Attempts To Justify Denominationalism

 

Do you believe the Lord God of heaven and earth is pleased with the division in the religious world?  There are several world religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and others.  There are at least 300 denominations.  In addition, there are thousands of cultic groups, maybe as many as 20,000.  If sincere seekers after truth are not confused by this tragic situation, I do not know what it would take to confuse them.  I know this: from a scriptural viewpoint, the division which exists in our world serves as a barrier to men's coming to Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.  Is that not what Jesus had in mind when he prayed: "Neither do I pray for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as, thou Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21)?

 

The Old Testament, like the New, also stressed the need for unity among God's people.  According to Genesis 13, "there was a conflict between the herdsmen of Abraham's cattle and the herdsmen of Lot's cattle."  Abraham knew such strife would cause great harm.  So Abraham proposed: "Let there be no strife between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen" (Gen. 13:7-8).  Abraham listed two reasons why division would be harmful.  "We are brothers" (Gen. 13:8).  Besides, the enemies of God--the Canaanites and the Perizzites--dwell in the land (Gen. 13: 7).  These two reasons are meaningful today.  If we are truly followers of Jesus Christ, we are brothers and sisters and should work to eliminate any division in the Lord's church.  Division provides excuses for the enemies of God to oppose Christianity.

 

The Psalmist David knew the great damage division causes among God's people.  He wrote: "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!  It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore" (Psa. 133).  How can people read these Old Testament passages and not understand how displeasing division is in the sight of God almighty?

 

In case you think that only preachers among churches of Christ strongly condemn division and promote unity, let me assure you that that is not the case.  In his book, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), Dr. George Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, made these wise observations: "The idea of denominations would be abhorrent to Paul" (p. 532).  Please remember that Paul was an inspired apostle.  If Paul would have found denominationalism abhorrent, what should be our attitude toward denominationalism?  Can we afford to be involved in what divine inspiration finds abhorrent?

 

Dr. Ladd also wrote: "The nearest thing to denominations" that Paul knew were the sectarian groups at Corinth "that Paul heartily condemned" (p. 532).  Is Dr.  Ladd correct when he says that Paul heartily condemned the sectarianism which was doing so much damage to the church at Corinth?  Will you please listen carefully to these words from Paul to the Corinthians?  "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.  I have fed you with milk and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able.  For you are carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk as men?  For while one of you says, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are you not carnal" (1 Cor. 3:1-4)?  The word "carnal" shows how worldly minded the Corinthians were?  Are those who promote denominationalism in our day any less carnally minded?

 

Chuck Colson's newest book has the title, Chuck Colson Speaks (Uhrichsville, O: Promise Press, 2000).  Colson's book contains twelve speeches that he made to various organizations.  One of the speeches was made at Cambridge, England, in August of 1998.  The speech was about "C. S. Lewis: The Prophet of the Twentieth Century." Colson strongly condemns division in the religious world.  He makes two very wise observations.  "If we remain divided, it will be a sin before our Lord who prayed" for unity in the church.  "Division is the condition that man has created" (p. 120).  Tragically, Colson's attempt to bring various religious groups together by ignoring their doctrinal differences is misguided, although unquestionably sincere.

 

            I am grateful that neither George Eldon Ladd nor Chuck Colson attempted to justify denominationalism.  These men know the damage division and strife have done to the cause of Christ.  But there are theologians, preachers and others who attempt to justify denominationalism by appealing to certain scriptures.  Such attempts inevitably fail and do great harm to New Testament Christianity.  In the time that remains today, I want to examine briefly some scriptures that are used (or rather misused) in vain attempts to sustain and to promote denominationalism.

 

If you have ever discussed denominationalism with some of your neighbors they may have responded by citing the Parable of the Vine and the Branches.  Jesus said to his disciples, "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5).  Is it even remotely possible Jesus was saying, "I am the vine and the various denominations are the branches?" So far as I have been able to discover, not one reputable scholar takes that position--not one.  Do you know the reason they do not?  Please listen to the entire verse from which I have just read.  "I am the vine, you are the branches: he who abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (John 15:5-6).

 

Jesus specifically identifies the branches when he uses the personal pronouns "he" and "him." "He who abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit."  In verse six, he is even more explicit.  "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered."  If Jesus had been speaking of a denomination or a church, he would have used different language.  It ought to be obvious to even a casual reader that Jesus was speaking of individual Christians--not denominations--when he said, "I am the vine, you are the branches."  It is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of this great parable to use it to try to prove that denominationalism has God's approval or at least it does not have his disapproval.

 

Others have appealed to John 10:16 in an attempt to harmonize denominationalism with the word of God.  Jesus spoke of himself as the good shepherd.  His disciples were the sheep of his fold.  He then said, "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."  Who are the "other sheep" that Jesus had in mind?  Were they denominations?  You know they were not since there were not denominations in existence at the time Jesus spoke these words.  Besides, you would have Jesus divided against himself.  A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.  I know it is risky to say that scholars are universally agreed on the meaning of the "other sheep."  According to Dr. D. A. Carson's commentary, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: William B.  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), the others are the Gentiles (p. 388).  I know of no scholarly commentary that disagrees with Carson's observation.  My friends, it is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel to try to find grounds for denominationalism from this verse.

