Table of Contents | Next Chapter 
Chapter Nine
Dealing With Differences in
Practice
The
contrast between "doctrine and practice" comes readily to the
minds and lips of church people, as roughly the equivalent of the common
"theoretical/practical" distinction. The Westminster Shorter Catechism)
identifies the content of Scripture as beliefs and duties (Q., A. 3) and
then bases its own two part structure on that contrast. Sometimes the
basic idea is put as a distinction between "faith and life."
At
best, this contrast is only a rough, general one. Many matters are hard to
classify on one side or the other of the distinction: what about the
sacraments, for instance? Indeed, the actual beliefs, doctrines of
Christians are revealed in their actions as well as in their words;
practices are ways of expressing doctrines. And conversely:
doctrines emerge out of practices: ultimately from the deeds of God,
Jesus and the apostles, proximately from the behavior of
Christians which influences their doctrinal formulations. Therefore most
of the considerations mentioned in the previous chapter apply here as
well. In "practice" also, Scripture warrants tolerance
of differences within certain limits, and we ought to practice
that tolerance (carefully observing the limits) to maximize unity.
But
without getting into heavy epistemology, I will here use the familiar
distinction as a very rough tool, to make some sense out of the relation
of this to the previous chapter.
Obviously
I will not be able to deal here with all the
"practices" of the church, which would require
omniscience. However, I shall deal with some of the more important ones
which have historically been barriers to church union. That a
church practice inhibits church union does not necessarily make it a
bad practice. Rather, such a practice needs to be considered to
see if it can be carried on in such a way as not to discourage unity.
Sacraments
Certainly
among the most important "practices" in the church are the
sacraments, about which there are many differences among the denominations.
Disagreements exist as to the definition of a sacrament, how many there
are, the subjects to which they should be administered, who is entitled to
administer them, what constitutes "valid" sacraments, what
procedures are correct, what the sacraments symbolize, what they
"seal," how Christ is "present" in them. Many of these
issues are doctrinal and fall under the observations of Chapter Six. Let
me here discuss a few matters which cause problems for unity in addition to
those we have already considered.
Are
Differences Over the Subjects of Baptism Tolerable?
It
is sometimes said, for example, that Presbyterians and Baptists can never
unite because they differ on the subjects of baptism and therefore they
would differ as to the membership of the church. This is a significant
question, because there are Baptists who agree fully with Reformed
theology, and even Presbyterian government, except on this one subject. I
did say earlier that church membership is an important matter, a way by which
an individual believer can be put under the oversight of a particular body
of elders as the New Testament requires. Thus the idea of a
"membership roll" is a legitimate one. The question is, however,
whether that roll must be absolutely precise. Surely it would not be a
breach of decency and order if a Presbyterian Church were to merge with a
Baptist Church and keep a roll of members "and their children,"
leaving open (i.e. tolerating a difference as to) the actual status
of these children, and allowing each family (or each
congregation within a denomination) to practice its own convictions as
to whether or not the children should be baptized.[1]
I
do believe in infant baptism myself; I think it can be proved from
Scripture.[2]
But the argument for it is somewhat difficult, and I can readily
sympathize with my fellow-believers who don't agree with me. The debate
could have been easily resolved in the first century by reference to
the apostolic practice. But many years have gone by since that
time, and during the reformation the Protestants and Anabaptists
came to distrust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to transmit the
apostolic practice without distortion. Whether that distrust was right or
wrong, it made the question far more difficult than it otherwise would
have been. All in all, I would encourage union between Baptist
and Presbyterian bodies which are otherwise agreed, allowing
for diverse opinions on the subjects of baptism.
The
Validity of Baptisms by Other Churches
Another
problem is in determining the validity of baptisms from outside one's own
denomination.[3] The early
church took a rather liberal view on this subject. Augustine argued that
the church should recognize the baptisms of schismatics and heretics, and
his view did prevail, though it has been questioned by many since his
time.
There
are some today who accept the validity of only those baptisms performed
within their own denomination. For shame! That view seems to me to
represent the epitome of denominationalism, and denominationalism at its worst.
It is a view without any basis in Scripture, one that
elevates particular denominations far beyond their legitimate status,
and which in effect denies the existence of true faith beyond its
own organization, insulting the whole body of Christ.
My
view is that when a person claims to have been baptized, showing a fairly
knowledgeable understanding of the theology of baptism, we should take his
word for it unless we have evidence to the contrary. That is to say, the
burden of proof is upon those who would show that his claim is false.
To deny someone's claim to have been baptized is essentially an
act of discipline. And discipline in Scripture, like American
civil law, follows the principle of "innocent until
proved guilty." In biblical terms, the principle is "two or
three witnesses" (Deut. 17:6, 19:15, Matt. 18:16, II Cor. 13:1, I
Tim. 5:19): that is, if you want to prove that someone is guilty, you must
make a strong case. In the absence of such a strong case, you dare not accuse
someone of wrongdoing.
