Dec 17, 2009

Unity

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of talk about problems with denominations. I and many others are saddened by the division that is within the body of Christ today—I think we’re well over 1500 different denominations in the US. Historically, when a group of Christians reaches some sort of impasse in discussing (or not) a particular topic or issue, they split into two or more groups. Those groups often have little interaction going forward, and new denominations spring up as a result.


Paul seems to decry this way of doing things in 1 Corinthians 1. In essence, when we form denominations 1) we place ourselves under names other than Jesus, and 2) we divide ourselves from other believers. As a result, there is a pragmatic denial of the reality that we are all one in Him (see Ephesians 4 and Galatians 3 also).


Leaders of various groups/churches, including myself in the past, will recognize some of these issues and try to remedy the situation by arranging regular or semi-regular meetings. The hope is that there will be unity of heart and mind among the leaders, and there is at times. But the reality is this: there will never be true intimacy in the relationship. It will be like holding hands over a fence—it’s a start, but there are still huge barriers. And this says nothing of the lack of intimacy for the rest of the folks that don’t set up meetings.


There may be exceptions, but there is little inter-denominational “receiving of one another as Christ receives us” (Romans 15:7). In my opinion, denominations exist because we can’t figure out how to have real relationships with folks we disagree with. Rather than hash out our differences and continue to fellowship together, we go our separate ways. But that’s another topic……the main point is this: the reality that we are one in Christ is lost in the words that we place in front of the word ‘church’ in order to define ourselves.


Many of my conversations on this subject in the last eight or so years have been with folks who have considered finding fellowship outside of the typical American church setting. They have pursued something different for a variety of reasons, one of those being frustration with the pattern I’ve very loosely outlined above (note the irony J). But actually, those outside the “institutional church” do the same thing: we define ourselves by the word or words in front of church.


There are several different names groups will use to describe the way they fellowship: house church, home church, organic church, simple church, etc. What becomes the big deal? With the first one it’s the house. The location of the meeting is the defining characteristic of the church. With organic or simple church, it’s the way in which we meet. More important that what is the defining aspect, though, is what isn’t, namely Christ.


What defines us as believers? It’s Jesus Christ. It’s a person. He is the One who shapes everything we do, believe, and say. He is the reason we meet, He is the One that builds His church, and He is to have supremacy in all things. I personally feel that all of these names, from “Our Savior’s Holy Ghost Super Power Temple Baptist Church of God in Christ” to “house church” distract us and others from Him. Something else becomes central, something other than Jesus, and when that happens, the fullness our unity as believers is lost, for it is rooted in Him.


Dear brothers and sisters, especially those who meet in non-traditional settings, this may seem like splitting hairs. But names of any sort do nothing short of denying the reality of who Jesus Christ is. He is One, and we are one in Him. When we give ourselves names, be they general (such as “home church”) or specific (such as “First Baptist Church”), we fragment the Body of Christ and call ourselves by names other than His. Our practice undermines the unity we have. Non-institutional believers, take note of the long-term fruit of what has happened throughout church history. In our day we must choose a different path.


When Paul spoke of the churches in the New Testament, he referred to them as “the church in (fill in the name of a city)” or “the church that meets in so-and-so’s house.” He didn’t place another name in front of church; the fact that the believers were the church was of primary importance. And then the apostle distinguished the churches from each other based on the city they were in (if there was one gathering in the city) or the home they met in (if there was more than one gathering in town). This wasn’t based on doctrine or style; it was only descriptive enough for everyone to know who he was talking about. The church in each city seemed to live in unity when it was healthy. It’s not necessarily that they were intimately connected with everyone single believer in town, or that they all always met in the same place as they grew in size, but they were always of one mind. Christ had churches that were truly one in Him.


May we as the Body of Christ live in the reality of the unity that we have in Him, regardless of where or how we meet.

No comments: