Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Three Things Denominations Have in Common

Denominations exist because of differences. That is a simple fact.

Christian denominations survive and thrive because groups of Christians cannot agree on certain beliefs, practices, or both. Therefore, they separate into Christian sub-groups with names such as "Baptist," "Methodist," "Presbyterian," "Episcopal," "Lutheran," or even "Christian."

The differences leading these divisions are often over issues such as the meaning of the sacraments/ordinances, the composition of the church, and God's vs. man's role in salvation. A cursory look around the Christian landscape makes it clear that denominations aren't going away any time soon.

Despite these differences, Christian denominations do agree on at least three things. Regardless of the name Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, or even Roman Catholic, all primary denominations agree on the existence of the three following aspects of church life. All denominations not only support these practices but also encourage them.

The three areas of agreement:

1. Big Buildings

Almost all churches within the main denominations have large buildings in which they meet. These buildings obviously differ in size, shape, style, and expense, but they still remain large enough to hold far more people than most houses ever could.

These buildings also cost a great deal of money. Many local churches are far in debt because of their huge mortgages. Those who have paid off their edifices still have enormous utility bills and general maintenance costs.

For most churches, these buildings are where most of the "holy activities" occur on the "holy days."

2. Professional Clergy

Regardless of form of leadership and church polity, all denominations have salaried clergy who are viewed by most people in the churches as the experts. The experts at least lead if not make the important decisions. They also do the primary teaching/preaching.

All denominations expect certain things from these leaders/experts. They may have the title "pastor," "elder," or "priest," but they are still expected to perform activities - such as baptizing and leading the Lord's Supper - that the "laity" in the church normally don't perform.

3. Scripted Services

The primary gathering of the week within all major denominations is a scripted service largely led by the professional clergy in the big buildings. These gatherings may be referred to as a "Mass" or "Worship Service," but they are largely the same in style (if not in meaning).

A few people lead from a stage or platform. The activities are planned ahead in a specific sequence that varies little from week to week. The experts determine this order beforehand (which is often then written in a bulletin). The vast majority of the people have no input in what the activities will be. Most of the "laity's" activities involve singing songs led by a "worship leader," and "active listening" to the clergy deliver a prepared speech.

If you attend any denominational church this Sunday you will almost always experience the above three factors.

Here's a question: why would the denominations disagree on other issues, but at the same time agree on big buildings, professional clergy, and scripted services? I think I know the answer:

The divisions between the denominations are largely due to differences in biblical interpretation. Those in the denominations look at passages that discuss issues such as the Lord's Supper, baptism, the church, etc., and they see different things. These differences divide.

When it comes to big buildings, professional clergy, and scripted services, there is no biblical evidence. Therefore, there are no bible passages over which to divide. The bible says nothing about churches gathering in big buildings, churches being led by professional clergy, and church gatherings being scripted beforehand. Because of the complete lack of biblical evidence for these practices, there is nothing over which to argue. Instead, man-made traditions rule the day. All denominations fall in line accepting these.

I find it both fascinating and troubling that denominations, whose existence is based on disagreement, actually agree on three things that are so unbiblical. Frankly, I shouldn't be that surprised because denominations themselves are unbiblical.

Instead of falling prey to these man-constructed ideas, let's follow scripture. And what does the scripture show us?

I'll not address the three areas of denominational agreement here because I've done so elsewhere. Instead, let me simply point out that Christ desired unity among His church. This is undeniable. And nowhere did Jesus imply that His followers would "be united in spirit, but not in church membership." That's just rationalization.

Denominations are not of God. Instead, they divide His church.

Let us be united and look to the scriptures to inform our decision-making.

34 comments:

runningwillis said...

Hypocrisy runs thick.

What they also have in common is that they will admit that they divide over differences (which you say is unbiblical), while in the meantime you have divided yourself and continue to write about why you are so divided/different (i.e. you're right, everyone else is wrong). Sounds like a pot/kettle problem to me...

David Rogers said...

Eric,

What if we found a new denomination made up of churches without big buildings, professional clergy, or scripted services? What if house churches that all don't have big buildings, professional clergy, or scripted services network together, and cooperate in ministry projects? Does this make them a denomination?

