This is a great question put forth. One that I have preached on, and struggled with many times. Continuously I go back to the scripture, One Lord, One faith, One baptistm. Ultimately all eyes should be on Christ, all eyes should on his life and what he did for us. All these systems of denonimations and disunity are of man, not God. The Bible didn’t tell us we need to ascribe to a singular theology in order to be saved, our beliefs accept for one, Jesus, do not need to be correct for our salvation. We the church of the west need to get past our division, and see our unity, Jesus Christ and his sacrifice and love poured out for us. This is where we need to as a people repent, get on our knees and see the divide our arguments have created, the hurt and pain they have caused and turn our eyes back to Christ and the cross. We need to live by, and follow the gospel only. For in the gospel is the simplicity of the kingdom of God, we won’t find this in our tomes of theology and doctrine, only in the gospel. Only in understanding and learning to live like Jesus. Unity comes through a Christ focus.

I agree that this is crazy. I work in a parachurch organization and I find it often looks more like the church than the “Church”. “Often” is the key word. Parachurch organizations seem to fit the picture of unity and mission and pronouncing of justice not found in many churches??? It is amazing to be able to share a mission with people from hundreds of denominations. It doesn’t matter if you are post-modern, fundamentalist, or whatever, we have a mission and our focus is proclaiming Jesus and loving the whole person. Isn’t that a pretty good vision of what the church was supposed to be?

I come out of a tradition that taught me that if people of good will will simply read the Bible they will arrive at the same conclusion. Well…that was good in theory.
I preach in a church that is a true “community church”, i.e. non-denominational, not simply fronting as a ‘non-denom’ but actually is one. We are a median-sized unified church comprised of former Catholics and Protestants of every stripe. We are able to maintain that because we believe that our unity is first of all a grace of God but completely up to us to destroy.
Second, we insist that there is but one, two-sided question that needs constant attention, exploration, discussion and acceptance: “Who is Jesus and what difference does it make?” Everything else that is core to who we are flows from that. Who is Jesus and what difference does it make? What does it mean to follow Christ? (Discipleship) What does it mean to serve Christ? (Ministry) What does it mean to reach out in his name? (Mission)
We illustrate this with a pyramid. The love of God is the ground upon which this pyramid rests. The foundation is Jesus, next level ‘Discipleship’, next level ‘Ministry’, next level ‘Mission’. The tiny, tiny tip of that pyramid we call the “worm can”. The worm can contains discussions of national/international politics and non-essential theology/doctrine. (we do not hesitate to send people, lovingly and humorously to the worm can…quite a few in there last Fall) Admittedly, it is hard sometimes to distinguish when theology is essential and non-essential. (However, we do point out that Jesus said “I am the Way…” not “I (plus this correct thinking on this theory and that theology and that doctrine) is the Way…” )
We do not practice membership in the traditional sense. Rather we are committed to making and deepening friendships with those who cross our paths. We try to keep in mind that God lives in us…that we are his temple…and that we are Christ’s bride.
That’s enough to keep us busy and distracted from all of the petty stuff that helps to create this cacophony of ‘brands’.

Oh…sorry…don’t mean to be a comment hog. One other thing: the reason we place such a strong emphasis on discipleship is because we believe that if we ground ourselves thoroughly in the example and teaching of Jesus (e.g. immersing ourselves in the Sermon on the Mount..the Lord’s Prayer, etc.) we will have the moral/ethical grounding that will enable us to have discussions of a more controversial nature.
i.e. all Christians should learn to live like Christians before they are allowed to talk to each other. What a concept!

