-The Church and Denominationalism

The Church and Denominationalism THE CHURCH AND DENOMINATIONALISM
A. Hugh Clark In my former address it has been conclusively shown I think, that Protestantism as a movement is the prod­uct, or outgrowth, of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Not that there had not been individuals or even groups who had opposed or protested against the corruptions of the Roman Catholic church before the reformation in Germany; there had been. . But it was at this time and place, about the middle of the six­teenth century in Germany, that the cause gathered such power and influence as to be recognized and des­ignated as a definite movement of protest against the Catholic church, and hence its combined following became known as protestants and the cause as Protes­tantism. A study of the history of denominationalism as a movement, leads no less certainly to the conclusion that it is the product, or outgrowth of Protestantism, than the study of Protestantism has established the fact that it is the outgrowth of the Reformation. Not that there were not denominations in existence at any time prior to the Reformation and Protestantism; to say this would be a mistake. Even the Catholic church itself, the corruptions of which gave rise to the Reformation and Protestantism, is a denomination. .There is also the history of numerous other denominations along through the period before and during the Lutheran Reformation. The statement therefore, that the Re­formation, or Protestantism, gave birth to Denomina­tionalism, is untrue. However, just as Protestantism received its greatest impetus and force in the Reformation, in like manner, denominationalism as we know it today, at a later time received its greatest impetus and force in the ranks and among the followers of Protestantism.

Let us see how all this came about. As a natural consequence, and not necessarily through any fault of the man, each of the great leaders of the reformation had his personal following. A thing most difficult to avoid, though a religious teacher be ever so much op­posed to such a thing, and ever so innocent of seeking such sectarian self exploitation. There were those who followed Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and even Christ, in the same spirit. See 1 Cor. 1-10:15. These leaders had also their doctrinal differences which were more or less well defined in the mind of each of them and in the minds of his followers. However, there was among them all the unifying influence of a common cause against Rome. Thus, for more than a hundred years they existed, suffering together untold hardships, pri­vations, and persecutions, which were heaped upon them by the Roman Catholic church. The last thirty years of this time covers the great carnage known' in history as the Thirty Years War,' which involved not only Germany but almost all of Europe. Finally, in the year 1648, the war came to an end, certain bound­aries were fixed and territories assigned, and Prot­estantism had gained the principal thing for which, from its incipiency, it had struggled—the right to exist as a religious movement separate and apart from both the Catholic church and the State. This is the date which, in history, is considered to have ended the period known as the Reformation Period. Not that there was a conciliation of the differances between the opposing forces of Catholicism and Protestantism, but because of the rights and privileges granted to Protestantism by the treaty of Westphalia, there was of necessity a cessation of hostilities. Cath­olicism ceased to persecute and Protestantism ceased to protest in the virile and violent way which had hitherto characterized them.

Reference has already been made to the fact that there were more or less well defined doctrinal differ­ences among the leaders of Protestantism, and more or less well organized sects or groups, variously de­nominated, based upon these doctrinal differences which had already been reduced to Creeds, or state­ments of faith. With the cessation of open hostilities with Rome in the form of war and bitter persecution, and the pass­ing of the cohesive influence of a common struggle for the right to exist, there came about a change in spirit and attitude within the ranks of Protestantism itself. Leaders who had heretofore given their attention primarily to opposition to Rome and the acquisition of certain religious rights and privileges now turned their attention to the theological and doctrinal differences existing among themselves. Many hard battled were fought in the field of polemics which were doubtless influenced more by the theology of Augustine, Luther and Calvin than by the teaching of Peter, James and John. This could have but one result; breaches were widened, the party spirit more deeply entrenched, with each religious group or fellowship with its creed and name more distinctly circumscribed and set off from the rest. And Denominationalism had spread her sails under fair skies with favorable winds. The future years, even to the present time, have been but an unfolding of what such a condition as this would indicate, or the bringing to maturity or harvest, the multitude of religious sects, parties or denominations which grow in the field of religion today.

Perhaps a few words about the terms church and denominationalism may not be amiss. The subject of this entire lectureship has been the church of which we read in the New Testament in contrast with other organizations and systems of teaching of which we read in history. Many of the preceding speakers have defined the word church, so that I consider it unneces­sary for me to give here a repetition of what is meant by that term.