 

Perhaps the most unusual and inexcusable attempt to find justification for denominationalism in the scriptures is to teach that the seven churches of Asia Minor were seven denominations.  Some of the seven churches had some serious problems, but they were all churches of Christ--every single one of them.  Is it possible Jesus would have approved of even one of those churches had any of them been denominations?  You do remember that Jesus prayed: I want them "all to be one even as we are one, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:20-21).

 

A brief review of the seven churches may help us to put all of this in proper perspective.  The church at Ephesus was doctrinally sound.  At least, if it were not, Jesus said nothing about any doctrinal error.  Jesus upbraided that church for having left its first love.  If they had embraced some soul-condemning error, Christ would have mentioned it in his letter.  How do we know that?  He wrote as follows to the church at Pergamos.  "I have a few things against you, because you have some there who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication" (Rev. 2:14).  That church was in grave danger of losing its standing before God almighty.  Jesus commanded the Christians at Pergamos: "Repent; or else I will come quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev. 2:16).

 

Some of the seven churches had moral problems; some were indifferent; others were bordering on going into apostasy because they were allowing false doctrine to be preached.  But not one of the seven churches was a denomination.  It is absolutely inconceivable that anyone should twist these 1etters to the seven churches in an attempt to find justification for denominationalism.

 

Since we live in an age which stresses freedom of choice, it is not unusual to hear someone pray: "We thank God there are so many different churches so men will have a choice of which church they join."  I do not hear such foolishness so often in our day as I did in an early time.  Many people may still believe such error, but very few of them use that kind of language any more.  They know--or, at least, ought to know--that such sentiments cannot be harmonized with the teaching of God's word.

 

Some who take this approach to denominationalism may be thinking of Joshua's charge to the Jews.  "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve the Lord.   And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:14-15).

 

It ought to be obvious from this reading that men and women have a choice about either serving God or not serving him.  The Jews had the freedom to serve idols or to serve the living and true God.  But if they served idols, the curse of God would rest upon them.  We can attend the church of our choice, but does it make sense in view of the teaching of scripture?  Should we not seek the Lord's church and serve him in his church--not in a human organization?  Freedom to choose does not excuse the wrong choice.  We have to give an account of our choices.  Both the Old Testament and the New make that truth too plain for anyone to dispute.

 

The modern movement away from absolute truth has had a bearing on men's defense of denominationalism.  If, as many modern theologians contend, men and women cannot know the truth or if absolute truth does not exist, it does not make sense to talk about the true church.  All of us who try to teach others have had responses somewhat as follows: "You have your truth and I have mine.  I do not believe we have a right to judge others' religious convictions or associations." As you can readily discern, that is equivalent to saying that absolute truth does not exist or we cannot know it or it really does not make any difference.

 

Of course, the New Testament never takes that approach.  The following are among the best-known words in scripture, although many people probably do not know their origin.  "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on him, If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32).  We can never know all the truth in the universe--only God can do that--but we can know how to be saved and how to stay saved.  Our Lord said on one occasion, "My doctrine is not mine, but his who sent me.  If any man be willing to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John 1:16-17).  There is no excuse for anyone's not knowing the will of almighty God.  God made his word simple enough that we can understand it, if we are willing to make the effort.

 

Please think for just a moment on some very simple truths of the gospel.  In Caesarea Philippi, Jesus told his apostles, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).  Peter had just confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.  Jesus promised to build his church on that truth, that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God.  Did you notice in my reading of Matthew 16:18 that Jesus said "my church?"  The word "church" is singular which indicates that Jesus built one church and only one church.  So how can anyone seek to justify denominationalism?  The hundreds of denominations, cultic groups and major religions cannot have God's approval.  He has one church and only one church.  Can any truth be simpler than that?  Oddly enough, many denominational scholars have reached the same conclusion, as I have already demonstrated.

 

As you already know, the body of Christ is compared to the human body.  These are Paul's words from 1 Corinthians 12.  "But now has God set the members everyone of them in the body, as it has pleased him.  And if they were all one member, where were the body?  But now are there many members, but one body" (1 Cor. 12:18-20).  How many members are there in the human body?  There are hundreds and hundreds.  But they make just one body.  How many members of the body of Christ?  There are millions and millions.  But there is only one body of Christ.  That means, as I have read to you from 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, that division and strife are sinful.  They do not and cannot have God's approval.

 

If you have any doubt that what I have discussed with you today is the truth of God’s word, please listen to Paul's words to the church at Ephesus.  Endeavor "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the body of peace.  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in your all" (Eph. 4:3-6).  Do you have any problem understanding the word "one?"  If Paul meant what he said about one Spirit, one Lord and one God, did he mean something entirely different when he said "one body?"  Paul tells us what that body is.  "God has put all things under his feet (that is, the feet of Jesus), and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:22-23).

 

But how can all the different denominations become one church?  They must give up their denominational distinctives and unite on the teaching of scripture.  But is that possible?  My friends, you know it is or Paul would not have written: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10).  Speaking the same thing means speaking only as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11).

 

Through the centuries there have been many attempts to bring about unity among the professed followers of Jesus Christ.  But in most cases, the basis on which unity was to be established was not biblical.  I plead with you today to seek peace and harmony within in the religious world and to do it on the foundation of biblical truth.  It is a goal worthy of our very best efforts.

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

 

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles