How should we feel about the existence of multiple denominations? “If we are aware of the true nature of the Church,” writes von Balthasar, “we must feel this split not only as a daily wound but even more as a constantly burning shame.” Why? Because, he says, “the essence, and not merely the name, of the Church is agape: unity in love.”[1] Karl Barth says with equal strength that “we should not try to explain the multiplicity of churches at all. We should treat it the way we treat our own sin and those of others: as sin.”[2]
These passionate words from two theologians, one Catholic and one Protestant, came into my mind when Lance asked in his last post: “is the potential unity of Rome and Orthodoxy … helpful to the whole of Christianity?” What I like about Lance’s post is that he speaks as a Protestant who cares both about church unity and about the disagreements which broke it in the first place.
But Lance’s attitude is not the one I most frequently find among Protestants. I more often hear that church division isn’t really a problem; that it is rather like cultural diversity – something to be celebrated rather than lamented. Besides, we all agree on the essentials, right? Isn’t invisible unity what really matters? Today there exists a more laissez faire attitude (reflecting the surrounding postmodern culture), which neither cares much about the divisions nor about the original reasons for them.
Although I once thought of denominations as cultures, I no longer believe that to be a good analogy. A better one comes from the Bible, when Paul compares the church to a body.
There are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” … But God has so arranged the body … that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. (1 Cor 12:20-21, 24-25)
I used to apply this passage only to individuals in a local church, but it applies equally if not more to the global church, and shows the important distinction between diversity and division that is lacking in the ‘cultures’ analogy. Different cultures don’t need each other, nor are they designed to work as a team. But in an organism, differences are a strength only when all the parts are rightly connected.
Should we see church division as a problem, like severed limbs each trying to act autonomously? Can we even do anything about it? If you are a leader, teacher, or have any influence on the way your church thinks, then the answer to both questions is: yes.
Division is a problem for many reasons, but I’m only going to highlight one very practical reason. When we are disconnected from other expressions of Christianity, it is easy for us to think that the tiny corner of the gospel we have grasped is actually the whole gospel, and emphasise our bit of truth as if it were the only (or most important) truth. Then we are led into a cycle of endlessly repeating that one truth, and trying to feed off it, when there is an unimaginably vast treasure of wisdom, beauty and life-giving nourishment contained within the breadth of the Christian tradition.
What can be done about it? I would suggest two things:
- As far as possible, stop teaching anything that sustains the division. This isn’t entirely possible, but at least we can choose which things we emphasise/repeat/highlight as most important. Let’s teach in a way that slowly draws us together rather than pushing us further apart.
- Take the time to learn about the other Christian traditions. More than half the disagreements between Catholics and Protestants are simple misunderstandings that could be cleared up very easily. But beyond that, there are resources out there which we may even find helpful and enriching for our own churches.
I don’t think the problem is best understood by the compromise: “unity at the cost of truth or truth at the cost of unity.” Instead, I see unity as the only way to sustain the truth in the long run. Christianity has always been a community religion. The easiest way anyone can go astray is to separate themselves from the community, to stop listening to those around them who share the same Lord and Saviour.
Jesus’ last and most central prayer for his disciples was “that they may be one” (John 17:21). And why would Jesus pray for such a thing if invisible unity was inevitable anyway? Not only Jesus, but also (according to N.T. Wright), “we find that for [Paul] the one, single community is absolutely central.”[3] If we want to have the same agenda as the New Testament, then unity needs to be on it.
[1] Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation, trans. Edward Oakes (San Francisco: Communio Books, Ignatius Press, 1992), 3.
[2] Cited in ibid., 4.
[3] Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2011), 266.
Latest posts by Barney (see all)
- Where to find me now - 1st July 2025
- Ricœur at the Limits of Philosophy: Why I wrote it - 12th October 2022
- Violence in the Bible: The Case of the Canaanite Genocides - 6th July 2021
If the problem is not to be understood as unity versus truth, but rather unity is essential to maintain truth (which BTW I do see as biblical – 1 Cor 1:10). Should Luther have done what he did? Or to bring it up to date, do you think Ulf Ekman has taken a route which should be followed?
Chris, thanks for the question which is an excellent one, but also extremely complex.
While the question is worth thinking about, ultimately I’m not sure I find it helpful to pass judgment on what people in the past should or shouldn’t have done. Even Catholics agree that there was much corruption in the church in the 16th century. Luther was in an extremely difficult situation and who knows how church history would have proceeded if he’d taken the route of martyrdom (for example) rather than separation. It is interesting to compare his story with Ignatius Loyola, who with similar religious impulses started a powerful movement of reform within the Catholic church. But it doesn’t by itself conclude that Luther should have done the same.
My preferred paradigm for understanding the Reformation is as a divorce. We are all the children of that divorce and suffer its consequences. We want mum and Dad to get back together so we can be a happy family again. But was the divorce warranted to begin with? It’s not our place to say. What is our job, is to do everything we can now to put things back together again, even if it means relinquishing our own preciously held opinions about how church “should” be done and which aspect of the gospel is the “real” centre. Every reconciliation involves massive sacrifice on all sides. But it is always worth it.
I realise my point was complex, and it was probably a little bit loaded too. The examples were drawn to help engage my thinking but they were really hypothetical. I agree it would be unfair to judge the rights and wrongs of Luther’s approach.
The Catholic church is a good example though. They have maintained unity by excommunicating or declaring heresy where others have disagreed. One of the reasons the reformation actually caused a divide was that Luther found sufficient support to not find himself isolated by the Vatican’s response.
However we do find a range of views in the Catholic church from the more traditional orders to the Jesuits to the charismatics. If it weren’t for the Pope’s unique voice (and even somewhat in spite of it) that leads to a confused message. For example the Council of Trent appears to declare Salvation by faith alone “anathema”, and yet in 1999 the Vatican and Lutherans issued a joint statement which supports salvation by faith alone (but the former has not been rescinded).
So on the one hand unity does require unity of thought (as Paul said) and the Catholic church has pursued this vigorously at times. On the other hand where a diversity of views is held, the truth is no longer clear.
I don’t know exactly what point i’m making, but I suppose it is this: unity is not unity without truth and yet could I let go of truth for the sake of unity. And is it unity if I just keep my disagreements to myself.
I’m glad my post got you thinking in some way… I’m still scattered on the whole thing, but I think I’ve come to the conclusion that the union would not be MY union, but their’s (Rome and the East). I would either be beckoned or not depending on the foundations of that union.
Rome provides something you’re actually seeking, in my opinion. What we want is an interaction with the whole of Christianity… we want to figure out how a given approach to Christianity might be helpful for us, challenge us, and bring us closer to God.
But your first suggestion is fundamentally the issue with Christian union. “As far as possible, stop teaching anything that sustains Christian division.” I would propose one should stop solely affirming adult baptism, teaching there is no real presence in the bread and wine during communion, and that each churches should free from an episcopate. Does each part of the body have a separate role to play? yes… but should we pretend these issues don’t radically separate us? And amidst that separation, if we decide cultivate a “union” based off of our differences, should we continually forget there is a radical difference in an approach that may, by it’s nature, discredit another approach?
“Practical union” for the greater good within this fragmented thing that is the Church is good and necessary. But this is not the best union… and the worst way to go about it is to pretend our theological differences don’t matter. Some of them determine the very core of our values.
What is so nice about Rome already, however, is it’s ability to uphold a variety of things at once, whether it’s approaches to the bible, philosophy, or praxis. Perhaps the ideal union, the members of the body, finds its clearest picture in an actual body. IE, the Institution of the Church, Rome or the East.