Response to Peter -- Chapter 2

Sounds like Novatian was one of my "theological engineers" - make your general principle (*anyone* who apostasizes is excommunicate), apply it universally regardless of the circumstances, and insist everyone agree with it (since it is self-obviously correct)...

And once you get into disagreement with people like that, it's all too easy to go to extreme measures yourself in dealing with them - since brotherly reasoning and exhortation don't seem to work, excommunicate the sonuvagun yourself and see how he likes it!

The problems facing those who would work for greater unity are pretty obvious. The solutions, however...

Chapter 2 -- Well, what about Novatian?

As Doug has pointed out, Frame's giving his readers the Cliff's Notes to church history, and that involves trade-offs. Readers could do much worse than to use Frame's overview as a sort of topical index to the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. The Novationist and Donatist controversies provide a lot of insight into the ways that thinking about churches, bishops, baptism, and repentance were changing through this period, and the other disputes he mentions have reams of historical writings concerning them.

I'd like to think, for a moment, about the Novationist controversy. It is, as Frame says, the first point in church history where we see someone excommunicated but not declared a heretic.

I think this is an interesting study because, as best I can tell, there is error on both sides. On the side of the Latin Fathers (the forerunners of Roman Catholicism, who won this argument), there seems to have been grounds for a legitimate criticism that they were treating apostasy as no different from those sins a Christian may commit while still legitimately claiming the name of Christ. Scripture is replete with warnings about those who turn away from Christ, and while it would surely be correct to acknowledge that a moment of weakness under duress is a sin to be repented of, the Novationists were seeing folks who had lived comfortably during persecution as pagans, only to return to the church as if they had been Christians all along and needed merely to confess some particular sin. Surely there is reason to treat someone who has denied Christ and left the church in favor of the world as one treats an unbeliever in need of salvation, and not as a Christian caught in some fault.

Regardless of the merits of this criticism, though, Novation clearly went too far in teaching that such could *never* be restored. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of apostasy--the true apostate will never *seek* restoration, will never repent; the true believer or the false believer who, having withered under persecution, is becoming a true believer--these will *always* seek restoration.

So Novation was in doctrinal error concerning the offer of salvation, and was insistently teaching such and dividing the communion of the church.

Here is where the great failure arises: to have excommunicated Novation while being unwilling to treat him as a heretic was, itself, an error. There is an either/or to church discipline that was ignored here: in a valid excommunication, the church finds that there is a heretical teaching, a teaching (whether it concerns the language or the practice of the faith) against the dogmatic matters of the faith which leaves only two alternatives: *either* the teacher will, if he is a true believer, repent under discipline; *or* the teacher will, by impenitence, manifest that he is not a true believer.

This either/or is the ultimate sanction of church discipline. To use it for anything *less* than such matters as lead the church to believe that impenitence marks an unbelieving heart, is to misuse the authority of the church. To fail to use it when such occasions arise is likewise wrong.

By short-circuiting church discipline in this case--by putting Novation out for concerns which did *not* merit the non-recognition of Novation baptism, as the churches later found--those involved set the precedent for the sort of politicizing of confessional disputes that has plagued the church ever since.

Indeed, on both sides we find a certain sort of hyperzealous "doctrinal purity" masking fundamental errors of doctrine about baptism, about church discipline, and about the offer of salvation.

One thing necessary for unity is an agreement from all sides that confessing truth is a non-negotiable necessity (though it is one of several such, not the only/ultimate one). Another is a proper understanding of church discipline, one which seeks not pragmatic solutions to "problem children" but the restoration of those under discipline, and which recognizes that excommunication, while necessary to "protect the sheep" from false teachers (that is, teachers whose claim to Christianity is belied by their impenitence), is not primarily a way to protect the sheep from teaching with which the church disagrees: it is primarily a way to seek restoration of the impenitent by putting them, ultimately, to the either/or of repentance or condemnation.

I suspect that, if we were to consider the bad example of the Novationist controversy, we might find some insight into the many bad examples of church discipline that have come along since then. And then, we would do well to return to the Scriptures to see what Christ and the Apostles told us it means to deny Christ's name--or to deny the claims of those who call themselves "Christian."

Response to Doug--Chapter 2

What he said. Really, at the moment I see nothing to add to his comments. Perhaps I'll update if something comes to mind later.

UPDATE: not *exactly* a response to Doug, but since he engaged the history survey a bit more than I did, I'll include it here. I think Frame's calling Jeroboam "the first denominationalist" is a bit misguided--in fact, it sounds like a cheap shot.

