I have many friends who are non-denominational Christians. I even have a friend that is so non-denominational that he doesn’t even like to call himself non-denominational as a precaution lest the term unintentionally create another denomination. But multi-denominational?
In his Confessions of an Ecumenical, Evangelical, Baptist Christian, Roger Olson unfurls a dizzying list of the various Christian denominations with which he has taught, served, studied and participated in ecumenical dialogue.
“What I want to say,” Olsons insists, “is that I am anything BUT a dyed-in-the-wool, separatistic, sectarian Baptist. But I am a convinced and committed Free Church, evangelical Protestant and Baptist.”
Finally, however, I identify myself MOST importantly as a Christian. And I see myself as a member of the Great Tradition of catholic and orthodox Christianity. (By “catholic and orthodox” I mean affirmation of the substance, if not the language, of the ecumenical creeds of the undivided church.)
I am not quite sure to which undivided church he refers, and I am not sure wether he himself knows, as he states, “There is one true church of Jesus Christ throughout the world and across the ages. And it is visible. It’s not always easy to tell exactly who belongs to it.”
This one true church, he says, this “real Christian unity was not broken by denominational labels or even traditions. It is broken by anathemas and refusal of shared communion and rejection of real Christians’ ministries just because of differences of doctrine and practice.”
He seems to have a sort of kaleidoscope ideal of the universal church. If only we keep turning, the distinct colors will beautifully flow in an out, with ever-changing facets, forever revealing a new and stunning design.
If only we would let pastors of all other Christian faiths speak in our pulpits and let the faithful of all denominations take communion in our churches, we would be on our way to showing the “true ecumenism of the Spirit.”
“There is no reason in the world,” he continues, “why I as a Baptist cannot embrace and accept as equally Christian and have full fellowship with Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentecostals, Episcopalians and Presbyterians. That doesn’t mean I think they’re right about everything or that our differences of doctrine and practice don’t matter. They can’t join my church without making some adjustments in belief about secondary matters of the faith. But so long as we agree about the essentials (which I have stated here several times before), we can worship together, serve together, celebrate communion together and accept each other as fully Christian in every sense.”
Yet, I am afraid that Olson’s good intentions for ecumenism undermine the very tenets of faith of each denomination he wants to unite. If members of other faiths would need to “make some adjustments in belief,” how can everyone accept each other as fully Christians “in every sense”?
Olson writes with an admirable sense of inclusivity that I see in many of my Protestant friends, but for the sake of all Christians, for the sake of each denomination, doctrinal beliefs must take precedent over the desire for inclusion.
Oh, and he “would draw the line at Unitarians or truly liberal Protestants or Catholics” . . . and Mormons . . . and other Baptist churches that “have turned their backs on the Great Tradition of Christianity and gone another way—led by their own individual thoughts and desires without regard to Scripture or orthodox Christianity.”
September 26th, 2012 | 4:54 pm
“There is one true church of Jesus Christ throughout the world and across the ages. And it is visible. It’s not always easy to tell exactly who belongs to it.”
I find the above quote from Olson fascinating. How does he tell if he belongs to it?
September 26th, 2012 | 5:00 pm
I have such a difficult time trying to be a good Catholic – spiritually, intellectually and morally conformed to its teachings – that I can’t imagine trying to be guided and formed by multiple and sometimes conflicting Christian traditions at the same time. Must get confusing at times. Do you genuflect or not when going into a church? Cross yourself left to right or right to left? Not to mention which sports teams to support.
September 26th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
Olson is on the right track. The Spirit of Christ can be found within those who love Him regardless of their denomination.
Yet rationality demands that we acknowledge that contradictory doctrines cannot all be true.
Either Jesus is present in His humanity and in His divinity in the Eucharistic bread and wine — or He isn’t.
Either that is the intimate way God chose to dwell among, or rather within His people under the New Covenant — or it isn’t.
Either He established a Church on Earth against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, and to which He sent the Holy Spirit, and to which He gave real spiritual authority that Christians are bound to submit to in matters of faith and morals — or He didn’t.
Jesus is generous and is anxious to be reconciled with everyone. He makes His home in all those who love Him. He is also anxious for us to be reconciled with each other and to be one even as He and the Father are One. So should we be anxious for that.