As I understand it, the SBC, for one, does not mandate any of these three things. Yes, it is true, the great majority of cooperating churches have these things, but they are not a requirement for cooperation.

As I see it, "denominations" can be a helpful channel for facilitating the cooperation of individual congregations--the modern-day counterpart to the NT house churches. However, they can easily degenerate into being a means for dividing and isolating from the rest of the Body of Christ. However, unaffiliated, or non-denominational, congregations run the risk of being even more isolationist than denominational ones.

How do you propose house churches relate, in a practical way, to the larger Body of Christ?

Eric said...

Runningwillis,

You've taken a fairly adversarial tone with several of my posts, but you haven't even bothered to say who you are.

As for division, I haven't created any artificial divisions. I'm simply pointing out what the bible says and how the modern church deviates from it.

Do you have a biblical defense for big buildings, professional clergy, or scripted services?

Eric said...

David,

Denominations by definition exist because of division. While at SEBTS, I heard again and again why we Southern Baptists were divided from others. In that sense, I want no part in denominations.

As for a denomination mandating these three things, I agree that the SBC doesn't. However, a quick glance at SBC churches tells us that the vast majority embrace these traditions.

Cooperation is a very good thing. I'd like to work with anyone who is a follower of Christ. I've been thinking about how home fellowships can relate to one another in a positive way for edification and evangelization. I don't have it figured out. There are some very solid ministries to help with this such as NTRF.org.

Alan Knox said...

Eric,

I would recommend that you and the believers that you meet with seek to work together with any Christians who are in your area - whether they are house churches or not. Otherwise, like a previous commenter said, you are simply promoting another type of division.

-Alan

Eric said...

Alan,

I agree completely. I have no desire to be separated for the sake of denominationalism. I'm happy to work with anyone who claims Christ.

Mark Hollingsworth said...

Eric:

I enocurage you to be a little more careful about what you label "unbiblical." Just because something is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, does that automatically make it "unbiblical"? "Big buildings" (a term you used pejoratively, btw; there are some churches affiliated with denominations that have small buildings, too), "salaried pastors" and "scripted services" (another pejorative term) are not necessarily "unbiblical" just because Eric interprets them this way. There are others who hold to the sufficiency of Scripture who see things differently--they do not interpret these things as "unbiblical." In fact, differences in interpretation is what you said leads to the denominations that you decry.

I assume (maybe I shouldn't but I digress) that you have a gathering meeting in your house. I assume (see above) that your house has an HVAC unit on the outside to control the temperature inside. In the NT, we do not find churches meeting in places where the temperature is controlled by an HVAC unit. Therefore, HVAC units are unbiblical and you should get rid of yours immediately, right?

Although runningwillis did take a somewhat adversarial tone, you may just want to consider whether he has a point in describing the "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" tone on your part, even making light (at times, with Bobby and Aussie somebody) of those poor saps out there who haven't "seen the light" like you have. Do you really want to tell men like Piper, Dever, MacArthur, Voddie Baucham that what they are doing every Sunday is "unbiblical"?!?

I say these things simply because I appreciate your thoughtfulness and heart to be true to the Scriptures and honor the Lord's church. i just think you may be contributing to some of the same kind of division that you say is so bad.

Blessings
Mark

David Rogers said...

Eric,

While it is obviously true that the reason many—and no doubt, most—denominations exist is because of division of one sort or another, I am not in agreement that "Denominations by definition exist because of division." I guess this begs the question, though: How do we define "denomination"?

For me, ideally, what is often called a "denomination" may just be a channel through which local congregations join together with other congregations in order to cooperate toward the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

You can say you are joined together with the entire Body of Christ, and are cooperating with everyone on an equal basis. But, in the real-life world in which we live, cooperation that amounts to anything is with real-life people and real-life congregations. And, none of us has the time or the ubiquity to cooperate equally with all.

Now, what is the basis upon which we choose to cooperate? That is another question. For many, it seems more natural to cooperate more closely with those who see things (i.e. controversial issues) in a way similar to how we see them.

Following this logic, many house churches cooperate together in house church networks. Personally, I see no problem with this. It makes sense.

But then, you have to ask, Is this really any different than all the other so-called "denominations" out there?

Some practical questions I would ask, though, are:

1. With whom would I NOT cooperate, given the chance, and for what reason?

2. Who will we allow to participate with us at the Lord's Table?

3. What practical steps am I—and the group of believers with whom I regularly meet—taking to get to know the other believers and congregations in my locality, pray together with them, and fellowship in the Lord?

Eric said...

Mark,

Thank you for commenting about this issue.

The difficulty with pointing out problems in the church is that this makes people uncomfortable. The response I get from a number of folks is that I'm being divisive. That truly is not my intent. However, it will cause some discomfort when we question the status quo.

Let me ask a question: What is the biblical basis for (to avoid any pejorative terms) large buildings used specifically by churches, salaried pastors, and worship services that have a scheduled order determined by the pastoral staff, etc.?

As for HVAC, the bible also doesn't address a whole host of other things that do not impact the life of the church. The bible doesn't talk about candy bars, automobiles, couches, swing sets, etc. These aren't important to the discussion because they have no theological significance. I've had many people bring things up such as HVAC, but frankly I see it as a way to avoid the discussion.

As for Piper, MacArthur, etc., can they biblically defend what they do each Sunday? I don't know. Where's the model they use?

We must be able to ask hard questions and point out practices that are foreign to the bible. I will continue to do so.

Eric said...

David,

If denominations don't exist because of division, then why did the SBC begin in the first place?

Also, what would happen if a church that baptizes babies wanted to join the SBC? I realize that is a far-fetched scenario that isn't going to happen, but for the sake of the conversation, what would happen?

In some ways we are talking past one another. I agree that cooperation is a good thing, but the basis of this cooperation - in the SBC - is churches that are part of a group that excludes other Christians over sub-gospel doctrines.

I think the Cooperative Program is great. I'm thrilled about what the IMB in particular is doing. What I would like to see is a breaking down of the walls of who is in and who is out.

If house churches refuse to cooperate with denominational churches, this is a significant problem, too. It is also one that too often exists. It cuts both ways.

My desire is to see Christians unite around the gospel to serve one another and evangelize the world. I'd be happy to see the SBC dissolve (along with all other denominations), and have all gospel-proclaiming churches come together. Maybe some type of new truly cooperative program could be created.

David Rogers said...

Eric,

Although I mentioned the SBC in a previous comment, I am not talking specifically about the SBC now. I am talking more generally, and more theoretically. Does "denomination" necessarily = division? As I already, said, in many—and, no doubt, most—cases historically, denominations have come about as a result of divisions. But I don't think fellowships or networks of congregations in and of themselves imply division. And, I don't really see the technical difference between fellowships or networks of congregations, and "denominations"—or, at least, some of them.

Here is what I believe. I think we must distinguish between fellowship (or unity) and cooperation. Biblically, we should fellowship, to the degree we have opportunity, with all our fellow members in the Body of Christ. But, we do not necessarily cooperate with all, on an equal basis, on every ministry project. Some individuals, and some congregations, are more naturally good ministry partners (at least, in certain projects) than others.

For instance, God may lay on my heart, and the group with which I fellowship, a burden for orphanage ministry in Romania. He may lay the same burden on the hearts of other believers and other congregations. But, not on all. Is it division to cooperate in this particular ministry project with those upon whose heart He has laid this burden, and not with those upon whom He has not? I don't think so.

What about the ministry of planting churches that baptize believers by immersion? Is this necessarily different? If so, how?

Yet, biblically, I believe I must maintain fellowship (and unity) with all who are truly my brothers and sisters in Christ. The dividing line here is the gospel.

Was Luther right to separate from the Roman Catholic Church? If they were preaching a false gospel, I believe he was.

Were the Anabaptists right to separate from Zwingli? If that was the only option they had, in order to follow through with their convictions, then yes. And, as I understand history, this indeed was the case.

Sometimes, by the mere act of following through with our convictions, we de facto separate ourselves from those who have different convictions.

The trick is following through consistently with our convictions, without at the same time breaking fellowship with those who are truly our brothers and sisters in Christ, and congregations that do not, technically, preach a false gospel, even though they may dot their i's and cross their t's differently than we do.