There should be some understanding, however, about the meaning of the word denominationalism. The word itself has come to be a very familiar word, and yet, I fear its meaning is not very clear even in the minds of those who have sought to tell us what is meant by the term. It seems to be pretty well understood that whatever it is, it is something that should be opposed. But unless we shall give more attention to a clear understanding of the nature and spirit of the evil we are opposing than to the act of opposition, we shall fall into the error of “building up that which we seek to destroy.” And when we shall have finished our campaign of opposition, whether we recognize it or not, we shall only have succeeded in establishing upon the ruins of the denomination we have destroyed, another, perhaps larger in number and more radical in spirit.

These remarks are by no means intended to convey the idea that I do not think denominationalism should be opposed. I believe it should be much more uncom­promisingly opposed than is common today, yet also, more understanding^ opposed. And it might help some to know that the definition most generally held by all religionists, preachers included, that a denomi­nation is “just anybody else but US” is hardly suf­ficient as a guide in the opposition. Is it possible to frame a definition of the terms “denomination”and “denominationalism” which can be un­derstood, and which is based not alone upon the ety­mology of these words but upon the scriptures as well? I think it is, and shall therefore make an effort to do so.

Any religious group, sect or party, unscriptural in either name, creed, or both, and loving, or making more of the spirit of the sect or party than of Christ; or any group, sect or party in religion which is scrip­tural in either name, creed, or both, yet loving, or making more of the spirit of the sect or party than of Christ, is a denomination.

All such groups in the aggregate, or when taken to­gether, constitute denominationalism. From these statements it will be seen that an un­denominational religious group is a group or body of religious people, scriptural in name and creed, and making nothing of the spirit of sect or party, but ev­erything of the spirit of Christ. As previously stated, the Roman Catholic church stands as the oldest among existing denominations. Unscriptural in name, principally pagan in doctrine, its history is replete with the usurpation of power, cor­rupt practices, compelled ignorance, and the exercise of persecution, fire and the sword to enforce its sectarian party spirit. It is indeed the denomination among denominations.

Next in point of time, are the Oriental Catholics of whom the same things should be said, though they dif­fer from the Roman Catholics in several cardinal points. .

Passing by the Albigenses, the Waldensians, the Lol­lards, and other denominations of the medieval ages, let us come to the sixteenth century. It was at this time that the Lutheran Reformation began in Ger­many under the leadership of Martin Luther, around whom, though he earnestly opposed it, his followers crystallized under the name of Lutherans. Now the New Testament has absolutely nothing to say about the name Lutheran, either as the name of the church or as the name of the individual followers of Christ who constitute the church. Hence this body in reli­gion is unscriptural in name. But this is not the only unscriptural thing connected with this religious or­ganization. Their distinctively Lutheran doctrine, based upon the Augsburg Confession of Faith to which they subscribe and not upon the New Testament, are just as unscriptural as their name. And yet this re­ligious body loves, and makes so much more of the spirit of the sect or party than of the spirit of Christ, that for more than four hundred years with their dis­tinctive name and doctrines, none of which they even claim are essential to salvation, they have perpetuated themselves as a separate group, sect or party among the professed followers of Christ. They are a de­nomination. If they were not denominational and sec­tarian they would have long ago discarded their un­scriptural name, cast overboard their unscriptural doctrines and dogmas, and have disbanded the organiza­tion in favor of the unity of the followers of Christ.

Now it must be obvious that to name and try all the various religious bodies that exist, by our statement of what constitutes a denomination, as we have done in the case of the Lutheran denomination, would extend this discussion far beyond what is possible within the utmost limit of my time, and perhaps, your patience. But what has been said of the Lutheran denomination by way of illustration, must be said of every other religious organization which cannot by the New Testa­ment Scriptures, prove itself to be identical, in origin, name, doctrine and practice, with the church of which we read on the pages of that sacred document.

