Introduction
How can autonomous local churches be interdependent? This subject is complex in character, frustrating to implement, relevant to the age of ecumenicity, and volatile to discuss among conservative, bible-believing churches.
Regarding interchurch relations, all church elders walk a tightrope: they must protect their flocks from doctrinal error and at the same time express, in a horribly divided Christian community, the oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ and the love of Christ towards all Christians and local churches — a near impossible assignment I assure you. This article is designed to provide some degree of guidance and balanced perspective on an intensely vexing subject.
For ease of organization and clarity, I have divided my paper into two parts. I will first present the biblical data for autonomous local churches and their interrelatedness. We should all find general agreement with the theology of this section. In the second section I will address the far more complex issue that generates much confusion and disagreement of how autonomous local churches can interrelate with other churches in a world of false churches, true churches, dangerous churches, wacky churches, and hundreds of denominational divisions and subdivisions. It is my desire that this paper will stimulate fresh biblical thinking and help your church’s attitude toward other churches be more biblical.
Autonomous Local Churches and Interchurch Fellowship
Under this first section it is our contention that (1) there is and can be only one, true Church of Jesus Christ, (2) upon earth the Church is manifested visibly in countless local churches, (3) local churches should lovingly interact with one another, providing that they are genuine churches indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, (4) local church isolationism is unscriptural, and (5) there are rich benefits resulting from interchurch relationships.
One Lord, One Church
As to the doctrine of the oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ, all Christians agree: our Lord and Savior established one Church. At one of the most crucial moments in our Lord’s earthly ministry, He declared to His disciples, “I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). He also said, “There shall be one flock, and one shepherd” (John 10:16). In John 17 He prayed that all believers would “be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee” (17:20, 21). Paul affirms with special force in Ephesians 4:4–6 the essential unity of the Church by the use of seven ones, four alls, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity when he writes that there is “one body and one Spirit…one hope…one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” By its intrinsic nature the Church is one. Thus Paul exhorts believers to be “diligent [spare no effort] to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Peter charges all believers to “love the brotherhood,” that is, the worldwide Christian community (1 Peter 2:17). The oneness of the Church is a fundamental attribute of the body of Christ, the Church.
One Church, Countless Local Churches
A fair and unprejudiced reading of the New Testament reveals that although Paul had a driving passion for unity among all Christians, [3] He (the master architect of the Gentile churches) never created a perpetual, organizational structure over local congregations to which all local churches must belong and submit or be considered schematic. Robert Banks sums up the Pauline evidence for us with remarkable precision when he writes:
These scattered Christian groups did not express their unity by fashioning a corporate organization through which they could be federated with one another, but rather through a network of personal contacts between people who regarded themselves as members of the same Christian family. This is so even with respect to the foundation church in Jerusalem. Paul is eager to gain its recognition of his missionary endeavors so as to avoid any division in the Christian movement between its Jewish and Gentile wings (Gal. 2:1–10), for a denominationalism of this kind would be totally abhorrent to him. He is also concerned to gain the involvement of his Gentile churches in the collection for the poor in the church at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:25–27), so as to mark their acknowledgment that the gospel stemmed from them. Yet there is no sense in which his churches are subservient to the original Christian community or organizationally controlled by it. [4]The local churches of the New Testament era were independent, self-governing, and complete in themselves. In the life and power of the Holy Spirit, Christ was present in each local gathering of His people (Matt. 18:20). In the mind of the New Testament apostles and writers, each local church is a visible, tangible — albeit imperfect — manifestation of the one Church of Jesus Christ. Each local church is thus to express the reality of the one, true Church of God. Addressing the local church at Corinth, Paul could write “to the church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; cf. 2 Cor. 1:1). The one, true Church of God was concretely and fully represented in the local church at Corinth. The Church of God as it is at Corinth is not merely a small part of the whole, a subdivision or a member of the Church belonging to it, but a true representative of the whole, the Church. It is the Church in its time and space expression, a microcosm of the whole. This cannot be said of any group or circle of churches or denomination, only of the local church. In this sense, the local church is independent.
On the other hand, each local church is truly the Church of God only as it conforms to and manifests the Church of God as defined by apostolic doctrine and practice. No local church can steer its own direction or establish its own beliefs. The Church is built “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20; cf. 1 Cor. 3:11). Any local church that moves from this foundation is a counterfeit church. “The local congregation,” as Ladd states, “is no isolated group but stands in a state of solidarity with the church as a whole.” [5] In this sense no local church is independent. Hence Paul expects local churches to amend their practices and beliefs to other churches that follow faithfully apostolic teaching and practice (1 Cor. 14:33–36).
Each New Testament local congregation, then, knew that it was part of a worldwide family of brothers and sisters sharing the same life in union with Christ by the Spirit, the same apostolic foundation, beliefs, and heavenly destination. They knew that their unity was guaranteed by the Spirit of God indwelling each believer. Hence, New Testament local churches expressed the oneness of the Church of God among themselves, not by one universal church leader, a pope, or a visible super-church institution, but by voluntary, loving fellowship with one another as the family of God. The New Testament beautifully harmonizes local church autonomy with loving interchurch fellowship. In his now classic work, The Christian Ecclesia, F. J. A. Hort skillfully summarizes this point for us:
By itself each of these details may seem trivial enough: but together they help to show how St. Paul’s recognition of the individual responsibility and substantial independence of single city Ecclesiae was brought into harmony with his sense of the unity of the body of Christ as a whole, by this watchful care to seize every opportunity of kindling and keeping alive in each society a consciousness of its share in the life of the great Ecclesia of God. [6]We move now to explore some of the key examples of New Testament local churches interacting with one another.