What disturbs me are Christians who seem to be perfectly content with the dismemberment of the Body of Christ on Earth. If one isn’t longing for the Body of Christ to made whole once again, one must not have the “mind of Christ,” as we know Christ desires that we be one in Him. Maybe such a one doesn’t really have His Spirit, either.
September 26th, 2012 | 9:54 pm
The problem with the “one true church of Jesus Christ throughout the world and across the ages” theory is that it makes Paul’s warnings against schism vacuous. If the true believers can not separate themselves from the true Church, schism is as impossible as a four-side circle. Why therefore would he warn against it?
September 27th, 2012 | 3:40 am
Jesus sent letters to His 7 churches in Rev2-3.
These are “types” of churches:
# Ephesus: left it’s 1st love… Hear O Israel your LORD is one God and ye shall love the LORD your God with all your heart soul and mind.
#Smyrna: The only church doing it right(and being Martyred for it)
# Pergamos: State Church, Roman Catholic.
#Thyatira: based on the 111 votes for fornication at their 77th in July,.. Episcopal.
#Sardis: No clue of the word…. progressive Christianity.
#Philadelphia: Those senior believers passing away peacefully before the hour…
#Laodicea: Basic American Christianity… John 3:16rs that don’t realize John penned Revelation 3:16 also(to describe them).
Even though I am usually the Ecumenical wet blanket on the subject, Roger is correct! All these compete different types of Churches Jesus considered His.
Those I love I rebuke and chasten…. Jesus.
September 27th, 2012 | 5:50 am
“The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.” How does one escape from the tautology?
One can, of course, try to set up an explicitly doctrinal test – “The true faith is contained in the three catholic creeds,” or “The true faith is that Jesus Christ is Lord,” although, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute him.
Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. Mgr Ronal Knox did it, when he declared that “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome… And in fact there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”
At least, this is a test, rather than a vicious circle and it is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.
September 27th, 2012 | 11:15 am
The question I have for Olson is on what basis he defines secondary and primary matters. For instance, as a Presbyterian, if I wanted to become a member in most Baptist churches, I would be required to be rebaptized because I was baptized by sprinkling. So is that a secondary matter or a primary? Going a little further down the rabbit hole, suppose you’re going to require people to be members of your church to take communion, you’re saying that a) I can’t be a member at your church because of our disagreement on a “secondary” matter, and b) that disagreement is severe enough that it also merits excluding me from the Lord’s Supper. Obv. the fix there is to have open communion and allow anyone who professes faith to come. The PCA practices something like that, but given the stern warnings associated with the eucharist, I’m not convinced open communion is the best solution.
With Rome or Constantinople, I understand the reasoning for why I can’t be admitted to the table. It’s laid out clearly in their confessions of faith. But most Protestants are not confessional, so on what basis do they draw those lines? That’s the question I struggle with a lot as someone who identifies as both confessional and protestant.
I suppose my frustration is with the fact that there seems to be a certain ecclesiological naivete about a lot of these “multidenominational” types. It sounds great to say Protestants – or Christians more broadly – shouldn’t be divided by “secondary” matters. But your secondary matter may be my primary matter. In fact, the matter you think is secondary (like credobaptism vs paedobaptism) might be primary enough that people who disagree with you cannot be accepted as members of your church. For instance, in most Baptist churches Tim Keller, Lig Duncan, Jerram Barrs, RC Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson wouldn’t be able to become members. Surely we can all agree that such a reality is significant and that whatever doctrine is responsible for that reality is deserving of being considered “primary”?
September 27th, 2012 | 2:58 pm
Does it strike anyone else as rather astonishing how much the first few generations of Christians didn’t have to believe in? Could they even have imagined how Christianity could be split into 38,000 denominations? How much has 2000 years’ worth of accumulated doctrine and dogma, a great deal of which absolutely has to be wrong, “improved” on the practices of the first few Christian generations?
September 27th, 2012 | 10:14 pm
David Nickol:
From my, admittedly biased, perspective the answer to your first question is no, but not for the reason you might think: I think they wouldn’t have accepted your terms. For them, there was (is) the Church, and there were bodies in schism with the Church. Depending on how many “generations” you meant, cf. (amongst others) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact