I am still thinking about the issue of church denominations. The question was raised earlier about the relationship of the church that Jesus said He would build and modern day denominations and the authority Jesus gives the church.

It would seem likely that there was not even a concept of denominations in the New Testament church. When Paul talks about some saying, “I am of Paul” and others saying, “I am of Apollos”, it seems doubtful to me that he was talking about church splits in the sense of a new “denomination”. Paul and Apollos were likely highly influential in the lives of specific believers and these believers had a strong sense of loyalty and connection to one or the other of these men. But, Paul does warn the Corinthians that their focus needed to be on the God that gave the increase, not on the men who had planted or watered.

What then is the history of denominations? Where did they start? Are they good or are they bad?

Paul anticipated splits in the body of Christ. When the elders of the church at Ephesus met with Paul he warned them, “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30)

Paul’s concerns proved to be true. Over the next several centuries there arose many men who taught heresies and gathered disciples around them. The church leaders met again and again to deal with these false teachings.

What we then witness over time is the eventual establishment of an institutionalized Roman Catholic Church, which under Constantine, also became a political power. Many Catholics today would say that this is still the one, true Church of Jesus Christ and all other denominations do not have the approval of Christ.

Through the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church dominated the spiritual life of Europe. As corruption grew in the Roman Catholic Church and they solidified their political power, there began to arise those who challenged some of the teachings of the church and protest the corruption. Over time, groups such as the Waldensians and the Moravians began to withdraw from the established church.

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century became a watershed moment in church history. This lead to major breaks from the Roman Church. At this time the Bible was also being translated into the languages of the people. This possibly led to the expansion of new ideas and conflicting opinions about Biblical passages. These disagreements, led to the formation of several new groups, including the Anabaptists.

At the core doctrinal level, there may have not been huge differences in these groups. They mostly held to similar views on the authority of the Scriptures and to salvation by grace through faith. The Anabaptists, particularly, emphasized the need for holy living. But it needs to be noted that the Anabaptists did not disagree with the reformers to any great degree on some of the basic salvation issues. Two main points of contention for the Anabaptists was their belief in a believer’s baptism instead of infant baptism and their dismay over the lack of holiness in the lives of both laity and leaders in the Roman church and then later in the Protestant churches.

From the Reformation until today, we find a trail of hundreds of divisions within the church. So, we are back to the question of how to analyze this fracturing of the body of Christ?

I would share the following observations:

1. Sometimes division is necessary to be true to Christ (for example- the Reformation).
2. Because of the human inability to see the truth clearly at all times, differences of opinions are inevitable.
3. Not all differences of opinions about the Scriptures are of equal importance.
4. Are we obligated to conclude that all “separations” are necessarily schisms.
5. The Reformation opened the door to a flood of “private interpretations” and weakened the ability of the church to deal with false teaching without division. It became easier to split than resolve the issues.
6. The development of hundreds of church groupings has made it more difficult to know where fellowship with other believers is approved or disapproved by Jesus Christ. Should we have fellowship with others just because they claim to be Christians? (Here is an extreme example- Lady Gaga, the provocative singer and actress, who claims to be a Christian, has strongly chastised Vice President Pence and his wife for their Biblically supported beliefs on human sexuality. Are we obligated to embrace her “Christianity”?)

These are just a few observations as I have thought about the issue in the last couple of days. There are at least two things that seem fundamental to this discussion.

The first is the issue of authority. In the environment of denominations how do we interpret church authority? Who decides what is truth and what is false teaching (heresy)? Also, what issues of belief or cultural applications of Biblical principles can be made a requirement or a recommendation within the group? I have heard some say, in the past, that if you have a church “rule”, it needs to be a test of membership, otherwise get rid of the rule or recommendation. Others would say that if it is not explicitly addressed in the Scripture it is purely an issue of personal conviction. In my mind, both of these positions may have some weaknesses.

The other issue is about how we should relate to others who profess Christianity? What if they boldly proclaim their faith, but also believe abortion is acceptable. For many of us, probably the most troubling issues might arise from differences in lifestyle convictions. It is difficult to wholeheartedly fellowship with someone if our convictions are immensely different.

I remember an article from many years ago in one of our local papers. It was written by a local pastor and appeared in a section of the paper dedicated to religious issues. As I remember it, he titled his article, “Can You Worship God With Pink Hair”? The background of the article was that the pastor had travelled to a youth retreat with the youth of his church. One of the bands at the retreat apparently had individuals with pink hair. The pastor was uncomfortable with this at first, but by the end of the retreat he concluded that you could indeed worship God with pink hair. The band, which had members with pink hair, became his favorite.

The point is not that it is necessary for us to judge whether the person or persons with pink hair was worshipping God. We will let God be the judge. But, would we or should we, for example, be comfortable sending our youth into that type of environment? Shouldn’t the principle of wisdom become a part of our decision process in such instances? Is it not appropriate for individuals or families and/or church groups to set boundaries of fellowship simply because it is wise?

So, are denominations good or bad? It seems the best answer is they are both good and bad. Sometimes division and separation is necessary. But, it is also true that division has become too easy. And it doesn’t always resolve issues. Denominations are a reality we deal with today. We can’t change that reality. I believe we must accept that the Holy Spirit can and does operate in the context of denominations. And if the Holy Spirit is present, there is authority delegated from God to function as the Church.

DSJ