(Answering Questions #23)
Q. Regarding your post on
Denominations- If the unity is found in the Spirit, how are denominations a
hindrance? Don't they help bring groups of like minded people together? You
said congregations will fellowship. Don't denominations create a way for that
to happen?
A. No. They promote schism and
try to find and establish unity in a man-made form.
Whether the denomination is
rooted in a tradition... cultural, theological etc... or, in a lowest common
denominator approach, it's still trying to find the unity through the creation
of some kind of factional bureaucratic affiliation. The Scripture knows nothing
of this.
Charles Finney was a heretic
but he was right when he said the Presbyterians had created a 'paper Pope'. And
in practice what that means is... the clerics atop the hierarchy get to
determine what the paper Pope says. And though they don't want to admit it, it
changes over time and is thus to some degree, arbitrary.
Presbyterianism ends up just
being another form of Episcopacy resting on a tradition. Most denominations
more or less function in the same way. They end up being self-serving
bureaucracies that in no way promote unity.
The Mainline/Liberal Churches
have basically been reduced to the admission that they no longer believe in
much of anything that would keep them apart. Their main issues are really more
about bureaucracies, buildings and pensions. Their narrative is rooted in the
Enlightenment. The only reason for exclusion is if you retain old beliefs that
they have moved beyond.
Regarding confessional bodies,
that's great that they articulate what they believe. But again these
confessional statements or constitutions are usually tradition specific and
couched in terms of perpetuating a specific historical context and/or school of
thought. I know they will insist that their tradition is the Biblical one. This
argument fails on many fronts but again is rooted less in theology than it is
in the story of the 'group'.
It's actually quite similar to
what Americanism does in terms of geopolitical and ideological history.
America's 'rightness' is rooted in the narrative, not in any actual historical
or ideological fact. These are interpreted in different ways by different
generations and when probed will be discovered to be far more nebulous and
contradictory than most American apologists would care to admit. The same is
true for the denominationalists and the Confessional theology they promote.
While another congregation may
agree with 80% of what they do and believe, the fact that they can't quite
'sign on' means that there are now barriers erected that ought not to be there.
These are man-made barriers that ought not to be.
Yes, they attempt to create
umbrella organizations that bring the divergent denominations together, but in
the end it just creates another level of bureaucracy and one that doesn't
really have any meaning. At best it creates a facade, a faux unity.
And again... is it warranted
from Scripture? If not, and if it's okay to develop extra-Scriptural polity out
of veneration of tradition or pragmatic concern then at that point we're really
dealing with a different set of questions.
In the end the Presbyterian
claim that their polity is somehow Divinely sanctioned and commanded must be
strongly rejected. In fact it is this point that makes them in many ways the
most offensive of the denominational options. Their claim is spurious, anti-Biblical
and deceptive. The same condemnation must rest on any other denomination which
makes the same claim, though most are more likely to argue the Scriptures are
more or less silent and allow the Church to formulate its own solutions to the
inter-congregational political problem. Again at that point we're dealing with
a different issue, one of authority and a question regarding the sufficiency of
Scripture.
Church federation arose in the
4th and 5th centuries as a way for congregations to
identify with the 'catholic' Church as opposed to a 'schismatic' body. But at
that point who is guilty of schism? The Donatists certainly believed Rome had
'departed' the true faith and their claim seems vindicated by the Roman
alliance with the Empire. But at the same time the Donatists are also guilty of
departure or schism when they attempted to erect their own hierarchy. These
events in which both parties bear some blame set the Church on a bad path.
But generally speaking we can
state just because a congregation doesn't want to 'sign on' with a political
innovation is suddenly guilty of schism? I don't think so.
How dare Presbyterians accuse
of Congregationalists of being schismatic! It's an outrageous and unwarranted
charge... all the more because it is the Presbyterian system and all such
denominational polities that are in fact guilty of dividing the Church.
All quests to seek unity in
these forms...bureaucracies and denominations are all fruitless. They don't
create unity, only division.
How is the unity to be found?
Not in any extra-Scriptural denominational structure. The unity is found in the
Spirit and transcends any ability on our part to form it into some kind of
tangible political structure.
You won't be able to point to a
building or an acronym on a sign. It's not tangible in that way. There won't be
an office that administers the 'unity'. Nor is it find in a fallen human being
wearing special robes and sitting on some kind of elevated chair.
We all resent Rome's claim to
Catholicity. They demand that you must be affiliated with and submit to the
Roman pontiff in order to be part of the universal/catholic Church. We rightly
reject their claim. They can point to tradition and doctrinal formulations and
we also reject those even while admitting they claim some truth.
We might look at
Presbyterianism and appreciate some of their doctrine, maybe even more than
some. But ultimately they're making the same claim. They'll deny that, and
though practically speaking they'll recognize other people as Christian, in
practice they act more or less the same as Rome. They'll call you brother until
you darken the doors of their building. Then at that point the only true
brethren are the members of their faction.
Creeds and Confessions serve a
purpose. I contend that many of the 'great' Confessions birthed by the
Reformation are far too detailed and end up expressing a cohesive theological
tradition rather than the actual teaching of Scripture.
Their excessive detail leads to
reductionism. Their precisionist impulse ends up reducing the greater scope of
the truth and the full spectrum of Biblical teaching.
Using them to delineate the
'true' Church from the false is ultimately unhelpful and at its
worst...schismatic.