Is it a bad thing that there are so many denominations?

[KingandPriest]

Hello all,

One of the consistent responses I have seen on this subforum in response to the church (collection of believers who follow Jesus Christ), is that there is too much differentiation between denominations, and that means there is no true church, or gospel.

I contend that the various denominations and segments which exist in the world today, are actually the exact makeup one would expect to find in a body of believers that is supposed to function like a body (human body).

The bible makes reference to the church as a body, where no part is more significant than the other.
[quote]
1 Corinthians 12:12-28

12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by[c] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,� it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,� it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!� And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!� 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret? 31 Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.[]/quote

This text points out that there would be varied parts/segments within the church. Each part carrying out a different function. Likewise, in the human body, there are various parts/segments which carry out different functions. The function of the eye is distinct from the feet, but they work together, and are connected to the same brain. The church is connected to Christ as its head, but the various denominations function as different parts of the body to reach specific objectives. Even within the human body, we know of hundreds of different types of cells. When those cells are functioning properly, it helps the body grow and maintain health. Sometimes, some cells mutate or become radical and become a threat to the overall health of the body. In these cases, the body appears to attack itself, with the intent being on maintaining overall health, and not destroying itself.

Questions for debate:
1. For those who contend that differentiation among the church as denominations is a bad thing, please explain why?

2. Do you believe the analogous nature of the church to the body is correct, and present today?

3. If the church is truly like the body, wouldn't you expect differentiation considering we are not single cell organisms?

[Divine Insight]

Questions for debate:
1. For those who contend that differentiation among the church as denominations is a bad thing, please explain why?

Because they actually disagree with each other on major important points.

This results in a confused theology that can't even agree with itself.

Diversity in Christianity only shows that the religion isn't consistent and that the Christians themselves are extremely confused.

2. Do you believe the analogous nature of the church to the body is correct, and present today?

No. In fact, it's an extremely bad analogy.

In order for this analogy to make any sense, the different demoninations of Christianity would simply need to be focused on different aspects of the religion. But that's not what we see at all. Instead they are in grave disagreement on the same issues.

Taking this as an analogy with bodies parts it would be like one denomination proclaims that eyes are used for seeing, whilst another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for hearing, and another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for smelling, etc.

So the analogy doesn't work.

3. If the church is truly like the body, wouldn't you expect differentiation considering we are not single cell organisms?

I wouldn't expect them to be in disagreement over the same issues.

In fact, the only way your analogy could work is if all Christian demoninations were in total agreement on everything, and they simply chose to focus on different aspects of the religion.

But that's clearly not what Christian demoninations do.

So your analogy fails. Christianity is not like a single body where all the body parts perform the same function.

Some Christians claim that they smell with their eyes, see with their ears, and hear with their feet. (i.e. my analogy for them having totally disagreeing theological views)

This is nothing but mass confusion. It does not represent a single "unified body".

[KingandPriest]

Questions for debate:
1. For those who contend that differentiation among the church as denominations is a bad thing, please explain why?

Because they actually disagree with each other on major important points.

This results in a confused theology that can't even agree with itself.

Such as?

What points do you contend to be major?
How many denominations disagree? A few outliers would not be sufficient to make your point. Of the billions of cells in the human body, do all perform exactly as expected? The answer is an obvious no.

Since you make the argument that they don't agree on major points, can you corroborate this with evidence that this is widespread, and that all denominations differ over major points?

Diversity in Christianity only shows that the religion isn't consistent and that the Christians themselves are extremely confused.

How so? Would you contend the diversity in the human body is because of confusion and a lack of consistency?

2. Do you believe the analogous nature of the church to the body is correct, and present today?

No. In fact, it's an extremely bad analogy.

In order for this analogy to make any sense, the different demoninations of Christianity would simply need to be focused on different aspects of the religion. But that's not what we see at all. Instead they are in grave disagreement on the same issues.

Taking this as an analogy with bodies parts it would be like one denomination proclaims that eyes are used for seeing, whilst another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for hearing, and another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for smelling, etc.

So the analogy doesn't work.

