the supposed benefits of denominations
alluded to in the third paragraph of this chapter. Here, I want to list
some very practical disadvantages
of denominationalism.
1.
Denominationalism has greatly weakened
church discipline. Discipline is one of the traditional
"marks of the true church" that I shall discuss in a later chapter. A
church without discipline is a church without means of maintaining
a united gospel testimony. Scripture requires discipline,
which includes teaching, exhorting, rebuking, but which in
extreme cases can lead to excommunication (Matt. 18:15-20, I Cor. 5,
II Thess. 3:6-15, II Tim. 4:1-5). In the first century, when
someone was disciplined by the church (granting the exhaustion of
all possible appeals) that discipline was respected by all
believers. Today, that is no longer the case. Sadly, in most of our
churches today there is no formal discipline at all. But even
those churches which seek to implement biblical discipline
are frequently frustrated by denominationalism. Say that Bill
is excommunicated from First Baptist as an unrepentant
adulterer. Often, Bill will then be perfectly
free to go down the street
and attend, say, First Methodist, as a member in good standing.
Part
of the problem is that there are no consistent standards of doctrine or
morality among our denominations. First Methodist may simply be a more
liberal church than First Baptist. Another part of the problem is
that denominationalism hinders communication among churches.
First Baptist may conscientiously inform the other local
Baptist churches of its action, but they cannot write to all the
churches of other denominations, and First Methodist does not receive
the message. Bill isn't going to tell them[2].Another
part of the problem is that denominationalism fosters an
ungodly competitiveness, rather than cooperativeness, among
churches: First Methodist may be very happy to get someone away from
the Baptists, so happy that they don't even trouble to ask the
former church about Bill.
Since
discipline can be a rather unpleasant business to begin with, and since
its purposes are so easily frustrated as in the above example, many
churches abandon it altogether, except for preaching and teaching. And
without discipline, the whole moral and doctrinal condition of the
2.
Because of the denominationalism-inspired decline in discipline, church membership means very little
today.[3]
People take membership vows to be subject to their brothers and sisters in
the Lord, but those vows often mean very little. Members often attend for
a few weeks, then disappear without speaking to anyone. They will join
other churches without ever bringing their grievances before the
church they have left (contra Matt. 18:15ff). They can get away
with this, because denominational division has provided them with
many places to go and has (as we noted earlier) broken
down communication between churches. So, rather than resolve
their grievances in a biblical way, they simply disappear into
another denomination, and there is no machinery for finding them
and calling them back to their responsibilities. Such people do
not perceive the church as having any authority over them,
or themselves as having any "one-anothering" responsibility
to the body. They have no desire to bear the burdens of the body
to which they have sworn loyalty.
Denominations,
demand the loyalty of believers to themselves, but they ironically undermine
that loyalty which is far more important, the loyalty of believers to
their local congregations.
3.
Because of denominationalism, there is in the church an imbalance of Spiritual gifts. As
I indicated earlier, God promises to give his church an Adequate and
full supply of the gifts of the Spirit: leadership, serving, teaching,
encouraging, giving, showing mercy, etc. (
And
often denominational barriers frustrate the communication of these gifts
from one denomination to another. A church of one denomination may face
formidable barriers in seeking to benefit from the ministry of someone in
another denomination, even when the two denominations are very similar
in doctrine and practice.
Thus
denominations frustrate the expressed purpose of God to provide all believers with all gifts of the Spirit by giving all believers to one
another.
4.
Because of denominationalism, the church lacks common
courts to resolve disputes.
Say that Calvary Baptist believes that Trinity Episcopal has
been using unbiblical tactics to steal its members. Who can
resolve that dispute? It is possible that the
This
problem also covers the outstanding historical disputes among
denominations over doctrine and practice. Shall we baptize infants or not?
or shall each congregation-- or each individual-- be permitted to do as
he pleases? In the first century, if that question had arisen,
there would have been courts of the church competent to make a decision
for the whole church. Today those courts do not exist. So Episcopalians
decide one way, Baptists another way.
5.
