There’s a lot of truth is this bemoaning of the splintering and fragmentation of Christianity in America, where the religious free market encourages the formation of countless denominations. Yes, the existence of hundreds of competing groups is a scandal. But somehow, I don’t think the author has really thought through what his appeal for transcending denominational factionalism logically leads to, which is the dismantling of Protestantism. Is Tyler Edwards really willing to go back to being Roman Catholic? Or is he merely suggesting that all denominational differences are obsolete and insignificant and that we can and should therefore simply ignore them? His whole approach is implicitly based on a Protestant set of assmptions about ecclesiology that go unrecognized, and which I do not share.
It seems to me that his approach involves a degree of liturgical and theological relativism which most of the Christians around the world (and throughout Christian history) do not share. The big question is that of ‘authority’ in Christian life and doctrine and what would have to bend and to whom or what? I think there is ultimately only one ‘body of Christ’ but in the meantime diversity is best served by denominations which can (or at least should) ensure some kind of coherent pastoral care and common understanding of what is actually going in when the faithful gather.
NRA – he could become Orthodox. Like Catholics, they would say that the Church Jesus founded is not divided. But let’s not go there. 😉
In fact, there have been “denominations” since the first century. Even as the events of the New Testament were transpiring, groups who disagreed with the apostles were splitting off and forming their own churches with their own understandings of Jesus. We know the names of the most famous, e.g. the Arians, who’s churches persisted to the 10th century. Wiki has articles listing the many sects.
Some movements, notably the Campbellites, sought to restore pristine Christianity, but ended up becoming new denominations. Today we have revival movements, such as Calvary Chapel, founding networks of daughter churches and ending up as, in effect, new denominations.
I have no intention of proposing a solution to the issue, but history does not support the notion that somehow we can focus on Jesus and mission and somehow fulfill the dominical prayer “that they all may be one”.
#3, I agree, Charles. Besides the 4th century Arians, you could’ve invoked even earlier schismatic and heretical groups, such as Marcion and his large Gnostic church that started in the mid 2nd century, or Montanus and his charismatic, ascetic, and apocalypic group in the later 2nd century, or various other Gnostic leaders like Basilides, etc.
Perhaps more to the point, you are correct that such divisions already began to appear within the NT era itself. I Cor. 1 provides a classic example, where some proudly identify themselves as followers of Cephas/Peter, and others of Apollos or Paul, but some, perhaps anticipating the unifying aspirations of Tyler Edwards, claimed to be only followers of Christ. And they might have been the most insufferably arrogant of all, implicitly claiming to be superior to those unenlightened Christians who formed parties or cliques, as if their group wasn’t one too.
And yes, you’e also right that even if Protestantism were to be abandoned in favor of ending denominationalism, Edwards and those like him would still have to choose between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
I started to reference the groups mentioned in I Corinthians, but am not clear whether they were schismatic, or just factions within the Church. Kenneth Latourette mentions three groups that did formally schism in the first century, but I can’t recall them or find my copy of A History of Christianity right now.
The Church is not about how we interpret the Bible—that’s not to say sound theology isn’t important, but our understanding is not the primary focus. The Church is about Jesus. It is ever, only, always about Jesus….The final command Jesus gave was not “get every nuance of theology right,†it was “go, make disciples of all nations.â€
There’s much that is thought provoking here. I noticed this – the author omits the greater part of Jesus final command, “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”
So the making disciples is to result in the shared life of the baptized in Christ’s church and an apostolic ministry whose task is to draw the baptized to a shared obedience to Christ’s teaching. I take it that teaching obedience to Christ will imply some understanding of the obedience that Christ commands (and what runs counter to such obedience). Isn’t it precisely because the church is to be about Jesus, that understanding what demands obedience and teaching it, is commanded by the Lord himself? It’s not a secondary matter, or a matter of “nuance”, but an essential element of the “go, make disciples”.
There’s a lot of truth is this bemoaning of the splintering and fragmentation of Christianity in America, where the religious free market encourages the formation of countless denominations. Yes, the existence of hundreds of competing groups is a scandal. But somehow, I don’t think the author has really thought through what his appeal for transcending denominational factionalism logically leads to, which is the dismantling of Protestantism. Is Tyler Edwards really willing to go back to being Roman Catholic? Or is he merely suggesting that all denominational differences are obsolete and insignificant and that we can and should therefore simply ignore them? His whole approach is implicitly based on a Protestant set of assmptions about ecclesiology that go unrecognized, and which I do not share.
David Handy+
It seems to me that his approach involves a degree of liturgical and theological relativism which most of the Christians around the world (and throughout Christian history) do not share. The big question is that of ‘authority’ in Christian life and doctrine and what would have to bend and to whom or what? I think there is ultimately only one ‘body of Christ’ but in the meantime diversity is best served by denominations which can (or at least should) ensure some kind of coherent pastoral care and common understanding of what is actually going in when the faithful gather.
NRA – he could become Orthodox. Like Catholics, they would say that the Church Jesus founded is not divided. But let’s not go there. 😉
In fact, there have been “denominations” since the first century. Even as the events of the New Testament were transpiring, groups who disagreed with the apostles were splitting off and forming their own churches with their own understandings of Jesus. We know the names of the most famous, e.g. the Arians, who’s churches persisted to the 10th century. Wiki has articles listing the many sects.
Some movements, notably the Campbellites, sought to restore pristine Christianity, but ended up becoming new denominations. Today we have revival movements, such as Calvary Chapel, founding networks of daughter churches and ending up as, in effect, new denominations.
I have no intention of proposing a solution to the issue, but history does not support the notion that somehow we can focus on Jesus and mission and somehow fulfill the dominical prayer “that they all may be one”.
#3, I agree, Charles. Besides the 4th century Arians, you could’ve invoked even earlier schismatic and heretical groups, such as Marcion and his large Gnostic church that started in the mid 2nd century, or Montanus and his charismatic, ascetic, and apocalypic group in the later 2nd century, or various other Gnostic leaders like Basilides, etc.
Perhaps more to the point, you are correct that such divisions already began to appear within the NT era itself. I Cor. 1 provides a classic example, where some proudly identify themselves as followers of Cephas/Peter, and others of Apollos or Paul, but some, perhaps anticipating the unifying aspirations of Tyler Edwards, claimed to be only followers of Christ. And they might have been the most insufferably arrogant of all, implicitly claiming to be superior to those unenlightened Christians who formed parties or cliques, as if their group wasn’t one too.
And yes, you’e also right that even if Protestantism were to be abandoned in favor of ending denominationalism, Edwards and those like him would still have to choose between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
David Handy+
I started to reference the groups mentioned in I Corinthians, but am not clear whether they were schismatic, or just factions within the Church. Kenneth Latourette mentions three groups that did formally schism in the first century, but I can’t recall them or find my copy of A History of Christianity right now.
There’s much that is thought provoking here. I noticed this – the author omits the greater part of Jesus final command, “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”
So the making disciples is to result in the shared life of the baptized in Christ’s church and an apostolic ministry whose task is to draw the baptized to a shared obedience to Christ’s teaching. I take it that teaching obedience to Christ will imply some understanding of the obedience that Christ commands (and what runs counter to such obedience). Isn’t it precisely because the church is to be about Jesus, that understanding what demands obedience and teaching it, is commanded by the Lord himself? It’s not a secondary matter, or a matter of “nuance”, but an essential element of the “go, make disciples”.