What
might constitute evidence of invalid baptism? That might in itself be
matter for disagreement among Christians. The individual church or
denomination would have to decide; but acknowledging the burden of proof
as I have suggested will necessarily lead them to accept claims to baptism
in most situations, and that will be favorable to unity. But they
might choose to recognize as evidence of invalid baptism,
e.g., evidence that the "church" which performed the baptism had repudiated
the gospel and therefore had no right to baptize anyone.[4]
Fencing
the Table
A
related question arises in connection with the Lord's Supper. The Apostle
Paul tells us that "A man ought to examine himself before he eats of
the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That
is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen
asleep" (I Cor. 11:28-30). Interpreters differ as to the nature of
the sin here described as "not recognizing the body of the
Lord." It is plain, however, that this sin has serious consequences;
so serious that those who may be guilty of it are best advised not to
take the bread and cup. To protect people from these serious consequences,
many churches have made some attempt to restrict the sacrament to those
who can reasonably be expected to partake worthily (cf. verse 27). These
attempts are sometimes called "fencing the table." Sometimes
this consists only of a warning from the pulpit. Other times the
officer(s) of the congregation physically withhold the sacrament from
those of whom they are in doubt.
Who
may take communion? In some congregations, only members of that
congregation in good standing ("closed communion"). That "plays
it safe" with I Cor. 11:27-30. In some other congregations, communion
is restricted to members in good standing plus others who can
give evidence of their good standing elsewhere. Sometimes
"elsewhere" is restricted to the denomination in question;
sometimes it is more broadly applied. "Evidence" is, in some
cases, a letter from one's home church; in other cases it may be one's own
testimony. These approaches are sometimes called
"restricted" communion. "Open" communion exists
where the minister presiding at communion gives a warning,[5]
but leaves it up to each worshiper whether or not he will partake.
Sometimes the minister's remarks will recommend participation only by
those who are members in good standing of Christian or
Evangelical churches.
Open
communion certainly permits members of different churches or denominations
to have maximum access to one another's communion tables. In that sense it
promotes unity and therefore ought to be preferred if it can be shown to
be a scriptural procedure. I believe it is scriptural. Note: (1) I Cor. 11
puts the responsibility for taking communion worthily entirely
upon the individual: "A man ought to examine himself... But if
we judged ourselves we would not come under judgment." (2) Elders
in the church have only spiritual, not physically coercive power. They may
exhort, but they are not, like the civil government, given the power of
the sword. They may give advice, and often should; but they may not
physically prevent people from taking communion. (3) Only open communion
preserves the biblical judicial principle of "innocent until
proven guilty" as discussed above. If people hear the warning
and claim (by taking the elements) that they are fit to receive communion,
the church is obligated to accept their testimony unless it has strong
reasons for believing otherwise.[6]
Worship
The
sacraments are part of worship, of course, but let us now look at worship
from a more general viewpoint. In present-day
I
hope to write a book on worship sometime which will argue (as you might
expect) that Scripture permits a fairly wide range of approaches and
styles.[7]
We cannot go into all the arguments now. Suffice it to say that although
one can show various advantages in, say, formal liturgical worship, it
is impossible to show that scripture requires
this as the exclusive mode of
worship for God's people. Same for the other common alternatives.
If
we grant this conclusion, I believe that we will have to consider a wide
variety of matters in determining how we shall worship. And one of those
is, again, our concern for church unity. There are some kinds of worship
which tend to be exclusive, where congregations do various things that are
not well understood outside their churches and/or their denominations.
The impact of this sort of thing on visitors is not beneficial. I have
visited churches where the members regularly stand, sit, kneel at various
points of the service, but where there is no way a visitor can gain
information as to what to do and when. Sometimes, the members are little
or no help to the visitor, and the visitor feels left out.
Worship
ought to be conducted in a welcoming atmosphere. No one should be made
to feel out of place, by his clothing, his poverty (Jas. 2:1-13,
I Cor. 11:22), his race (Gal. 2:11-14, Eph. 2:11-22), or, presumably,
his inexperience in the tradition of the church. In worship, too, love of
the brethren must abound.[8]
In
my view, these considerations favor an informal type of worship, in which
most everything is explained to visitors, and in which the music and
language are simple and fairly familiar in style. However, these arguments
do not necessarily rule out other kinds of worship. I have been in formal
liturgical services where the various activities were clearly outlined
for visitors and where the congregation was exceedingly hospitable.
Other
practices which reinforce denominational divisions and inhibit the growth
of unity will be discussed in succeeding chapters. The moral to this one
is that we ought to take the unity of the church into account when we
discuss ways of doing things in the church. Often, I think, we tend to
plan our church activities without even thinking about the bearing
of these activities on unity. I pray that God will eliminate that dullness
from our hearts.