Part 4

What is the source of all this division and consequent confusion? Is it the Bible? Is it possible that God failed to reveal clearly his will to man? Is it so ambiguous that we can not all “see it alike?” If so, the Bible is a failure. If the Bible is not an adequate ground of unity, there is no such ground. If the Bible is not a sufficient basis for unity then it is inconsistent; for certainly its ideal is unity. So I wish to go on record in declaring that the Bible is not the source of the trouble!

III A Partial Answer

In our search for the origin of denominational divisions, with all their attendant evils, we must look in some other direction. Let me appeal to you as an individual. How did you come to be what you are religiously? Where did you get your conception of Christianity? From reading the Bible, or from some other source? Did you form your church connection because of conviction resulting from prayerful, diligent, and faithful Bible study? Or did you merely follow the example of your parents, the social set to which you belong, your personal taste, the law of convenience, or some other fallible standard?

If you will examine your own hearts, it will throw a lot of light, not only on where so many denominations came from, but especially on why they are able to continue, which is equally, if not more, important. Even in a congregation like this, most likely there are some whose religious course has been determined by convenience rather than conviction. Such persons are not steadfast. When it becomes more convenient to do something else, or to be something else, they will turn aside. Unless you develop some convictions, you can easily become a liability rather than an asset.

In religion, as in politics, many blindly follow the example of their parents. Even if this policy leads you into the church we read about in the Bible, it is not sufficient. If you are a member of the Lord’s church, you ought to have a better reason than the fact that your parents happened to be members of it. You ought to have some convictions on the subject. You ought to be what you are because you believe you would go to hell if you were otherwise! If that is the way you feel, then you will be worth something to the group to which you belong. Then you will put the church first.

But how come our parents to be divided into more than two hundred different sects? The same false standards which cause our generation to be divided, including the example of their parents. And so we may trace the history of denominations and erroneous doctrines back up the stream of time from generation to generation, can’t we?

This, however, does not completely explain their origin. They had to begin somewhere between here and Pentecost. How far back can they be traced? When and where did they originate?

IV Early Apostasy and Roman Catholicism

In order to answer these questions let us begin at the other end of the line, at Pentecost, and come down toward the present to see what we can find. Since Jesus built only one church, at least one hundred and ninety-nine of the approximately two hundred now in existence had to get started somewhere else, at some other time, and in some other way.

In the church that Jesus built, each congregation is entirely independent of every other congregation. The Bible teaches congregational autonomy, which means that under Christ each congregation is entirely independent. According to the Bible, there can be no organization whatsoever binding two or more congregations together. This is the first fundamental fact to remember.

Second, in the church built by Christ, each local congregation is supervised by a group of men who are called by either of six different names: pastors, bishops, overseers, presbyters, elders, or shepherds. In the Bible these six names are used interchangeably. The words elder and presbyter are both from the same Greek word “presbyteros”; the words bishop and overseer are both translations of the same Greek word “episkopos”; and the words pastor and shepherd are also synonyms, being derived from the Greek word “poimenas.” Paul referred to the elders of the church at Ephesus as bishops and designated their work of feeding or tending the flock by using the verb form of the Greek word for pastors or shepherds (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2).

Hence, no distinction of title or rank is suggested by the Bible use of these words. It is very important that we remember this fact. The overseers, the pastors, the shepherds, the bishops, the elders, and the presbyters are all the same men. The nine men here whom we frequently call elders may by the same authority be called by either of these other five names. They are the pastors of this congregation; they are the overseers; they are the bishops; they are the presbyters; they are the shepherds of the flock.

Whenever one of these names is used to distinguish one person from the rest of the group they describe, trouble will always follow. That is exactly what happened in the early history of the church. It probably occurred in a very natural way and so gradually that only the most vigilant became alarmed. In a group of overseers, it is most likely that one of them will be more active than the others. It is natural for one of them to have more ability and more zeal as a leader than the rest, and he is liable to become known as the leader of the group.

Thus it came to pass in the history of the early church. One of the overseers, or elders, became so much more prominent and influential than the others that they began to designate him by a different name. They called him the bishop. The rest of the overseers were called presbyters. They took one of these six Bible names and made it apply to one of the men in the group to distinguish him from the others. Now, that looks like a very small departure, doesn’t it? If I had been living in those days and had warned the brethren against such a practice, they would have said, “That preacher is radical. He is making a mountain out of a molehill. What difference does it make if we want to distinguish the man who does most of the work by calling him the bishop?” Anyone who opposed them would probably have been called old-fashioned, non-progressive, etc.