Jeroboam set up a false temple with a false worship while claiming it was part of the real Temple worship, and did so in order to secure a following to himself. There are few clearer cases of what "heretic" means than his actions. Denominationalism is a failure to draw the right lines which results in drawing the wrong ones; but frank heresy is not the same problem, and does not have the same solutions.

Chapter Two - Where did Denominations come from?

Again, the real problem I see here in Frame's book is that it attempts to answer a 2000-year problem in less than 10 pages. ;-}

To really answer this question requires a Church History course to do it justice. I think Frame is much better in dealing with the general categories of denominational origins, and I want to look closer at those origins here.

Heresy - This, of course, requires a further examination into what "heresy" really is, but for purposes of this discussion I will use the definition that Robert Bowman used in his book Orthodoxy & Heresy:

(A) teaching which directly opposes the essentials of the Christian faith, so that true Christians must divide themeselves from those who hold it.

There are good examples of this both in Frame's book (the Marcionites, Gnostics, etc), and in more modern history (the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, "modernist/liberal" Christianity of the Spong/Pike variety, etc). Divisions from such people are a necessity, tragic as may be in personal and structural terms. If the Triune God as known in the Incarnate Son of Man who died for our sins is not believed in or worshiped, there *is* no unity or fellowship, even if the deniers use our language and our organizational structures. The ultimate fault here lies not with the orthodox, but the heretics.

Purity - Setting aside the question of heresy, where it is given that both sides believe in the same God, the drive for a "pure church" can lead to divisions. The Novatians and Donatists whom Frame names in this category were hardly the last of them. Much of fundamentalism and Anabaptism is marked with this same spirit. The questions raised are not just moral or cultural - questions of doctrinal purity above and beyond heresy have also led to splits (the Presbyterian right wing - OPC/BPC/RPC - is (in)famous for this). The main problems here can't be blamed on heretics - the forces of pride and unforgiveness within our own ranks are to blame. Rather than bear with each others' burdens and accept our differences, we divide and form factions of like-minded folk. And the union and diversity of the Body is denied.

Cultural/Political issues - at least the second category has the "dignity" of being able to dress their actions in half-way decent prooftexting. This category is even less defensible. Here churches are split for "worldly" political and cultural concerns. The denominational subdivisions within the same theological group by nation, for instance. Or the split between Episcopal and Anglican following the American Revolution. Or the North/South splits among almost every American church in consequence of the Civil War. Or the dozens of brances of Orthodox churches all along cultural and linguistic lines. I'm frankly surprised Frame did not discuss this issue in greater detail, because it bears quite heavily on our current situation.

-----------------

In his final paragraphs, Frame returns to the question of overarching church government. While the local (congregational) level of government is more or less intact, and the ultimate government in Christ always stands, the "middle levels" in Frame's viewpoint is in dissarray. Frame hints that he will return to this in later chapters, but I think we're in agreement here that our discussion (and the best hopes for results) lie on the local level. And a good start in that will be a sharp and critical examination of the roots of our divisions.

Correction

Humiliating. Simply humiliating. I've probably been misremembering this text for more than a decade. I cited it before as "For it must needs be that divisions and offences come, but woe to him by whom they come!"

I was flat wrong. I just plain didn't remember the text right. My apologies.

I looked it up, and here (in KJV, so you can at least see where I got the *idea* from) is what it says:

Matthew 18:7-9 (KJV)
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! [8] Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. [9] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Not even close. If anything, it's more decidedly on one side of the matter than I recalled. MEA CULPA

Response to Doug -- Chapter 1

(sorry about the multiple posts; such division seemed like a good idea at the time)

I don't see the OT worship as quite so continuous with the NT as you and Frame do (I would not, for instance, call Israel the Church, though I would happily admit the former is a type of the latter). Still, I think that God's calls to unified worship in Israel are there for the good of the church, as well, and it's easy to see that the pattern of "every man did that which was right in his own eyes" versus the central altar of the one true God persists in the problem of many deceiving spirits and one true Christ. We arrive at similar points from different paths, except insofar as the specifically earthly manifestation (e.g. unity of place) is concerned--but that seems like a big "except" for Frame's argument, to me.

I think it's interesting that you're seeing "obsession with" where Frame sees "inattention to" purity of doctrine and practice. I'm conflicted on the point, and it's here that I agree with you that even with best intentions we are far from the point where we could begin to "tear down this wall."