New Testament Local Churches and Their Interrelatedness
I can think of no better way to introduce the following survey of New Testament interchurch relationships than with this superb summary quotation by Herman Ridderbos from his magnum opus, Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Of all the material on this subject, and there is not much, he best captures Paul’s thinking on this topic:
In various ways [Paul] makes the local congregations also realize their fellowship among each other and wishes to promote among them as large a degree of agreement in their actions as possible. Time and again he points the churches to what is taking place elsewhere. They are to be conscious of the cosmic (‘ecumenical’) relationships in which the gospel involves them (Col. 1:6, 23; 1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Eph. 1:10). What happens in other congregations must have their full interest (cf. 2 Cor. 9:2ff.; Col. 4:16); they are to participate in that which is undertaken elsewhere (1 Cor. 16:1ff.); they must allow themselves to be guided by the same directives in all the churches (1 Cor. 7:17; 4:17; 14:33); he wants them to pay heed to each other’s ecclesiastical rules. [7]Here are five major New Testament examples of interchurch fellowship.
Interchurch Relief Aid
The first account of a church providing relief aid to another church is Antioch sending an offering for the poor in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30). Luke records that “in the proportion that any of the disciples [in Antioch] had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.”
Some ten years later the churches of Macedonia, Achaia, and Galatia collected and sent a large financial contribution to the poverty-stricken Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26). Paul not only considered this a gracious, sacrificial love offering but a spiritual indebtedness and responsibility the Gentile churches owed their Jewish brothers and sisters because the gospel first emanated from them. “For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.” (Rom. 15:26, 27). Although there is this spiritual indebtedness on the part of the Gentile churches, the offering was still a voluntary, love gift, not a required tax to the mother church or central organization for churches.
Paul also remarks that the Gentile offering to the poor in Judea was necessary as “a principle of equality…in the universal Christian fraternity,” the “spirit of reciprocity,” or “law of equilibrium.” [8] Paul writes, “For this is not for the ease of others and for your [the Corinthians] affliction, but by way of equality.” Paul believed that funds should flow from churches with plenty to churches in desperate need. This principle is operative for churches today: churches sharing their finances with churches in needy circumstances.
Furthermore, the Gentile churches’ contribution to Jerusalem was a marvelous demonstration of the oneness and agape love of the worldwide Christian brotherhood across racial lines. Commentator Philip Hughes concludes:
We may be sure, further, that Paul regarded these acts of charitable giving as expressions of the organic unity of the Church, which is the body of Christ. They afforded tangible evidence to the world that in Christ the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile had indeed been broken down. [9]Interchurch Communication: Greetings, News, Recommendations, and Counsel
Writing from Rome, Paul urged the church at Colossae to convey greetings from himself and Timothy to the church at Laodicea, some ten miles away in the Lycus valley. He further charged the church at Colossae with the responsibility to have the letter of Colossians read “in the church of the Laodiceans” and to procure the letter to the Laodiceans and have it read in its own assembly (Col. 4:15, 16; cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; Rev. 1:4, 11; 2:23). Such detail reveals the close bond of fellowship that existed between these first churches and the desire to receive information and news from other churches and the Lord’s servants. (See also Rom. 16:1–16; Phil. 4:22; Heb. 13:24; 1 Peter 5:13; 3 John 3, 6, 14)
Furthermore, letters of recommendation were used among the first churches in order to authorize and identify visiting teachers and fellow believers (2 Cor. 3:1). Correspondence among the first churches was welcomed and common.
The extant letter of Acts 15 from the church at Jerusalem with the apostles and elders to churches at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia offered counsel and encouragement, provided doctrinal clarity, and introduced their delegates, Judas and Silas, who would in person restate the position of the apostles and elders regarding salvation apart from Jewish circumcision (Acts 15:22–33; 16:4).
Interchurch Ministry: Itinerant Teachers and Prophets
The New Testament reveals that there were a good number of itinerant teachers and prophets who traveled freely among the churches (Acts 11:27; 15:1, 3, 32). Apollos, for one, was an extraordinarily gifted teacher, apologist, and preacher. Luke records that while ministering at Ephesus, Apollos felt lead to visit Corinth to help teach, hence “the brethren [at Ephesus] encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived [at Corinth], he helped greatly those who had believed through grace” (Acts 18:27; cf. 16:12). At a later period of time, after being absent from Corinth, Paul urged Apollos to visit Corinth to help in the ministry (1 Cor. 16:12). When the church at Jerusalem first heard about the establishment of the new church at Antioch, it sent Barnabas as its delegate to investigate. Barnabas encouraged the new congregation; he even helped provide leadership, teaching, and direction for the new congregation (Acts 11:22–26; cf. 8:14).
It was expected that local churches would heed such teachers and help them financially (3 John 5–8). Of course, there were false teachers who also traveled among churches creating confusion and division (2 Cor. 11:4–12:18; Gal. 5:7–12). It is disheartening to read how easily these false teachers made inroads into churches and how quickly believers embraced their teachings.
Interchurch Controversy and Deliberation
Growing Jew-Gentile fraternization at Antioch put unpleasant pressure on the church at Jerusalem from Jews both outside and inside the church (Gal. 2:12). Hence the church at Jerusalem put pressure on the church at Antioch to curtail its table fellowship with Gentile believers, which when Peter and Barnabas complied, Paul sternly rebuked them for inconsistent living and theology.