But, friends, I want you to know that that is the seed out of which has grown more than two hundred denominations in America. Out of that first departure from the Bible plan has come the ecclesiastical hierarchies that curse the religious world today. If you and I aren’t very careful, we will repeat the same error. Whenever one man in the congregation is set above all the others in the group and is distinguished by any title whatsoever, you are taking a step in the wrong direction.

Well, let us follow the matter still further. It was also perfectly natural for this congregation which had made one man more prominent than the others, and distinguished him by the title Bishop, to start some missions around over the country and exercise authority over them until they became self-supporting. Since the man who was now called the bishop was head of the mother congregation, you can see how it would be very easy for the same man to become the head of this group of churches. Thus, less than two hundred years after Christ, there came into being a form of church organization quite opposite the plan revealed in the Bible. Instead of a group of men, with equal authority under Christ, overseeing one congregation there was one man over a group of congregations.

Doubtless there were certain congregations who maintained scriptural organization, contended against these departures, and refused to share in the digression. When some digressed and others did not, there was naturally a division—not because the Bible was at fault, but because some refused to follow the Bible.

The territory represented by a group of congregations over which a bishop gained control came to be known as a diocese. Later these geographic units were grouped to form larger units. In these larger units one of the “bishops,” usually the one residing in the capital of the province, gained ascendancy in rank and authority over his fellow “bishops” and was called the metropolitan.

The digression was augmented by conferences held in the various provinces and in which the local metropolitan served as chairman. At first, they were innocent “get-togethers” of delegates from the different congregations for the sake of fellowship, friendly discussion of their common problems, and reaching conclusions on disputed questions. But they soon partook of the nature of legislative bodies, and were called Councils by the Latins, and Synods by the Greeks. Thus there came into existence a source of legislation in addition to, and different from, the Bible. The congregations joining in this movement were deprived of their scriptural autonomy.

Until after A.D. 300 each province held its own separate conference, and each metropolitan was entirely independent of all the other metropolitans in the government of his province. You can imagine how the congregations that refused to “string along” with the crowd were condemned and boycotted by the ecclesiastical leaders.

In A.D. 325 the first general council was called, and the congregations represented were divided into five groups according to the political divisions of the Roman Empire. The ecclesiastical ruler of each group was called “Patriarch” or “Chief Father.” This council formulated what is known as the Nicene Creed, which was adopted by most of the churches and which is still acknowledged by many denominations today, including the Roman Catholic. Naturally there was rivalry among the five “Chief Fathers.” The “bishops” of Rome and Constantinople managed to gain supremacy over the other three (those at Jerusalem, Alexander, and Antioch). The warfare between these two was long and fierce. In A.D. 588 John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople, assumed the title of “Universal Bishop of the Church.” The Patriarch of Rome protested bitterly, but in A.D. 606 the title of “Universal Bishop” was transferred from John the Faster to the “Roman See.”

Thus with more than five hundred years of gradual drifting away from the Bible plan they developed a complete ecclesiastical hierarchy, with its councils, creeds, and dignitaries, supposedly having authority in addition to, different from, and in some cases, greater than, the Bible. Authority was now divided between the Bible and men who were presumptuous enough to set themselves up as legislators in the kingdom of God, which eventually culminated in the “Pope’s” ridiculous claim to be infallible. By the congregations sharing in this apostasy the Bible was no longer considered a complete and final authority.

Sometimes today people undertake to explain the existence of denominations by saying that we cannot see the Bible alike. Friends, that is an insult to God. Anybody who says that ambiguity and indefiniteness on the part of the Bible is to blame for all the division which God so plainly condemns is insulting God Almighty; accusing Him of being unable to write a book that would express what he wanted folk to know. It is to accuse God of passing a law against division, and condemning division, and coming right along and giving the world a book that would naturally result in division. I do not believe that God is characterized by any such inconsistency. I do not believe He would condemn us for being divided, and then give us a book that would inevitably divide us.