I agree the analogy doesn't work if you quote it incorrectly. The text does not point to one person using one body part incorrectly. What it speaks about is making one body part more important to another.

A correct correlation would be a person saying because I am not the hand, missionary for example, they are not a Christian. Or a person saying they are not the eye, (a prophet for example), they are not a Christian.

The text is communicating that all functions of the body are important, and one should not be lauded over the other.

Now I will admit that some are guilty of going exactly what the text attempts to teach us not to do. This in fact shows that the analogy is correct, because this is the exact behavior we sometimes see in the various denominations. One denomination may deem spiritual giftings of utmost importance, but are lackluster in giving to the poor. Another group will focus on missions, but lack the attention to spiritual gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues.

Since you assert that some denominations call the eye is for hearing, or the ear for seeing, can you please provide consistent examples across multiple denominations?

3. If the church is truly like the body, wouldn't you expect differentiation considering we are not single cell organisms?

I wouldn't expect them to be in disagreement over the same issues.

Such as?

In fact, the only way your analogy could work is if all Christian demoninations were in total agreement on everything, and they simply chose to focus on different aspects of the religion.

Would total agreement on everything be an accurate picture of how the various parts of the body work. There are many times where the body is "at war" with itself.

Do you contend that all of the cells and parts of a person are in total agreement on everything? If so, how does cancer, infection and disease exist?

Also, what are the different aspects of the religion you keep referring to?

But that's clearly not what Christian demoninations do.

So your analogy fails. Christianity is not like a single body where all the body parts perform the same function.

The human body is not like that either. Do all parts of the human body perform the same function? I will help you, the answer is no.

There are some parts which a person has some control over, and there is also an autonomic portion which function outside of a persons control. The functions are different at the macro and micro level of the human body.

Likewise in the church, the functions vary across denominations. Some focus on charity and build schools, hospitals, homeless shelters, etc.

Others help in prisons, others help with developing a persons character or spiritual gifts.

Do you disagree that the church has had wide array of functions which have impacted the world?

The functions of the eye are vastly different that the functions of the feet. They work together to move in a particular direction, but the functions are unique and different.

Some Christians claim that they smell with their eyes, see with their ears, and hear with their feet. (i.e. my analogy for them having totally disagreeing theological views)

This is nothing but mass confusion. It does not represent a single "unified body".

This appears to be a lack of understanding of what some Christians may or may not say, and not a difference on major points.

If I say an idea popped into my head, you may get confused and believe I am saying an light explosion occurred in my brain. When Christians speak on spiritual matters, you seem to conflate an expression or an attempt to state it is contradictory. Just because you don't understand an expression, does not make it contradictory. '

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

It's not bad as such, just unexpected. I expect the one true religion, backed by the Almighty would be unified in its message across the board. Instead there isn't agreement on the fundamentals like the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, on the criteria for heaven, grace alone or work + grace? These are not minor details.

As for the body analogy, sure, a body has different parts, doing different things but it does so in harmony. The arms carry, while the legs walk and so on. In that sense I recognize in the different part played by ministers, the priests, the congregation or choir; I don't recognize that in the different denominations, we don't have one leg walking one way away from the other, we don't have one arm snatching things from the other.

[Divine Insight]

Of the billions of cells in the human body, do all perform exactly as expected? The answer is an obvious no.

When cells don't perform as expected they are considered to be diseased.

So your analogy here can only suggest that if Christianity is the "Body of Christ" then it's filled with cancer.

What points do you contend to be major?
How many denominations disagree? A few outliers would not be sufficient to make your point.

If these demoninations were in major disagreement there would be no need for them to be separate denominations.

The extreme differences between Catholicism and the Protestantisms should need no elaboration. After all, if Catholics accept their Pope as the head of the Church which is the "Body of Christ" then everyone who disagrees with this theology cannot claim to be part of this "Body of Christ". And that's precisely what the protesting Protestants do.

So clearly the many forms of Protestantism cannot lay claim to being a part of the "Body of Christ" which is Catholicism.

So right there you have a major disagreement between Christian churches which all claim to be the "Body of Christ". It's clearly a catchy metaphor, but one that also clearly breaks down and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

And when we move over the myriad of disagreeing Protestantisms we also see much division concerning major principles.

For example, the Amish have been trying very hard to reject technology in the name of Christianity. Yet many other Christian denominations embrace technology with open arms. They both can't be right.

There are Protestant denominations that reject the concept of Hell and eternal torture or everlasting punishment. Instead they claim that those who are "condemned" merely die. However, the overwhelming mainstream Protestant denominations stand behind the concept of an eternal hell of torture for those who are condemned. You may not view this as a major disagreement, but I certainly do. If there is any real clarity in this religion there shouldn't be any question over something like this.

Some Christian denominations claim that Jesus brought a "new covenant" that makes the "old covenant" of the Old Testament no longer applicable. Other Christian demoninations point to Matthew 5:18 and proclaim that according to Jesus not one jot or one tittle of the original covenant or laws shall pass.

I am vividly aware of these major disagreements between Christian denominations because back when I was a Christian my greatest antagonists were other Christians, not atheists or non-Christians. In fact, I was at one time a proponent of the idea that Jesus brought a "New Covenant" making the "Old Testament Laws" no longer applicable. It was Christians of opposing demoninations who keep throwing Matthew 5:18 in my face as thought it was a tear gas bomb to blow up my denominational views on Christianity.

Getting back to your analogy I can then ask, "What kind of a body throws tear gas at itself in an effort to destroy opposing theological views?"

When I was a Christian my greatest antagonists were other Christians.

We can even see extreme disagreeing Christian theologies right there on these forums between the Christian theists who post here.

We see Christians who claim that our "original sin" is inherited from Adam and Eve. And that all human souls are created at birth. Yet we have other Christians who proclaim a PCE theology that holds that everyone who is on the earth has sinned against God prior to being born here. These are major differences in theological positions.

Different Christian denominations disagree on what is required for salvation. In fact, this is probably the greatest of all disagreements between Christian denominations.

If the point of Christianity is that humans need to fulfill some specific criteria in order to be "saved" from damnation, then at the very least, they should agree on what that criteria is.

But they can't even agree on that. I would say that this is a MAJOR issue to be disagreeing on.

If they are disagreeing on what is required for salvation, then clearly they can't all be part of the same "Body of Christ". This would be like your heart and liver having an argument over who's supposed to be pumping the blood.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

1. For those who contend that differentiation among the church as denominations is a bad thing, please explain why?

I am with DI on this. I see Christendom as a kingdom divided, and as such (according to the saying) it will not stand, It has not remained standing. It is a broken thing.

You as a Christian do not see this of course, for if you did you would not be asking the question.

I contend that the various denominations and segments which exist in the world today, are actually the exact makeup one would expect to find in a body of believers that is supposed to function like a body (human body).

Your contention is faulty in that you are claiming that Christendom is a properly function body, which quite clearly it is not. Nor - in your contention do you mention exactly how and why you see it as such.

The bible makes reference to the church as a body, where no part is more significant than the other.

And therein is the exact problem. Catholicism sees itself as the representative (head) of Christ...at the other end of the spectrum, JW's say this is a lie and that they are representatives of Jehovah, who Christ is a representative of.
So therein that one example out of many more which could be given, we see parts of Christendom thinking they are more significant than others.

Clearly your question should be rewritten to suit the truth and addressed to Christians in relation to WHY they are not themselves as parts of a healthfully functioning body which is obviously ONE thing and WHY they cannot distinguish this most obvious flaw when those on the outside of Christendoms charades see very clearly it is not a kingdom united.

2. Do you believe the analogous nature of the church to the body is correct, and present today?

I would be completely lying to myself to believe that.

3. If the church is truly like the body, wouldn't you expect differentiation considering we are not single cell organisms?

Yes, but not differentiation to the point of it being pretty much the analogy of a thing possessed and not able to control its bodily functions, so to speak.