On the one hand, "failure to seek reconciliation" is a failure of doctrinal and practical purity. On the other hand, that failure is often a consequence of a belief on both sides that reconciliation would compromise their doctrinal or practical purity. That belief may even be justified--criticisms of some recent attempts to reconcile evangelicals with Rome seem, to me, to be justified (though not their intemperate nature). At a much more local level, what are we to do when one church has, for example, a habit of remarrying divorcees while another holds to the view taught by Christ, that to remarry when one is divorced (I would grant the exception for adultery, in many cases) is to commit adultery? In modern America with its greater than 50% divorce rate, can we doubt what the practical consequences of two such churches existing side-by-side would be, or that the result of their "agreeing to disagree" while pursuing joint teaching efforts would be that only the broader view would remain?

But if there are hundreds of such issues, where the more "popular" view is wrong, how are we to avoid endless schism?

I find myself thinking of something J. I. Packer writes in his 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God, concerning the existence of such divisions in the one Body. Essentially, Packer views these as each bearing witness to some parts of the truth that would otherwise disappear from the Body. Since the Body exists in this mortal age as a conglomerate of what I like to call "screwed-up people trying to get it right," it seems inevitable that there will be some "loss" in our transmission. The existence of various groups that have "obsessed" over some point or other ensures that those truths persist in the Body, so that there remains hope that one day some groups will regain those truths from the groups that kept a witness to them. Whether those patterns of truth ("we must preserve this teaching of Christ") and error ("we must excoriate all those who don't see it") can be matched up enough to help these groups merge is, as you say, hard to see from here.

Finally, on the matter of the use of the word "church" and "body" in the NT: I would say we have here a microcosm/macrocosm usage. Every local church is a whole church to be built together, as every believer's body, and every body of believers, is the Temple where the Spirit resides and Christ presides, and at every level from the body of the believer, through the local church, through all those who communicate, through all those who believe at any moment in this age, through all those who believe at all times and in all places, who will stand together in the End--the commands and promises of Christ are scalable, with appropriate measures of hope and calls for obedience to each. I think Paul's usage in the Corinthian epistles, where he seems to be keeping up a running pun between "your body" as the body of the believer and the body of believers, is a great example of this, and it's part of why I think Frame's tendency to read this "flat" as referring to a single, all-the-living-believers "church" is a little unfortunate.

Response to Peter - Chapter 1

On the whole, I agree with your criticisms of a singular "church government" in the style of say, the Roman church. People are people, and any concentration of power should make us nervous. But, as I've stated earlier, at this stage seeing greater cooperation and fellowship betwen local congregations of denominations would be a big step in the right direction, and more than enough work for all of us to start off with. So until Frame actually gets to the question of church government later on, I'm willing to keep the discussion on a local level, since that is where any real change must begin anyways. I have no illusions about the various denominational governing bodies deciding their existence is unbiblical anytime soon...

About the sinful roots of denominationalism - there are always mixed motives in all of our works. Not every denomination (or the congregations within them) are consciously guilty of the things Frame points out in this chapter. (He says so himself in numerous other places as the book progresses). But the sad fact is that in the presentation of church history often received in our Sunday schools and seminaries, the tragedy that such splits entails is glossed over in the desire to present our founders as "standing for truth". Also, the historical patterns set by the break with Rome, the theological splits between the Lutherans/Swiss and the Puritans/Anglicans, and the practical divisions caused by the Awakenings and revivals in American history, have set a deeply ingrained pattern in our culture. Our confidence that our doctrines and/or our experiences are the apex of the Church's development, and that "compromise is the language of the devil", make splitting churches and forming new denominations much easier to accept than seeking unity and bearing with those who do not agree with our interpretations of the Bible. (I would say "on secondary matters", but almost everyone agrees with that in theory - and then find a way to make their interpetations on almost everything a "primary matter".) It's a deeply ingrained belief - and such beliefs are never parted with easily or quickly.

Chapter One - The One, True Church

(Hey, that's no fair! One post to four?!? Trying to swamp me out, eh Peter? ;-} )

In Chapter 1, Frame attempts to lay out the biblical case for a unified church, both spiritually and organizationally. He lays out the case in three sections - the OT pattern of unity, the NT teachings on unity, and the application of these patterns to current models of church government.

As a believer in redemptive/historical hermeneutics, I am a firm believer in the idea that the Old Testament depictions of Israel and the covenants are "types" of the Church. Frame's discussion of the central Altar was a good lead-in to the centrality of Christ and His sacrifice in the New Testament - I could only wish he had had more time to develop this further.

Frame's review of the New Testament teachings on unity deserve closer attention.