Eventually, the legalistic doctrinal problems brewing in Jerusalem spilled over to Antioch. When Jewish legalistic teachers from Jerusalem disrupted the congregation at Antioch with their false gospel, the church sent Paul and Barnabas as its representatives to Jerusalem to meet in joint counsel with the apostles and elders to discuss salvation apart from circumcision and the Law of Moses. The positive results of the meeting were written down and sent along with representatives from Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The letter clarified the apostles’ and Jerusalem elders’ doctrinal position on circumcision and added some wise counsel for helping Gentiles live in peaceful coexistence with their scrupulous Jewish brethren.
It is essential to note that the decision to go to Jerusalem was a voluntary decision on the part of the church at Antioch. There is no biblical evidence to suggest that there was an established, supreme court in Jerusalem to which all Christian churches were answerable. The leaders of the church at Jerusalem needed to publicly clarify their position and policies regarding Gentile evangelization and fellowship. So, for the sake of unity among the churches, respect for Jerusalem and the apostles, the future Gentile mission, and the defeat of the false gospel, the church at Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem to defend their actions and to seek clarification (Acts 15:2). Antioch, not Jerusalem, initiated the conference.
Every effort appears to be made to maintain loving fellowship between the two churches. The same should be done today among churches. Churches can help other churches arbitrate disputes, give counsel, or study together.
We should note that some of the first churches experienced fears, suspicions, strains, and tensions between themselves just as churches do today (Acts 15; 21:18–26; Gal. 2:11–14). Dividing or establishing separate denominations was not an option for these first Christians.
Interchurch Modeling
Paul states that the church in Thessalonica was a positive model of courage and bold witness in the face of suffering to all the churches in Macedonia and Achaia (1 Thes. 1:7). He further says that the Thessalonians were imitating “the churches in Judea” in suffering, persecution, and endurance (1 Thes. 2:14). The love of the church in Thessalonica had spread to others in Macedonia (1 Thes. 4:10). Paul boasted to the churches in Macedonia about the Corinthians’ desire to contribute to the poor in Jerusalem. In fact, Paul can honestly say, “Your zeal has stirred up most of them” (2 Cor. 9:2). Later Paul told the church at Corinth about the sacrificial contributions of “the churches in Macedonia” in order to move Corinth to action (2 Cor. 8:1–5). Thus churches learned from other churches, inspired one another to perseverance and love, and encouraged and comforted one another in hard times (1 Peter 5:9).
Several times in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul reminds the independent-minded Corinthians of standard apostolic church practices (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33), appealing to them to conform to such practices.
- For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Cor. 4:17).
- For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints (1 Cor. 14:33).
- Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches (1 Cor. 7:17).
- But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God (1 Cor. 11:16).
- Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also (1 Cor. 16:1).
We have varied evidence as to the pains taken by St. Paul to counteract any tendency towards isolation and wantonness of independence, which might arise in the young communities which he founded, or with which he came in contact. The Epistle which contains most evidence of this kind is I Corinthians, the same Epistle which more than any other is occupied with resisting tendencies towards inward division. The spirit of lawlessness would evidently have a disintegrating effect in both spheres alike, as between the members of the individual Ecclesia, and as between it and the sister Ecclesiae of the same or other lands. The keynote as against isolation is struck in the very salutation (1:2). Without going into all the ambiguities of language in that verse, we can at least see that in some manner the Corinthians are there taught to look on themselves as united to “all who in every place invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and I believe we may safely add that “theirs and ours” means “their Lord and ours,” the one Lord being set forth as the common bond of union, and obedience to His will as Lord, the uniting law of life. [11]The Errors of Extreme Independence and Isolationism
In light of the tendency of the churches like Corinth to isolate themselves from other churches, we need to address the errors of extreme independence and isolationism. A Christianity Today article entitled “The Independent Church Myth” graphically challenges churches who pride themselves on being totally independent of other churches or ecclesiastical bodies to think again. Using his own local church as an example, Ken McGarvey writes:
Take the congregation I pastor. Because it belongs to no denominational group, it is considered independent. Yet this church’s life and witness would be greatly impoverished without the support and resources of other churches…. We do not print our own Sunday-school literature or write all our own music. Nor do we write or publish books for Bible study. We operate no radio or television station. Even the missionaries we help need support from other churches. We read periodicals, attend conferences and seminars, and even use films, tapes, and computer software produced by others. Every phase of our ministry is dependent upon others — other Christians and other churches. [12]So from the weekly use of Sunday school curriculum to our hymnbooks, it is obvious that we depend for significant ministry help on Christians other than those who attend our own local congregation. Prideful, “rugged individualism,” as McGarvey says, is not suited for the body of Christ, the Church. [13]
The fact is, every local church is born, not out of a theological or historical vacuum, but out of a history, a theology, a tradition, a culture, and a people influenced by previous churches, books, and bible teachers. Every local church has been affected by two thousand years of Christian history. We have all been affected by the councils of Nicea (A. D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), and Chalcedon (A. D. 451) regarding the person of Christ and the Holy Trinity. The Reformation and its justification by “faith alone” doctrine has left its mark on all professing believers and churches. Many of us are the sons and daughters of the nineteenth-century Brethren movement. This is precisely what Paul brings to the attention of the Corinthians when he reprimands them for their individualizing and independent attitude: “Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?” (1 Cor. 14:36).
