“Denominationalism” is the existence of more than one denomination or organization of churches side by side. It is found practically throughout Christendom. The conviction that it is wrong and contrary to Scripture is quite general at present. Many. yes, doubtless, the great majority appear to be convinced that the situation calls for a radical change, and efforts to that end are being put forth on a world-wide scale. Considering this trend of opinion it may sound strange and dissonant to ask whether denominationalism is justifiable. Nearly everybody seems to think that it is not.
Yet the question must be put. For after all, separate ecclesiastical organizations have existed almost from the beginning of the history of the New Testament church. There were Montanists and Donatists in the ancient church. There were the Cathari and the Waldenses during the Middle Ages. After the Protestant Reformation denominations began to increase in number. Moreover, denominationalism is persistent. Attempts at church union are not exclusively modern, but have been made almost as frequently as separations occurred. Yet even today, with greatly improved means of communication and transportation, separations occur and the results of strenuous attempts towards union are still rather meager. Of course, we agree that such facts do not justify denominationalism, but they do indicate that the solution to the problem is not simple, and likewise, that the question merits serious consideration.
PARTIES IN THIS DISCUSSION
In my present discussion of this question I must be selective. That is to say, at this time I am not ready to discuss the matter with all who are interested. Liberalism is very much interested in and occupied with church union, yet I cannot discuss the problem of separate denominations with theological liberals.
The reason should be evident. For a fruitful discussion a common premise or starting point is indispensable. That starting point is faith in God and in the supernatural inspiration as well as the infallibility of his Word—the Bible. The church must incorporate that Word, as it were, into its very existence and organize itself accordingly. Whether denominationalism is justifiable or not does not depend upon man’s ideas and ideals, but must he decided by the Word of God. Liberalism has unscriptural ideas concerning the inspiration of the Bible and denies its infallibility. Hence there is no agreement between us concerning the premise or starting point, and thus a discussion of this matter with liberals would be futile. Of course, I would be willing to discuss the inspiration and the infallibility of the Bible with them. But that is not the specific subject of interest in this article. At this time, therefore, I have in mind only those with whom I can join in the sincere confession that God’s Word is not a human product (though I acknowledge a human factor in the Bible), but the product of divine inspiration, and that it is therefore infallible. To all such the basic question is not, Have denominations a right to exist alongside each other? but it is rather, Have different systems of doctrine, each purporting to be based upon and produced by Scripture, a right to ecclesiastical embodiment alongside each other?
THREE TRUTHS
I trust that it is hardly necessary to state that the Bible has not been given to us as a systematic, theological treatise. We must go to Scripture, Jabor with it prayerfully, and gather information from it which will shed light upon the fact and the problem of the denominations. In that respect, I think, Scripture supplies us with at least three truths. First, we gather from the Bible that ultimately the church, fully redeemed and completed, will be one even in its outward and visible existence as the church triumphant, and though not yet numerically complete, is nevertheless perfect in unity now. Second, Scripture teaches that the church militant, existing upon earth, is actually one -the unity of the church is in a very essential respect a fact today. Third, Scripture at the same time charges believers to preserve the unity of the church and assigns this as the ideal which it must seek to attain. Allow me to enlarge a hit on each of these three propositions.
UNITY IN HEAVEN
We may suppose that it goes practically without saying that in the redeemed and completed church in heaven there will be no separate denominations. The separate existences of denominations pertain to them as institutions first of all, and not to the church as an organism. The fact that here upon earth different institutions (denominations) exist, is due to a difference which men have in the conception of the church as an organism. Now in heaven there will be a natural and spontaneous unity in the conception. of the church as an organism and the outward and visible manifestation of the church will therefore not be variegated, but will he one and the same. In fact the church will then as it were be absorbed by the Kingdom, and God will then be all in all (1 Cor. 15:20–28). For that reason the church as such is not mentioned in Revelation 21, but the holy city, the new Jerusalem, the emblem of the Kingdom, is. The tabernacle of God shall then be with men and communion between God and redeemed humanity will be perfected. All destroyers and all destructive and divisive forces shall be eliminated, for nothing unclean shall enter into the holy city, nor he that makes an abomination and a lie, hut only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 21:27). Moreover, the perfection and the completeness of the church is represented in the book of Revelation (7:4; 14:1) by a wonderfully significant figure of perfection and completeness—144,000.
