Hi Staff,
One of the oft-used defenses for denominational divisions is that the denominations unite various believers by specific belief(s). In other words, individuals who collectively agree upon things gather with one another without fear of leaders meandering from those beliefs within their teachings.
In many ways, this makes a lot of sense. For instance, a set of principles collectively agreed upon as sound doctrine (and required for fellowship or leadership) would prevent someone from entering and teaching otherwise or splintering that fellowship. Denominations have provided institutional stability in such churches.
I believe that this is misguided. Sometimes, an entire sect can go wrong because, well, the leaders do. If you look at many denominations today that have rejected the teachings of Christ in favor of the philosophies of men, you realize that dangers that come with this. When the denominational institution or organization hits a doctrinal iceberg and sinks, the people in it often do too.
Moreover, I believe that there is a more immediate danger. Denominations are often created by the very sectarian beliefs that separate the Body of Christ rather than those core beliefs that bring unity. Denominations are, effectively, sects.
The term "sect" actually derives from the old Latin word "secta" which literally means "a way, road, beaten path." This word is actually derived from the Latin word "sectus" meaning "follow." Ironically, "sectus" is a Latin amalgamation word from the Proto-Indo-European word "sek" meaning "to cut." Thus, literally-speaking, sects are about separation.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/sect
Granted, that separation is guided by individuals who truly believe themselves to be sound in doctrine. Yet, this is the real issue.
Most denominational sects form on the basis of doctrinal differences. Yet, most of those doctrinal differences aren't guided around what Christendom would consider "essential truth."
If we were to make a list of all of essential Biblical doctrines, most people in the Body of Christ around the world would agree upon them. Those are things that are agreed upon whether you're a Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc.
At the same time, I do agree that there are some denominations that do teach something that has strayed far from the truth when it comes to essential doctrinal truths. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church set itself up as THE only true church. From the very beginning of its proto-concomitant establishment (circa Constantine), many of its "foundational" doctrines and teachings were already apocryphal and false.
When it comes to those sorts of things, it really just takes one read-through of the Word of God to know this. This is probably why the Catholic Church opposed the availability of the Word of God in the common tongue.
Other major cults did something similar in how they united people behind apocryphal doctrines or heresy. The Mormons actually have established other new "gospels" and works that they consider "scripture" that unites their adherents behind their doctrine. In 1961, the Jehovah's Witnesses (founded in the 1870s) published their "New World Translation" (and they use the word "translation" in a very loose sense) in such a way that it would seem to validate their peculiar doctrinal beliefs.
Like the RCC, it really just takes a person a single read-through of the Bible to understand the flaws in the doctrinal beliefs of those groups (and groups like them).
Modern Christian denominations comprised of real believers in Christ are not simply motivated by a defense against heresy. Rather, they unite behind essentials of the faith. However, most of them also consider certain doctrinal beliefs to be "core" despite the non-essential or a widespread embrace of that particular doctrinal persuasion.
This is where I think that denominations are primarily flawed. Why can we not teach the essentials and allow the grace for believers to follow Christ for the rest?
If you make a list of the more controversial doctrinal views oft-debated here on SermonIndex forums, you'll find what serves as a basis for many denominational congregations. They aren't assembling primarily over the essentials; but, rather, they are uniting over doctrinal matters that they place as having such grave importance that they seem to believe that they are essential.
Obviously, I would never believe that such individuals aren't true children of God. In fact, I admire anyone who follows as they believe the Lord and/or prayerful study has led them. However, I do think that there is an invisible understanding that would limit other true believers from full fellowship with them.
I think that the passages in the New Testament regarding the so-called "Council in Jerusalem" is very important when it comes to the Body of Christ. This is found in Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
I won't go over that (because I think that we have all read it), but it is essentially the first time that Paul the Apostle met with the other apostles. Their meeting, interestingly enough, was in regard to questions about doctrine among the believers inside and outside of Jerusalem.
While the Book of Acts (written most likely by Luke the Physician) details this from a third-person perspective, the Book of Galatians details this from Paul's perspective. One thing that you realize is that Paul was not enamored by the positions or reputations of man -- including the Apostles (Galatians 2:6, 11-14).
Yet, I think that there is an interesting thing in Galatians that often goes unnoticed. In verse 9, Paul mentions that he and Barnabas were given the "right hand of fellowship" by Peter, James and John.