1) The central altar. The fulfillment of the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices in Christ is a critical component of our unity. I thought it interesting that in all the passages Frame listed in this subpoint, the passages in Hebrews were not mentioned. This book most directly addresses the relationship between Christ and the Old Testament, and this could have strengthened Frame's point here considerably.

2) + 5) The use of the word 'church'. The application of a single word - ekklesia - to all levels of the church (universal, regional, urban, household) does point out a greater unity underlying all levels, but I wish Frame could have developed this further.

3) Jews and Gentiles. In the Jewish mind, there was no greater division than between Jew and Gentile. Even among the apostles, it took divine intervention and a church council to get the idea of the unity between believing Jews and Gentiles across (Acts 10-15). The analogy is clear - if this great divide is bridged in Christ, why should anything less be allowed to do the same?

4) + 9) Other NT word-pictures. The pictures here are clear - Christ has a Bride (the Church), not a harem. The Church is a Temple (singluar), not a building complex. Believers have, in the words of Ephesians 4, one body (the church), one Spirit (the Holy Spirit), one hope (the coming of the Kingdom), one Lord (Jesus Christ), one faith (in that Christ), one baptism (into the one body), and one Father. (Eph. 4) The picture of the church as a single body, where all parts are necessary for all others, is a point that I set great stock in, and I intend to pursue this further in regards to denominations in a later chapter.

6) One government. Here is the weakest link in Frame's argument in this first chapter. The New Testament does indeed give guidelines for local church government (elders and deacons), but beyond the central figures of the Apostles there is little to go on. The questions between congregational, episcopal, and presbyterian governments are a major obstacle to organizational unity, and I don't expect this to be dealt with easily. Frame's argument in this chapter as to how each points towards a unified church government is fine as far as it goes, but is of little practical help in dealing with our current situation. I hope Frame will develop his ideas here in greater detail later on...

7) No "denominations" in the New Testament. This is the second-weakest point of Frame's argument in this chapter. Certainly, there is no mention of "denominations" in the New Testament. I would expect a denominationalist to reply, "Neither is the Trinity mentioned either!" The term "denomination", like the word "Trinity", is a development in historical theology. What needs to be established is the idea that "denominations" are on much weaker bibilcal ground than the Trinity. And actually, Frame does a good job at this...

Denominations, in the sense of groups of Christians who differ from other Christians by some distinctives of doctrine, practice, ethnicity, or historical background, play no role in New Testament church government. That is especially remarkable when we consider that there were many diversities in the early church that might have led its leaders to consider a "friendly" denominational division: great differences of ethnicity, languages, etc. But the New Testament seems to make a particular point of stressing that such differences are not to be the basis of divisions in the church

This leads to the next point...

8) The roots of denominationalism. Frame's list is quite convicting. I would go so far as to add another point to it, obsession with doctrinal and practical purity. This is the polar opposite of f), inattention to doctrinal and practical purity. From the few discussions I've had with others on this topic, this will be the biggest problem in trying to work towards evangelical ecumenical unity. There are many groups (especially among the Reformed) that value their traditions and theological formulations so highly that any discussion of unity is written off from the start. Of course, there are others who err on the side of purity too - the Anabaptists come to mind immediately. The quest for purity in practice has separated them from both the culture and the wider church - the most extreme example being the Amish.

10) Jesus' prayer for unity. Like many other passages of Scripture, this one has been "ruined" for us by the immense debates over it in Protestant-Catholic polemics, and it has been "proof-texted" or "contextualized" to the point that the point of Christ's prayer - that all who believe in Him may be united in love and fellowship - has been lost. Frame's discussion is a good starting corrective to that, but I'm afraid more work is needed.

11) Divine sovereginty and human efforts. I am well aware of the dangers of hypercalvinism. I must confess that I have a touch of hypercalvinim when it comes to my prayer life ("God's already decided what's going to happen - my prayers won't change that..."). But the rejection (or simple ignoring of) the idea that we should work towards a greater unity amongst evangelicals is a sign of a different sort of "hypercalvinism" - a hypercalvinism of an ecclesiastical sort. "Organizational unity can't be that important, or else God would have arranged it" - with the unspoken collorary being, "with everybody else agreeing with my denomination/theology/etc". The call to bear with our brothers, even in matters of theology that are not essentials, has largely fallen on deaf ears. Romans 14 barely gets applied to even cultural things (smoking, dress, etc) - how much less is it applied to worship and theology!

In summary, I think that the New Testament teachings on the unity of the Church are pretty clear and straightforward - enough so that Frame did not spend too much time on them. Given the state of affairs in the church today, it may have been a good idea if Frame had hit on this point a bit harder. We need a wider conviction that we ARE one body, under one Lord.

