A blueprint for Christian Unity
Denominations have usually been viewed in negative terms. Denominations are thought of as something divisive, that what are important is the personal relationship with Jesus and believing in the Bible.
It is true that denominational loyalty has sometimes been taken too far. Some denominations frown upon working with parachurch organizations (ministries that work outside church and denominational structures) and want to work only with groups affiliated with their denomination. They don't even want to work with other Christians who believe the central message of Christianity, that God in the person of Jesus came to save humanity from the sin that separates them from God and sends his Spirit to transform those who believe into the image of God. Some Christians, when asked about their religion, will identify with a denomination- Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholic, etc. It is true that they may be affiliated with a church that is affiliated with a specific denomination. However, a true follower of Christ should identify himself with Christ and present himself as a Christian. I know that when forms are being filled out, when they ask for a person’s religion, they give denominational options. Answering with a denomination is not wrong in itself since the unfortunate reality is that people see denominations as different religions. The problem is when a Christian, in his heart, sees himself as principally affiliated to a denomination (or to an individual church), instead of to Jesus. That person is in danger of losing touch with the real center of his faith, Jesus.
On the other hand, denominations do not need to be seen as evil, like some “non-denominational” Christians make them out to be. It seems to me that some "non-denominational" Christians take pride in their not being meaningfully connected to other churches. They see it as a badge of honor that they are not accountable to other churches. They delude themselves into thinking that they have a corner on biblical truth. I believe this is a wrong attitude. In God's eyes, there is only one holy church; consisting of all Christians in the past, the present, and the future (apostolic); and consisting of all Christians all over the world (catholic). His Spirit permeates every believer in Jesus, and that is important as we reflect on denominations.
If a church does not listen to the voices of other Christians, then it is in danger of heresy. It does not matter if the church thinks it is focused on the bible alone. The bible can be twisted by those who are intent on unbelief, wolves in sheep's clothing, or by those who are blind-sided and therefore could not see past what they think is right in their own eyes. Interpretation should be done in community with all Christians- past and present. Without the voice of other Christians, there is a danger of straying away from the voice of the Spirit. This is because the Spirit, through the word, guides the whole church, not just a segment of it. If the spirit is speaking a message through one church and that message is universally rejected by the rest of the churches, then it is a sign that the spirit is not speaking through this particular church. That particular church must humble itself and listen.
I believe that the rise of denominations is an expression of the movement of God’s Spirit. Churches do lose its way and sometimes God divides them so the Spirit's voice can be made clearer. If this is the case, then we should find the movement of God’s Spirit in them, instead of dismissing them.
This brings us to a discussion of what it means to be identified as a Reformed Christian. Note that this discussion about Reformed Christianity is not exhaustive. To understand denominations, it is important to have some familiarity with Church history. Reformed Christianity is a movement that grew out of the context of a western Roman Catholic Church that has become corrupt, it has in some ways lost its way. One expression of this corruption is the selling of indulgences. Indulgences are money paid to the church that is supposed to guarantee the forgiveness of certain sins. It is a form of penance.
What is behind this system of indulgences? To be fair, some Roman Catholic Church leaders did not approve of indulgences. However, I believe that taking too far the belief that rightness with God is equivalent to rightness with the church contributed to the acceptance of indulgences by many Catholics. In Catholicism, the Christian unites itself to the church through participation in its sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Communion, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction). Through union with the Church, there is salvation and God's blessing, but many people lost sight of Christ the true source of salvation and blessing. Union with the Church is connected to faith in Jesus, but many people (including the leaders) did not have true faith. To be fair, it is not completely wrong to say that a Christian must unite himself to the church. God calls people into a community that proclaims the word and administers the sacraments (Baptism and Lord's Supper). The movement of God's Spirit after Jesus' resurrection and ascension resulted in the birth of this community. It was a community that proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, that cared for each other, that sat under the teaching of the apostles, and administered the sacraments.
One of the cries of the Reformation is “Justification by Faith alone.” A person becomes right with God (Justified) only through faith in Jesus, not through the mediation of the church. The reformers were interested in lifting up the grace of God as the only ground of being right with God. This takes the church out of the center and places the grace of God as the center in the life of the church. Faith is the only proper response to the Grace of God, not the addition of works or obedience to any law.
Throughout the ages, the reformed tradition has sought to protect the grace of God from any suggestion that human beings can make themselves right with God. One of the ways the Reformed tradition has protected the grace of God is by what is called the Five Points of Calvinism. Here are the five points of Calvinism.
