In this issue of The Briefing, we look at denominations—those organisations we love to hate. This first article looks briefly at how we should relate to our denomination, and what interplay there should be between the denomination and the local church.
It is ARCIC time again. The cold winds of ecumenical dialogue are blowing in from Scotland as the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission meets in Edinburgh to try to forge a common statement of faith. As denominational leaders seem to compromise the great Bible truths of the Reformation in order to arrive at a form of words acceptable to both sides, the Evangelical looks on with a mixture of bemusement and distress.
In addition, we hear bishops publicly declaring their doubt in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, or the virgin birth; we see denominational leaders more intent on setting up inter-faith dialogue than on preaching repentance and forgiveness to all nations. Even where our leaders are Bible-believing converted brothers, it is easy to be frustrated by the bureaucratic centralism that seems so prevalent.
How should the Evangelical respond? Should we pack up and leave in disgust? How can we remain in our denominations without compromising the gospel and/or inhibiting our ministries?
Denomination versus Church
The first step is to remind ourselves that denominations are not, and never have been, the ‘church’. The two ideas are quite seperate: one is a Biblical concept and one is not.
The ‘church’ is God’s people gathering around his word for the purpose of fellowship and edification. Where two or three gather together in Christ’s name, there is he in their midst. The local congregation, in other words, is where we see the church of God today.
The denomination, on the other hand, is a union of like-minded churches; churches of the same kind or ‘denomination’. It is primarily a service organisation, instituted to provide the support and organisational efficiency that comes with pooling resources. In this sense, denominations are desirable and almost inevitable. We are bound to have concern for other churches, and to have some relationship with them, and there are obvious advantages in getting together to co-ordinate training for ministers, writing Sunday School material, providing old age homes, and so on.
These pragmatic benefits of association are there to assist the church (that is, the local congregation) in her task.
However, if the existence of denominations is inevitable, it seems just as certain that they will attempt to usurp the role and place of the local church. Rather than serving and supporting the church, denominations have a seemingly limitless capacity for trying to direct congregational affairs. How many gospel ministries have been hampered by denominational regulations? The insistence on outmoded forms of dress and language, for example, ties the hands of Evangelical congregations who want to adapt to the outsider and win them for Christ.
This pattern seems to be true of all denominations It has been interesting to note how the ‘Union of Baptist Churches’ (a title that well expresses the role of the denomination) has become the ‘Baptist Union’. There has been a correspondingly steady shift away from ordination within the local church to ordination in the Union.
Part of the problem is that it is hard to set aside godly people to run our denominations. Men who are committed to the ministry of the gospel usually want to stay ‘in the field’ where the action is. As a result, those godly men who do take on the difficult role of denominational office frequently express their frustration by investing the denomination with far too much status and significance. Men who, theologically, might be committed to the congregational nature of church, end up in practice upholding the primacy and authority of the denomination.
What should we do?
In some ways, it is hard for those committed to the ministry of the gospel to muster much enthusiasm for denominational matters. It all seems far removed from the ‘coalface‘ of sharing the gospel with non-Christians and encouraging and teaching one another. On the other hand, at times we feel betrayed by our leadership when they make public statements that do not portray the gospel in a good light, it makes it that much harder to approach non-Christians.
There are two sides to this dilemma. At one level, we should resist ungodly people taking control of our denomination. It is important that Evangelicals take some time to be involved in committees, councils and synods to ensure that our denominational structure is not over-run by people not committed to the gospel.
However, there is also a sense in which we should regard our denomination with a healthy degree of indifference. We cannot be responsible for the purity of the denomination—our individual responsibility for the unity and purity of the churches to which we belong is a big enough task. If we spend too much time on denominationational matters, our congregational work will suffer.
In other words, we must not fall into the error of accepting the denomination’s definition of ‘church’ rather than the Bible’s. It is the local congregation which is ‘church’—it is the supremely important body, on which all our efforts and priorities should focus.
Thus, while we should do what we can to resist the worst effects of denominational chaos, we must be wary of treating the whole thing too seriously. To leave a local congregation because of the behaviour or interference of the denomination is to give the denomination far too much credence.
In the final analysis, a denomination like the ‘Anglican Church‘ is a real estate trustee. It determines the usage of certain properties in trust for congregations who belong to the association, and licenses ministers to use those properties for the ministry of the word. If ungodly men control the use of these properties, then they will not be used for worthwhile gospel-based ministry—and this we must resist where we can.
Our real task, however, is to get on with the work of preaching the gospel and building up the church of God’s people with whom we meet.