OK, now let's start agreeing--and repent

8. To carry the point even further: the New Testament rebukes the mentalities and practices which were later to produce denominational division in the church. These mentalities and practices are:

• (a) autonomy: picking and choosing which leaders in the church will have one's respect (1 Cor. 1:10-17; 3:1-23);
• (b) factionalism: forming partisan groups in the church to advance the program (or supposed program) of one's favorite leaders (same passages);
• (c) lust for power: seeking to be boss (Matt. 20:20-28; Acts 8:9-24; 20:30; Phil. 2:1-11; 1 Pet. 5:1-3; 3 John 9);
• (d) unwillingness to seek reconciliation (Matt. 5:23-26;10 18:15-20; Rom. 12:18; Eph. 4:3; Phil. 2:1ff.; 4:2;1 Thess. 5:13; Heb. 12:14; Jam. 3:17);
• (e) failure to maintain church discipline (Matt. 18:15ff.; 1 Cor. 5);
• (f) inattention to doctrinal and practical purity (1 Tim. 4; 6:11-21; 2 Tim. 1:13ff.; 2:14-4:5; Tit.; etc.);
• (g) failure to help fellow believers in need (Matt. 25:31-46; 3 John).

[15]

[emphasis reproduced from original, list format added]

Here's where the rubber meets the road. As Frame has already foreshadowed, and will develop later, to the (very great) extent that denominationalism represents rancorous division, radical separatism, competition for resources, commodifying of the membership, or even the staid, satisfied comfort of an old prison now grown familiar, the very existence of denominations in the church is a consequence of sin, and quite probably indicates that one or both "sides" of any given "split" are continually living in sin, perhaps even generations later. (see item [d], O ye who live in comfort in your soft pews!)

Again, I see no need to link this to a prior demand for organizational unity. The church that practices rightly in these areas will be led, naturally and necessarily, into cooperation with those other churches that practice rightly; and moreover, I suspect, they will together feel it incumbent on them to seek out those who do not cooperate with them, and find--not subjugation, not conversion, but Biblical unity--reconciliation. Of course, if they do so in a wrong spirit or are rejected, there remains sin between them--let each believer examine himself, and repent of his sin, so long as these divisions remain!

I have to touch, briefly, on Frame's use of "autonomy," above. See my note about "me deacon es su deacon?" for the qualifier: there is undoubtedly some appropriate "autonomy" of the local church, insofar as the leaders of my church are not the leaders of your church, however much we may agree that they are worthy of "respect" in either place. This is, of course, an "independent Baptist" distinctive, but I think it's also a Biblical response to the denominational problem (Frame disagrees, as we shall see later, which is why I insert the caveat now).

Oh, but friends, brothers and sisters, let's weep and mourn for our sins, here. Have any of us, has any church we've belonged to, not been condemned by that list of the things God explicitly warned us against, the things that rend Christ's Body asunder here and now, even as He knits it together toward the Consummation?

To repent these sins, we will need to get beneath the level of even Frame's organizational dream or my local-church response. This is the heart-blood of the Christian life: do we care about Christ, do we love His body, more than our group, our communion, our tradition, our style? Are we committed to that discipline of the church which springs from and insists upon Christ's mission to reconcile all things to Himself?

We are not. We must become so. Help us, Lord!

one Christ = me deacon es su deacon?

This is Christ's church, Christ's church government. If we do not like it, we dare not set up our own government to rival his. Thus, Christ's intention was to unite all his people under his officers – one Lord, one church, one church government.[15]

Brief one: except for apostles and evangelists (who are, in the NT, always sent by either Christ Himself or some particular church to either prospective or already existing churches), all the offices Frame mentions here are the offices found in the local church. I agree that Christ has set forth in each church those He calls to lead (and I think there's a lot we could do to improve our responsiveness to His leadership, and I suspect Frame would agree that denominationalism has done much to dull us to this). Yet it does not follow that, in my church, your pastor has pastoral authority. Even within any given denomination, or among the bishoprics of the Augustine-era church (hardly my model for church-ing, but it'll do for historical purposes), it was a recognized principle that when my pastor visits your church, he is a loved and respected fellow brother and fellow laborer in Christ, worthy of honor and possessed of valuable insight, but not vested with the God-given pastoral authority or responsibility he bears in his own church.

I fail, then, to see how the organizational unity point follows from this logic. (I'm not engaging the Scriptures, here, which uncontroversially point out how the early church was organized, and are therefore as much of God's organizational guidance as He has given us; but rather the meat of the argument, which is a set of inferences Frame makes without Scriptural support.)

one Christ = one Body = deficient local churches?