Now I am conscious of the fact that there is a field of thought suggested in the latter half of the definition I have given of denominationalism into which I have not entered at all. However, since this very line of thought is particularly contemplated in the assignment made to one of the succeeding speakers, I pass it by for the present. For the remainder of the time I shall speak to you, it shall be my purpose to present, in contrast with that which has gone before, the plain teaching of the New Testament with reference to the church. And the first thing I consider to be imperatively necessary to a profitable study of this question is that you who listen, in the very beginning, determine to give me, insofar as is possible, a fair, impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced hearing. This I say because I recognize that a study such as is contemplated at this time carries us immediately into a realm where man feels perhaps, his strongest prejudices and his tenderest emotions. I am asking, therefore, that you lay aside your preju­dices, and that you rise above the emotional, and that you calmly and deliberately determine to accept what­ever Christ and the apostles have had to say upon this questiori in the Sacred writings. This, I realize, is not an easy thing for one to do, yet, I repeat, it is impera­tively necessary for one to come to just this disposition of heart and attitude of mind if he would learn the truth in the field of religion, as in any other field of thought.

1 • ’ .it . t *
Now, if our minds are clear, and our hearts are open, and we are ready to listen without either bias or preju­dice, I am ready to submit to you my first affirmation and then to set myself to the task of bringing before you from the language of Christ and the apostles, pas­sages which say the very thing which I have set ojit in the premise.

“The New Testament teaches there is one church.” Now, let us notice the wording of this statement. I have not said that it was my opinion that it would be better for the world if there were only one church.'' I have not said that the experiences of the religious peo- pies of the earth through the ages past have taught us that it would be an expedient thing for us all to unite in one common body etc., etc. But, I have said that regardless of my opinion or yours, based upon the re­ligious experiences of the past or anything else, the New Testament teaches there is one church. Let us notice first, the language of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 : “And I also say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; And the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.” The Lord says, “I will build my church,” not churches. “And the gates of hades shall not prevail against it,” not them.

Since the Lord has openly expressed to his dis­ciples his determination to build his church, he soon thereafter gives them some instruction concerning how they should conduct themselves in the matter of offenses, when this church should have been estab­lished. Matthew 18:15-17 : “.......Tell it to the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.” Here again our Lord uses such language in referring to the church as suggests but one cnurch, and membership of all his disciples in it. And so all through the New Testament do we find Jesus and the apostles when speaking of the church using the singular number. In Acts 2:47 (A. V.)‘: “.......and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Now to which church do you suppose the Lord added them? I suggest, that since the Lord did the adding, he added them to his church, the one he avowed it was his purpose to build, and which was composed at this time of the apostles and the three thousand who had been baptized on Pen­tecost and such others as having “gladly received the word” as it was preached by the Apostles, had obeyed it as did they, and being saved had been added by the Lord to the church. It is to this same group that Luke refers when he mentions the persecutions of Saul of Tarsus, Acts 8:1-3 : “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem;.......But Saul laid waste the church, entering into every house, and dragging men and women committed them to prison.” We read again, Acts 9:31 : “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; ....... From this passage we see that whether Luke speaks of the church locally, as in Jerusalem, or in a territorial sense, covering Judea and Gallilee and Samaria, it is still just “the church.” And when he tells us of Paul’s return from Europe and his stop at Miletus and the message of encouragement and words of exhortation given by him to the Elders of Ephesus, Acts 20:28, it is still just the “church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” Surely no man can read these passages without being impressed with the fact that the New Testament knows and speaks of but one church, which is made up of all the saved in Christ Jesus.