UNITY ON EARTH
However, when we turn to the church on earth we find that Scripture speaks of its unity in a two-fold sense. It speaks of this unity as a fact and at the same time as an ideal.
The church is represented as the body of Christ, which is, of course, a unity—an organic whole. The apostle states this plainly in 1 Corinthians 12:21, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.” The present (indicative) tense is used and the fact stated. This is not exceptional, but is a regular presentation in the New Testament (cf. Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:20; Eph. 1:23; 4:4, 5). Hence all separate denominational existences of the church notwithstanding, the church is one; it is an organic unit. All who sincerely believe, no matter from which clime or time or denomination, are members of the church thus conceived. The unity of the church is, therefore, a fact. Christ wrought this unity and we make a regular confession of it in the words of the Apostles Creed, “I believe a holy catholic church.”
But the New Testament also presents the unity of the church as an ideal. It does that in a number of places, as, for instance, in Ephesians 4, where the apostle states that various offices have been instituted in the church, “…unto the building up of the body of Christ.” This must mean that at least in some respects the ideal has not yet been attained—there must still be imperfection and incompleteness. Nor is this idea exceptional in the New Testament.
The New Testament speaks of the church “with the increase of God” (Col. 2:19). The church is to stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving for the faith of the gospel (Phil. 1:27). Moreover, the church must give diligence “to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Again, the church is admonished to he ·of the same mind (PhiL 2:2); have the same love (PhiL 2:22); be of one accord (Phil. 2:2); speak the same thing (1 Cor. 1:10); and be likeminded (I Pet. 3:8). All this indicates that there is not only constant danger of neglect and/or apostasy, but likewise that perfection has not yet been attained. Perfection has not yet been attained so far as the existence and the work of the church are concerned, nor has it been attained numerically.
“And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16).
Proponents of church union regularly appeal to John 17 and insist that an outward, organizational union is demanded by that chapter. In verse 11 Jesus prays, “Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are” (cf. also verses 21–35). Since the oneness or the unity here mentioned is compared to the union between the Father and the Son, or rather, between the Father and the Mediator, it goes without saying that this one-ness is above all of a spiritual character. Those whom the Father gave to the Mediator must face the world with unity of faith and love towards the Lord and his truth. Of course, this unity must express itself outwardly. However, this outward manifestation is not to an organizational unity first of all, but rather a spiritual oneness. The prayer of Jesus, therefore, concerns first of all unity in understanding the truth of God, which is the truth of the gospel. After that has been attained unity in testimony and confession must needs follow and, therefore, also denominational unity. John 17 does not disparage doctrine, hut it emphasizes it. It presupposes that there be outward, organizational unity only after unity in understanding and in doctrine has been attained.”
SUMMARY
After having reviewed these Scriptural teachings, we conclude that the Bible insists that the church, consisting of all true believers, is one in Christ; the unity of the church is, therefore, a fact. On the other hand the Bible likewise speaks of the unity of the church as an ideal to be attained by an ever better understanding of the truth of the gospel and by an ever purer faith in and attachment to this truth, and, therefore, by the rejection of all error. Finally, we conclude that upon the basis of such an improved and even perfect understanding of and a pure faith in and attachment to the truth of God’s Word, the church will work towards the outward, institutional or organizational unity, that is, towards real church union.
MERE EXTERNAL UNITY IS NOT TRUE UNITY!
It is needless to say that with these conclusions we disagree with Roman Catholicism as well as with certain ideas expressed by many (so-called) Protestants.
As is known Roman Catholicism does not only assign priority to an outward and organizational unity, but insists that this is the essential unity of the church. Though there are definite differences among the various orders and sectors in the Roman Church, differences which would produce separate denominations among the Protestants, the hierarchy forcibly keep such within its imposing outward structure. Moreover, this hierarchical organization produces doctrines and dogmas, so that the institution is primary and the doctrines dependent upon it. Of course, Protestantism upon the reverse order: the truth of Scripture is primary and that truth determines the character and method of the organization. For the church is “…being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20).