Continuing with my picking of nits:

2. Jesus does come to build one church. "Church" is regularly used in the singular to refer to the whole New Testament people of God (Matt. 16:18; cf. Acts 2:47; 5:11; 12:5; 1 Cor. 10:32; 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 1:22, etc.).[14]

Let's all agree with the first sentence. I certainly do.

The second, however, seems to me to touch upon Frame's thesis only insofar as we take these collective uses of "church" to refer to the church in the present time. (I note that of the passages above, I would consider those in Acts to be referring to the church in Jerusalem, and not the universal Body of Christ; 1 Cor 10:32, 15:9 and Gal 1:13 do seem to be collective; Matt 16:18 and Eph 1:22 seem to me to be prospective, the Matthew passage being most obviously so.)

It seems, though, that the true unity of the Body, the Church, of which Christ is the head, is consummated only in the End. In Scripture, it is always in view as a work-in-progress, not a finished work (cf. Eph 4, which nonetheless clearly treats unity in spirit and truth, in the goals of edification and ministry, as a present imperative of a present body with God-sent intrachurch and interchurch ministers). I see nothing in this, however, which suggests that there is an organizational structure Church which exists above and has authority over the local church in the present.

There is one Christ, and there ought to be "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" among all believers everywhere (and woe to us that there is not!), but I see no evidence that we must be bound together as a human-led organization in the present, a supra-church hierarchy, in order for there to be such unity.

one Christ = one earthly hierarchy?

I am broadly in sympathy with Frame's goal, here; I agree with much that he says that could be summarized in Christ's statement, "It must needs be that divisions and offences come; but woe to him by whom they come!" I hope we can see more and more readiness to dissolve the old stumbling-blocks that keep Christ's people arguing with each other when they could be reaching the world.

And yet, I find myself uncomfortable with his case for a unified organization, insofar as it focuses on the organization as such rather than the organization as a by-product of confessional and goal-oriented unity. There are a few nits I'd have to pick before I could jump into the bandwagon, here.

For example, Frame says:

1. As in the Old Testament, the New Testament believer worships at a central altar, for Christ himself fulfills the central altar of the Old Testament, and there is only one Christ (Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 1:13; 8:6; Eph. 4:4-6). The same is true for the priesthood, the temple, and the sacrifices. The church has a single location in one sense, though it is scattered throughout the earth, for it is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 1:3,20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12). [14]

Frame interprets this, I take it, as a basis for seeing the church in all places as one organization (which he then suggests is one organization sinfully fractured). And yet, I fail to see how "one Christ" or the eschatologically-oriented "seated with Christ in the heavenlies" (we are obviously not there, cf. 2 Cor 5) is like the central altar in precisely that respect Frame needs it to be: material, earthly organization.

Consider, for a moment, that Israel had One God, to whom they all looked from any place; and also one altar, to which they were to return for the rites related to body, blood, and atonement. Christians have one God in Christ, but we manifestly do not have one altar in that same sense. To have the equivalent of the central altar, God need only have instructed us to return periodically to some one place, where (for example) communion would be held. Yet Christ seems to have specifically pushed us away from any such notion of centralized worship:

Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

(I'll split these into chunks to keep it manageable.) Do consider this passage in light of Frame's thesis, though. At the very least, ought our concern not be first for unity of spirit and unity of truth, or as I suggest confessional and goal-oriented unity, with organizational unity at most a hoped-for byproduct? (though it would be an inevitable byproduct, I think, just as divided organizations are the inevitable byproduct of striving "spirit" and distorted "truth")

[UPDATE: egregious misquoting of Scripture fixed. Sincere apologies for an honest and embarrassing misremembering of the text.]

One, Holy, (c)atholic, Apostolic?

(Greetings. I am Douglas Burtt. Click the profile BURTTD at the right for more info.)

This discussion comes at a providential time for me. At one time I intended to become a full time academic theologian, and was seriously preparing for that line of work. That plan has since been shelved, but I learned a number of lessons in the process.

First, that total doctrinal agreement with someone or some group is no guarantee of fellowship and Chrisian community.