Refusal to acknowledge a church’s history or theological heritage, a common trait among highly independent churches and leaders, only causes the same old errors and failures to be repeated again and again without learning or resolving anything. A knowledge of Christian history (and the history of Israel from the Old Testament) can help protect from doctrinal and practical error (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). It also gives you a more realistic and humble perspective on yourself and your local church.
There is an aphorism that is well articulated by the famous Russian dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn that goes: “He who forgets his own history is condemned to repeat it. If we don’t know our own history, we will simply have to endure all the same mistakes, sacrifices, and absurdities all over again.” [14] If you read Roy Coad’s A History of the Brethren Movement, as I have several times, you will realize that the same debates and divisions have been reproduced today, especially among Exclusives, as their recent divisions so painfully demonstrate. History can protect a church from repeating the same ancient errors and also provide more objective appraisal of our disagreements. As King Solomon wrote, “There is nothing new under the Sun.” It is to be hoped that we can establish a mind-set that seeks to resolve problems and errors rather then repeat them ad nauseam to the dishonor of our blessed Lord.
Zealously independent churches that have no interest in or even worse are suspicious of all outside their local fellowship breed all sorts of sub-Christian behavior. It bespeaks the opposite of Christian unity, oneness, and agape love. It is a poor and shallow witness of the global message and worldwide family of God. Moreover, highly independent churches become, as Roy Coad observes, “the happy hunting-ground of the individualist” leader-despot. [15] We at Littleton Bible Chapel, where I attend, have experienced firsthand over the past four years the spiritual abuse these loner churches inflict on the Lord’s people. I have personally counseled numerous couples and individuals shattered by abusive churches and their leaders. It often takes years for these believers to deal with their anger and sense of betrayal.
Furthermore, isolationist churches produce Christian people with unChristlike attitudes. Trapped in the fortress mentality of “we are the only true and faithful people to the Bible,” these believers often become self-satisfied, suspicious of all others (even those slightly different from themselves), prideful, closed-minded, biblically stagnate, and self-deceived. Their badge of distinction is that they are not like other churches. Indeed, if other churches are doing something effective for God, they wouldn’t follow simply because other churches are doing it. Being distinct is more important than their shared beliefs with fellow Christians. In truth, we all need the whole body of Christ in order to be balanced, wise, and awakened to our own failures and shortcomings, of which we are often totally blind.
Finally, there is a built-in desire on the part of every Christian to identify with and belong to something bigger than a local church. The reason is, we are part of a worldwide family, and we want to know and be part of the development of that worldwide family. Just as there should be no loner Christians, there should be no loner churches. Loner churches with Diotrephes-type pastors are unhealthy, deceived, deficient churches.
Benefits of Interchurch Relationships
To start with, churches can learn from other churches. Much of what we are at Littleton Bible Chapel is a result of learning from other churches. In our first years as a church we emulated Southside Bible Chapel with John Walden in Colorado Springs, Believers Chapel in Dallas, Texas, and the Fairhaven Bible Chapel in San Leandro, California. These were mentor churches to us. I can truly say that over the past thirty years we have been a learning church. We have some ideas and practices that are unique to us, but the lion’s share of what we practice, we borrowed from other churches. We delight in learning from the amazing creativity of the churches of God.
In my limited travels as a preacher, I get to see what other churches are doing and how we at Littleton can learn from their strengths and creative ideas of worship, evangelism, administration, preaching, and pastoral care. So when you visit other churches, which is always an educational experience both negatively and positively, keep your eyes open and ask lots of questions. In my judgment, when people become annoyed with all your questions, you know you have done your job.
If you are with missionaries, ask them about their local churches. I have learned a great deal from missionaries. Missionaries are often very creative people. I remember years ago having a four-hour, educational lunch with Bill Deans from Zaire, Africa. I asked him hours of questions concerning the churches in Africa. I found that they were taping all their sermons years before assemblies here in the United States even owned taping equipment.
Furthermore, conferences are important because as you interact with brothers and sisters from other churches you gain new insights and ideas. We can learn from the strengths, successes, and failures of other churches. So churches can learn from one another and teach one another. Be a learning church, not a know-it-all church, or an anti-change church. All of our churches can use improvement in nearly every area of ministry.
A. T. Pierson said that Bethesda Chapel in Bristol, England, where George Müller and Henry Craik ministered, was one of the truly apostolic churches in the world in his day. Throughout the world over the past hundred years there have been churches that emulate the spirit and practice of Bethesda. You can read about Bethesda Chapel in the book I Will Build My Church: 150 Years of Local Church Work in Bristol by Keith and Alan Linton. You too can learn from this dynamic church.
Second, churches can use the resources and expertise of other churches. I was encouraged to hear from the small assembly I attended in New Jersey many years ago that other assemblies had provided financial help for the church’s building needs. There is an assembly in Maryland that helps rebuild church buildings destroyed by tropical storms. Recently many churches united to help rebuild some of the black churches burned in the South by arsonists. Many of our churches sent blankets and money to the poor churches in Romania during the communists’ reign.
Furthermore, if one church has a number of able teachers or evangelists it can share them with churches that lack competent teachers or evangelists. Churches with a small youth group need to occasionally meet with other church youth groups in order to meet more Christian young people.