What does it mean for me to stand by the reformed tradition? It means that I stand with the reformers in lifting up the grace of God and protecting it from the thinking that human effort can make us right with God. This is affirmed also by Lutherans (the first protestants) but Lutherans have different emphases in their doctrine. Luther emphasized the bondage of the will and the Augustinian teaching of predestination (election). I want to lead the church into seeing the supremacy of the grace of God in his dealings with us. The supremacy of grace does not just apply to going to heaven when you die. The supremacy of grace also means that the world would find its peace only through God’s grace being recognized and experienced in this world. Ultimately, complete peace will not come through human effort, but through the grace of God. The church is the agent of God’s grace. Empowered by the Spirit of God, it guides the world in recognizing and experiencing the grace of God.
The reformed movement represents the movement of God’s spirit to point people to the supremacy of God’s grace. The early reformers did not mean to separate from the Catholic Church. They wanted the church to recognize the supremacy of God’s grace. However, they were made into outcasts, which resulted in the division of the church.
What is my stance towards denominations? I strive to find the movement of God’s spirit in them. The eastern tradition connects us to the ancient mysteries of the faith, and that connection needs to be celebrated. The Wesleyan and Pietist movement is a movement of God’s spirit to point people to the importance of personal faith and holiness. The Pentecostal movement is a movement of God’s spirit to point people to the present reality of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic Church represents the spirit’s movement to point people to the unity that God intends. Lutheranism, although very close to the Reformed, represents the spirit's movement to recognize the distinction between law and gospel. Sacramental Christians (Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox) represents the movement of the Spirit to recognize God's presence in earthly reality. If we as Christians would find the movement of God’s spirit in the denominations of today, we would be showing the humility that God desires for the church. That humility is the beginning of love and unity. We may never have one Christian church, but we who believe in Jesus must somehow honor his desire for us to be one. That is done by loving relationships with each other and does not have to entail institutional unity.
As I was standing in a corner of the street, I noticed there are churches in the other three corners. I really felt that this imagery goes against what Jesus wished for Christians- that they be one. I believe that Christians should strive towards unity. I am not saying that differences are not important and that churches should just get together. First of all, that seems unrealistic considering we are used to different styles and groups of people. Secondly, there are real doctrinal issues. In the case of apostate churches, they have ceased to be Christian by denying Jesus' final authority as God and Jesus is not calling Christians to stay with apostates. However, in case of mixed denominations (where leaders still are trying to unite the church under Christ but there are people inside who hold teachings that are opposed to the center of faith in Christ), I think it is possible to coexist. Anyway, we can't assume that people in the pews have the same level of Christian maturity or loyalty to the doctrines of the denomination. I have some suggestions on how we can move towards unity.
In any group, leaders may have different emphases on what is best for the group. In a company, one leader may fire an employee for the good of the company culture, maybe because of his personality. Another leader may not fire the same employee, but see him as a catalyst for change that would be good for the company. One leader says the company culture should be protected and the other leader wants to challenge the culture. This does not mean one leader cares more or one leader is right and the other wrong. The two leaders just have different emphases and we should not necessarily impugn their characters for their decisions.
Christian revelation is paradoxical, two teaching sometimes stand with each other without any rational way to completely harmonize them. Attempts could be made to harmonize but at the end the paradoxes has to stand if Christians are to be faithful in proclaiming what is revealed. Denominational distinctives come from emphasizing one part of the paradox while minimizing the other part. It is hard to accept the unexplainable paradox but faithfulness to the word demands it. Is this an imperfection on God's part? Or are we imposing a certain standard on God on how he is to reveal himself? In this section, we will explore paradoxes that have spawned denominations. There are three areas we will focus on where paradoxes exist; Incarnation, Salvation, Holiness. Let me begin by saying that the Christian doctrine of God, that he is a triune being, is very much paradoxical. It can't fully be explained how scripture reveals that...
Incarnation
Scripture both affirm that Jesus is God and Jesus is man. The Chalcedonian creed maintained the paradox by saying that Jesus is one person who is both God and man. This spawned one movement that emphasized Jesus' two natures so much that they minimize the oneness of his person. This also spawned another movement that emphasized Jesus' oneness so much that they almost combined the two natures to produce a different sort of nature.
