Present world wide ecumenical movement feeds the unnecessary divisions in the church. It has the eyes of many to the sin of those divisions which were the result of personal ambition, pride, and unwillingness to bear with brethren who differed on issues that did not touch the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Many of the so-called splinter groups in Protestantism originated in tim way. The effort to reunite denominations that are in essential agreement on matters of doctrine, government, and discipline, even though minOr differences remain, is worthy of praise.

On the other hand, it should never be forgotten that outward divisions do not cancel the inner unity of all believers nor do they necessarily prevent cooperation in certain areas of Christian activity across denominational boundaries. It is better to have outward division with the preservation of inner spiritual unity than outward unity with inner division, as in the Roman Catholic Church and in many large Protestant denominations.

Let us not imagine that spiritual unity among true Christians would be promoted if, let us say, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran denominations should effect organic union. On the contrary, the union of groups which in their divided state live in peace and even cooperate in a fraternal way in various interdenominational projects would immeasurably intensify tensions. Outward union would make existing differences hard to bear and cause irritation and wrangling. “Good fences make good neighbors.”

                     

Let no one think that those who favor the union of all denominations are not aware of this danger. For that reason they do not merely advocate organic union. One of their principal aims is to suppress and erase doctrinal sensitivity, to wipe out real concern for matters of “faith and order.” For that reason alone the present ecumenical movement stands condemned in the light of Scripture. What would the apostle Paul say about it? The answer is found in his indignant condemnation of the Judaizers in the Galatian churches who taught that the sinner, to be just in God’s sight, must not only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but also be circumcised and do the works of the law. Because this was a denial of the essence of the gospel the apostle exclaimed: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” And for good measure Paul repeats the statement In the next verse. Think of it: Paul is ready to condemn “an angel from heaven,” not merely a demon from the pit of hell, if he should preach such a diluted gospel! Let the modem ecumenist take notice! For the error of the Judaizers was mild compared with some of the teachings of men prominent in the ecumenical movement.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Lord has often used church splits to preserve and revive interest in the pure gospel of grace. The Protestant Reformation is an illustrious example of this fact. Later reformations on a smaller scale prove the same thing. We hesitate to think what would have become of the Reformation heritage if in the Netherlands, Scotland, and other Protestant countries of Europe faithful remnants of believers had not broken away or been expelled from the large denominations which had gradually become infested with heresy and refused to cast out the heretics.

The same is true of certain church ruptures in the United States in Methodist and Presbyterian communions. To call such divisions sinful is to betray a lack of concern for the true gospel. We think for example of the expulsion of the Machen group from the Presbyterian Church North, when they refused to support liberalism in its mission fields and protested the reorganization of Princeton Seminary in the interest of liberalism, and the subsequent establishment of what is now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Should we not thank God that in this way the Word of God was restored to its rightful place in at least a small part of that Church? I for one refuse to call such divisions sinful; and I do not believe that the Head of the Church condemns them. The Lord has used such splits and may in the future use them to purify his Church and preserve the true gospel. It is only a blind, fanatical faith in external unity of the Church that would call such divisions sinful. They are sinful only on the part of those who expelled the faithful groups for the sake of tolerating false doctrine and preserving the “peace” of the denomination.

One of the arguments often used in behalf of church union, that an outwardly united Church would have far greater influence in the world through its witness than a divided Protestantism, does not impress us at all. If it is true what our Lord teaches that the world is basically hostile to the Church, as it is basically hostile to Jesus Christ and his Word, no unification of the forces of Christendom would make the world more favorably inclined to listen to the witness of the Church. We are told that in such pagan lands as India men turn away from the gospel because churches differ in their doctrine and one missionary teaches what another denies, But I am wondering whether such persons would turn to Christ if all the churches said the same thing in matters of doctrine, government, and discipline. We do not believe it. For the real stumbling block to the acceptance of Christianity in any land where denominations conflict in their testimony is not the area of disagreement between them but the offense of the cross. If all the churches would unite and with one voice preach salvation only by grace, through faith on the ground of the vicarious, substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross, would that make the world more willing to accept the message of the Church? Not at all We believe the opposition would be intensified. For it is still true that the gospel of the cross, properly interpreted, is foolish and hateful to the natural man. As Dr. Abraham Kuyper once expressed it: “The world curses the cross; that cross condemns the world.”

In short, let us not only deplore the unnecessary divisions in the Church. Let us also thank God for those divisions which have preserved the gospel, led to a renewed interest in Scripture, reinstated church discipline, and restored the true message of salvation to the mission fields of the world.

The great need of many major denominations in the United States is not organic union with related bodies but separation. For in each of those bodies there are completely divergent elements, modernistic and orthodox. Take, for example, the Southern Presbyterian Church. Once it was a stronghold of the Reformed faith, but its schools and pulpits have gradually become infiltrated with liberal teaching. A courageous minority is still contending for the true faith but it is fighting a losing cause. Witness the fact that at the recent General Assembly every proposal in the interest of orthodoxy was defeated.

Will the cause of the unadulterated gospel be advanced in such a denomination through union with another or other Presbyterian or Reformed denominations where the same conflicting forces are locked in struggle? By no means. The liberals have nothing to lose and everything to gain by such unions. The great need today in such denominations is not union but division. How much stronger the forces of orthodoxy would be if all those churches which still love the Reformed faith and are willing to contend for it would unite for the sake of developing a church life in harmony with the ideals and precepts of the New Testament and propagating the true, unadulterated gospel which is a power of God unto salvation.