One of the most exciting things happening in our church at this time is our work with churches in Mexico and Indonesia. In Tenancingo, Mexico we are helping to build a building for the church. We have sent teams to help in evangelism and a team to help build the building. We have flown two of their leaders to Denver to meet and minister to us; it has been very encouraging collaboration for both churches. People are excited to give and help their needy brothers and sisters in Mexico. Through one of our missionaries in Indonesia we have planted several churches there. We consider them sister churches. We pray for them regularly. We also support several local native workers who shepherd these churches and plant new churches. We are encouraging other churches to help with this great work in Indonesia.
The fact is, when many churches pool their financial resources, human resources, and prayer support they can do so much more than one church alone.
Third, in a unique way churches can display the oneness and love of the worldwide family of God through their cooperation with one another. When churches sacrificially help and share with one another and work together for world or local evangelism, they display the power of the gospel to a watching world. They also greatly encourage one another. It is a marvelous witness to the world of the reality of the saving gospel of Christ. In the words of our Lord, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). I will close this first section of this paper with wise counsel from the book A New Testament Blueprint for the Church:
We act more like marbles than grapes. When squeezed together we produce glass shards rather than sweet wine.
If we resist a spirit of cooperation and interdependence within the Body of Christ, then we are denying the reality of the Body of Christ. If we are single-minded in intent that all ministry meetings, efforts, and resources are to be used exclusively for one local church, or at least to point believers toward membership and participation in only one church, then we are denying the reality of the Body of Christ. If we do not join hands in our communities in matters of doctrine and discipline of believers, and cooperate energetically toward that end, then we are denying the reality of the Body of Christ. [16]Because we do act more like marbles than grapes, let us now move to the second part of this paper and suggest some biblical principles for better interchurch relations.
How Do Local Churches Display the Oneness of the Church and Loving Interchurch Fellowship in Divided Christendom?
There is universal agreement that there is only one Church and Jesus Christ is the Founder and Head. It is also agreed that the New Testament churches lovingly interacted with one another in various ways. However, the worldwide Christian community today, representing hundreds of thousands of churches, which we will call Christendom, is divided into many denominations, some of which propagate an utterly false gospel and erroneous view of the nature of the Church. Even more disheartening is that among bible-believing churches there are denominational barriers, conflicting theological camps, and, in some cases, near impenetrable walls of division and distrust. What then is a local church to do in this disagreeable, conflicting ecclesiastical environment?
To answer this question, we first must separate false churches from true, Spirit-indwelt, gospel churches. We should all be aware that there are those who profess to be the true Church, but are in fact false professing Christians and pseudo-churches planted directly by Satan. Regarding fellowship with these churches, we have no unity to maintain. We are to separate from a false gospel and false church. Jesus warned us that “the enemy” would sow useless, annoying tares in “the world” in order to counterfeit the wheat planted by Himself (Matt. 13:24–30; 36–43). The world is full of tares that significantly outnumber the wheat planted by Christ. John the apostle also warned that there would be many antichrists and false prophets in the world (1 John 4:1–3; 2 John 7–11). Paul taught that in a large house [professing Christendom] there will be vessels of honor [godly teachers] and vessels of dishonor [false teachers]. Paul urged Timothy to separate himself from these false teachers in order to be a useful servant for God. “If a man cleanses himself from these things [vessels of dishonor, false teachers], he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work” (2 Tim. 2:21).
The false teacher is the archenemy of the local church. The New Testament calls the elders to guard the local church from wolves (Acts 20:28–31) and to separate from those who perpetuate a false gospel, which is no gospel at all (2 Cor. 6:14–17; Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim. 6:3–6; 2 Tim. 2:16–21; 2 John 6–11). Separation from false doctrine is a New Testament principle that must counterbalance seeking unity among all who profess the name of Christ. One of the most frightening verses in the New Testament is 2 Corinthians 11:14. “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” Thus false teachers also are “deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). The world is full of counterfeit Christian teachers, messengers of Satan, wolves in sheep’s clothing. “Satan’s great campaign,” writes Peter Masters, “is to pollute God’s churches on earth and bring them into doctrinal and spiritual chaos. He longs to see utter confusion engulf churches which have borne a powerful testimony, and he is behind all the heretical infiltration of sound congregations.” [17]
In much of the literature on church unity, even among evangelicals, the New Testament’s principle of separation from false doctrine is strangely absent. Some evangelicals talk as if Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are authentic expressions of biblical Christianity and that we can unite with them. We all agree that there are born again brothers and sisters who love the Lord in these denominations, but the systems are false, counterfeit expressions of the gospel; they give false hope of salvation to millions of people; moreover they continue to this day to persecute true believers in Christ.
We wholeheartedly concur with Paul when he says, “being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3), but many churches and professing Christians have no part in the “unity of the Spirit” because they do not have the Holy Spirit; they are not the body of Christ. We have no “unity of the Spirit” to maintain with them. Therefore we need to lovingly warn them and tell them of the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, but never unite, for what “fellowship has light with darkness” (2 Cor. 6:14)?
Now it is plain that we should not fellowship with churches built on a false gospel, but far more difficult and vexing to explain is the fact that among bible-believing Christians and churches that agree on most major doctrines, there are sinful divisions dividing churches and fellow believers. Although there are wonderful examples of unity and cooperation among churches, there are still thousands of conservative, bible-believing churches that refuse fellowship with other bible-believing churches because of doctrinal and historical reasons. Some of these doctrinal issues dividing churches are quite significant, like baptismal regeneration or women’s ordination; others are as trite as mixed bathing or styles of worship.
