Wherever we turn we breathe the atmosphere of ecumenicity nowadays. There is an eager market for books on the theme of reunion, judging by the steady flow of such books from publishing houses on both sides of the Atlantic. The World Faith and Order Conference to be held in Montreal this month is almost certain to be an important milestone in the history of the ecumenical movement. And next month there is to be a Reformed Ecumenical Synod in Grand Rapids. The latter may be intended as in some sense a counter-balance to the World Council of Churches, but it is nevertheless a step forward from the divisiveness of denominationalism.
A manifestation of highly organized denominationalism will be seen, also next month, when the Pan-Anglican Congress assembles in Toronto. Given denominationalism, it is understandable, in this era of rapid travel, that representatives of the same allegiance from all over the world should find it advisable to meet together in consultation from time to time. Thus we find the far-flung Anglican communion and its assemblage matched by the Lutheran World Federation, the Baptist World Alliance, and others.
But I venture to inquire, with great reticence, what possible justification there is in Scripture and in Christian principle for the construction of these global denominational empires. There are all kinds of evils attendant on them, since, in the very nature of the case, they tend to complexes of superiority or inferiority, to arrogance, rivalry, head-hunting and head-counting, and comparisons that ought never to be made among Christians. Is not denominationalism just the modern way of saying, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ”?
In the sixteenth century Cranmer, Calvin, Melanchthon, and other Reformed leaders were anxious to promote a spirit of genuine ecumenicity. Cranmer’s plan for convening an international conference of Reformed Christians was frustrated only by his martyrdom. Calvin said he would not shrink from crossing ten seas to attend such a gathering.
It is a good thing for fellow Christians to meet together and, in the light of Holy Scripture, seek to heal their divisions. That light will show certain things very clearly.
It will show that while we should ever be zealous for the purity of the Church, we must not expect to find or to form a perfect Church here on earth. Even as the New Testament churches were mixed, deplorably so, both in faith and faithfulness (see Paul’s epistles!), so also are the denominations of our day.
It will show, none the less, that the only proper basis for Christian unity is agreement in the truth which the New Testament proclaims and obedience in the holiness which it enjoins.
It will show that departure from the truth as it is in Christ Jesus and from his obedience is departure from the faith once delivered to the saints and therefore from the community of God’s people.
It will show that at first there were no denominations competing with each other in the same society, but only the church in Corinth and the church of the Thessalonians, and so on.
The Reformers did not plan a unification of national or regional churches. Their grasp of biblical principles would not allow them to do that. What they desired was a unanimity of such churches in the cardinal doctrines of the faith, which would be a powerful witness to the world. Nor did they plan a uniformity of the churches. They recognized the right of every national or regional church to organize its own ecclesiastical structure according to its peculiar needs and circumstances, always with the provision that nothing be done contrary to Scripture.
The scandal today is our myriad denominations—blatantly displayed, very often in streets where a dozen rival fanes jostle for custom. In this age of the church mixed and the church militant, some degree of denomination is inevitable. In its origins denomination is a reaction against error or persecution. The church that is true is always coming out from, or being driven out by, the church that is false. And that requires denominating the true and the false.
But the question immediately confronting Christians is: Can we remove the scandal of the multitude of our denominations? Can we recapture the perspective of regional or national churches? This will be achieved only on the basis of unanimity in the faith of the apostles and flexibility on secondary issues of ecclesiastical administration.
The Church of South India has given a bold lead in this very matter. Imperfect and open to criticism though it undoubtedly is, it has found the method advocated in this article to be a road to blessing and the recovery of fellowship, and thus to effectiveness instead of fragmentation of witness. Its venture, however, is still a lonely one. It is still seeking for “recognition,” which means that it is being treated by others as though it were just another denomination instead of as the church of the saints which are in South India.
Finally, can we not, at least as a preliminary step, discard the habit of speaking of people as belonging to this or to that “communion”? The term itself, used in this limiting sense, is a blasphemy, swelling with the spirit of division and of separateness and of judgment against those of other “communions.” The communion of Christians is a sacred reality. It bespeaks their complete oneness and their free fellowship in Christ. It be speaks the union of the many at the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. Christianly speaking, then, a denominational “communion” is a contradiction in terms. Is Christ divided? Was Methodism crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Episcopalianism?
Alas, it is easier to diagnose these ills than to cure them. And it is harder to see them in ourselves than in others. Before God, however, there is but one communion: the Communion of the Saints, which we profess in the creed but deny by the plurality of our “communions.”
