Optimistic Denominationalism
I have made similar arguments to the one Tim Challies makes here. I don’t necessarily see different denominations as a weakness of Protestantism, but a strength, allowing different convictions and (if we’re being really honest) personality types to worship freely. We can remain catholic across denominational or church boundaries whilst respecting, and even praising God, for the good and biblical motives behind what is expressed elsewhere.
Jesus didn’t come to make any nation great
‘We should all want to see our nation thrive, and we should work to form convictions about what needs to happen to get there and commit ourselves to working toward fulfillment of those convictions. But national greatness is never ultimate for people who will one day toss our earthly crowns at the feet of Christ (Revelation 4:10-11). When political interests become ultimate, Christ gets subjugated into something less than Lord and his church becomes compromised. In other words, when national greatness is our highest goal, we’re no longer following Christ and our values no longer match his.’
Hard hearts, deceivers and email spam
This is a really good and challenging reflection on what a seemingly unerring slew of spam and fakery can do to our hearts. I was challenged and could see the implications for my own heart, living as I do in an area where I see this sort of thing daily.
Exponential Discipleship
This one takes a look at the nature of discipleship and what pouring into one or two people younger in the faith than you might look in the long run.
The Path Away From Pornography
This is a good, helpful and practical one for anybody struggling with this particular issue.
Lessons for the church on the collapse of Communism
I don’t usually link to Facebook posts, but John Stevens has posted a particularly good one here. Two things stand out. First (and this is a note worth hearing particularly among my American friends who look askance at Christian Socialists like me), the author notes that Gorbachev himself came to see ‘what had been called “socialism” in the Soviet Union was a perversion of socialist ideals’, a point Socialists – who are frequently and unreasonably equated with Communists – have made for many years. But second, and more importantly, John draws some lessons out for church leaders concerning the collapse of Communism being caused by something better and more appealing simply existing. The whole post is well worth reading.
From the archive: Over-realised theology leads to over-realised fear
‘I think we can sometimes be in danger of overstating the power of Satan and impeding ourselves in the process. We can limit ourselves in the mission we have been given to do based on a fear that doesn’t correspond to who we are in Christ. We don’t have to pretend these things aren’t real, but we don’t have to worry ourselves too much about them either.’
‘Optimistic denominationalism.’
I understand the points being made, but I can’t really find such optimism myself.
Visiting the Outer Hebrides and staying on the Isle of Lewis, in Stornoway, for example, there are 6 Presbyterian denominations. Each one professing themselves committed to Scripture and the Westminster Confession of Faith. And in one way or another, the web site of each expressed the desire to make the Gospel known. We would consider the congregations in each of these denominations to constitute evangelical churches.
Driving around the Island, in one place, within the space of a mile or so there is a Brethren Gospel Hall, and two churches – one each from two of the denominations mentioned.
In another village, within less than 300 yards there are two gospel professing Presbyterian churches – from different denominations.
This is at least embarrassing and probably shameful.
How can we call unbelievers to the obedience of faith when we so clearly disregard the prayer of the Lord Jesus: “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” ? Such unity is part of our witness, designed in part to bring folk to faith.
And the Lord’s Apostle calls upon us to maintain unity by forbearing with one another ( Ephesians 4). Forbearance surely assumes it won’t always be easy and that sacrifices on our part must be made.
I wonder if some of the convictions that separate believers are really manifestations of pride. We’d rather express our convictions than step aside and give way to others?
God, in so many ways, makes accommodations for us. Ought we not try harder to make accommodations for one another?
There is lots we might say about what you have written here.
‘How can we call unbelievers to the obedience of faith when we so clearly disregard the prayer of the Lord Jesus’ – but this is precisely the issue, isn’t it? What obedience is it to which we are called? How are we to be obedient if/when the church we are in is not being obedient? If the answer is to the unity suggested above all, we end up where the Anglicans are now, in mixed-denominations insisting unity trumps truth in such a way as it makes us necessarily disobedient to Christ.
It is also possible to have two evangelical churches, quite near to one another, for good gospel reasons. I don’t see that it is always or necessarily a matter of division and disharmony. The question of unity is better answered (I think) not by what churches exist near each other, but what is their relationship with one another like (assuming they are theologically close)?
Unity cannot exist without truth and schism cannot be viewed as always, or necessarily, sinful. Denominational division and separate churches can be both something positive to be encouraged and something negative to be avoided. I don’t think we are wise to just look at the existence of different churches of a similar stripe and assume this is necessarily negative.
I don’t believe that unity trumps truth, so would never insist on it. But, as I made clear, the churches to which I refer are in agreement on all the fundamentals of the faith. They are in total agreement on issues of sex and gender. And are in nothing like the deplorable state of the C of E.