For my part, I envision no grand plan for ending denominational divisions or tribal warfare among churches and denominations. As I picture it, however, the Lord doesn’t acknowledge our man-made parties in any way. Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Wesleyan are not of His making or concern. According to Scripture, Christians should never name themselves or churches after a puny man or a pet point of theology ( 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:1–5, 21; 4:6). In His sight all true believers are one family born of the Spirit. The local congregation and the individual saint is still His loving, undivided focus of attention. He walks among the lampstands, not denominations (Rev. 2:1). When Christ returns He will clean up the mess we have created. At the judgment seat He will burn away prideful, misguided party loyalties. He will reward His saints for faithfulness to His Word and love for Himself and the family of God. He will be victorious in the end. He will “present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:27).
But what can a local church do at present that seeks to show the love of Christ and oneness of the body of Christ and yet protect itself from error within a divided Christian community? There are no easy answers. The fact is, doctrine does divide! Sinful sectarian attitudes also divide! We have to live with the consequences of our sins and divisions. So in the end, most decisions regarding association and cooperation with other evangelical churches or parachurch organizations are going to be a matter of individual or corporate conscience, and there are no simple solutions or answers for everyone.
Because, however, each local church is ideally to be a microcosm of the one, true Church of Jesus Christ, it is biblically mandated that a local church teach and model the love and oneness of the family of God. This is why Paul says that each church and individual must “[spare no effort] to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). To help us in this effort of maintaining the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” in the midst of a divided bible-believing community, I have listed some practical suggestions and biblical concepts of how an individual local church can honor the Lord in this matter and also be an example to other churches of the glorious oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Teach and Model the Oneness of the Church and Love of Christ for All the Brethren
As leaders, teachers, and models of God’s family, overseer-elders must teach and model the importance of the oneness of the Church of Jesus Christ and the love of Christ for all our brothers and sisters. The oneness of the Lord’s people is a highly significant doctrine yet many show little or no regard for it. Christians will split over minor issues, ignoring the sacredness of the unity of the body of Christ. For example, there is a very large circle of churches that have divided over musical instruments. This disagreement over musical instruments seems to be more important than the unity of the body and the testimony of the Lord. The myriad of unnecessary divisions among conservative, bible-loving churches demonstrates that something is catastrophically wrong with our doctrinal priorities. You will not find this attitude in Paul. He went to great personal and sacrificial lengths to maintain unity among the Lord’s people. This is true of his dealing with the independent-minded, boastful church at Corinth and the suspicious, parochial, legalistic church at Jerusalem (Acts 21:18–26). Paul could have collected a file drawer full of reasons for starting his own denomination, but he didn’t. Problems just had to be worked out in the family of God.
But teaching right doctrine about the unity of the Church is not enough; you must teach right attitudes. In the Ephesians 4 context of preserving “the unity of the Spirit,” Paul enumerates the Christian virtues necessary for maintaining the unity created by the Spirit: “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love” (Eph. 4:2). Without humility, gentleness, forbearance, and love, there will be no peace or unity among God’s people. When Lawrence Sandy was asked about his leadership role as president of the Navigators, he made the insightful comment that one of his most important jobs as leader of leaders was “checking attitudes.” The elders of the church must “check attitudes.”
For an example of wrong attitudes that need checking, read Jack Van Impe’s revealing book Heart Disease In Christ’s Body.18 The book explains why Van Impe would not conduct citywide evangelistic crusades among his fundamentalist churches for over five years. Although these fundamentalists’ churches were in ninety-nine percent agreement over doctrinal and lifestyle issues, they were constantly fighting with one another, accusing one another of compromise and false doctrine, criticizing, faultfinding, talebearing, rumormongering, and hating. They displayed all the evils of fanaticism, extremism, negativism, judgmentalism, provincialism, demagoguery, and divisiveness. In the name of protecting the truth and their local churches, the most Satanic attitudes and deeds were justified by so-called godly Christian leaders. These Christians had right doctrine (or so they boasted) but wrong, sinful attitudes. Paul E. Billheimer provides the correct diagnosis for this deadly spiritual sickness. “Most controversies in local congregations are produced, not primarily by differences over essentials, but by unsanctified human ambitions, jealousy, and personality clashes. The real root of many such situations is spiritual dearth in individual believers, revealing lamentable immaturity in love.” [19] The very same fanatical, unbalanced, unChristlike attitudes split the Brethren movement, as discussed in Harry A. Ironside’s An Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement. [20]
Again Billheimer is positively New Testament in spirit when he states that we will never have complete doctrinal unity on all details or minor matters among God’s people this side of heaven. Thus, love must cover our differences (1 Peter 4:8), and our common family origin must take precedence over differences in nonessentials to salvation. “No amount of grace,” writes Billheimer, “will ever enable all born-again people to agree on what formulated doctrinal system constitutes absolute conceptual truth…. [Thus] it means that love for the family will exceed devotion to one’s personal opinions in non-essentials to salvation.” [21]
Avoid Exclusive Church Groups
If your church associates with a group of churches that requires exclusive allegiance to itself, you are part of a sect. Despite their boastful claims, sects do not understand the New Testament doctrine of the Church. They are in error. All sects are based on half-truths, faulty reasoning, doctrinal oddities, deceptions, guilt-manipulation, and fear, which are not of the Spirit of truth and liberty. If your church denies you your Spirit-given right and privilege to fellowship with all Christ-loving, bible-loving Christians and churches, you need to obey God rather than man and free yourself and family from these unbiblical chains.
