Chapter Five
Denominations: Why We Love Them
One
can sympathize somewhat with my argument against denominations up to this
point, yet feel very uneasy about it. The uneasiness is, I think,
connected with the fact that my argument has not dealt with the positive side of denominationalism.
After all, most Christians[1]
see denominations as good guys, not bad guys, in our warfare for the
And
some have argued beyond this a view known as "pluriformity" or
"complementarity:" that denominations are a God-ordained means
of accommodating the diversities among believers. In other words, people
who like fast, rhythmic music can join denominations which use such
music in worship; people who hate such music can join
denominations which exclude it. Christians who believe in
infant baptism can join Presbyterian churches; Christians who cannot
accept that doctrine can join a Baptist church. That way, according to the
theory, each denomination is spared from constant internal bickering and
everybody is free to follow his conscience, indeed to indulge his
preferences. It's a bit like a zoo, in which high fences keep the natural
enemies apart and maintain peace for all. Indeed, the
denominational fences enable us, on occasion, to speak civilly to
Christians of other denominations, even to work with them in some limited
ways, without worrying that their heretical ideas will infect our
own congregations. Denominationalism therefore allows for
amicable, civilized "divorces" among believers.
But
as we've seen, God did not establish a zoo, but a church. His plan for
dealing with estrangements is not amicable divorce, but mutual discipline within the church (Matt. 18:15-20,
I Cor. 5) (which can, to be sure, sometimes lead to excommunication when a
really serious problem cannot otherwise be overcome). We are to be
accountable to one another. And the natural result of that accountability
is unity of mind (Eph. 4:1-16, Phil. 4:2), or, in some instances, agreeing
to disagree in love, within the fellowship of the one true church
(Acts 15:37-40, Rom. 14, I Cor. 8).
Kinds
of Diversities
It
is important for us to distinguish between different kinds of diversities
if we are to evaluate properly the claim of denominationalism to provide
the best ordering of diversity.
1.
Diversities Tolerable Within the
2.
Intolerable Diversities: On some
other matters, however, there is no room for diversity. If someone is
preaching "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6-9), he is under a curse.
Such preaching must be excluded from the church. In this case,
it certainly would not be sufficient for the heretic to transfer
by "amicable divorce" into his own denomination. The
church's relationship to those who deny the heart of the gospel should
not be at all amicable. From such we are simply to "turn away"
(II Tim. 3:5), not to honor them as interdenominational colleagues.
3.
Difficult Cases: Sometimes, however,
the tolerability of a difference is itself a matter of
controversy. Take the difference between those who do and those who do
not baptize infants. Some might argue that this difference is
tolerable: people on both sides of the question recognize people on the
other side as fellow believers, holding forth the true gospel. Others,
however, argue that the difference is substantial: for since baptism is,
among other things, the public entrance of persons into the visible
church, differences over the subjects of baptism are
necessarily differences over the membership of the church. Infant
baptists and believers' baptists disagree, then, as to who is a
Christian and who is not. Is it tolerable to have a church that
is uncertain as to its own membership?
Personally,
I think uncertainty in this area is tolerable.
I will say more about that in a later chapter. But what I think is rather
unimportant. The important question is, how does God want us to resolve
such questions? And the only answer can be, through the courts of
the one true church. Only such courts are fully qualified to
judge which side is right, and only such courts are fully qualified
to determine the limits within which the church may tolerate
error. The existence of such problems, therefore, does not in
itself necessitate denominational division. Rather, such problems
make church unity all the more important. It is hard to imagine
how the church will ever resolve such questions until some measure
of unity is restored.
Denominational
Services
But
what of all the good things denominations do for us-- the financial
assistance, encouragement, fellowship and so on? Well, isn't it obvious
that all these things could be done, and in many cases done better, by a
united church? Imagine the resources we would have! If a poor family faces
a $500,000 medical bill with no insurance, very few congregations,
indeed very few denominations, would be able to afford to give more
than token diaconal assistance. But what if we could appeal to all the Christians in the world to give
assistance? We could more than handle it. Indeed: why should not the
church diaconate set up its own insurance program for all Christians
and only Christians? The costs, I should think, would be less than
commercial insurance, since it would be non-profit, and since the major
risk factors (smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, etc.) would be relatively low.