A few random thoughts: I too am a pastor in the Reformed tradition. However, I’m not a “five pointer,” but one who appreciates good, mature discussions with those brothers and sisters who see different shades of gray – and even some in brilliant color! I am constantly pondering and thinking on my own beliefs because of them, so differences are valuable to me. On the other hand I once had another denominational pastor basically accusing me of heresy. I laid the Nicene Creed in front of him and asked what he disagreed with. “Nothing” was his answer, but it’s his ilk that cause the painful problems. In one scene in “The Apostle” Robert Duvall’s character, a Pentecostal preacher, is watching a Catholic priest bless fishing boats. He chuckles and says to himself, “Brother, you do it your way and I do it mine. But we’re both after the same thing” (or something like that.) Unity does not mean conformity and many have lost that perspective.

I think there is a somewhat correct view in the question itself. The write asked:
“…if God is an author of peace and not confusion that he would allow 20k different faiths to be preached in his church.”
Are there “20k different faiths”, or are there variantions on 1 (the same) faith?
Michael Patton had some helpful thoughts some time back at his blog:
“Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently?and this was intentionally.”
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/why-i-am-proud-to-be-a-protestant/
And, narrowing in a little more on evangelicals (rather than protestants in general), Scot wrote not too long ago:
“We are good at being properly ecumenical. Evangelicalism is a movement and not a denomination. We align ourselves with others – all others in fact – who embrace the gospel. Because of this conviction, evangelicals are found working across denominational lines, forming parachurch organizations united around a common gospel theology, and joining hands in public with those who want to work with us. A genuine evangelical transcends her or his denomination in the unity only the gospel can bring. Think Christianity Today and John Stott.”
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2008/11/what-do-evangelicals-do-well.html

one of the reasons I am post modern in my belief structure is because they are not afraid to re examine the bible through the eyes of pre helenistic culture. When the Greeks got a hold of the bible we began to see denominations and cultural lines drawn. Next thing you know there is Catholicism, Orthox Christianity and a whole host of other divisions.
When I am in town and I visit a church, if the pastor is preaching in an us vs. them, our theology vs. theirs I leave. It just is not as God would want his church to operate. Us vs. them is not how Jesus operated.

just fyi: Rick #5 and Rick #6 are not the same Rick. Rick #5 is an imposter ;^).

Friend, I understand your confusion and despair. I believe that the divisions are man-made and not pleasing to God. However, I take encouragement from this: In Revelation 1-3, Jesus sends letters (through the Apostle John) to seven churches. In each one (with maybe one exception), Jesus confronts them on issues of immorality, false teachings, and unhealthy – if not just plain wicked – practices. And He issues warnings, corrections, and rebukes. But the thing that encourages me the most is that it says that Jesus was “among the lampstands” (i.e., the churches; see Rev. 1:13 and 1:20; I’m using the NIV, just so you know). Even though there is heresy, immorality, and coldness within His Church – and Jesus does not promote or endorse these practices – He is still with His Church. Rest assured, He will correct the sins and abuses of His followers. But He also gives this promise: no matter where you may be (church-wise), if you seek Him earnestly, you will find Him. Don’t be discouraged; keep seeking. God bless you.

I think the answer to that question is found a few verses later in Ephesians 4 when we are told that God gives the grace-gift coaches in order to prepare God?s people for service and build up the body of Christ ?until we all reach unity in the faith?.?
This is why Paul starts out the chapter with an exhortation to be ?Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.?
The implication is that the one body, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism? is a heavenly reality that is yet to be actualized on earth through our humility, service and maturing in love.
We will see ?one body-one faith? on earth when, after a long and humbling process of ?speaking the truth in love? (vs.15), we finally grow up into the full measure of Christ with the body building itself up in love.
Judging by where American Christianity is at the moment, that should only take about another millennium or so.

A small personal reaction. As unfortunate as the situation is, there is one aspect that is perhaps a silver lining. There are religions that are much more monolithic, whose followers walk more in lock step. These religions are interpreted from the top for the followers to simply follow. There is a ring of truth or authenticity for me in the fact that this religion (Christianity) suffers various interpretations of its holy book and many styles of worship. There are many people of all sorts of backgrounds and personalities who inquire of the Bible and Christian tradition. Different people prioritize various aspects of God or his Word. A common claim is that God is personal and desires personal relationship. It weighs in favor of this claim that relationships with him are so varied.
For me, the consequences of a monolithic my-way-or-the-highway religion are worse than the 20k and counting churches. Things could and should be better, but they could be worse.