Eric said...

David,

I love your last paragraph. That is the difficult part. Because of that, I believe we must look to scripture as our guide. Of course we see no denominations there.

So what do we do today? As I said, I'd like to see denominations fade away. However, if denominations could somehow be transformed into groups of churches working together who do not exclude other believers based on secondary doctrines, then I think they could be a positive thing.

A related question: How do denominations think of themselves? Do they exist only for cooperation or is division a key component? I suppose different people think of it differently.

As you have said, the definition of denomination is one of the keys to this conversation.

Mark Hollingsworth said...

Eric:

Your response, unfortunately, completely avoided my main point. I am sure the fault lies with me for not being clear. Again, is it necesaary to cry out "unbiblical" for anything anyone does that you feel is not necessarily mentioned in the Bible? Can you really say that church buildings are "unbiblical" if a church feels like they are follwoing the OT "model" (your word) of the Tabernacle/Temple in Israel, or if they see that there are places in Acts where Christians seemed to gather in one place (Ac 2:46 "in the temple"). Can you really say that others are "unbiblical" because they see 1 Tim 5:17,18 as justification for paying pastors?
Further, who decides what is and is not "theologically significant"? Perhaps there are some that would say whether we meet in a home or a "big building" is not theologically significant. Are they wrong? If so, why?

I have read your arguments against the above, so I am not interested in reading them again. The issue I'm trying to help you see is one of a display of humility. Poking fun at those who don't see things your way (see above) is not helpful to the conversation. Just because it is "not your intent" to cause division does not mean that is not the effect you are having and it does not absolve you from rigorously examining what you say and how you say it in order to make sure that "all things be done for edification" (1 Cor 14:26, one of your oft-cited verses).

Asking hard questions is fine. However, you give the appearance of taking pride in "making people uncomfortable," because you mention that so often. It is a straw man. Not everyone is uncomfortable dialoguing with you; I would hope you have seen that on your blog here.

Again, I appreciate your heart and desire to honor the church of our Lord.

Blessings
Mark Hollingsworth

Mark Hollingsworth said...

Eric:

One more thought. You wrote:

"I've had many people bring things up such as HVAC, but frankly I see it as a way to avoid the discussion."

Yet, when I asked you directly if you are willing to say that MacArthur, Piper, Dever and Baucham are being "unbiblical" because they meet in a [big] building every Sunday, you said:

"...can they biblically defend what they do each Sunday? I don't know. Where's the model they use?"

If you were going to be consistent with what you have written over and over again on the subject, you should have simply said, "Yes, I think they are being unbiblical." Instead, you avoided the discussion.

Blessings
Mark Hollingsworth

David Rogers said...

Eric,

I think I may have directed you to this sometime in the past But the series of articles by John Woodhouse I reference here are especially helpful on the topic of our present discussion:

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-woodhouse-on-christian-unity.html

I would be interested to hear any points in which you think Woodhouse may be off-base scripturally.

Eric said...

Mark,

When I use the term "unbiblical," I'm not talking about disobedience or sin. Instead, I'm talking about following the model presented to us in scripture. For those who deviate from that model, I believe their practices are unbiblical and I desire to point this out.

Biblical interpretation can be sticky. However, not all interpretation is correct. I find that many people like to avoid asking difficult questions because of their current practices. I'll say it again: I've yet to hear compelling arguments in favor of the three things I pointed out in this post that denominations agree upon.

Humility is important. I agree. I believe I can take a stand for what I believe is the biblical model. If this stand does not seem humble, then I don't know what I can do for you.

The vast majority of Christians in this country engage in weekly practices that are foreign to the bible. This needs to be pointed out and discussed.

Eric said...

Mark,

As per Piper, MacArthur, etc., I do think some of what they do on Sundays is unbiblical. For example, when they stand in front of a large group and give a prepared sermon for 30-45 minutes, I think this is unbiblical in the sense that it deviates from what we see in scripture. I'm sure they do biblical things on Sundays as well such as gathering with the saints, fellowshipping with them, eating with them, etc.

Eric said...

David,

I'll have to take a look. I'm not sure when that will happen because I'm balancing a couple of jobs right now.

