“Did God intend for the Church to divide itself multiple times? East / West, Protestant / Catholic, various Protestant denominations, etc.—or has he been course-correcting his people throughout time through these divisions?”
What a profound question! Given Jesus prayed for the church’s unity in John 17, that part is easy. No, God did not intend his church to divide, but there’s the rub. What does it mean for the church to divide? Yes, there was the so-called “Great Schism” in 1054. Yes, Protestants sought to reform the Western church and were, essentially, “kicked out”. Their aim wasn’t to create a new church but to correct errors that had been creeping in over the centuries. Yes, Protestant denominations can split left and right like crazy. Merely having differences, however, is not the same thing.
The question continued, asking whether the differences between the various traditions were in theology or in practice. With so many splits and differing views, surely most of them must be wrong! If most of them are wrong, then some of them must be right! How is it that New City Church preaches the true gospel and is so very different from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and they, too, have true Christians? Here’s the real crux of the question:
As a non-denominational church, we are several “splits” away from the Apostles and the early church, so how do we still have the truth despite all the disagreements, preferences, worldviews, etc., that our older brothers and sisters in Christ had over the past 2,000 years? Surely something has to be lost each time something changes.
question via text
The early church is often seen as a group of churches unified in doctrine and in practice—and they were, but sort of. There was diversity among the early Christians and only after Constantine was there an impulse to eliminate all diverse views and practices and embrace a uniformity of both. It is clear from history that this uniformity only began to take shape when Christianity had the authority and resources of empire to enforce it.
Eusebius, one of the earliest church historians, was a contemporary of Constantine, and was closely associated with him. In his work “Church History” he tells the story of Polycarp, the lead elder in Smyrna, visiting Anicetus, the lead elder in Rome. This visit was in the middle of the second century. To better frame how early this is, Polycarp had been a disciple of the apostle John.
When he arrived in Rome Anicetus was shocked to discover Polycarp was not fasting at the same time the Roman Christians were in celebration of Easter. Further, the Roman church celebrated Easter on a Sunday, and the churches in Asia Minor where Polycarp was from celebrated Easter on 14 Nisan—the day of Passover. Here’s the thing: Anicetus pointed to the tradition the Roman church had received from the apostles Peter and Paul and Polycarp pointed to the tradition the Asian churches had received from the apostle John! That is, the apostles had different customs for celebrating Easter!
Though they spent significant time discussing this, neither man could simply cast aside the traditions he had received and instead of truly dividing, Anicetus offered to have Polycarp lead the church in communion, as an expression of true Christian unity, in the midst of its diversity. The simple truth is there has never been uniformity in worship in the church, though there has been profound unity.
There were also theological differences. In the second century Justin Martyr had a public debate with Trypho the Jew. In that debate Trypho asked him if he, a Christian, believed the Lord would rebuild Jerusalem. The temple and city had been destroyed by Rome several decades before this debate. Justin said this:
I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 80
Justin then went on to explain a pre-millennial view of the Lord’s return. Notice he did not say there are false teachers who disagree with his eschatology. Notice also he did not say that such were a tiny minority! He said many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, disagree with him. This is perhaps 50 or 60 years after the apostle John wrote Revelation and many godly and pious Christians, men and women who love the Lord and are true Christians in every way, have a different theology of the Lord’s return than he himself had. And yet there is no doubt Justin would celebrate the Eucharist with them!
It isn’t as though Justin had been afraid to call out false teaching, either. He went on to describe those who claimed to be Christians “but are godless, impious heretics, [who] teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistic, and foolish”. It is remarkable he did not describe those who disagreed with his theology of end times in this manner.
Despite differences in practice and despite differences in theology, those who understood eschatology differently were true Christians. The question of all the various splits and attempts at correction over the centuries and millennia often fails to take into account the diversity that has existed from the beginning. To ask if something is lost each time something changes is a good question that has a good answer. In short, no, nothing is truly lost.
Think of the old thought experiment called “the Ship of Theseus”. In Greek mythology the king of Athens, Theseus, rescued Athenian children when he killed the Minotaur and escaped on a ship. Each year the Athenians would celebrate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage. Over time parts of the ship would break or rot and they would be replaced. Eventually, every piece of the ship was replaced. Is it still the ship that Theseus escaped on with the children? If not, when did it cease being the ship of Theseus? When it was half-replaced? Three-quarters? When the last original piece of wood was replaced?
Is this what happens when a split happens or a new denomination is formed? No, it is not. What makes a church a true church? When the Creed declares we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, what makes it that? It cannot be eschatology. It also cannot be practice. The church has never been truly uniform in practice, nor has it been uniform in theology. What makes the church the holy catholic and apostolic church is the presence of the Lord Jesus through his Spirit.
Think of the situation in Galatia. The churches were thriving. Men and women were becoming more like Jesus and God was present and active among them. Then some men arrived and said, sure, they may have real faith but they don’t have the fullness of the faith. To be really, and I mean really godly, they needed to embrace the law of Moses and receive circumcision, eat kosher, and observe Sabbath. Oh, they had faith—just not the fullness of the faith!
Paul says this is hogwash. The reason they must reject this teaching is they already have the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. This, the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, is the sign of the new covenant and is what makes a church a true church—the holy catholic and apostolic church. Though we at New City Church do not have the traditions of Rome or of Constantinople, at least not in the degree to which they embrace them, we are the holy catholic and apostolic church for we have the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
The core of the catholic faith, the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, is not found in the wood that is liturgical practice, nor is it found in the wood of differing opinions on things such as end times. The core of our faith, what CS Lewis called “mere Christianity”, is found in the Nicene Creed.
The Creed acknowledges we believe the Lord will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. It doesn’t say how that will actually come about. The Creed does not say we believe in one, Divine Liturgy, or one system of bishops. The Creed does not say we believe in one Roman pontiff who oversees the entire church. The Creed does not say we believe in one particular structure for leadership and authority in the church. We believe in one God who eternally exists in three Persons. We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life.
If a church or denomination were to split from this, from the Nicene Creed, that church or denomination would no longer be truly Christian. Only then is something lost that stops a church from being a true church. To deny something the Creed affirms is to deny the faith once delivered.
It was 1,700 years ago this year that churches all over the world sent representatives to a council in the city of Nicea, to settle the matter of what Christians had always believed about God in Trinity. No, the term wasn’t in use yet, but the core understanding of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit had been there from the beginning. This council produced what is called The Creed of Nicea. Several years later in 381 another council was called to meet in Constantinople to clarify the Creed of Nicea, for false teachers were finding ways around the language of it. This council produced what we call the Nicene Creed.
In the fourth century Vincent of Lérins wrote what is now called the Vincentian Canon—the Vincentian Rule, if you will.
Moreover, in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic”, which, as the name itself and the reason for the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.
Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory”, 2.6
It is clear the date and observance of Easter has not been “believed everywhere, always, by all”. It is clear the details of the Lord’s return have not been “believed everywhere, always, by all”. It is clear from history submission to the Roman bishop has not been “believed everywhere, always, by all”. It is just as clear neither Eastern nor Western systems of bishops have been “believed everywhere, always, by all”. What, then, makes us Christians? What has been “believed everywhere, always, by all” Christians is contained in the Nicene Creed.
Today we have many denominations and traditions. There are four main branches: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Within Protestantism there are the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Reformed / Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Pentecostals / Charismatics, the Baptists, the Anabaptists (which are not the same), the non-denominational evangelicals. Did God intend for there to be such diversity? This is central to the question. I find it very interesting that early in Israel’s history in the land of Canaan there was already enough diversity that an entire tribe had its own accent. In Judges 12 Jephthah and his army required those crossing the Jordan to say “Shibboleth”, for Ephraimites would pronounce it “Sibboleth”. I’m further struck by the disciples’ own distress that others who were not following them were casting out demons in Jesus’ name.
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward.
Mark 9:38-41 ESV
The temptation to exclude those who are not “following us” has been there from the beginning, even with the disciples, yet as we’ve seen this didn’t stop Peter and Paul and John from going about celebrating the resurrection differently. The truth is diversity seems to mark God’s people throughout the ages. Do we have strong disagreements with Rome? Yes. Do we have strong disagreements with Orthodoxy? Yes. Do we have disagreements with Reformed and Presbyterians? Yes. Do we have disagreements with Pentecostals? Yes. Would we give them a cup of water to drink because they belong to Christ? Yes—and not only water!—we would share the cup of communion with them.
Did God intend for there to be such diversity in practice and understanding? I want to point to the fact there are over 400,000 species of beetle in the world! Why? God loves diversity. No single group of people and no particular liturgical practice and no particular systematic theology can fully and adequately reveal God’s glory. There is substantial beauty in Eastern Orthodoxy’s “Divine Liturgy”. There is another beauty in Anglicanism’s less ornate liturgy. There is yet another beauty in the liturgy of a small church inside a humble building with no ornate decorations or vestments, with men and women gathered together to sing praise to the Lord and hear his word proclaimed and participate together in the body and blood of our Lord (1 Cor 10:16).
The truth is the Lord intended for diversity from the beginning. This doesn’t mean we should disagree theologically. Instead, theological disagreements that fit within the larger umbrella of orthodoxy—the Nicene Creed—are usually differences in emphasis and priorities, not disagreements about the faith once delivered.
Differences in practice, from the maximal liturgy of Orthodoxy to the minimal liturgy of a rural Baptist church, all reflect something of the Lord. Yes, he is the Lord, exalted and high and lifted up, but he’s also the one who humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant. Yes, the Lord is coming again and whether you think there will be a period of terrible suffering and tribulation prior to his return or you think he will somehow rescue us out of here before it comes, we both look forward to his return. Even more, we both worship the same God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God—but in slightly different ways.
Whether we recite the shorter Apostle’s Creed or the greater Nicene Creed, we proclaim together what has been believed everywhere, always, by all Christians, and we worship him in unity in the midst of our diversity.