Paul Dixon is on the same path I feel I am. It may be 20,000 denomonations, one religion – Christian. The good news and the bad news, that is the essence. Incarnate and resurrected – that make’s the difference. We are a people of faith, only through believing in Christ is Salvation available. If that is the common thread, then a common bond is possible. Those not of the same mind among the 20,000 may be led by false teachers. Individual, self-motivated study of the bible and prayer need be everyone’s personal objective. Through understanding and a personal relationship with an believer see their teachers in a proper libht. Have doubts, question, seek answers, and may they all lead to Christ.

Almost sounds like the Tower of Babel… Many claiming to get to God, and God confusing all their attempts…

As a member of one of those my-way-or-the-highway religions, let me assure you that we disagree with one another just as much as you Protestants do. Difference is, we tend not to stalk off and begin new denominations (though every now and then, like in the 16th century, some of us do so spectactularly). Once when I was troubled by all the dissent, a very wise old Catholic told me, “We’re a messy church, but we all meet at the altar.” I think the messiness–and the existence of 20K denominations–keeps us (and you) from being more dangerous than we already are.

I wonder if our friend John Franke’s work on this subject would be helpful to consider here. Here’s a paragraph from a guest post he wrote for the Pomomusings blog a couple weeks ago:
“The expression of biblical and orthodox Christian faith is inherently and irreducibly pluralist. The diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some approaches to church and theology might seem to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome. Instead, this diversity is part of the divine design and intention for the church as the image of God and the body of Christ in the world. Christian plurality is a good thing, not something that needs to be struggled against and overturned.”
(Franke’s full post can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/pnev6d.)
What do you think? Should we consider celebrating diversity and plurality in the church instead of stressing over it?

We have a marital divorce problem in this country because we have a spiritual divorce problem in this country. Protestants wear their schismatic roots and nature on their chest as a badge of honor in this country. Schism is contrary to everything the Scriptures teach us about what the Body and Bride of Jesus is supposed to look like.
It is time to come Home.

Scot,
This is indeed a valid and timely question. Perhaps a bit of a story will assist with my answer: I have gone through many phases of theological growth myself and have moved from one setting to the next as I try to work out my faith. In my younger years, my mom took me to a Catholic church in the area, because going to church was what good people did. I didn’t learn much in that setting but I was there – and that was half the point. As I got a bit older (preteens) my mom began taking me to a Presbyterian church, again I learned very little, but it was close to home and we were going to church… again – half the point. As I entered my teenage years I grew hungrier and hungrier for this God I had heard about but did not know. To make a long story short(er), I found God at the age of 15, apparently he was trapped in the pages of some big book I had on my shelf but never opened. Right after this experience I had an experience I would call the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I was not yet in a church – but I was eating the Bible like a 5 year old eats Cocoa Pebbles… The next natural step in my journey was a Southern Baptist church, where my “love” for the Bible was heartily reciprocated. At a point, however, my passion for the power of the Spirit in my life was not. Thus, I began attending a non-denominational Charismatic church.
Soon after the Southern Baptist experience I began to feel very bitter towards each of the aforementioned denominations, because I felt like each one let me down in a serious way. I was angry with the Catholics for not teaching me. I was angry with the Presbyterians for teaching in such a boring way that I learned nothing. I was angry with the Southern Baptists for “quenching” the Spirit in me. And eventually I was angry with the Charismatics for preaching a prosperity gospel that I found incongruent with the Bible I so appreciated.
So why all of these denominations? Through much experience with some of the various groups, and a bit of perspective (through the lenses of my many wonderful Seminary professors) I have learned to appreciate the differences. I have come to liken the many different expressions of Christianity to a symphony orchestra (forgive my metaphor if its flawed – I’m still learning to use these things!). In one corner you have the tuba, doing its thing. In another, strings, in another the oboe, in another the tenor sax. Are all of these instruments the same? (to borrow a phrase) By no means! But when the sounds come together, they have a way of inflicting beauty and magnificence on the hearer. I have come to believe that, while imperfect, the many fragmented groups of the Christian family all have one thing to contribute to the music. They all make up one instrument in the orchestra. None of us know the whole story, but when we come together – that which we knew in part… we know more fully.
I tend to think that the coming together thing is His point.
JW

