Many lament the state of divided Christendom. Not infrequently
are we reminded of the thousands of denominations which exist today. It is an
argument used by secularists, ecumenicists and those who wish to forge a Catholicity
based on the claims of Rome's so-called bishop.
Many are embarrassed by the state of things and not a few
groups work to form pan-denominational structures. In Reformed circles NAPARC
would represent an expression of this type of effort.
As a Congregationalist I'm not troubled by any of this even
for a moment. Neither the New Testament nor the Early Church knows anything of
denominations and in fact when the Corinthians behaved in a manner that begins
to smack of sectarianism they are rebuked by the Apostle.
The response to Paul's rebuke and exhortations isn't to try
and forge pan-denominational bureaucracies. The problem isn't an abundance of
denominations.
The problem is denominations.
Denominations have attempted in virtually every way possible
to fashion some kind of unity rooted in form. Everyone signs on to a creed, or
everyone agrees to polity or hierarchical government.
These are all false man-made attempts at forging a unity
that can only be built by the Holy Spirit Himself.
Individual Congregations do not 'ignore' the rest of the
body as some falsely charge. They aren't necessarily myopic or self-focused.
They simply reflect a local commonality. If the denominations didn't exist
there might not be so many congregations. The denominations create a factious
spirit and then of course bureaucracies, money, property and all the rest (that
necessarily go with denominations) also play a part.
Congregationalists can all too easily fall into these traps
too. But not if they understand the meaning of Congregationalism and are
conscientious about it.
The authority exercised in Acts 15 was Apostolic. No
assembly or bishop can claim to speak for the Holy Spirit. I am of course
assuming the finality of the God's Word as expressed in the Old and New
Testaments.
This is key. Yes, the Cessationism/Continuationism issue
plays out directly in this question.
If there's extra-Biblical doctrinal revelation then
certainly new polities can be revealed and traditions can be sanctified.
Prophets whether wearing mitres or expensive three piece suits can declare new
forms. If their authority is accepted, then the discussion is over.
But if Scripture alone is the sole guide and epistemological
source of ecclesiastical authority then we cannot accept man-made innovations
in the realm of polity.
Unlike Presbyterians we do not treat Scriptural polity as an
axiomatic starting point allowing us to formulate an administrative bureaucracy
through speculative deduction... which seems more driven by pragmatism and
other political concerns than any real concern found in Scripture.
And unlike most groups (which would certainly include
Presbyterianism) we reject all tradition associated with Church government.
Scripture envisions individual congregations interacting
with and communicating among each other but not under any formal basis, nor
does it imagine any sort of overarching authority.
Yes, Apostles could address the congregations within a
particular region. These were of course the Apostles sending out 'general'
epistles. It does not imply diocesan rule nor does it suggest normativity for
the post-Apostolic age. There is no record of Apostles establishing any such
system of government. And there are no Apostles today who can write
authoritative general epistles.
Congregations are obligated to work toward maintaining
contact with other bodies which seem orthodox and separating from those who do
not.
Ironically it is denominationalism that prevents this from
happening, or at least establishes unnecessary boundaries.
I know of Presbyterian and Baptist congregations that are
'friendly' but often there are restrictions regarding who can speak from the
pulpit. Sacramental administration is tied to denominational guidelines etc...
There are many difficulties in groups actually worshipping and fellowshipping
together. Thankfully it sometimes happens in spite of the protective barriers
the denominationalists seek to impose.
There are certainly plenty of things to legitimately divide
over but factionalism is repugnant.
Years ago I was on my way to a PCA seminary and while
waiting for the semester to begin I attended an OPC congregation. When I
mentioned I was on my way to this particular school that had loose affiliations
with the PCA, the two chaps I was speaking with could not hide their disgust.
The PCA was obviously substandard to the all-glorious OPC.
I've been a member of the OPC and I assure you... it is not
glorious in the least.
Now will this broad and loose and seemingly chaotic
Congregationalism succeed in forming the united body of John 17?
Of course not. John 17 finds its fulfillment in
eschatological terms.
And I would simply point out the denominational path hasn't
exactly worked either has it?
In fact it has caused more problems than it has fixed.
Men may glory in their denominations and think they've
achieved something by throwing up walls around traditions and creating
bureaucracies that protect the 'system'.
But in the end, if it's not wrought by the Spirit it is
little more than dung.
And if the unity is wrought by the Spirit, once again I will
insist it is 'in spite of' their efforts.
Denominationalism is a sin and that's true whether we're
speaking of a denomination of five congregations or the billion plus
individuals who bow the knee to the Papal Baal.
So when someone says there are thousands of denominations
and insinuates that therefore Christianity is false or the Bible is an
unreliable guide, I simply respond, "So what?"
In truth they are all illegitimate. I only care about the individual
congregations. That said even in Reformed circles there are PCA's and OPC's I
have attended and might still if threatened with violence... and there are
others that I wouldn't have ever considered attending.
In the end when I was Presbyterian... which praise be to God
I am no longer!... I still had to judge individual congregations. The acronym
on the sign wasn't really all that helpful.
In the end they're just sort of starting points and yet the
tragedy is there are cases when I would cross a congregations off my list or
pass it by because they might belong to this or that group. In reality there
have been times I have been pleasantly surprised by groups that were far
sounder and more refreshing that I would have expected them to be due to their
denominational affiliation.
The institutionalization of the Church which began in
earnest in the 4th century has been nothing less than a curse. The
solution is to reject them part and parcel. Whether created by the state or
factions of clerics they are still man-made political structures that seek to
lord it over the consciences of individuals and ultimately they undermine and
supplant the work of the Spirit.