And everyone would be taken care of. Denominations cannot afford to think
big in that way; but God's church can.[2]
Similarly
for the other alleged benefits of denominational membership. Imagine the
new dimensions of Christian fellowship we would
experience, befriending fellow believers from all national and
socio-economic backgrounds, with a wider variety of personalities and
interests than we have known in our denominational fellowships. Imagine
the prayer support that could be raised up for those matters which
are important to God.
My
Team, My Family, My Home
But
perhaps you still aren't persuaded. If so, I think I know why. Most likely
it is the feeling of uneasiness we have with any radical proposal. One can
call it fear of the unknown; or one can be more sympathetic and call it a
deep love for the familiar.
A
denomination is a kind of home, a place where we can feel comfortable,
where we will not be bothered with pressure to make radical changes. It is
like a family, a place where we may always be free to give love and to
expect the same in return. And it is like a home team, a team which
sometimes wins and sometimes loses, but which we stick with through thick
or thin. Like teams, homes and families are never perfect. But they are
ours, and they are enormously precious.
Such
relationships are easier to form with people who are like ourselves: like
us in interests, abilities, socio-economic status, ethnic background and
so on. As I mentioned earlier, most denominations are
fairly homogeneous in those respects. It is hard for us to think of
leaving such a homogeneous structure, going into some unknown alternative
that may not be as pleasant.
As
I said once before, I do think that our legitimate need for homogeneity
can be met by relatively homogeneous congregations within an overall
relatively non-homogeneous church. Such a congregation can certainly play
the role of home and family, while offering opportunities for wider
fellowship among our universal "extended family."
Can
it also play the role of "home team?" That is, perhaps, the rub.
So much of our denominational life is structured according to
"us" vs. "them." It's West vs. East, Protestant vs.
Catholic, Presbyterian vs. Episcopal, dispensationalist vs. covenant
theology, charismatic vs. non-charismatic, anabaptist vs. paedobaptist,
even "our kind of Baptist" vs. "their kind of
Baptist." Some of this is a legitimate attempt to distinguish what
one believes to be true doctrine from its counterfeits. But it can mislead
believers into thinking that their main warfare is with other Christians.
On the contrary, the great gulf is not between anabaptists
and paedobaptists, or between Presbyterians and Episcopals,
but between belief and unbelief, between Christ and the evil one.
I
do honestly hope that the Presbyterian form of government will eventually
prevail in the church over the Episcopal and Congregational forms. You may
hope that won't happen. But those concerns, both yours and mine, must
be secondary to the prayer of our heart, "Even so, come,
Lord Jesus," a prayer for the soon coming of God's righteous
kingdom which will rid the world of all evil. In my
judgment, denominationalism tends to influence us to reverse this
priority.
Our
home team, like our family and home, should be nothing less than the one true
church. That church is the only institution among human beings which is
guaranteed to prevail over its adversaries. We cannot be sure that any
denomination will prevail over the others; we can be sure that Jesus'
church will triumph. We should get used to rooting more for the church and less for our particular
denominations.
Toward
a Balanced Denominational Loyalty
Does
all of this mean that there is no place for denominational loyalty? Must
we discontinue all support of our denominations and instead work for their
demolition? I think not. Rather, we should support them and work for their
demolition at the same time.
Denominations
are not the church, but the church is in them and they in the church. They
are certainly not God's first choice as a means of governing his church,
but they are better than nothing. And denominational officers, whether
called pastors, elders, bishops, or deacons, deserve our
allegiance, because they are not merely denominational officers, but
also officers of the church, who God has raised up. We
should continue to pray for them and to support them with our gifts
and talents. Denominational missionaries are missionaries of
the church, and in most cases they deserve our support.
Furthermore,
of course, many of us have taken vows to be subject to the denominational
bodies of which we are members. A vow is a very serious commitment between
ourselves and God. We have no right to break those vows, except when
keeping them would force us to disobey God.
Another
point is that many of us belong to the denominations we belong to because
we conscientiously believe in some or all of that denomination's
distinctive teachings and practices. If conscience so constrains us, it
will also constrain us to pray and work for the triumph of those
distinctives in the church at large. As a conscientious Presbyterian, it
is only consistent for me to pray, work and hope for the triumph
of Presbyterianism. And I realize that conscientious
Episcopalians and Congregationalists must also pray, work and hope
for the triumph of their convictions. That is one legitimate form of
denominational loyalty.
Indeed,
even denominational pride is not entirely wrong; but it needs to be
brought into focus. When I was a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church
(OPC), I was very proud of what God had done through that body. Though it was a
tiny denomination, it boasted the leadership of a remarkable number of the
leading scholars in the evangelical church, men like J. Gresham Machen,
Cornelius Van Til, Edward J. Young, Meredith G. Kline,
John Murray, R. B. Kuiper, Edmund P. Clowney, Harvie M. Conn, Jay
Adams. Evangelicals of many other denominations looked to these men
for theological leadership, and I was pleased. I still am pleased
at that fact, though I now belong to another denomination,
the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
The PCA is
remarkable too. It recently boasted the fastest growing missionary force
of any denomination. It, too, has included a remarkable proportion of
ministers recognized as leaders throughout the evangelical world: D.
James Kennedy, R. C. Sproul, James Montgomery Boice, the late Francis Schaeffer,
Arthur Glasser, Edmund P. Clowney, George Grant, John H.
Gerstner, and many others.[3]
I will boast of the PCA, and I will also boast of the OPC! And of the
Reformed Baptists (Al Martin and Walter Chantry are among the best
preachers ever), the Missouri Synod Lutherans, who courageously purged
their denomination of theological liberalism, and all the rest. It
is right to rejoice in God's gifts to our denominations,
because these are also God's gifts to the one, true church.
I
boast of the OPC's steadfast adherence to its doctrinal standards, but not
because it happened in the OPC. I boast of that because it happened in the
one, true church; in this time and place, by the grace of God, the one,
true church was steadfast. (The reference to grace, of course, is
important. "Let no one boast about men," I Cor. 3:21. "He
that boasts, let him boast in the Lord," I Cor. 1:31, II Cor. 10:17.)
So
denominational loyalty is not entirely a bad thing. It just needs to be
brought into balance. Presbyterians ought to be good Christians first,
good Presbyterians second, without neglecting either loyalty. They should
be good Presbyterians because their Presbyterian denominations
are part of the one, true church. But they should be
good Presbyterians second,
because our first loyalty is always to God and to that one, true church
which he founded.
Methodists
ought to be faithful to their Methodist churches but should be seeking for
ways and opportunities to eliminate the separate existence of
Methodism. We ought to love our denominations while seeking to destroy
them. A paradox? No, not really. Perhaps "destroy" is not the best word.
On the day when, God willing, all the denominations are re-absorbed into
the one, true church, nothing of value needs to be destroyed. All that is
good and blessed about our denominations should continue and be raised to
a higher level. The only destruction should be of ungodly pride, false
doctrine, division, etc., not those qualities which really make
our denominations lovable.
Indeed,
for many, perhaps all of us, denominational loyalty requires us to seek the reunion of the
Congregationalists and Independents have been historically strong critics of denominationalism. Pentecostals often rejoice at how the gifts of the Spirit draw together Christians of different backgrounds. When the denominations are most true to their traditions, they are most ecumenical. But when they allow themselves to be distracted by pride and denominational chauvinism, when they are ruled by the instinct for self-preservation, rather than the self-sacrificial spirit of Jesus, then they erect barriers to reunion. We need to be better Episcopalians, better Presbyterians, better Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Independents, and whatever else there be.