As with so many things, I like C.S. Lewis’s comment on this topic from his essay “On the Reading of Old Books”:
‘I myself was first led into reading the Christian classics, almost accidentally, as a result of my English studies. Some, such as Hooker, Herbert, Traherne, Taylor, and Bunyan, I read because they are themselves great English writers; others, such as Boethius, St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Dante, because they were influences. George MacDonald I had found for myself at the age of sixteen and never wavered in my allegiance, though I tried for a long time to ignore his Christianity.
‘They are, you will note, a mixed bag, representatives of many Churches, climates and ages. And that brings me to yet another reason for reading them. The divisions of Christendom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But if any man is tempted to think ? as one might be tempted who read only contemporaries ? that ‘Christianity’ is a word of so many meanings that it means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of his own century, that this is not so.
‘Measured against the ages, ‘mere Christianity’ turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive and self-consistent, and inexhaustible. I know it, indeed, to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there (honeyed and floral) in Fran?ois de Sales; it was there (grave and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with a mild, frightening, Paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne.
‘In the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe ? Law and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed ‘Paganism’ of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in the very centre of The Faerie Queen and the Arcadia. It was, of course, varied; and yet ? after all ? so unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life: ‘an air that kills / From yon far country blows’.
‘We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed, also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then.
‘Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You will be thought a Papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a Pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth. For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks.’

Two Thoughts:
First, I agree with #7 regarding “US vs THEM preaching.” Last week I listened to a sermon that began by focusing on our own sinfulness, but very quickly became an “us vs. them” by the preachers’ emphases on particular sins. I don’t leave, but I certainly tune out whenever I hear such preaching.
Second, how much does denominationalism and related divisions have to do with wealth? That is, how much does the wealth that we in the West have enjoyed allow differences to become institutionalized (denominationalized or other) in ways that it would not if we did not have such wealth? I see this as part of the difference between Protestantism and some of the other religions that have significant differences within their bodies.
Peace,
Randy Gabrielse

When I am in town and I visit a church, if the pastor is preaching in an us vs. them, our theology vs. theirs I leave
Because you don’t want to have anything to do with “them”?

I’m afraid the differences we see within Christianity are inherent when finite creatures try to understand the infinite creator. All of our descriptions of God are, at best, metaphors and approximations and products of our own experience. The problem comes when we forgot that and start hardening our metaphors and approximations into absolutes. Then “the other”, those who don’t use the same metaphors and approximations, becomes “the evil”. Rather than demonizing those whom we disagree with, we should learn from them, thank them for showing us aspects of the infinite God that we could never we apprehend on our own, and allow them to learn from us. It appears that it is easier, and much more comfortable, just to disregard the other, or to declare them non-persons, rather than do the hard and emotionally dangerous work of understanding them and respecting them.

Wow. Karl – that quote was perfect and profound and I am going to have to work it into a future post of my own.