What I would expect, is a body which functions in congruent with itself and expresses that congruent energy into the external world in the form of helping to create a system of parity, leading the world by example.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In order for this analogy to make any sense, the different demoninations of Christianity would simply need to be focused on different aspects of the religion. But that's not what we see at all. Instead they are in grave disagreement on the same issues.

Taking this as an analogy with bodies parts it would be like one denomination proclaims that eyes are used for seeing, whilst another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for hearing, and another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for smelling, etc.

My response to KnP's analogy would be that it would be like different parts of the body not working with one another. To compare the difference in beliefs between Protestants and Catholics, for example, would be to say that the lungs refuse to work with the blood provided by the heart, because the lungs don't recognise the blood as being in any way 'valid'.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

It's not bad as such, just unexpected. I expect the one true religion, backed by the Almighty would be unified in its message across the board. Instead there isn't agreement on the fundamentals like the Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus, on the criteria for heaven, grace alone or work + grace? These are not minor details.

May I ask what do you think the central message across the various denominations is?

Does it not begin with faith in Christ?

The concept of the trinity is a concept to help explain what is found in the bible. The divinity of Christ is not a debate. Of the two main categories of denominations (Catholicism and Protestant), both affirm the divinity of Christ. Within these two major categories there are varies sub classes which may have a different denominational name, but overall the beliefs are the same. Some are only an offset based on region and ethnicity. Even if you were to count each one of these as distinct, you would find a small number which attempt to dispute the divinity of Christ. Of the supposed thousands of denominations, how many refute the divinity of Christ. I would say with confidence that it is less than 1%.

It would be difficult to make an assertion that a less than 1% variance in this is enough to proclaim the church is divided, and unable to carry on the proclaiming of the gospel.

As for the body analogy, sure, a body has different parts, doing different things but it does so in harmony. The arms carry, while the legs walk and so on. In that sense I recognize in the different part played by ministers, the priests, the congregation or choir; I don't recognize that in the different denominations, we don't have one leg walking one way away from the other, we don't have one arm snatching things from the other.

I agree that it is not a 1:1 comparison in that, unlike the human body, an arm will not just leave the body to go to another country and be the "hands of Christ". Even though it is not an exact 1:1 comparison, I contend that the various denominations function as a body when you look at the impact on the entire planet. On a macro/global scale (which is how it was intended), the analogy fits. On a micro scale, I agree it does not appear to fit.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

In order for this analogy to make any sense, the different demoninations of Christianity would simply need to be focused on different aspects of the religion. But that's not what we see at all. Instead they are in grave disagreement on the same issues.

Taking this as an analogy with bodies parts it would be like one denomination proclaims that eyes are used for seeing, whilst another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for hearing, and another denomination proclaims that eyes are used for smelling, etc.

My response to KnP's analogy would be that it would be like different parts of the body not working with one another. To compare the difference in beliefs between Protestants and Catholics, for example, would be to say that the lungs refuse to work with the blood provided by the heart, because the lungs don't recognise the blood as being in any way 'valid'.

Where do you see this refusal?

What example are you thinking of?

How many people have been turned away from a Protestant church because they were raised catholic? Or the inverse, how many people are rejected because they were protestant?

What I have seen is that the individual may be required to have additional training to learn the rules of that local ministry. Even in a secular sense, this is applied. When a person goes to a new environment, they are often charged with learning the environment before they can lead.

If I am mistaken about your example, please clarify.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by KingandPriest]

Where do you see this refusal?

Should be obvious: the refusal of Protestants to recognise the Pope of Roman Catholicism as being the Vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter.

How many people have been turned away from a Protestant church because they were raised catholic? Or the inverse, how many people are rejected because they were protestant?

So going by this, how is this a healthy 'Body of Christ', as per your OP? It's a body in almost complete disagreement with itself. My example would then have the lungs (Protestants) refusing to recognise the blood and the heart as being valid (the Pope).

Moreover, going by what you said here

3. If the church is truly like the body, wouldn't you expect differentiation considering we are not single cell organisms?

is your body more or less 'at war' with itself? When your brain tells an arm to move itself, does the arm reject the command?