Are denominations like medicines where different ones work best for different folk. And so they're good things rather than bad and we should choose the one that works best for us?
For example, I believe in free will and so I would never be able to adopt a denomination that didn't acknowledge that. And it wouldn't be because of a lack of understanding of that denomination. It would simply not be possible for me ever to disbelieve in something that to me is self-evidently true. It would twist me in knots and make me feel phony if I tried. And I feel the same about some of the defining beliefs of other denominations.
So I think that, in practice, we seek out a church that feels right for us, and perhaps often we won't be able to articulate why it does so. Of course, we shouldn't expect to find a church where we agree with everything that's taught and we should always be open to being challenged, but on the issues that go to the heart of what we personally believe, isn't it reasonable to select a denomination that reasonably matches that?
There is often a sentiment that different denominations are comparable to consumer goods, and that it's up to us, the consumers, to choose the one we like the best.
But if we stop and think about this for just a moment it should be obvious why such thinking is wrong.
The reason different denominations exist is because of schisms among Christians. Breaches in our communion. After all, Christ only established one Church, His Church.
Schisms happen because there are disagreements, usually over some point (or sometimes several points) of theology. Most of the ancient schisms involved pretty clear heresy. One of the most ancient examples is Marcion of Sinope attempting to challenge some pretty fundamental Christian teachings ended up being excommunicated and started his own rival Marcionite Church. Marcion was a heretic (he denied that the God of Israel was the same God Jesus spoke about, and so he rejected the Old Testament, and the teaching that God is the creator of the world, and then went on to edit the Gospel of Luke and some of Paul's letters to suit his own purposes).
And in a sense, that's how all schisms happen, one side argues their position is true, and the other side argues their position is true, and two groups result. Sometimes the question of orthodoxy and heresy is pretty clear, such as in the case of Marcion mentioned above. But other times, it gets way more complicated.
For complicated, let's take the 451 Schism. During the Christological controversies of the 5th century we have a split between two groups: Diaphysites on one side who argued that Jesus Christ has two natures (
dia physes) corresponding to the two essences (
ousie) in one united Person. And Miaphysites on the other side that argued that Jesus has two essences (ousie) but are united as one Incarnate nature (
mia physis) of the one undivided Person. This was exasperated further because of extremists, or at least the fear of extremist positions (e.g. Nestorianism and Eutychianism). And so when a church council was held in the city of Chalcedon, the Diaphysites declared their position final, and the ramifications were that the Miaphysites were cast as being Eutychians, and thus heretics. This led to a major schism among churches, those who took the Diaphysite/Chalcedonian position, and those who took the Miaphysite position. Today, the Chalcedonians include Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians; while the Miaphysite position is still maintained by the the Oriental Orthodox Churches (the Coptic Church, the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Armenian Church, etc). However, also today, after 1500 years of division, there actually has been a lot of good dialogue, and there is a growing consensus that what differentiates the Diaphysite and Miaphysite positions isn't one of actual substantial theology, but rather is a matter of semantics. In other words, we're both saying the same thing, just using different words.
And, then, things get more complicated when one looks at Protestantism. Like, holy cow does it get complicated.
So, let's look at me for a moment. I'm Lutheran. Why am I Lutheran? I didn't grow up Lutheran, it's something that happened over the course of my 20's. I say "over the course of" because it's not like I woke up on day and said, "I think I'll be a Lutheran". Instead I began asking a lot of questions, questions that led me to look at different positions held across the spectrum of Christianity. Lutheranism wasn't even on my radar for a long time. And so I often like to say that I tripped and fell into Lutheranism, that's actually why I sign my name off on here as "CryptoLutheran" because I was a "Secret Lutheran" for a while, not actually part of a Lutheran church body but having eventually become convinced of the basic theological positions of the Lutheran tradition on the subject of Justification. And that's the reason I'm Lutheran: I believe Lutheranism is biblical Christianity, I believe Lutheranism is true, honest-to-goodness Christianity. That doesn't mean I consider non-Lutherans non-Christians, but yes, I do believe that the theology in other traditions to be deficient, and--quite frankly--just downright
wrong.
If I didn't believe Lutheranism was true, I wouldn't be a Lutheran.
Being Lutheran isn't about picking my favorite flavor of ice cream, or about what "works best for me"; but about what I believe to be objectively true religion.
And I think that's how people should look at their churches. I certainly hope that Catholics are Catholic because they believe Catholicism is actually true. That the Orthodox are Orthodox because they believe Orthodoxy is actually true. The same with the Reformed, same with Methodists, Baptists, et al.
Conviction is a good thing, and it doesn't mean we have to be jerks to one another. We can love and respect and treat one another as brothers and sisters even though we disagree very deeply about very significant points of theology and practice. Conviction with compassion is what we ought to exhibit.
-CryptoLutheran