This issue had a practical implication in what is called the Iconoclastic controversy. It is idolatry to represent the image of God (icons) and Jesus is God. However, since Jesus is also a man, can he then be represented? Some Christian groups cite the second truth to maintain the use of icons. Other Christians continue to object, citing the first truth. Another practical application is the Lord's supper. Can Jesus who is man sitting in God's right hand unite himself to bread and wine to benefit humanity? Some say no because of his human limitation (being localized). Others say that Jesus' humanity and divinity still communicates with each other, therefore his divinity affects his humanity and he can be everywhere despite being human.
Salvation
Scriptures affirm that salvation is from God alone. Scriptures also warns man, especially Israel, to turn to God to be saved (be at peace with God), thereby affirming that man is responsible for the consequences of rejecting God. It is paradoxical that man is responsible for his rejecting God but he has no ability to make the decision to turn to God wholeheartedly. However, those two parts of the paradox have to be affirmed. The church has universally affirmed that without God's grace, humans cannot turn to God and be saved. However, the scriptures also affirm God's love for all humanity and his desire that they all turn to him. God's electing grace and his universal love are in paradox.
Christian universalists, emphasizing universal love and honoring God's sovereignty, assert that in the end all are elect, they will all believe. The problem with universalism is the presence of unbelief that scriptures say will stay until the end. Hyper-Calvinists, emphasizing God's electing grace, would not affirm a universal love of God but more of an impersonal beneficence (God gives good things just because of who he is but he has no personal stake in the salvation of all). There are those who try to be in the middle who posit a prevenient grace that man must cooperate with to be saved. The problem with this is it still gives man a hand in his salvation, which does not honor God's sovereignty in salvation part of the paradox. However, it does honor the part of the paradox that holds man responsible for his destiny.
A related paradox is the relation between faith and works (obedience). The apostle Paul emphasizes the free grace of God, accepted by faith alone, and the abolishing of law as a way to get right with God. Complicating matters is the apostle James affirming that faith and the man's works make him right with God. The Christian is free from divine condemnation, but he needs to reflect moral uprightness, and a lifestyle of disobedience to law is a sign that a person is condemned. That is a paradox. To say that the Christian is under a spiritual law, not the letter of the law does not solve the paradox. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is designed to give a sense of freedom for the Christian and the assurance that he has eternal life. It places no demands. Therefore, we could not make faith out to be something that imposes demands on the faithful. That would dishonor one part of the paradox. We can't deny the need to follow the scriptures either.
Catholics confess the grace that saves to be an infused grace that produces faith and works in a person and those works and faith both make a person right with God. Protestants confess that grace is imputed, immediately making the person who believes right with God. The works have no role in saving a person, but are an outworking of God's spirit. The paradox gets activated when we see a Christian sinning. Did that person fall from grace, therefore needs to be revived with an infusion of grace through penance? Or does faith keep the person right with God? To equate sinning with lack of faith is presumptuous (judging a person's heart) and unrealistic. Scriptures affirm that the faithful will still sin because imperfections remain until the end of the age.
Holiness
The Christian is in the world but is separate from the world. The Church is a hospital for sinners and it is a holy people. This is a paradox. Long time ago, the church, reeling from persecution had to make a decision whether to accept back into the fold those that have fallen away and desire to return. Donatists, emphasizing the church's holiness, decided to not bring them back or at least make them to be second-class Christians. However, most accepted the fallen, empahsizing God's forgiveness.
Although the united ancient church made a declaration that the donatists were heretics, in reality their attitude still remains through the ages. Christians called monks separated themselves from the visible church, which they see as too corrupted by living in the world. When the church has become more worldly; not preaching the word of God with power because of unbelief in the scriptures or fear of the world, or not enforcing church discipline, coventicles (small groups) were formed to feed the spiritual need of some. These coventicles eventually became new denominations as the established church came to reject them.
There are other controversies rooted in the paradox of holiness and the acceptance of the reality of sin. Denominational splits happen because of some Christians' unwillingness to accept what they perceive to be the sinful methods of the world. For example, using guilt to bring people to faith in Christ, instead of simply preaching the word with power. The viability of public schools or the status of freemasons (regarded as an anti-Christian society) are also a reason for denominational splits. The acceptance of what is perceived to be grossly ungodly practices cause denominational splits. The purity of the church (purported to be represented by the denomination's doctrines which does not necessarily mean the rejection of other Christian groups as non-Christians) may cause denominational leaders to separate with those who are willing to work with other Christians in fulfilling the church's mission in the world (evangelism and social justice).
In conclusion, the church must accept that revelation is paradoxical if it is to become more one, at least in spirit.