Denominational "Unity"

One of the weirdest positions in religion to be published in the Orlando Sentinel came to light on August 24, 2017. Included entirely on page A13 is an article titled, "Liberal Leaders Don't Speak for Me, Conservative Church Elder Says." And it was followed up three days later by an even more preposterous response. If anyone can recall when the Orlando newspaper gave this much space to a religious perspective, please supply the date and subject. The material presented takes up three columns down to the halfway mark of the page. Needless to say, it contains error.

The author is a female elder of the Presbyterian Church (USA). All right, so how conservative can this group be when it ignores the qualifications given for an elder as recorded by the apostle Paul in letters to Timothy and Titus? Consider what the Scriptures teach concerning the office of a bishop or overseer, elder or presbyter, pastor or shepherd\ all which designate the same "office" (1 Peter 5:1-4):

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife… (1 Tim. 3:2).

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife… (Titus 1:5-6).

Truly, Paul lists many other qualifications, but an elder must be the husband of one wife. This is precisely what is wrong with denominationalism in the first place. None of them is authorized by God, and they ignore that fact and any other they so desire, such as that elders must be male and married.

The "elder" claims that she and many others do not agree with the leadership "of our denomination." She fully admits that they constitute a religious denomination (which is not mentioned or authorized in the New Testament). Why, when Jesus prayed for the unity of His disciples (John 17:20-21) and Paul condemned the division of members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13), would anyone want to belong to an organization that is not the Lord's Church?

Agreement?

But it gets worse. She claims that in the denominational congregation of which she is a member various views are represented—"from far-left liberal progressive to far right conservative." What does she mean by that? The specific example she gives concerns the parking lot. Some cars sport pro-life bumper stickers, and they are parked next to those with a pro-choice message. She mentioned also contradictory political opinions, but mentioned no specifics. What she affirms next, however, is mind-boggling.

But we are united in our faith in Jesus Christ and our commitment to one another as friends and a church family.

The only way to respond to that initially is as Batman did to the Joker's assistant in one of the TV episodes from the '60s: "Poor deluded child." Could she please define united? Does she not know that faith includes teaching (Jude 3, 2 Peter 1:3)? No unity exists here except in the mind of someone who does not understand the meaning of words. Some of their members believe (correctly) that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life while others may not believe the "fetus" is a human being. How is that unity?

If one of their Presbyterian members spoke one Sunday against abortion, and the following Sunday another one spoke in favor of it, what would visitors think? They would want to know which of the diametrically opposed views was the right one. No one in his right mind can call this unity. What if one of their "preachers" said on one Sunday that sprinkling is a definition of baptism while a week later another minister argued that baptism (correctly) means "immersion"? Would she call that being "united" in their faith? Yet somehow, in a matter of life and death for children, opposing views are all right. Such a position makes no sense at all!

Her Real Issue

However, the author of this article, Jacquelyn Lynn, has an overall point to make which really shows the weakness of denominationalism structures and organizations. Her main theme was indicated in the title—that the leadership of the Presbyterian Church does not speak for all its members. The example she gives comes back to an abortion-related issue:

For example, the PC(USA)-affiliated Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options joined in signing a letter to the U.S. Senate urging Congress not to defund Planned Parenthood. My local congregation lost at least one member because of that, and I suspect that loss was mirrored in churches across the country.

Our congressional representatives need to know that there is a substantial number of PC(USA) members who support the defunding of Planned Parenthood. That support is not based solely on abortion; we have done our research and don't want to see our tax dollars going to that organization for a variety of reasons.

As the denomination's top ecclesial officer, Nelson routinely makes statements on a range of issues…that are, in my opinion, misguided and not always based on fact.

First, we see revealed the wisdom of God in not forming denominations and not having a denominational hierarchy. Let's say that a group like PC(USA) has 1,000 delegates and they are determining who their spokesman is. Since they allow both pro-life and pro-abortion members, it is not difficult to imagine that with a 520 to 480 majority, the pro-Planned Parenthood bloke is elected. He gets to sign a letter that speaks for all 1,000 representatives—one in which 48% of the members disagree. Such is the folly of this kind of structure.

