What are we to make of denominations? Are they in fact responsible (at least in part) for the deplorable lack of real spiritual life in the majority of churches? For all its popularity, this idea has a number of problems that leave it with little merit beyond its convenience.
By definition, a denomination is what you get when you denominate. To denominate is to name. Or, as Mr. Webster has it, “to give a specified name to.” Together with its synonym “designate,” we may determine that the purpose for giving the specified name is to distinguish one thing from another – a very helpful, time-tested method for establishing order and avoiding confusion (witness the denominations of our legal tender as one example). And, as we saw in Part 1, God likes order and dislikes confusion. Therefore, we may also infer that denominations are helpful to God for bringing about His sovereign purposes, and not rather contrary to those purposes. There is an abundance of scripture that supports this idea.
In the beginning, God denominated (read – gave specific names to) the several elements of creation – light and darkness/day and night/heavens and earth/sun and moon and stars/water and land/plants and animals/man and woman/and one day from another. In Genesis 2, God distinguishes between the garden and the rest of the earth, and between the four rivers originating in the garden, and the several lands into which each flowed. In the same chapter, the first recorded activity of the man was to imitate the Father in whose image he was created, by denominating all the animals. You get the idea.
As shown from just these few, early scriptural examples (of course, many more could be cited), the Bible teaches denominations – not as precept, but as inescapable fact. They are a necessary, fundamental element of the circumstance God created for us in this world. Though not of the world, God’s people exist in this world, and are therefore subject (generally speaking) to its God given, defining parameters.
Here again, someone will object that this is not what he or she meant when they said that denominations are hurtful to the spiritual life of churches. I ask then, “What did you mean?” Every instance I have noted is an example of denominating according to definition – distinguishing between individual entities by giving each a specified name. “Yes,” comes the reply, “but, but I meant organized religion!” And, around and around we begin to go.
Why the difficulty? Because among those who decry denominations there is the unfounded supposition that “denomination” takes on a different meaning when applied to a religious body. This, of course, is a misleading error. Religious denominations exist because they have been distinguished one from another. We find then that New Testament characters not only have individual names just like folks in the Old Testament, but more to the point (and perhaps more surprisingly) we find that churches are denominated.
Within the vast, unifying sweep of the Pax Romana and beyond, the ancient world was a rich tapestry of cultural diversity – peoples separated and distinguished by distance, language, and tradition. This variety is hinted in Luke’s account of Pentecost in Acts 2, provided below:
"And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, 'Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs – we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.'"
It cannot be but that wherever these pilgrims returned from Jerusalem with the Gospel, it took on something of that culture’s color and flavor, distinguishing believers there (to a greater or lesser degree) in some recognizable way, setting them apart from believers elsewhere. The apostle Paul makes use of the names of their locations in his letters to distinguish one church from another and establish to whom each letter was written. Certainly, no two churches were ever more denominated than the Jerusalem church and the church at Antioch. They even used different versions of the Bible.
Some may have trouble reconciling this idea with Paul’s so-called denunciation of denominations in 1 Corinthians. But as I will show, there is no conflict here because, actually, denominations are not what Paul censures in this passage. The problem he addresses is schism (or denominational-ISM).
Observe in 1:10, Paul identifies his concern, “that there be no divisions [schisma=schisms or dissentions] among you.” That is, among the church at Corinth. In 1:11, he pinpoints the source of the divisions, “there are contentions [eris=strife or wrangling] among you.” In 1:12, he supplies us the issues at the heart of the contentions, “each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." His response (in brief) in 1:13 is the rhetorical question, “Is Christ divided?” The answer of course is, “No.”
Now, it is often suggested this passage teaches that denominations are destructive of unity in the body of Christ as a whole, and somehow impeding to the spiritual advance of believers. Notice, however, that Paul, neither here nor later, ever suggests that the problem is a result of the fact that he had taught some of them, and Apollos had taught some of them, and Cephas had taught some of them. Paul is simply stating facts related to the case. He is not identifying these facts as the cause of the problem.
Someone had to teach them. As the apostles went their separate ways following their instructions to spread the Gospel over the known world, the situation described in Corinth was inevitable. Notice especially what the apostle makes of the last group – those who say, “I am of Christ.” Among the rest, there were those who thought to take the high road and claim to follow no man, but only Christ. And, you see where Paul places them – side by side in the lineup with the other offenders.
What is going on in the passage? As I said earlier, Paul is not addressing the fact of the variety of the teachers. He is condemning the dissentions among the people there. The dissentions were not caused by the variety of teachers. The dissentions were what the people made out of the variety of teachers. Paul plainly states as much in 3:3-4:
"You are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not carnal?"
Clearly then, the fact that believers were distinguished or denominated by having different teachers is not the source of the dissention. Neither is the fact of church denominations the source of spiritual deadness in congregations or individual believers. The problem, in both cases, is the people themselves. And, we will discuss this more at length at a later time, Lord willing.
What about “nondenominational” churches? In truth, there is no such thing. The original purpose for calling a church nondenominational was to indicate that it was not officially connected to any of the mainline denominations that sprung out the Reformation. Unfortunately, the self-ascribed title is misleading. The moment a church separates itself from other churches and says, “We are something different called . . . ,“ it denominates itself. It may be a denomination of only one, but a denomination it is nonetheless. And, usually, given time, the church begins to associate with other like-minded churches, or plants sister churches. Before long, it is no longer alone in its denomination.
By this time, it may be dawning on some of you that there appears to be a good bit of confusion (remember Part 1) connected with these popular notions of what’s wrong with the church. It is not merely an appearance. Like denominations, the confusion is a fact. But, unlike denominations, the confusion is avoidable. I hope to revisit this point when I discuss the fourth and final scapegoat – doctrine. Next time, Lord willing, we will consider the charge that traditions hinder true spiritual life in believers/churches. Until then, I pray that these thoughts will be helpful to you in your Christian walk.
Blessings