I can only speak of out of my own experience as the pastor of a conservative Presbyterian church in a small rural community for 30 years. I know all the pastors in our city pretty well. And while we represent the spectrum of Christian churches (UCC to separatist Baptist, Missouri Synod Lutheran to Roman Catholic), and while we all have our own doctrinal distinctives and idiosyncrasies, nearly all of us can sincerely recite the Apostles Creed. (I realize that may not be true in every place, but it is here.) Given all the history and theological diversity of the past 2,000+ years, I find that remarkable. And so I choose to focus on our agreement on these great truths rather than our disagreement on other (important) things.
Would our witness for Christ be more effective if all the Christians in town attended one church? Perhaps. But I choose to think that our diversity (undergirded by our often unstated unity in the essential tenets of the apostolic faith) has actually given us all greater outreach and ministry. So, people who find our congregation’s worship cold and dry might be drawn to the Assemblies of God church over the hill. And lapsed Catholics who want worship to “feel like church” but are turned off by some of the formalism of their mother church might find a home in ours. I not sure that’s all so bad!

Perhaps a similar kind of “immensely formidable unity” spoken of by C.S. Lewis (#17) is emerging in the global expressions of a virtual church. It’s like that great joke with the two dogs sitting at a computer terminal. One dog says to the other, “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”
On the Internet, most people care less about your denominational affiliation, race, gender… and care more about the content, character, and helpfulness of your contributions.
Personally, I think virtuality will do more for global unity of the faith than anything we can imagine, but over generations.

Would we not expect someone who was the pivotal, defining person of history, Jesus, to not leave us with a legacy of mult variations in how to understand and follow his teachings? I grew up in a very fundamental, conservative and proud of it non-denominational denomination that began as a unity movement and evolved into a very sectarian, exclusive group, all fueled by the notion that it’s intrepretation of Scripture was the only accurate one. Because of that the person of Jesus was hidden in the shadows while the light shone only on the Book, which we gathered around each Sunday and Wednesday and worshipped. One day it dawned on me that God gave us a person and not a book and it changed my life. Ironically, the Book is even more deeply appreciated now, but it’s words serve the Word for me. I understand different conclusions leading to different denominations to be the natural result of our own culture and limited perspectives, but out of each Jesus knows who belongs to him.

While I think the 20k is a (often used) exageration, it’s beside the point.
What Jesus was concerned about in that passage, I think, is not doctrinal uniformity but behaving like a family even in our disagreements — much like a healthy biological family.

ChrisB @ 26,
I agree. And as Bob Smallman @ 23 shares, I think that’s exactly what happens on the ground in most places. Theologians can spend decades hammering out joint theological statements (read only by other theologians), and I while won’t say that doesn’t matter, I think far more unity is achieved by diverse local churches sharing together in mission, informal networking, prayer, etc.

I have a question about the question. Is this the same question as why are there so many different religions? Or is there a unique problem with the diversity of Christian belief and practice?