But after the Reformation the church has had to contend from within with “latitudinarianism” that is, with a spirit of indifference towards the teachings of Scripture. This expresses itself in various ways. Sometimes it is disguised in a scholarly garb, and other times it sails under the familiar but deceptive slogan “No Creed, but Christ.” There is, as a rule, but one step between doctrinal indifference and the subjectivism and relativism of liberalism. Whereas Roman Catholicism claims to produce doctrines, latitudinarianism depreciates and neglects church dogmas.
Now it is striking that attempts at church union are, as a rule, put forth in the atmosphere created by latitudinarianism, that is to say, in that climate which is averse to doctrine. We are passing through a period of indifference towards truth and doctrine today and it should surprise no one that just at this time “everybody” clamors for church union. Liberalism and indifference towards doctrine must make for church union, for outward church union. Liberalism can never conceive of a justification for separate denominations. But the unity thus obtained is always illusory and cannot endure, for it is not an expression of true inner unity. It is not the manifestation of the church as an organism, of the body of Christ.
ARE SEPARATE DENOMINATIONS JUSTIFIABLE?
We say often that the Protestant Reformation rediscovered and thereupon acknowledged the offices of the believer. For that reason it had to place the Bible into the hands of all believers, without discrimination. The Bible was, therefore, translated into the native languages of practically all western European peoples. However, when all believers were enabled and obliged to read the Bible and to interpret it, differences in interpretation arose. These differences pertained not only to doctrine, but since doctrine determines the manner of organization of the church, the differences applied also to church government. It is, therefore, easily understood that with the Reformation, or shortly afterwards, denominationalism revived. For believers began to interpret the Bible or sections thereof differently, and according to the different interpretations various practices were adopted and various denominations were called into being. Alongside the Lutherans the Reformed or Presbyterians established themselves. Anabaptism, and later, upon English soil, Baptists and Methodists came into existence. Moreover, these denominations developed into a number of other groups, so that today scores of separate church groups exist in our land and throughout the world.
Of course, the question is unavoidable, Can the existence of that great number of denominations be justified? Does Christ approve? Can denominationalism pass the test of His Word?
There is no simple answer to these questions. One might be inclined to reason that since the Bible and its truth are a unit, and since the church is based upon it and must incorporate it in its existence, the church must likewise constitute a single unit even outwardly and organizationally. However, human beings are involved and these are endlessly variegated. Sin has not produced this variety in men, but God has created them that way. I have an idea that in heaven and with the church in glory these various talents and gifts will not only shine forth most brilliantly, but that they will also unite in perfect harmony to the praise of God. There will doubtless be endless variety amid unity and harmony. I think the possibility should also be conceded that various races and peoples upon earth win, because of the differences in soul-structure, express the same truth of God differently. The doctrines which we, western Europeans, express in our confessional standards, will and should be retained, but the wording and even the emphases may be different in a different historical situation.
However, though differences in soul-structure are not sinful in themselves, nevertheless these differences are doubtlessly employed by Satan to produce misunderstandings and disruptions in the church of God. Through the effect of sin and yielding to temptations, good gifts and talents are often abused. We see in the church one-sided views, over-emphases, under-estimations, self-will, pride, envy and the like. The damage done by such evils is great and shocking. The responsibility and guilt are likewise tremendous. However, we should be exceedingly careful with our accusations. Surely the so-called “schismatics” are by no means always to blame! “Parent bodies” may also forsake the truth of God and be wholly responsible for a given separation.
PATIENCE IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION!
I should like to become a bit more concrete and consider a situation in which two Christians or two groups of Christians arrive at different interpretations of Scripture sincerely and conscientiously. I assume that this is the case with the Reformed or Presbyterians on the one hand and the Baptists on the other. The one believes that God requires in his Word that infants of believing parents be baptized, the other denies this. This contrast produces a difference in church government, so that it is well-nigh impossible for them to live under the same ecclesiastical roof. What should be done in such a case?
