If we want to understand the concept as God designed
it and as he sees it, we have to start with the New Testament. The truth about
the church cannot be known any other way. Sure, there are lots of invented,
historical ways in which we may conceptualize the church. But if we believe in
the inspiration of the Bible, this is where we need to begin.
The word ekklēsía
is not a specifically religious term. It is a perfectly ordinary Greek word for
a public gathering. Any spiritual significance it has acquired comes from its
New Testament usage, where it is translated “church” 109 times
and “assembly” or “congregation” five times.
Let’s ignore the general usage and concentrate on the
spiritual one, since that’s our subject. In this context the word ekklēsía may be legitimately and
scripturally used in two (and only two) ways: (1) the universal church of
which the Lord Jesus spoke when he said, “I will build my church”; or (2) the local gathering of believers in any specific geographic location,
as when the Lord addresses the “church in Pergamos”, the “church in Thyatira” or even, marvelously, the “church in your house”. Every single “religious” use of the term in scripture falls into one of these
two categories.
The
church is either microscopic or massive, depending on whether we think of it locally or universally. In its historical and geographic
sense, the church Christ is building is immeasurable, taking in every believer in
Jesus Christ from Pentecost to the coming return of the Lord for his people, from every hidden corner of every nation on earth. In its local sense it may be very
quantifiable indeed, encompassing two or three who gather in a living room to
the name of the Lord Jesus.
In what we might call its “universal” sense the church has
no human head, either individually or organizationally. The head of the church is Jesus Christ. All authority in the church is derived directly from him. The apostles are dead
and gone, and there is no mechanism in the New Testament by which apostolic
authority may be passed on. There is authority at the local level, of course.
The apostles established a pattern of appointing elders in every church, committing
them directly to the Lord, then conveniently left instructions as to how local churches might recognize elders in the absence of an apostle to do it for them.
So we can legitimately speak of a local church or a universal
church. We can legitimately speak of local “shepherds” and a Chief Shepherd.
What we don’t find in scripture is anything in between.
That is to say, we do not find any legitimate human authority
in the church beyond the immediate local setting. Other than location, we do
not find any means of distinguishing some Christians from others, nor do we
find formal unions among churches. No boards, no head offices, no official
practices and positions of any particular group of churches, and no way of
enforcing them if they did exist.
In short, we do not find denominations.
No Denominations
Denominations are just plain absent. There are no New
Testament instructions to churches to band together on the basis of agreement
about particular scriptural themes or ideas, nor are there are instructions to
churches to disassociate from one another on the basis of a lack of orthodoxy
or faithfulness. Nothing. Crickets.
In fact, the opposite is the case. The tendency to take the
name of any honoured servant of Christ is specifically called fleshly,
infantile and “merely human” by the apostle Paul. He asks:
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
It cannot be argued that the current state of affairs —
in which Christendom all over the world is divided into a multitude of groups
of various sizes named after theological ideas and ordinances, renowned
historical church figures and who-knows-what else — was the intent of the
apostles or reflects the desire of the Lord himself, who prayed that his
disciples “may all be one”.
So how have we gotten to where we are today?
A (Very) Little
History
Though there have been plenty of disagreements among
Christians going all the way back to the apostles, denominationalism, in the
obvious way we see it today, is a fairly recent feature of Christendom. It is
not my purpose (nor is it my area of expertise) to spend a lot of time
examining debatable claims to be “pre-denominational” on the part of Catholics
or the Eastern Orthodox, who parted ways back in the 11th century. Both
claim the title of original, apostolic church. Clearly both cannot be correct.
The Assyrian Church hived off back in AD 431 or thereabouts and we hear next
to nothing about them today. But Protestantism and its myriad subdivisions are
a post-16th century phenomenon, and many branches of Protestantism have
flourished, if only intermittently. Most denominations in North American are
at least that recent.
It is also not my purpose to play Monday morning quarterback
to those Christians who believed particular truths in scripture were important
enough to separate themselves from their friends and loved ones. If we could be
confident we had all the facts, we might be able to assess whether they parted
ways with their fellows graciously or not, but it is clear that in many cases they
were obeying their consciences.
And in all cases, they are accountable to their Master and
not to us.
How Does Christ See
This?
Of course the most important thing to determine is how the
Lord views division among his people, since is impossible to imagine that he
did not fully anticipate the current state of affairs, or any of the other
acrimonious divisions that have taken place throughout church history.
He said, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. We may safely conclude that the work of Christ over two millennia
is not even slightly endangered by denominationalism, as much as he may dislike
its effects and the spirit of independence and superiority that so easily
arises out of it. A universal “church” such as is spoken of in the New
Testament is a spiritual entity not subject to the limitations of geography or
history. You and I, if we are believers in Christ, remain as united with
everyone else who calls on his name as ever.
That is the reality, and no apparently-schismic event engineered
by Martin Luther or anyone else can affect it. The church universal does not depend on any one person’s efforts, be they great or small, nor can its construction be stopped or even delayed by the opposition of any individual or group, however determined. She would exist if we were
never saved, and she will be presented as a pure bride to her Bridegroom one day in the hopefully-near future.
How Can I Reflect the
Oneness of the Body?
If such unity, permanence and significance is the purpose of almighty God, how can I reflect
that spirit in the here and now?
Let me suggest a few ways:
1. Some Christians react very strongly to the criticism
of other denominations and feel doing so is un-Christlike. If in this they
object on general principle of politeness to the mere pointing out of error, I
would strongly suggest they re-read their New Testaments, especially the parts
about the Lord and the Pharisees, or some of the later epistles where false
teachers are discussed. It is perfectly legitimate, even necessary, to
repudiate specific instances of false doctrine or bad practice. It may even be
appropriate to point out where the particular error is most frequently to be
found. But it is the error that we
should attack, not the people of God.
Blanket criticisms of Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics, etc. simply because
they attend a denominational church are as bad as any other meaningless
generality and do not reflect the spirit of the Head of the Church.
3. Where feasible, we should give serious consideration
to the possibility of regularly gathering to worship with Christians who think the same way. One can
hardly object to the taking of sectarian names by Christian congregations when
one attends a church where that is the tradition.
4. Where friendships are concerned, a spirit of exclusivity as a believer is also foreign to the spirit of Christ. If I decline to associate with Christians who do not believe precisely what I do, I fail to give
opportunity for iron to sharpen iron as we interact, I keep myself from hearing things that may help me walk more
closely with the Lord, I shut myself off from all manner of delightful
fellowship, and I cease to reflect the oneness of the Body.
5. When we hear objections like “we have to call
ourselves something”, the best
pattern is always the scriptural one. Local churches in the New Testament are
referred to by their location, that’s all. There are probably dozens or
hundreds of church groups in most cities, so referring to ourselves as “the
church at Philadelphia” may be a little presumptuous. (“The church on Maple
Street” may not be taken yet, though.)
6. For those of us who already gather
non-denominationally, we really need to watch out for creeping sectarianism. It
is a battle that needs to be fought every generation, and in the heart of every
new believer.
The Spirit of
Denominationalism
On that last note, among the Christians with whom I
fellowship I am now hearing all-too-frequently words like “in OTHER
denominations”. Such things may be mere slips of the tongue. If so, we shouldn’t
be too harsh. But they may also be a sign that we are not teaching the truth of
the one Body clearly or frequently enough, or that we are not effectively
modeling it in our lives and in our churches.
No comments :
Post a Comment