Religions (5) - Christian Denominations

This article is intended to cover those denominations that consider themselves Christian. It therefore ignores those that are Jewish or Moslem. However, as well as covering those denominations considered mainstream it covers minor sects and cults. Scripture itself does not speak of cults, though it does of sects. Paul says that there must be sects among you, that the approved may become manifest among you (1 Corinthians 11:19). In Paul’s day it does not appear that there was open rupture in the assembly at Corinth, but rather that the sects were within the company there, that is, among those who were outwardly meeting together as one assembly. Today, however, as well as having problems within Christian companies we have companies meeting separately with differing names.

What this shows is that we have not got the unity that Christ desired as He said in his prayer to his Father (John 17: 22/23). This gives a sceptic an excuse for rejecting Christianity. He can raise the issue of the number of sects that exist in a way similar to the Samaritan woman in John 4:20 . She was then speaking of the Samaritan system of worship as compared with the Jewish one.

Christians ought to be able to walk together in unity, for there is actually only one true Christian body as there is one Spirit that dwells in it. Further, we all have one hope (the Lord’s coming). We all have one Lord (Jesus) and one faith (the apostle’s doctrine as recorded in the Scriptures). Further, we have one baptism as spoken of by Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19. Lastly we all believe in one God the Father. Paul sets all this out in Ephesians 4:4-6.

Over the years the forgoing things which should make for unity have been the subject of dissension one way and another. As to the Christian body, we have companies that have not only true Christians in them but nominal Christians as well, whereas we have other companies that exclude Christians who are not members of their body ! Further, the Christian’s hope of the Lord’s coming has with some companies been lost or made little of. The place that the Lord should have has been usurped by men and the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:42) has either been added to or curtailed when it did not accord with man’s thinking. Further, baptism has been made the subject of controversy between those who baptise infants and those who only baptise adults. Lastly, the distinctive place of God the Father has been lost by the claim that the Lord and the Spirit also have the place of the God and Father of all, and are over all, and through all. (See the so-called Athanasian creed)

If we look at the Church of Rome we find that it made the Person of Christ the subject of much controversy for hundreds of years. Without going into detail it swung from a view that made Christ a creature (Arianism) to one that claimed all the Father’s glory for Him as well as his own (Trinitarianism). The teaching of the Jehovah’s Witnesses has revived Arian teaching in these last days. Swedenborgianism revived the idea that the Lord and the Spirit are essentially different modes of God. Any erroneous teaching tends to produce a reaction so that in avoiding one error we plunge into another. Today we have Unitarianism which is the opposite extreme to saying that Christ is God in the same way that the Father is God. It makes Christ no more than a man of Adam’s race. Christadelphianism is something of a half way house between orthodoxy and Unitarianism.

The Lutheran and Anglican Churches which broke away from Rome are somewhat paler versions of that Church. (Anglican means Anglo Catholic). Luther only rejected things which were condemned by Scripture but left in place things which were additional to what is found in Scripture.

Roman Catholicism itself held to a material system of worship. It gave up effectively worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23). In its gross form Rome made the ordinance of the Lord’s supper an idolatrous thing, by worshipping bread in a way that the idolaters of old worshipped stocks and stones (Jeremiah 2:27). There was a reaction against that and those such as the Quakers gave up ordinances altogether and the Christian Scientists spiritualise away matter: “Divine metaphysics explains away matter” (Science and Health, page 278). However, it is evident that there is both flesh and spirit (2 Corinthians 7:1). We should, however not materialise spiritual things or spiritualise material things. The atheist, the agnostic and the infidel will often scoff at the superstitious nonsense of Rome, but because they assume that the nonsense is in Scripture they reject the Scriptures as well. They, in a way, throw out the baby with the bathwater, because they do not really know the Scriptures (Mark 12:24).

If we put confidence in the flesh we shall like king Saul almost certainly go too far or not far enough. Compare 2 Samuel 21:1-7 (Saul in his zeal went too far) and 1 Samuel 15 (Saul did not do all that Jehovah asked of him). We shall either turn aside to the right hand or to the left which we ought not to do (Proverbs 4:27). In other words we shall quite likely fall into Cylla to avoid Charybdis (see the wanderings of Ulysses). Churches that just perform rituals which have no life in them are in error. Correspondingly churches that are all emotional are also in error. A merely intellectual Christianity is seriously defective, but so is one that is all excitement, such as one might get in a Pentecostal type Church.