Maintain an Open Lord’s Table
The Lord’s table should be the one place all true believers can fellowship together remembering and praising the Lord for His substitutionary work on our behalf. A closed table is sectarian and divisive. The bread upon the table is not only a symbol of His death, but of the “one body” of which we are all members (1 Cor. 10:17). Remember, it is His table not ours, and thus all His people are welcome despite our differences. The open table for all true believers centering on Christ’s great substitutionary work was one of the truly great discoveries of the early Brethren movement. So make the Lord’s Supper a place of unity and oneness. Ministry in the local church is another matter but worship and fellowship around the symbols of His death should be as open as possible for all God’s dear children. Our attitude should reflect that of Anthony Norris Groves when he wrote his friend Mr. Caldecott, an Anglican curate, about his break with the Church of England:
You say I quitted your communion; if you mean by that, that I do not now break bread with the Church of England, this is not true; but if you mean that I do not exclusively join you, it is quite true, feeling this spirit of exclusiveness to be of the very essence of schism, which the apostle so strongly reproves in the Corinthians. I therefore know no distinction, but am ready to break the bread and drink the cup of holy joy with all who love the Lord. [22]Maintain an Open Reception Policy
Do not make entrance into your local fellowship difficult or threatening. Do not erect artificial, unbiblical barriers to your fellowship. Our rallying cry should be Romans 15:7. “Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.” Drawing out the implications of this verse, Anthony Norris Groves wrote, “The basis of our fellowship is life in the Christ of the Scripture rather than light on the teaching of the Scripture. Those who have part with Christ have part with us.” William Kelly in his probing little booklet Christian Unity and Fellowship or The Unity of the Spirit and How to Keep it sounds much like brother Groves when he writes:
But I will go further. Take hope of the return of the Lord Jesus. You know how very important it is for Christians to be waiting in truth and heart for Christ from heaven; but would you require that those who seek fellowship in the name of the Lord should understand and confess that hope before you receive them in the Lord? Would not this be a sect? Be it that your assertion of the Christian hope is ever so ignorant on that subject; but who authorizes you or others to stand at the door and forbid his entrance?…
Is then knowledge of truth or growth in spiritual intelligence to be slighted? In no way; but it is false and vain to require either as a preliminary condition from saints who seek fellowship according to God. Help them, instruct them, lead them on in both. This is a true service, but arduous withal. The other is sectarian, and wrong. [23]In succinct style, John Frame states our point. “The conditions for church membership should be no narrower than the Scriptures’ conditions for belonging to the kingdom of God. Anyone who can make a credible profession of faith in Christ should be welcomed into the church.”24 Of course, it is understood that Christian people who are unrepentant in their sin or under discipline from another church need to be referred back to their home church for reconciliation and restoration.
Issue Letters of Recommendation
When people leave your fellowship, give them a letter of recommendation so they can pass it on to the spiritual leaders of their new church. In this small way we can help demonstrate the oneness of the body of Christ and loving, familial interchurch relations.
Honor the Discipline of Other Churches
Always seek to honor the discipline of other bible-believing churches. If a believer under discipline from another church seeks your fellowship, contact the disciplining church for information. If you feel the discipline of the erring member is unjust, then inform the disciplining church why. If it is just, then refuse fellowship to the sinning member until the problem has been reconciled with the disciplining church.
Honor Believer’s Baptism from Other Churches
We should honor one another’s baptisms. A number of years ago, a couple from our assembly moved to the opposite side of town where they started to attend a Southern Baptist church. The church would not allow them to join or participate in ministry until they were re-baptized. They called us to ask what they should do? We told them emphatically not to be re-baptized. We told them there was only one baptism and one Church. We told them to ask the pastor if he had been crucified for them. If he had, then they should be re-baptized into his name. If he had not, tell him they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:11–17), the only Savior and Lord.
Cooperate with Other Bible-Believing Churches When Possible
Participate in local community prayer meetings or community evangelistic outreaches like the Billy Graham outreach. In 1987 we had the Billy Graham citywide crusade in Denver. Hundreds of bible-believing, evangelical churches participated in the citywide crusade. Over twenty-four thousand people made professions of faith. After the crusade Billy Graham said he believed that the reason for such an enormously successful response to the gospel was because of the unity displayed among all the churches sponsoring the crusade. Such unity centering around an evangelist for the advancement of the gospel is thoroughly in keeping with the spirit of the New Testament.
If there is a local prayer meeting or fellowship meeting of bible-believing churches in your community, send a representative to meet with your local brethren for prayer and mutual encouragement.
If your church senses the need for greater cooperation with the larger evangelical community, join an interdenominational group like the National Association of Evangelicals or The World Evangelical Fellowship. Of course, you are under no biblical mandate to join any association of churches, but you are also free to join if your conscience allows and you have need to experience Christian fellowship and cooperation on a larger scale. Let me make one more suggestion. If your circle of churches is having a conference, invite a few other churches in your neighborhood to attend. Don’t hide your blessings or distinctives. Others might find your conference spiritually rewarding. I know it will please the Lord.
Finally, we must keep in mind that what an individual Christian does or a preacher of the Word does in relation to other churches will be different from what a whole church does in participating with other churches. For example, I have spoken in churches as radically different as the liberal United Methodist Church to fundamentalist churches and charismatic churches. However, I certainly do not want our local church to work with some of these churches. Much more is at stake when churches associate and work together.