The term "right hand of fellowship" is interesting here. Some denominations have turned this into an actual ritualistic endeavor or ceremony -- literally offering or shaking a hand as a sign of acceptance. If you read commentary on this, it seems that the perspective differs from writer to writer. Matthew Henry wrote that it was a symbol of acceptance and "equality" from the apostles to Paul and Barnabas.
The passage itself in Greek (uses the term "dexios koinÅnia") and simply implies extending the right hand for fellowship or communion. In essence, they got to know Paul and Barnabas and recognized the grace that God had truly given them.
This actually makes me think of two things.
Shortly after I came to Christ as a young teenager, I traveled to the Lindale, Texas area to meet Leonard Ravenhill. I did this on a whim and, after getting directions from a local person working on his truck on the side of the road, showed up unnannounced at his home. His wife, Martha, answered the door. After she checked with her husband to see if he would meet with me, she led me to a seat in their house (*while my friend with a driver's license waited outside). I was very nervous.
Brother Ravenhill walked in and sat down across from me. He began asking me questions. I don't remember all of those questions, but I remember feeling almost uncomfortable -- as if he was interviewing me. I answered all of his questions honestly. Eventually, I said something that seemed to trigger a response. Prior to that, he seemed almost a bit cold or academic. When I answered that final question, he smiled, immediately seemed more relaxed and nodded to Mrs. Ravenhill. At that point, one of those most stirring, effective and inspirational conversations of my life began.
In fact, Brother Ravenhill mentioned that he would do this (the interview) in order to know if he was making the best use of his time. Up to that point, he seemed quite stern and unfeeling. Then, after he smiled, I felt like he was warm and welcoming. I suspect that this is similar to offering the right hand of fellowship without actually shaking a hand.
Secondly, I remember taking a required sociology course in college. One part of the course covered was a survey of primitive anthropology. The professor covered the concept of the handshake. With only a few minor exceptions, almost every culture on earth uses a handshake -- and the practice goes back for thousands of years. Even those few cultures that don't use it use other types of greetings (often two-handed bowing or extending the right hand in the air) that convey the same thing.
Anthropologists trace the origin to the concept that most people are right-handed. Since the right hand is the dominant hand, it is the one most often used for hunting, fighting, writing and cooking. They reason that the handshake or extending the right hand (either in the air or to someone) was a way of showing peaceful intentions and acceptance. It is also about openly offering yourself to that person. It is the opposite of "raising a hand against" someone. Whereas lifting up of hands is a sign of surrender, the lifting of the right hand was a sign of acknowledgement and acceptance.
Symbolically speaking, I think that this is what is lacking through the advent of denominations. While you can visit denominational congregations and be welcomed (and, of course, given many handshakes by the pastors, leaders and congregation), there is still a bit of non-acceptance without complete and full compliance to the denominations or congregations list of "we believe" doctrines.
In fact, it seems that sectarian beliefs within the faith divide believers from fellowship with the greater Body of Christ much more than it unites local believers of like mind behind a particular set of non-essential beliefs.
If you look at many of the more divisive debates on SermonIndex over the last 16 years, you'll find that most of them were on those same issues for which many denominations are formed. In churches, you'll be welcomed, but the full measure of welcome (and ministry or leadership) is reserved for those who adhere to very particular set of seemingly dogmatic beliefs. This is a far-cry from how Paul and Barnabas were welcomed with a "right hand of fellowship" by the apostles with very little emphasis on specific doctrinal adherence.
I've often lamented the fact that our local churches and denominations feel a need to push for acceptance of oft-disputed teachings if they are to be accepted. Even if I believe in something like tithing, head coverings or the idea of a catching away of the Bride of Christ before the tribulation, is this something that should be demanded of the congregation for full-fellowship? Why can't we teach the essentials of the faith and then teach about the various beliefs on non-essentials? It just seems that pastors should be able to allow the Holy Spirit to lead and guide believers in such matters or issues that aren't essential to faith in Christ.
This is where denominations miss the mark. They imply that those who agree upon the "we believe" doctrines are inherently "better informed," "more mature" or even "more faithful" than those who do not. This lacks the humility of extending that right hand of fellowship after seeing others (as Matthew Henry saw it) as being "equals" in the faith.
Denominations cause us to forego the emptying of ourselves and making ourselves as "nothing." It is that Philippians 2 encouragement that is needed more than ever in the Body of Christ at this point of history.