Denominationalism hardens existing
divisions. In this world, sin will persist until the return of Christ,
even among believers (I John 1:8). Thus there will always be
some strifes, some disagreements, some estrangements, among
believers. But since in our denominational age there are no common courts
to resolve such differences, trans-denominational estrangements
can only fester and become worse. Is it not possible that
twenty centuries of Spirit-led study of Scripture in a united
church might by now have led to some universally plausible consensus
on such disputes as infant vs. believers' baptism or the nature of human
freedom? But the denominations today lack the fullness of the
Spirit's gifts, they lack the wisdom of Bible students in other
traditions, and they lack common courts. So rather than making
progress on these matters, Christians tend instead simply to
defend positions taken in the past and to hurl
new epithets at their opponents
in the other denominations, epithets which must be replied to, and so on
it goes. Rather than the church drawing together around the Word of God,
its component denominations move further and further apart.
6.
Denominational division makes
reconciliation more difficult-- reconciliation, that is, of the
estrangements that led to the division. As M'Crie says, "It is
easy to divide, but not so easy to unite. A child may break or take to
pieces an instrument which it will baffle the most skillful to put
together and repair."[6]
Among separated brethren, insults and recriminations multiply; stories of
injuries are retold with more attention to rhetorical force than to
accuracy. New decisions are made in each group without consultation with
the other, and these often become new sources of controversy, which now
cannot really be resolved because of the denominational separation. These
new controversies reinforce the separation. Thus, often, denominations
remain apart long after the original reason for their separation
has disappeared.
7.
Denominationalism creates unholy
alliances. We should not ignore the fact that just as there is a
biblical doctrine of church unity, there is also a biblical doctrine
of separation: separation from
evil. Thus ministers often vow to seek not only the "peace and
unity" but also the "purity" of the church. Many of our
denominations, however, are anything but pure. Their theology is
contaminated by liberalism, and often their discipline is too weak to cope
with outright immorality. Therefore, Christian believers often find
themselves allied ("unequally yoked," as Paul says, II Cor.
6:14) to those who have repudiated God's word. Believers’ money and
efforts go into promoting teaching and lifestyles which in many cases are
the exact opposite of biblical Christianity. Thus it is often said that
there are greater divisions within denominations
today than there are between
denominations. A Bible-believing American Baptist has much more in common
with a Bible-believing United Methodist than either has with
liberals in his own denomination. So why don't the evangelical
Baptists and evangelical Methodists get together and support one
another? Why shouldn't they promote one another's mission efforts and literature
rather than in effect to promote missions and literature which they
radically disagree with? The answer seems to be denominational loyalty.
When denominational loyalty reaches this point, does not God call us to
repudiate it? Is it not at this point that Paul's admonition,
"Therefore come out from them and be separate" has application
to professing Christian denominations? However we look at this issue, we
must certainly not try to find the solution in a renewed denominational
pride. That pride is precisely where the problem lies.
8.
Denominationalism compromises the
church's witness to the world. Jesus prayed "May they be
brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have
loved them even as you have loved me" (John 17:23). One important
reason why Jesus wants his church to be one is that it will thereby be a
more effective witness to the unbelieving world. Disunity obviously raises
questions about the divine origin of the church. People naturally ask, if
the Gospel is a divine revelation, why are there so many disagreements as
to what it means? If Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord of love, why
don't his people love one another more? Why all the
backbiting, insulting, contending? Unbelievers have often used the
church's divisions to excuse their unbelief. I don't, of course,
accept the validity of that excuse; but I very much regret the
necessity of having to explain why the church is God's people even
though it is so miserably divided.
9.
Denominationalism leads to creedal stagnation.
The ancient church formulated creeds in response to various problems which
arose.[7]
The period following the Reformation led to a great many Protestant
creeds, and, indeed, to Roman Catholic responses such as the decrees of the
Council of Trent. The Roman Catholic Church has continued to
publish authoritative documents from time to time, decrees of
councils, papal encyclicals on various subjects, episcopal letters.
The Eastern Orthodox churches recognize no councils or creeds beyond
those of the classic seven ecumenical councils held prior to 800 A. D.
Protestant denominations have occasionally published creeds or
doctrinal statements even in modern times, but that has
been rare, and those documents
have not attracted much support outside their original denominations.
Surely
there have been major issues before the church in all the ages of its
existence. And surely there are many issues in the general society which
the church ought to address. The fact that the church has not done so is
largely due to the fact that it can no longer speak with a single voice. A
creed written by Catholics would have little support among Presbyterians,
and so on. Indeed, in the current situation new creeds may
be counter-productive to the best interests of the church. The ancient
creeds tended to foster unity, drawing the church together to speak with
one voice. Today, however, creeds seem more often to attract the criticism
of Christians in other bodies. Often they stand in the way of unity: I
would oppose any new creed for my own denomination, because any such creed
would be a barrier to merger with any other denomination. It would
be one more thing requiring "discussion" and
"negotiation."