If you trace their history back to their roots you will find that most of them came from the same stock. They are mainly the fruit of divisions over secondary issues. Precious and scarce resources are tied up in perpetuating what in some cases are simply factions, when those resources could have been expended in spreading the gospel.
My point remains. Christians, united in the truth, are far too slow to accommodate one another on secondary issues.
I would simply push back with a few questions:
1. What are the grounds for their separate churches? Not all secondary issues are unimportant and we simply have to accept we will all draw our particular lines on which secondary matters are important enough to have separate churches over, whilst recognising those who demur are still brother and sisters, in different places.
2. Who gets to decide which secondary matters are significant enough to separate over and which are the overly schismatic ones? It is very easy to say ‘my issue’ is a vital secondary one while ‘their issue’ (which isn’t mine) is really one that should be set aside. I think it is better to simply let people act according to their consciences here. Those who argue for the kind of unity you seem to be arguing for (which I am not entirely unsympathetic) often simply want the right to decide themselves which issues should be laid aside and which shouldn’t. I just don’t know why the same autonomy can’t be granted to others to determine what issues they feel unable to lay aside or not?
3. What are the relationships like between the churches? I think this is a better measure of whether people are genuinely catholic or not (as I have argued here):
https://buildingjerusalem.blog/2019/01/19/some-clarifications-on-strict-particular-baptist-ecclesiology-a-reply-to-john-stevens/
I think it is better to let churches act according to what they perceive as biblical and judge their catholicity by how they deal with other churches that they recognise as genuine churches rather than forcing people to sear their consciences in the hunt for a form of gospel unity that has never really existed (even as early as what we read in Acts).
I didn’t say I wanted autonomy on anything. On the contrary, quoting Ephesians 4, I said that forbearing with one another would demand sacrifices of each of us.
You assume there is a certain sort of unity that would appeal to me… what I’m suggesting is that we need to seek the sort of catholicity that Jesus prayed for. Which should be apparent within the local church ….
Paul expected Jews and Gentiles to come together in a single congregation and didn’t advocate them creating separate churches. To do so, in his mind, would undermine the gospel itself.
If Jew and Gentile could worship together then we ought to be able to create churches that could accommodate the sort of issues Challies mentioned. Couldn’t we sing sufficient Psalms to keep some happy? Sufficient hymns to keep others happy? To replace juice with wine if it’s an issue for some?
That believers are united in Christ is a truth.
It’s a truth, like all others we should uphold and one that requires practical expression if it is to be taken seriously.
Schism, dividing the body of Christ is a serious issue. We should never be complacent about it….
I’m honestly not assuming anything about you. I do not know what would or would not appeal to you. Nor does it really matter.
Tim’s article – if I read him rightly – is not suggesting that we should separate over tertiary matters. Rather, he seems to be saying there are some significant and important matters of difference that have created denominations and/or separate churches, however, given that, there are still good intents and motives behind such moves that we can celebrate, even if we in good conscience cannot endorse everything that denomination/church says or where it lands on the issues at hand.
My point is simply that there are legitimate reasons for separate churches – even ostensibly good, evangelical ones – to exist. Catholicity and unity is best served not by searing everyone’s consciences, and forcing them to give way on what they consider unbiblical, but to recognise godly believers on an inter-church basis without going against what we consider a matter of biblical fidelity in our own church.
The only issue here is where we respectively happen to draw our boundaries on what is and isn’t a legitimate ground to form two different churches. I agree if something is not a matter of conscience or sin, but a mere preference, then we should be willing to lay it aside for unity’s sake. But where something is a matter of conscience – a sin issue as we judge it – faithfulness requires us to worship where that is not at issue.
Again, we will all draw our boundaries differently on what is preference, tertiary or matters of conscience. But I don’t think the existence of two evangelical churches necessarily means they are divided nor does it necessarily mean there is no unity in christ. They may be united on the gospel – and have gospel unity – but divide over maters of faithfulness as they judge it. Let each have his own conscience and let each lay aside their preferences for unity. But that might mean two churches exist who are divided and two may exist and be united.
The NT has lots to say about accommodating one another on matters of conscience. But, as far as I can see it never recommends schism.
In our own families we accommodate one another on all manner of issues because we love one another.
God accommodates Himself to us in manifold ways because of the hardness of our hearts.
The lack of such accommodation within churches is often done under the auspices of conscience but in reality reflects a lack of love and a lack of humility. I’m seeing this too often over trivial things.
We aren’t going to agree on this one I’m afraid but we won’t fall out over it I am sure!