First of all, it seems to me that both parties should prayerfully labor that Satan have no opportunity to take advantage of the situation -no strange fire may be brought upon the altar. That is to say, speaking positively, they should respect each other’s sincerity Dot only, but likewise continue to love each other for Christ’s sake, bearing each other’s weaknesses. Secondly, they should constantly seek to arrive at the proper understanding of the Word of God. This should not be done so much by organizing great public gatherings in which audiences are swayed as by a thorough and scholarly study of the Bible. Let us remember that those who thus labor with Scripture work towards actual and real church union more and better than such as seek to manufacture union artificially and forcibly.
In the meantime we must and may trust Christ, who will see to it that all those who are inwardly and spiritually one in him, will in his own good time also manifest that oneness outwardly and organizationally. Only in that way do we give heed to the admonition, “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). Of course. this is not to be an assurance of one’s own sincerity or one’s own determination. but of the will and the truth of God. It should be admitted that this may and actually does create an apparently awkward situation while the process is in operation—a situation which can never satisfy fully. To use the same example as above, the Reformed will be convinced that his view of baptism will be vindicated at the end, and the Baptist will have an identical conviction. But both cannot be right. Hence we must wait and labor and be watchful lest Satan take advantage of the situation.
THE BLESSING OF SEPARATION
In the religious climate of our day it may seem very strange to speak of the blessing of denominationalism. For today there are those who even go to the extreme of depreciating the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Yet I feel sure that all who love the Lord Jesus and his truth as well as his church must be thankful that throughout history God has seen fit to maintain his truth and his church by means of reformations and separations. That obviously has been God’s method. We learn to appreciate that work of God especially by asking, Where and what would the church be if there had been no separations at all? It may be impossible to answer that question definitely, but we have reason to doubt whether the church would still be in existence today had no separations occurred. In this connection I am thinking of the method of God so apparent in the sacred history of the Old Testament. The holy lineage was there retained and developed by regular exclusions of defectors and apostates -think of Cain, Esau, Absalom, the ten tribes, etc. Of course, I understand that the method of God with denominationalism is not identical to that of the Old Testament, but it is similar. At the same time we should not fail to realize how serious a matter separation is. No one may “play” with the church of God. (See Calvin’s Institutes, Book IV, Chapter I, Section X.)
LABOR FOR TRUE UNITY!
We have admitted that the situation created by denominationalism is awkward. I think all are also able to realize that this situation may be especially embarrassing to missionaries. The instruction given by a Reformed and by a Baptist missionary, for instance, cannot be identical. What impression will this difference make upon unbelievers and pagans? What conclusions will they draw? Will they not smile at the “vaunted” unity of the teachings of Scripture and of all believers? All of us sense the predicament and wish that the obstacle could be removed forthwith. However, we know at least two things in respect to this vexing problem. First, that the obstacle cannot be removed and we ought not attempt to remove it by overriding doctrinal differences and by insisting upon “the lowest common denominator.” Second, we know that though the obstacle is serious, yet it not the greatest hurdle a sinner turning to God must encounter. The greatest hurdle is ever the sincere and heartfelt confession of one’s own sin and depravity—the cry of the publican, “God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.” For such a cry and confession all man’s pride must be humbled and no one but the Spirit of God and his grace can enable man to do that. But, I take it, after the Holy Spirit has wrought the miracle of regeneration and of faith in the heart of a sinner, he will also enable him to accept for the time being the “awkward” situation of denominationalism.
In the meantime we must continue to labor not from the outside to the inside, but the reverse, from the inner spiritual unity to the outer organizational unity. We must not “put up” with the situation, but we must labor, “…till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ…” (Eph. 4:13).
*See W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, John, vol. II, p. 356 lE. (Baker, Grand Rapids); R. B. Kuiper, The Glorious Body of Christ, pp. 22, 42 (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids); N. J. Monsma, The Trial of Denominationalism, pp. 78, 79.