Thus
in various ways denominational division discourages creed writing. And
that in turn blunts the witness of the church to the world and prevents
the establishment of clear standards within the church on current issues.
And, since most of the existing creeds are from earlier ages, the church's
attention tends to be focused on the past rather than upon the issues
which urgently call for attention today.
10.
Denominationalism leads to distorted priorities.
Denominationalism leads Christians to be preoccupied with the affairs of
the denomination rather than with the broader concerns of the church. Much
energy is devoted to studying the denomination's history, defending
the denomination's positions, financing its activities, trying
to attract Christians from other bodies into it, showing how bad the
other denominations have been. In other words, Christians spend much time
and energy on matters that in God's sight are either detrimental to the
work of the kingdom or are at best matters of low priority. Thus
"majoring in the minors," they develop ingrown outlooks,[8]
focusing on preserving and defending the denomination rather than bringing
unbelievers into the church. Often this process leads to negativist
mentalities, in which more energy is put into criticism of other
Christians than into the positive proclamation of the Gospel.
11.
Denominationalism leads
to superficiality: Most Christians today take spiritual
nourishment only from their particular denominational traditions. Some of
these traditions are richer than others, but none is as rich as the
tradition encompassing the entire worldwide church throughout history.
Many are hungering for something richer than what they have
experienced. Some Presbyterians are seeking depth in the
traditional liturgies of the Catholic and Orthodox communions. Some
Charismatics are seeking a more profound understanding of the Bible and
are meeting that need by reading Reformed theology. But all of this is
happening in spite of the denominational structure, not because of it.
People usually have to go very much against the grain of their fellowships
in order to accomplish this. So the present denominational structure
of the church in an impediment to those who would seek greater
depth in their Christian lives.
The
superficiality exists in many dimensions. I spoke above about worship and
theology. Being a theologian, I am particularly struck by the lightweight
character of much theology today, as compared with that written in the
times, say, of the Puritans, the Reformers, or even of the
medieval and post-reformation scholastics. Surely much of this is due to the
growing domination of denominational traditions over theological thought.
Here as in the general life of the church (above, #8) there is a
"majoring in the minors" and a tendency to labor with past
historical issues rather than those confronting the church today. Also I
note a tendency toward intellectual dishonesty, as theologians engage in
special pleading for their own denominational traditions while forcing
themselves in spite of actual evidence to find evil in other traditions.
Some
have overcome this theological narrowness and have become
"ecumenical" theologians, but these are mostly theological
liberals who distort the gospel in even more serious ways than the ways
noted above.
I
am not asking Reformed theologians, for example (such as myself!), to
surrender their belief that the Reformed faith is the most consistently
scriptural system of doctrine yet devised. I am only suggesting that it is
not necessarily a perfect system and we may be able to learn from our
brothers and sisters in other traditions. Is it really likely that the
Holy Spirit has given such wisdom to one branch of the church so that it
will be right about everything?
Though I love the Reformed faith, and though I believe it to be true on
the basis of my current level of knowledge, I do not know all the other
forms of Christian theology well enough to say that the Reformed
tradition has attained the absolute final truth on every matter. Indeed,
I expect to find some theological surprises when I get to heaven. Can
we not all seek to be a bit more teachable?
But
denominationalism works against us. Most theologians teach in theological
seminaries, and those seminaries are expected to prepare students to
defend particular denominational traditions. Therefore an "us vs.
them" mentality develops in the seminaries, and it is not easy for a
theologian in such an atmosphere to admit to some defects in his own
tradition and to some advantages in someone else's. That leads to
superficial theology.
12.
This superficiality is naturally connected with parochialism. Most denominations are limited to a single
country, though the church of the first century was quite explicitly and
intentionally transnational. Therefore, most Christians are preoccupied
with matters close to home at the expense of a proper focus on the whole
world as God's harvest field. Recently the "world Christian"
movement has developed, seeking to instill in believers a greater
awareness of the needs of countries other than our own. That is all to the
good in my view, though I think the world Christians sometimes neglect the
diversity of gifts in the body, talking as if all were called to be
thoroughly preoccupied with far off lands. But again the problem is
made worse by denominationalism. The early Christians were very much aware
of the needs of their brothers and sisters in other lands; they were
constantly being reminded of it by the apostles, who themselves were
leading the missionary movement. It is hard to imagine how any merely
national body could stir up equivalent passion for missions.[9]
13.