There is, however, another line of argument which leads to the same conclusion, which I wish you to study with me briefly. It may be stated this way: When the New Testament speaks of the church under a figure, without exception, it uses only such figures of speech as will admit of their being only one church. For instance, in Romans 12:4-5, and also 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, the Apostle Paul represents the church under the figure of the human body with its many members all of which are necessary, and which, “though they are many mem­bers” are “but one body,” (Verse 27). Using again this same figure of speech, he tells us in Colossians 1:18, “And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: * * *” In Ephesians 1:22-23 these same terms are used but in an inverted order, he says, “.....And gave him (Christ) to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” Christ is therefore the “head” and the “church” is the body. Now let me ask you a question, it is this: On the average, about how many bodies does one head have anyway, about how many would you say? Will some­one venture an answer? Why, one head has one body of course, and so the apostle argues that the one spir­itual head, Christ, has one spiritual body, the church. And he commands these Ephesians in the same letter, chapter 4 and verses 3-6, to “give diligence to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” For said he, ‘There is one body, and one spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord-, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.” In Ephesians the fifth chapter he uses another fig­ure of speech to represent the church which no less forcefully teaches the same truth. Paul says here that the marriage relationship, with which we are all so familiar, represents the relationship that obtains between Christ and his church. Ephesians 5:22-32 : “Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body.” Now, let us get the point: Paul says one husband is the head of one wife and that in the same manner “Christ also is the head of the church.” He is therefore the “one head” of the “one church” being himself the saviour of that body. But let us read on, “But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the fchurch, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church unto himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Now let me ask this question: In the light of this passage, how do conditions appear to you as they exist in the present religious world with its more than two hundred churches, as given by the last government census, each different from the other'in name, organization, doctrine and practice? The efttire passage would have to be rewritten if it were made to fit present day conditions, would it not? I believe, in order that you may see more clearly, if possible, what I mean, I shall read the passage as it would have been made to read to fit the present conditions: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the churches, and gave himself up for them, having cleansed them by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the churches unto himself glorious churches, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that they should be holy and without blemish.” Of course, you notice at once that I have changed the passage at every place where the apostle used the singular num­ber, substituting instead the plural number. It is true that I have no right or authority to so change the read­ing of God's word in this passage or in any other. Neither had men the right in their practice to leave the divine plan as revealed in this passage and others arid establish a multitude of churches when the divine plane calls for one. The final point which I wish to establish before I make a few observations and close is this: The New Testament teaches that divisions in that church are wrong. Here again, I wish you to notice what it is I affirm. I have not said that, after some years of ex­perience and observation, I have come to the conclu­sion that it is inexpedient that the professed followers of Christ have become so divided, that so many divi­sions, sects, denominations, exist, etc. I have said that the New Testament Scriptures teach that the very existence of divisions, sects, and denominations in the church is sinful. But before I ..introduce the passage of Scripture upon which I base this affirmation, let me say, that in mak­ing the principle announced in the passage applicable to denominationalism as we know it today, I do not wish to be understood to concede the claim generally made by denominational churches, that there is in real­ity but one church, a kind of invisible union envelop­ing the whole of Christendom, with each one of them as a component part of the invisible whole. This it is impossible to believe, when the facts are thoughtfully considered, in the light of either scripture or reason. I only intend to show that even if this were true as they claim, that the New Testament teaches that the condition described and that exists today, is contrary to the will of Christ and is therefore sinful. In the eighteenth chapter of Acts of the Apostles, we have the history of the establishment of the church at Corinth, through the labors of the Apostle Paul and those who accompanied him on his second missionary journey. Later we have a first and second letter ad­dressed by the apostles to that same church. In the first letter, Chapter 1:11, he informs this Corinthian church that one from the household of Chloe had told him of certain divisions which had sprung up in the church. In describing the condition, he said, “Now this I mean, that each one of you sayeth, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (v. 12). Now, even if it were possible, by any means, to establish the claim of denominationalism to which reference has already been made, we would still have a strict parallel to the condition described by the Apostle as existing in the Corinthian church. And in verses 10, 13-15, also in Chapter 3:1-4, we read Paul’s condemnation of such divisions in the following lan­guage: “Now I beseech you, brethren, through the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no' divisions (greek, seisms) among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye bap­tized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I bap­tized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spir­itual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it; Nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men? For when one sayeth, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?”

Surely this should be enough to establish the two points I have affirmed concerning the teaching of the New Testament relative to the church. And with the establishment of these two points, namely, “The New Testament teaches there is one church” and “The New Testament teaches that divisions in that church are sinful,” the only relationship which can possibly obtain between the church of which we read in the New Testa­ment and denominationalism, either in the church or out of it, is one of unalterable opposition.

Now let me observe first, that there is serious need of a clearer understanding of these things, as well as a definite committal to them, not only in theory but in practice as well, on the part of the preachers and leaders in the church everywhere. For because of a lack of knowledge on the part of some and a lack of practice on the part of others, we have in the church today certain well defined contentions which, if they have not already done so, only lack sufficient time to develop into full-fledged denominatipns.

Secondly, it is an error of the most grievous nature, both against God and the church, for any preacher of the gospel or elder of the church to refuse, or for any reason to fail to faithfully teach these things to every congregation of Christians which comes under his care or supervision, lest through their ignorance thay fall victim to this great evil.