Learn From All God’s Servants
Encourage the saints to learn from all God’s faithful teachers and preachers, even those outside one’s own circle of fellowship. According to Ephesians 3:18 we learn about God and His eternal purposes not simply on our own but in solidarity with all of God’s people. Spurgeon said that he thought it was odd that some people think so much of what God teaches them but so little of what God teaches others. The point is, we learn from the whole body of Christ, which has existed over the past two thousand years.
In a highly significant text, Paul tells the factious-minded Corinthians that “all things belong to you” (1 Cor. 3:21–23). What Paul is referring to is the Corinthians’ tendency to idolize one favorite teacher and to shut themselves off from other Spirit-given teachers. What Paul is saying, however, is that all God’s teachers belong to us, not just one favorite: Calvin, Darby, Wesley, Augustine, Bruce, Mac Donald, Luther, MacArthur, Swindoll, Hodge, Warfield, Kelly, Müller, and all the thousands of other teachers God has graced His people with. Listen to what William Kelly has to say in this regard:
Let none fancy this is to disparage those admirable men whom the Lord used in days gone by. Cherish unfeigned respect for such as Luther, Calvin, Farel, and Zwingle, though quite allowing the infirmities of every one of them. It is childish to find fault with Tyndale and Cranmer, whilst idolising Melancthon or John Knox. They were all of like passions as ourselves; and if disposed to study their lives and labours there are ample materials not far to seek for criticism; and so with men of God in our day. [25]All of God’s servants have something to teach us about our Lord Jesus Christ.
Keep Informed
Local church elders and leaders should keep informed on the theological trends and workings of God in the worldwide evangelical community. Read magazines like Christianity Today or Moody Monthly for such information. Also when able, attend conferences that are not strictly in your circle of churches. You will find such conferences will broaden your perspective of the worldwide ministry of the Spirit of God and enliven your study of Scripture.
Conclusion
The local churches of the New Testament were autonomous yet interrelated because they were all one worldwide family of redeemed brothers and sisters. Among the first churches there was much interaction, especially through personal contacts and letters. There was also responsibility to share financial resources with needier churches (2 Cor. 9:13), to learn and follow the example of other churches, and to resolve differences between churches (Acts 15). Therefore, no healthy local church is an island. It shares the same apostolic ground of truth and life-giving Spirit of God with all other believers. Churches thus need other churches; indeed, they can learn from and be encouraged by all true, bible-believing churches.
As to this fellowship and cooperation with other bible-believing churches of various degrees of diverse theology, each local church is autonomous and thus will decide for itself, guided by its elders, which churches it will associate and work with and to what degree there will be cooperation and fellowship. I would counsel, in the spirit of the New Testament, that each local church should be as broad, understanding, peaceable, open, and inclusive in its fellowship with other churches as possible, yet as protective and wise as possible. We cannot be naïve. This is a sinful, confused world and even our own brothers and sisters can be involved in aberrant practices and doctrines. Let us seek to be balanced like our Lord Jesus Christ through whom “grace and truth were realized” (John 1:16, 17).
In closing, remember our Lord’s response to John when he informed Jesus that he and the others had tried to stop an unknown disciple from ministering because “he does not follow along with us” (Luke 9:49, 50). Jesus, perceiving their suspicions and provincialism, said, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.” In other words, the unknown ministering brother is a friend not an enemy! Let us not treat as enemies Christian brothers and sisters or churches that are not of our select circle of churches. The work of God is a large worldwide work, let us be large enough to appreciate it and be a part of it. The Lord help us to balance ourselves on this tightrope of unity and doctrinal purity.
Notes
- This article was originally prepared for delivery at “Understanding the Church: A Colloquium for Serious Christians” in St. Louis on May 15-17, 1997. The colloquium was sponsored by Grace Bible Chapel.
- Emmaus alumnus Alex Strauch is a well-known Bible teacher and author. He serves as an elder and full-time worker in Littleton Bible Chapel in Denver, Colorado.
- See the previous article by Jack Spender.
- Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 48.
- George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 537.
- Fenton John Anthony Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (1897; repr. ed. London: Macmillan, 1914), 122.
- Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 478.
- Philip E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 306.
- Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 286.
- Ridderbos, Paul, 478.
- Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, 119.
- Ken McGarvey, “The Independent Church Myth,” Christianity Today (July 22, 1991): 8.
- McGarvey, “The Independent Church Myth,” 8.
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Why Study Church History?” Christian History, 25 (1990): 41.
- F. Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 164.
- John Moore and Ken Neff, A New Testament Blueprint for the Church (Chicago: Moody, 1985), 87.
- Peter Masters, “After 1900 years-the ‘Conversion’ of Evangelicalism,” A Sword & Trowel (Special Issue: Separation and Obedience, 1983): 3.
- Jack Van Impe, Heart Disease in Christ’s Body (Royal Oak, MI: Jack Van Impe Ministries, 1984).
- Paul E. Billheimer, Love Covers: A Viable Platform for Christian Unity (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1981), 34.
- H. A. Ironside, A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1942).
- Paul E. Billheimer, Love Covers, 29.
- F. Roy Coad, A History of the Brethren Movement, 23.
- William Kelly, Christian Unity and Fellowship or The Unity of the Spirit and How to Keep it (London: Hammond Trust, n. d.), 8, 9.
- John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 96.
- John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion, 14.
No comments:
Post a Comment