Parochialism, in turn, leads to a weakening
in the world-wide solidarity of Christians. For there are not
only unbelievers in other lands who need to hear the gospel; there
are also fellow believers who often need our prayers and support.
Of course, we do often pray for those foreign churches where
our denominational missionaries labor. But we often forget those
of other denominations and traditions. Consider the Roman
Catholics of Poland, who showed great heroism in the face of
terrible opposition by the Communist system. How much did we pray for them
in their time of need? Or do we Protestants consider Roman
Catholics too far beyond the pale? How about the churches in the
14.
Denominationalism provokes unhealthy competition)
among denominational groups. Typically we seek to enlarge our own
denomination and decrease others by our efforts at church planting and
church growth. Often we find ourselves in direct competition: an Orthodox
Presbyterian Church competing with a Christian Reformed Church to
see who can get the greatest number of local Calvinists; a Baptist church
and an Independent Bible Church competing for the local dispensational
population.
A
more scriptural outlook, however, is that we desire to plant churches and
to see church growth, not so we can get a larger share of the population
for our own denomination at the expense of another, but so that we may
reach more non-Christians for Jesus. In view of our Lord's Great
Commission, our concern should be, not merely with that portion of the
community which belongs to our tradition, but with the community at large,
Christian and non-Christian. With that outlook, we can see that there
really need be no competition at all. For no denomination can possibly do
the whole job. When we see the dimensions of the evangelistic task before
us, we will be thankful that there are denominations besides our own to
help out. More of this in Chapter Seven.
15.
Denominationalism leads to ungodly pride
and snobbery. We tend to take
pride in the accomplishments of our denominations. That is not entirely
bad, as we shall see in the next chapter. It becomes bad when
that pride leads us to disregard what God is doing in other parts
of the church and therefore to look down on Christians from
other traditions. Indeed, it is often the case that people from
outside a certain denominational tradition are made to feel unwelcome
in churches of that denomination. I once visited a church that worshipped
according to a much more formal liturgy than did my own church. The people
all knew when to stand, sit, respond, kneel, etc. I did not
know these things, and no one bothered to inform me. These were
not published in the bulletin or anywhere else that I
could ascertain. I felt very much left out of it all, and I did
not discern among the people around me any particular sympathy for
my plight. They had their tradition, and it was their church, after all.
They knew what they were doing, and if any visitor did not
understand, that was too bad for him.
Indeed,
sometimes the snobbery is even worse. Since many denominations are based on
a common ethnic heritage, visitors who come from a different ethnic
heritage often feel left in the cold. Pity the African American
who wanders into a Dutch-American church, or the WASP who invades
a Swedish-American fellowship. The emphasis on ethnic ties in
our nation's churches often borders, at least, on racism.
But
if a church is not racist, it is still often in danger of welcoming only
those of a particular socio-economic level, those with certain levels of
education, etc. Some Church Growth theorists tell us that such
relatively homogeneous bodies are the most likely to grow, and so
many churches today are intentionally
geared to reaching only one group of people, classified by
ethnicity, economics, education, etc. I am not such a social revolutionary as
to insist that these homogeneous units be broken down. Indeed it is
natural that people with common situations and interests make friends with
each other; I don't see anything wrong with that. But no one should ever
be turned away from a church because of his economic or social status
(James 2:1-7). No visitor should ever on that account be unwelcome or
unloved.
The
homogeneous character of a church is usually a function of its
denominational attachment. Presbyterians tend to be wealthier than Baptists,
and so on. If there were no denominations, no doubt individual
congregations would still be relatively homogeneous. But each
upper-middle-class church would be in solidarity with a church, say, a few
blocks away which ministers mainly to the poor. And the poor would have a
voice in our church courts. The poor, then, would be less easily
ignored by the wealthier churches-- and vice versa. And there would
be less room for the complaint of the liberation theologians that the
theology of the west is too much the work of one socio-economic group.
Conclusion
There
may be other problems of denominationalism which I have not mentioned. But
after this survey, can anyone seriously say that denominationalism does
not cause practical problems for
the church? Can anyone deny that there would be considerable benefits in
abolishing denominations?