Friends, it is not because we are not able to see the Bible alike, but it is because so many people consider something else besides the Bible as authority. I have given you a brief outline of how it started. Any Roman Catholic “priest” in this town will tell you that, in his estimation, the Bible is not the final authority in what people are to do in religion, but that the man whom they call the Pope is the infallible guide.

V The Reformation and Protestantism

“Well, that explains,” you say, “just one denomination, but where did all the others come from?” We shall try to show you the connection between the Roman Catholic Church and many of the other denominations. For a period of seven hundred years, the Roman Catholics held sway over a vast majority of people who called themselves Christians. I believe that all down through the ages there were some folk who rebelled against the Roman “Pope”; and I am of the opinion, although I could not prove it, that in every generation there were some faithful Christians not always numerous and prominent enough to win recognition in history, but who were nevertheless contending for and obeying the truth. Be that as it may, we know that the Roman Catholic Church dominated most of the religious world for many centuries—until finally the Roman Catholics and the Greek Catholics divided in the twelfth century A.D. Then those two held the reins until there came the period in history which is known as the Great Reformation.

I have great respect for such men as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Locke, John Calvin, and John Wesley. [I don’t know why so many of them were named John, I have often wondered.] Even though a great deal of harm has been done in the name of these men, we must recognize them as having done some noble work.

Take Martin Luther, for instance, who found a Bible while he was a student in a convent, and studied it diligently. He became convinced that the sale of indulgences was sinful and endeavored to reform the Roman Catholic Church on this point. As a consequence of this effort he was excommunicated. Naturally, he started an independent movement. His purpose was to get back to the Bible and throw off all human authority, taking the Bible as his only guide. If he and all of his followers had been true to this noble ideal, there would be no Lutheran Church on the earth today. They would have become Christians and Christians only.

I am convinced that Martin Luther did not intend to start a denomination. He pleaded with the people not to wear his name, but rather to call themselves Christians. He had strong convictions, and was willing to suffer for the sake of them. But, friends, Martin Luther had become well saturated with error before he began to study the Bible for himself. He could hardly have been expected to discover all the truth immediately.

He knew that the Roman Catholics were wrong on indulgences, but they were also wrong on a great many other points which he did not discover. If he and his followers had continued to study the Bible and to make reformations as the need for them was discovered, then they would have kept getting back closer and closer to the original plan. This they did not do. Instead they made the tragic error of formulating a creed or confession of faith. This they probably did with good intentions, hoping thereby to protect their followers against the snares of Roman Catholicism and other errors, but they defeated their purpose. It was not long until the creed began to be recognized as authoritative—if not as equal to the Bible at least as a subordinate authority. Naturally the creed was erroneous and ambiguous. It was written by uninspired men and by men blinded and prejudiced by Roman Catholicism. The creed makers were wearing the colored glasses of Roman Catholicism. They who had had Romanism drilled into them from infancy could not instantly and entirely disabuse themselves of it. In some cases they retained Roman error; in other cases they were driven into opposite extremes.

Naturally, after a generation or so, they acquired members who were in the movement not because of conviction, but because of convenience, or because their parents were. This condition, with the deadening effect of a creed—of a human creed—made progress back to the Bible very difficult, if not impossible. Each step of reformation called for a revision of the creed, and creeds are hard to revise. People become attached to them; they come to think more of them than they think of the Bible itself, if they aren’t very careful. They develop a patriotic attitude toward the creed which is very difficult to overcome. Consequently, we have the Lutheran Church with us today.

This appraisal of Luther’s work will fit, in a general way, the work of other reformers. They made similar errors. If they had maintained the scientific attitude—which means to test every point, investigate to see if you are right and change when you’re wrong, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good—then they would have kept getting back closer to God. But when their movements became crystallized, when they became satisfied with their _status quo_, and had acquired a number of members who were without conviction, then they not only ceased getting back closer to God but they began to drift away from Him. As a consequence, many of the denominations today resemble their mother, the Roman Catholic Church, more than they did in the beginning.