Having been Roman Catholic as a child, Pentecostal as a teen, Reformed and non-denominational as an adult, and having grown to greatly appreciate Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodox along the way (among others), I’d like to think that I’ve seen my fair share of Christendom (at both its best and worst!)
With that said, I’m in the camp that sees a common thread running down the middle of Christianity (though it’s admittedly difficult to see at times!) So I try not to get focused too far from the common themes I see in all of them, which I’d briefly list off the top of my head as:
1) Jesus Christ as Lord
2) The Trinity
3) The inspiration of Scripture
4) Salvation by the grace through faith in Christ
5) Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
6) Loving our neighbors, and working for peace and justice
7) Fellowship with other believers Spreading the good news of God’s love in Christ and His plan to make the world right
I know, I know, I know – we can argue all day about what each of those means (“Salvation by faith” or “Salvation by faith alone”? Is Scripture “Inerrant” or is it “Inspired”?, Infant baptism or believers baptism? etc. etc. etc.). And there are a million other issues besides these that we could debate about.
I’m not suggesting that wrestling with finer definitions of these items and other issues is not important. It is important. It’s just that I keep my focus on these, and do my best to have unity with those who share these beliefs.
And I know that sticking to just this list sets me up nicely to get beat up by nearly every group in Christendom – especially those who elevate their distinctive doctrines to prime importance, or those who claim that their denomination/tradition is the “true” church (or closest to the truth). But I think I’m okay with taking those hits (though they do hurt at times). I expect that I may even take some of those hits after making this post!
I did once go through a period of high anxiety about which church is the “right” one. Is it Rome? They have a great argument for it, especially from history and tradition. But the Eastern Orthodox argument seemed similar in many ways, and it really impressed me too. And what about all those protestant churches? After all, they just stick to the Bible, right? The Charismatics and Pentecostals have the “signs” of the Spirit. Isn’t the presence of the Spirit what always marked God’s people in the Scripture?
At the risk of getting all kind of negative responses, I’m inclined to think this whole issue is not just about theology, but also psychology. In fact, I believe that psychology plays a bigger role in this issue than many of us are willing to acknowledge. Some people have a pressing need to feel that their tradition and their tradition alone is “the right one”. Others are anxious about identifying “the right one” for fear of missing out on God’s love. Others try to block out the whole issue and just stay where they’re at because it’s just too scary or stressful to even think about everything out there. And a lot of us are just prone to get caught in plain old either/or thinking and have no room for a both/and mindset. So I can’t prove that my thoughts about the role of psychology in this is true, but I’ve definitely observed those tendencies in so many people over the years that I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t a huge factor.
I don’t know why God has allowed this division in Christendom to exist (though I think I’ve heard every theoretical explanation for it). And I don’t know for sure which tradition is the right one, or even if there is a right one. Maybe one day I’ll change my mind on that and feel like I’ve finally found it. Who knows. But as I said earlier, I’m content to say that I do see a central thread running down the center of Christendom. If you are a part of the central thread, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and call you “brother” or “sister”.
With that, I pray that God unites his people and makes us one. God bless you all.

The fault lies with our human filters. How can two people listen or watch the same thing and walk away with two different accounts of what happened? I know this is a simplistic answer, but to me where the Bible is concerned, that is why we must appeal to the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding. Even then, our humanity gets in the way, but I trust that is no obstacle for God. And what if it’s part of His divine plan to reveal different aspects of the truth to different people? It sounds crazy I know, but what if….

(#29) Bill S – wonderful, thoughtful post.
I tend to agree – most of what passes as “spiritual” is likely just human psychology as work. I understand Jesus community not in terms of the endless in-groupings that have formed around his work, but rather the freedom FROM religious identity in-groupings that he seemed to embody.
Like you, I feel a spiritual kinship with anyone who even remotely finds Jesus to be a friend. I don’t really care if they’ve “got it all right.” I certainly don’t. Perhaps it’s this religious-egoic need to “have it all right” that Jesus came to free us from?
Love your writing.

We should all be reading more Richard Hooker

The diversity within unity perspective has some sense to it for insiders, but not to outsiders. What bothers me most about our divisions is that they are largely driven from the top down, and that we are in large measure content to maintain them. Our sense of obligation to move beyond them could be better.

You answered your own question by closing with, “ONE BIBLE”!
Too many protestants have given the Bible far too much weight. It’s certainly second, but a distant second. Base your faith on the Christ who is revealed through scripture.
The reason why we have so many traditions is quite simple: Christ and scripture are translatable in culture and thus can be interpreted in various traditions.
We do’nt need to learn greek or aramaic to receive the ‘true’ form of Bible or Christ.
Furthermore, the reason we can’t seem to pinpoint ‘one faith’ is because of how we add ‘absolutes’ to our traditions.
Do you REALLY believe that inspiration of scripture is a fundamental truth? Only if you want to go mental. If Christ didn’t seek inerrant scripture and the NT writers didn’t expect to be canonized, we should in the LEAST be careful how we elevate our translations of their writings.
If you want to break it down then MAYBE sit with two dogmas:
1. Incarnation (and everything associated like resurrection).
2. Triune God
After that it’s a crap shoot.