Then we have Mormon Churches. They have something in common with Moslems in that they have a so-called holy book (the book of Mormon) as do the Moslems (the Koran). Both the books are said to have had angels as their source (Moroni and Gabriel). Both books have a lot taken from the Bible. In the case of the book of Mormon it is all muddled up like a dream - statements from Old Testament books mixed up with Christ’s teaching. The Mormons have a priesthood something like that in the Old Testament. Paul warns us against the false teaching of angels in Galatians 1:6-9. The Swedenborgians should have taken warning from this as well as the Mormons, because Swedenborg had visions of angels. Further, he taught a Neoplatonic philosophy which reminds us of the influence of Greek thought that infiltrated the early Church. Paul warns about it in Colossians (see chapter 2 verse 8).

If the teaching of churches marked by ritualism is considered it will soon become apparent that they go back to an Old Testament type of service, which is necessarily of a material nature. Sometimes things like incense are introduced.

As to Church government: that which is centralised is wrong. Each locality has its own responsibility to the Lord, though all localities should recognise each other’s discipline, unless it is so manifestly evil that the company exercising it needs itself disciplining. However, a system of government that means each locality can ignore each other’s discipline results in those that are lax as to who they admit must necessarily go down hill, whereas those that are too restrictive must almost certainly become sectarian, that is, they effectivelyonly admit those who become members of their fellowship. Michael Bachelard comments on this in his book ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren’ (page 25). As has been well said of companies: “Either they are too lax about what suits the Lord, or they are too narrow as to receiving all that belong to the Lord; and so there are what we call denominations; and that is not His assembly.” (J. B. Stoney New Series Vol. 1 page 58).

However, a centralised system of Church government is also wrong. As has been said: “We cannot undertake to control the saints in their respective localities; no one can undertake to superintend the building of the whole wall, the business of each is rather to build before his own house, as it were.” (J. Taylor Letters Vol. 1 page 424/425). With swift communication world-wide today there is the danger of determining things far away from the site of the problem. Accepting a decision by a leader (or leaders) at a distance can lead to miscarriages of justice. It can also mean that if the leader or leaders go wrong all go wrong.

So-called Open Brethren stress the conception of independent assemblies and go too far. Exclusive Brethren which maintained their connection with each other overbalanced in the other direction and now defer to a universal lead. Paul says approvingly in 1 Thessalonians 2:14 that the Thessalonians had “become imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus”. This shows that assemblies should take notice of the practice of other assemblies. Further, Paul gave the same instructions for all assemblies as to a certain matter (1 Corinthians 7:17); not one rule for one assembly and another rule for another.

Those Churches which hold more to Calvinist teaching have moved further away from Rome than the Lutheran and Anglican Churches. I speak here of Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists. However, they all retain the idea of a minister and a congregation. Plymouth Brethren, so-called, reject these. Methodists emerged from the Anglican Church, but still hold on to the idea of a minister and a congregation.

As to Church government the Anglican Church has an episcopal type, that is, bishops and an archbishop. The King (or Queen) is nominally the Head. Those Churches in the Calvinist tradition have a more localised form of government.

One of the things that fragments the Assembly is having National Churches. This is quite wrong. The Assembly’s base is in heaven where Christ is. We need to give up the idea of what is National (Galatians 4:26) or Racial (Galatians 3:25-29). Paul did not set up National Churches; neither did he set up a Church which would dominate over kings as Rome has at times sought to do.

We should not bar a Christian from having communion with us in the things of God because he is connected with a Church organisation of which we cannot fully approve. After all, are our own arrangements without fault ? In 1 Corinthians Paul dealt with serious matters, but said that : “Other things, whenever I come, I will set in order” (chapter 11 verse 34).

Further, there are many Christians that attend chapels which are essentially Gospel missions. In doing so they are not going on with evil, but are limited in their service and outlook Godward, that is, they are limited in their thoughts to Christ’s work on the cross. They should not be treated as persons unfit for Christian fellowship, though they may not be persons that should be given the place of teachers.

It may be worth noticing that John Bunyan did not consider that differences as to the matter of baptism should be a bar to communion and he wrote a tract about it which at the time of this writing can be found on the Internet: “Differences in judgment about Water Baptism no bar to communion” (www mountzion.org/johnbunyan/text/bun-baptism.pdf.). Bunyan himself was Christened as a baby, but there is no real evidence that he was baptised after his conversion. If my memory serves me well, he does not mention baptism in the Pilgrims Progress.

As to my detailed consideration of some matters touched on here see the following articles on this site:

Baptism (1) with four appendices

Baptism (2)

Religions (3) Christendom

Second Coming, The (1) to (5)

The Doctrine of the Trinity and Related Teaching - Books I and II

As to my thoughts on the so-called cults see my article “A Brief Review of The History of Brethren” and as to Christian fellowship see my article “Reflections on the history and teaching of Brethren”. These articles are not on the Internet but can be obtained free from myself. (See my web site: www.gordonwsimm.net)

November 2009