And so, my friends, we have before us a brief outline of how denominations got started. The Roman Catholic Church is the result of centuries of drifting away from the New Testament pattern. Since it reached the zenith of its power, many other denominations have resulted from unsuccessful and incomplete efforts to reform the Catholics or some other existing group. In most cases the movement of the reformers, because of indifference and a lack of conviction in their ranks, eventually lost ground. In every instance, consciously or unconsciously, something besides the Bible has been accepted as authority. Errors, which the Protestant churches, willingly or unwillingly, inherited from the Catholics have been handed down from generation to generation even to the present. Thus, many unscriptural practices and doctrines of the denominations are traceable to the church at Rome with its preposterous claim of infallibility. Many members of denominations do not realize that much of what they get from their parents and preachers and which they fancy to be of Biblical origin, has, in fact, descended from Rome and can claim no higher authority.

VI The Restoration Movement

But to pursue our historical survey a little further, at the beginning of the nineteenth century with three hundred years of Protestant denominational history before them, various religious leaders were awakened to the evils of creeds, and a “back to the Bible” movement was begun. In America the work of these men became known as the Restoration Movement. It was their purpose to go back to Pentecost, to begin at Jerusalem, as a surveyor begins at the established corner, mark out the lines revealed in the New Testament, and establish congregations just like the pattern that Jesus gave. That was a noble undertaking and it proved to be a very successful one. It was the fastest growing religious movement the world had seen since the days of the apostles.

But remember it is very difficult for reforms to stay reformed. In a generation or so there grew up in this movement also an element who were parties to it because their parents were and not because of personal conviction. Such an element is a liability to any movement. This element has become crystallized in the digressive wing of the movement, who, although some of their followers may not realize it, no longer regard the Bible as complete and final authority. They have no written creed but they have discredited the Bible. Whether they admit it or not, their principle is: “Where the Bible speaks we may be silent; where the Bible is silent we are at liberty to speak.” Without any effort to explain how it is done, they claim that God is still revealing his will to man in some way independent of the Bible. They claim to have advanced beyond the wisdom of the apostles themselves, and regard their own intellectuality as equal to, or superior to, the Bible. Thus, each man becomes a law unto himself, and there is, therefore, no ground for unity.

I am thankful, however, that there were some who refused to assume an indifferent attitude, who are still contending for the faith once delivered to the saints, and who realize that we must be ever striving to get closer to the divine plan revealed in the New Testament. Since reformations will not stay reformed, the only way to keep on the right road is to be forever getting back on the right way. This we cannot do unless we have conviction, and unless we study God’s word. That’s one of our reasons for giving so much emphasis to the importance of your searching the Scriptures daily. It may be that we have some in our very midst who do not know the difference between the true church and a denomination, and who cannot give an intelligent reason for the hope that is within them. Such an element in a congregation is easily deceived by digressive influences and must become strong in the faith for their own sake and for the safety of the church.

VII The Need of Constant Vigilance

Hence, my brethren, we need to be watching today, lest we become slack and allow error to creep into our midst and become established among us. Remember that human nature is just the same now that it has always been. The same sort of indifferent attitude and drifting which resulted in the Roman Catholic Church and which resulted in the establishment of other denominations in the world, will make a denomination out of us if we are not always on the guard. Eternal vigilance is the price of being right. We have the same human nature that others have. If we aren’t willing to pay the price of being better students of God’s word, then we, too, will drift into another denomination, and not be worth the time and place which we occupy. We don’t need any more denominations! We have enough! If you want to be a member of a denomination you don’t need to start another one. You have more than two hundred to choose from. Some of them are very highly organized and well financed. There is no reason for starting another one; _there are many reasons for not doing so_! Unless we are going to understand the difference between the true church and denominationalism, unless we are going to contend earnestly for non-denominational Christianity, then we do not deserve to exist and the world would be better off if we did not.

VIII Extra-Biblical Standards

There is one fact which I want to emphasize further. In every case of denominationalism some authority other than the Bible has been recognized. Otherwise denominations could not come into existence, and denominations could not continue to exist. The extra-Biblical authority might be the man whom they call the Pope at Rome. It might be your preacher in some denomination which you look up to as being the final authority. It might be the creed of the denomination to which you belong. It might be the people among whom you move. It might be your own feelings in the matter. It might be tradition or family heritage. But I don’t care what it is, if it is outside the Bible, it is not a true source of authority in religion. The existence of so many denominations today is not caused by people’s being unable to see the Bible alike. They are here because, while a few people take the Bible as their only guide, a great many take something else as their standard.