In the church that Jesus established, men do not legislate on such matters. We go to the Scriptures to learn what the truth on any moral issue is, and then we stand for that truth. We do not vote on it. If the position is Scriptural, we defend it. If it is not Biblical, then we do not attempt to uphold it.

What has happened in PC(USA) denomination and many others like it (which are also unauthorized), is that the governing body (some national group), consists of both liberals and conservatives. They do not go by what the Scriptures teach to determine where they stand; they take a vote. And the vote prevails whether it is right or wrong.

The wisdom of God is seen in that each congregation is independent. If the members decide to drive off a moral bridge, the other congregations can remain faithful. No such thing as a national voice exists. We write and speak Biblical principles. The Bible is our voice. But what if you have members who are pro-abortion? Efforts are made to teach them the truth, and if they reject what the Scriptures teach, we withdraw fellowship from them, and they are no longer considered members of the local congregation.

"But, but, but that's coercion." No, it's God's way of dealing with matters. He revealed truth, and it's up to His people to discern it and apply it. When Paul told the Corinthians that they should be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10), he did not expect to see pro-life and pro-choice bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot. He did not expect to hear some of them defend homosexuality in light of the fact that he, through the Holy Spirit, condemned it. He did not expect some of the brethren to defend adultery or stealing. He wrote:

But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not be named among you, as is fitting for saints, neither filthiness, foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks (Eph. 5:3-4).

Morality and doctrine are upheld by each individual congregation; therefore, the churches of Christ have no national spokesman who is going to stand up before the country and espouse something that runs contrary to the Scriptures. We do not have a "top ecclesial officer." No such individual is authorized or described in the Scriptures.

Conservative Hijacking

On August 27th, the newspaper published a brief response to Jacquelyn Lynn's article by a liberal Presbyterian elder. Whereas the former article blamed liberals for the loss of membership because the denomination no longer represents the values of many members, this respondent claims the opposite is true. He writes: "Conservatives hijacked mainline denominations in the 1980s, and they have been in decline ever since" (A14).

Apparently, he just flew in from Jupiter to make this careless and inaccurate assertion. In the '60s and '70s most of the mainline denominations were already losing members. Research will confirm this fact. "During the period of 1970-1984, United Methodism closed a total of 2,665 local churches, or an average of slightly under four congregations per week," is a quote from a book on this subject. What happened in the 1980s is that many realized that their denominations were out of touch with mainstream America, and they began to try to save them. It was too little, too late, and they have all continued to decline, but no losses occurred because of conservative "hijacking."

People know (even if they have not read the Bible) that churches should be upholding moral values. When they see churches at the forefront of championing fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and abortion, they realize something is not functioning properly. Bishop Spong of the Episcopalians wrote in favor of all these moral aberrations. He also made it clear that he did not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. He is not the only one.

This writer heard a discussion on homosexuality on a television program in 1978. A panelist disagreed with what Paul had written in Romans 1:21-27 as well as the woman being made for the man. He unabashedly proclaimed, "Paul was incorrect." Imagine the arrogance of the "doctor" to challenge an inspired apostle. Move over, Diotrephes! Liberalism among denominations can be well documented beginning in the 1960s. Since that time, they have only grown worse.

There is no point in trying to reform denominations, which grow looser by the minute. What needs to be reformed is the whole concept, which is not Biblical. Congregations ought to be autonomous, the way God designed them. He charged elders (presbyters) with keeping the church faithful. They do not legislate; they uphold the truth (Titus 1:9-15). They are to watch out for false teachers and make sure the flock is fed properly (Acts 20:28-32).

If God had wanted a national or international government, replete with spokesmen, He would have organized the church that way instead of the way He did. We fully understand why many are disillusioned with their denominations, but the Bible describes a better perspective on spiritual matters, including organization, worship, salvation, and doctrine. Unity can be achieved, as it was in the first century (Acts 2:42).