Second, in the course of my reading I saw great truths and insights were not limited to those in the Reformed tradition. The Anabaptists saw, as most Reformed thinkers did not, the dichotomy that can and should exist between the Church and the World. Catholic authors displayed a love of art and literature reflected in their art and their theology. (I can think of many good Catholic fiction authors of recent times - Greene, Chesterton, Tolkien. For good Reformed literature, you're lost after Milton.) Baptists and Methodists did much of the heavy lifting in evangelizing the American frontier. (Yes, I am aware of the Reformed critiques of their theology and methods, and would in some part agree. But what were their churches doing in the meantime?) And, although I am an introverted liturgical worshiper, there are even things that can be learned from Charismatics and Pentecostals - if nothing else than to expect God to work in unexpected ways.

I am fully aware of the problems each of these traditions has. I've seem many of them from the inside, as it were. I've seen the raw unbridled emotionalism of some Pentecostals, the "pope-in-all-but-name" governing pattern among some Baptist churches, the stifling abstract theological lectures that pass for preaching in some Reformed churches, the fractious balkanizing among the Presbyterians, ad infinitum ad nauseam.

But I have come to wonder, is not part of the problem that we have tended to break ourselves up into churches and denominations where, in effect, we're all alike? Where there are no level-headed thinkers/"frozen chosen" to balance out the spontaneous/"I've got the joy joy joy joy down in my heart" types? That you often have to go to one church to see a drive for evangelism, and yet another for good discipleship? That Christians of different traditions, though all are Protestants and evangelicals, often end up fighting more over what they differ on than in rejoicing in what we all share?

As I was mulling all this over in my mind, and just starting to read Frame's book, I received an e-mail from Peter. The timing could not have been more providential. He's right in that we do have our differences. But, if there is to be unity - if we are to see even a slight glimmer of what it truly means to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" - then it is precisely at the hard points that these issues must be resolved.

Here's my quote from the preface, to set the tone for what I hope to achieve here...

I have come to certain convictions about the church, particularly about denominations and denominationalism. These are convictions that do not seem to be commonly expressed in the theological literature. Indeed, I have not been able to find much agreement to them among my friends with whom I have shared my thoughts. Yet, I cannot seem to wriggle away from these ideas, for they seem to me to be the inescapable teaching of Scripture, and I still believe with B. B. Warfield that "what Scripture says, God says." So I've decided to try out my thoughts on the Christian public at large, the trans-denominational body of Christ. If you think I am wrong, please show me how I am wrong; show me from Scripture, please. I'm willing, I hope, to change my views in response to a really biblical argument. If you think I'm right, then see what you can do to change the thinking of others in the church, so that somehow we might, by God's grace, overcome the "curse of denominationalism" that defames our Lord and so often enfeebles our witness.

By "denominationalism," I mean, sometimes (1) the very fact that the Christian church is split into many denominations, and sometimes (2) the sinful attitudes and mentalities that lead to such splits and perpetuate them.

In the Preface to the 2000 edition, Frame also noted...

Nearly ten years have passed since Evangelical Reunion was first published. Response to it was hardly overwhelming. A few reviewers seemed a bit bewildered by it and dismissed the main thesis — that denominationalism always involves sin on someone’s part — as extreme. Some others liked it, but not well enough to keep the book in print for more than three or four years. I’m told that church courts of some denominations have expected their candidates for the ministry to “set their positions over against” mine, and that my approach has recently been derided by some as a “big tent” view of the church... As for me, I remain unbowed by the critics. So far as I know, nobody has seriously taken up the challenge of my first Preface, to refute me from the Bible. Until someone does, I must remain where I stand.

The intervening time has evidently seen little better. A Google search on Frame and this book yielded little - very little. Astonishingly little. But then again, is it so astonishing? Especially in Reformed circles, denominations are deeply ingrained into one's identity. One's theological training, one's vows of service and ordination, one's church career, are deeply indebted to one (or more) denominations. Even "non-denominational" churches fall into this category (see the "association" of churches following the pattern of Willow Creek, for instance - IMHO, a denomination in all but name). Denominationalism is in our blood. To critique denominationalism is to undercut much of what it means to be a Protestant in America today.

Can we really get to the point where we identify ourselves - and our fellow believers in other churches - as Christians first, and members of such-and-such denomination second? Not just in theory, but in fact and as evidenced by our actions, both individual and corporate?

That's what we're here to talk about.

Soli Deo Gloria

First things first

(Hi--I'm Peter G. Epps. Click the Profile at the right for more info.)

Doug and I will be attempting to examine the possibilities for unity among evangelical Christians with differing views on a number of issues. I know Doug from having encountered him over the years in various e-mail discussion lists concerning theology, and have always found him to be a rational, careful, serious interlocutor. We have important theological differences, and both of us would, I think, acknowledge that our views continue to change as (we trust) the Spirit leads us through our participation in the Body of Christ and, I think first and foremost, our engagement with Scripture.

I don't speak for him, nor he for me. I'm sure the reader will quickly see where some of our differences crop out. My goal, however, is to be able to state as much as possible of the truth all true believers can and should affirm, with as little disagreement, as possible. Where this is not possible, I hope we can discover that our disagreements are judgments concerning that which is not yet clearly revealed; or that our disagreements are the consequence of errors in the past, the truth of which may not yet be clear to us. May the Lord grant us--Doug and me, and our readers and commenters, and the churches we live in, and the Body whose members we are--the wisdom to negotiate these matters soundly.

Doug and I agreed, at his suggestion, to take as our starting point John Frame's "cry of the heart" titled Evangelical Reunion. The title of this blog is an obvious allusion to that book. I have had the chance to read (in part, sadly--I look forward to finishing someday) and discuss Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God with grad school friends of varying persuasions, and have found Frame to be an articulate, measured, and valuable scholar whose concern for the heart of the Gospel consistently outweighs the various theological contretemps that are his occupational hazard.

I'd like to lead off, then, with an important notice from the very beginning of Frame's book:

This book is not for everybody, though I will not forbid anyone from buying and/or reading it. In this volume I will be speaking to fellow Christians, those who love Jesus Christ, trust him for their eternal salvation, and are seeking to obey his commands. In my vocabulary, and in the teaching of Scripture, "Christian" does not refer to someone who merely holds to high moral standards, or goes to church, or seeks justice in society, or admires the teachings of Jesus. A Christian is rather someone who has a special relationship, a friendship, with Jesus. For Jesus Christ is no mere historical figure. He is a living person, raised from the dead. Moreover, he is Lord, the supreme ruler of heaven and earth.

How do you become his friend? First, by recognizing that no matter how good you may be in your own eyes and in the eyes of other people, you are a sinful person in the eyes of a holy and righteous God (Rom. 3:23). Second, by recognizing that sin against perfect holiness deserves death (Rom. 6:23). Third, by recognizing that you can do nothing to prevent the eternal death that is coming to you, and by throwing yourself upon the mercy of God (Eph. 2:8-9). Fourth, by recognizing that Jesus died in the place of his people (Mark 10:45) and that he offers eternal life to all who trust in that sacrifice (John 3:16). Fifth, by yourself trusting Jesus: asking forgiveness on the basis of his shed blood and seeking to obey him as your Lord, your supreme Master.

Further, this book is written to those Christians who have come to see the need to trust and obey God's written Word, the holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). This book is essentially a Bible study, though it does deal with our present situation as well as with the Bible. My deep conviction is that the Scriptures are God's very voice speaking to us. Unless you share this conviction, you will think my argument is not very strong. Indeed, it is a weak argument, if it is only my argument. But if it is the argument of God himself, then we had better pay attention to it and heed it. If the argument is only mine, then you can dismiss it politely by saying, "That's very nice, but we would prefer to leave things the way they are." But if it is God's argument, then we had better be willing to make disruptive, dramatic changes. What God says, particularly, takes precedence over the warm feelings of coziness we have in our present denominational structures.

If you have not rested from your enmity with God, you will find little here that is of enduring interest to you. You are welcome to read, but will you not trust Christ and stop striving against God?

If you have entrusted yourself to Christ alone for salvation, but have not become persuaded that the Scriptures alone, and the Scriptures in their entirety, are the inerrant and infallible witness to God's self-disclosure to His human creatures, then you will find many aspects of this discussion uncongenial, I think. Again, I ask you to consider your own relationship to the God Who has fully revealed Himself in Christ, as witnessed to in Scripture by the apostles and prophets, through whom the Spirit spoke to those who the Spirit enabled to receive the Truth, Christ Himself.

For more on my own understanding of this Gospel, you could read over at my blog, beginning perhaps with The Simple Gospel: Concisely Put? and perhaps, for those inclined to more detail, continuing with The Simple Gospel: Restatements, Compiled, which is an interaction with a discussion spawned by another evangelical blog.

In the end, though, it is not and must never be my understanding--or yours--which guides any of us. It must be our entire submission to the Christ who was born of the virgin Mary, who was and is God being a man, who walked the earth speaking the truth in love without ever doing less than God's own will, who suffered and died on our behalf for our sins, who was buried, who rose from the dead, and who, with the Father, now lives toward the day when He will return to the earth to judge the living and the dead and consummate the Kingdom His Father intends Him to have.

You must entrust yourself to Christ, and Christ alone, for your salvation from sin, if you are to rest from your enmity with God.

It all begins here.