Mark Hollingsworth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Rogers said...

Eric,

I understand about the time constraints. But, since this is an issue that seems to particularly interest you, and one which appears to be influencing some important decisions in your life, I urge you not to forget. I think the things Woodhouse has to say are very directly related to this conversation, and very helpful.

And, since I am also particularly interested in this topic, and find your perspective interesting, I would really value your feedback on Woodhouse.

Eric said...

Mark,

It was a Blogger issue, not my intent. You left your comment during the time frame that I was responding. I have no control over it.

Eric said...

David,

I'll try. Thanks.

Mark Hollingsworth said...

"It was a Blogger issue, not my intent. You left your comment during the time frame that I was responding. I have no control over it."

Right, but you still have not published it.

runningwillis said...

Patrick Willis is my name.

You've missed my point - I'm not trying to be "adversarial", but rather point out the fact that most of us are all too often able to see other people's "inconsistencies" and the errors we bemoan, but spend too little time looking at ourselves. That's exactly what I see in what you continuously write, and by what you've said about what you're doing, about how you now function.

The fact that you left a church in order to start something else on your own is very clearly creating a new division. When you get into WE ARE and WE AREN'T issues, as you write about almost every day, you have created division. You have spent a lot of words explaining how it is that you are not like everyone else. How is that not a division of differences?

As for the 3 issues (buildings, pastors, worship services), I think you are capable of explaining how it is that I would come to those conclusions from the Scripture. It seems very much like you have disregarded all of the OT if it is not repeated in the NT (antinomianism) and have interpreted specifics about paying elders, meeting in "temples" (acts 2), and having ordered (and orderly) worship in order to suite your preferences. But that's just the point - you continuously point your finger at others, but haven't said much about "I could see how this might be interpreted differently - I'm fallible and errant, so I may very well be the one who has it wrong." A little humility goes a long way. I don't think most people are going to be offended that you are acting on your convictions and preferences - but when you sit and point and laugh and mock and ridicule the majority of the church you say you love and want to participate with, there's a big problem. I think if people have a problem with you, it has a lot more to do with approach and attitude than actual beliefs.

Alan Knox said...

Eric,

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you see a difference between unbiblical and antibiblical?

In my view, many of the things that you talk about are "unbiblical" in the sense that they are not supported in Scripture. However, the are not (in and of themselves) "antibiblical," meaning they are not specifically prohibited by Scripture.

-Alan

Aussie John said...

Eric,

Having read your blog since its inception, I understand that your use of the word "denominations", in this article, certainly does not carry the intent that some seem to assume.

I have never seen any suggestion that you have an "us and them" attitude, nor that you reject the thought of fellow-shipping and working with others, "whether they are house churches or not".

From your writings, it is clearly apparent that you regard all who are trusting in the finished work of Christ, as brethren, without distinction.

I come to your defense because I think there has been some comment generated by the "we've always done it this way, don't expect me to think about it" syndrome.

It's always wise, when we give advice to others, to apply that advice to ourselves, before passing it on.

Mark Hollingsworth said...

My apologies.

Eric said...

Patrick,

Thanks for telling me your name.

Is it ever acceptable to point out when another Christian seems to be doing something inconsistent with the bible? In doing so, is it always divisive?

Eric said...

Alan,

You are correct. When I use the term "unbiblical," I'm usually not referring not to disobedience and sin. I'm speaking of things that are not found in scripture.

Eric said...

John,

Thank you.

One of the problems is the medium we are dealing with. Writing never completely conveys feelings correctly.

My desire is to be biblical. In doing this, I want point out common church practices that have no basis in the bible. In talking about these, disagreements will inevitably occur.

Hopefully we can discuss them in a civil manner to the benefit of all.

Eric said...

Mark,

No problem.

Alan Knox said...

runningwilling,

Funny... I always read your name as "running will is"... :)

-Alan

lookingforchurch said...

Eric,

I appreciate the post. Those three things are a lot of what I'm dealing with right now. This pointed some things out to me and cleared some things up.

Thanks,
Sol

Eric said...

Sol,

I'm glad it helped. These are things we all should be thinking about. Otherwise we simply accept the status quo (always a dangerous thing to do).