Should the sheer fact that we have such a variety of Christian denominations be embarrassing to Christians? Without question this variety reveals the ignorance and misunderstanding of at least some of us! And just what are those issues that “denominate” us as Christians of various stripes? And what is it, most fundamentally, that keeps them all “Christian”?
These questions are perennial, and Anthony Chute, Christopher Morgan, and Robert Peterson’s Why We Belong: Evangelical Unity and Denominational Diversity was written to address just these kinds of issues. In an earlier review posted here at Books At a Glance we noted the significance of this book, and today Anthony Chute is here for the three editors to talk to us about their work.
Books At a Glance (Fred Zaspel):
Explain for us if you would the thinking that lay behind this book. How did it come about? Why did you think it was needed? What contribution were you hoping to make?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
This book came about through different experiences but with similar concerns. Tony went to Beeson Divinity School and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and took note of how both institutions enabled people from different denominations to work together while encouraging them to maintain their denominational identity. Professors at both institutions were intelligent enough to know the differences between themselves, their colleagues, and students, but none was narrow or belligerent with their views. Chris and Robert experienced similar collegiality as they worked on various book projects together. Despite coming from different theological perspectives, they attempted to find the best evangelical authors to write on topics for their books.
We all agreed that people who do not have the opportunity to learn from or work with people from different denominations might be helped if they could see how evangelicals balance doctrinal convictions with denominational (and interdenominational) cooperation. Similarly, we thought that people who identified our authors primarily as evangelicals might also like to know what led them to choose their particular denomination. That was more of a curiosity question, but an important one to ask because we value participation in the local church.
Finally, we knew people who have joined Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches because they concluded that Protestants were hopelessly divided. We wanted to highlight the unity that exists among evangelicals despite our denominational differences.
Books At a Glance:
What considerations led to your choice of the various contributors to this book, each representing a particular denomination?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
We decided not to be too broad in our denominational representation, simply because the book length would be less user-friendly if we incorporated anything beyond the most familiar groups. Likewise, we avoided sub-groups entirely, even though we knew one person could not sufficiently speak for an entire group. We then decided that the contributors would have to be active in their church, identified with a denomination, and visible as evangelicals.
We should also mention that the people we invited to participate in this book were quick to say “yes.” They liked the idea of telling their story on their own terms without having to defend their decision or their denomination over and against someone else’s view. Most books that deal with denominational differences do so from a defensive posture (“thanks for telling your side of the story, now here is where you are wrong”), or they simply list the beliefs of a particular denomination without providing consideration of how or why people arrived at their conclusions.
Books At a Glance:
Certainly “Christian” unity is by the nature of the case more than a mere name, and more than an external cooperation with others. At some point too much “generosity” here would belie the Christian label. But just what are those essentials that must be in place to profess a genuine Christian unity? Is it possible, briefly, to summarize and explain your thinking on this? Or is this question too reductionistic? Is there a better way to ask and answer this question?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
This is a good question, although we did not necessarily address it in the book. Our choice of contributors was intentional in the sense that we did not ask anyone to contribute that would have made our readers uncomfortable with our choices. We did not want to produce a book that proscribed how narrow or wide the evangelical tent ought to be. We were fortunate to have presidents and professors at major evangelical institutions participate, which indirectly spoke to the credibility of their status as evangelicals. Some of our contributors utilized the Bebbington quadrilateral (conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism) as a means of defining evangelicals. Though we did not discuss this beforehand, we simply would not have included anyone who had reservations about the Trinity, authority of Scripture, person and work of Christ, or the Solas of the Reformation.
Books At a Glance:
Your book does not deny the importance of the issues that segregate Christians and the various church traditions. Allowing still for the fact that differences of understanding will remain in this life, and while affirming our unity in gospel essentials, what particular issues or doctrines warrant denominational segregation? And can you explain?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
While it was not our purpose to set boundaries of this sort, we think our authors addressed this question in their own way. Several of our contributors mentioned matters related to polity and the sacraments (ordinances) as reasons why they participate in their denomination. Some were specific about other theological issues, such as Timothy Tennet’s understanding of prevenient grace leading him to identify with Methodists, whereas Bryan Chapell prefers Presbyterian company in part because of its Reformed perspective.
Some contributors cited additional reasons such as Gerald Bray’s appreciation for Anglicanism’s broad appeal and Byron Klaus’s acceptance of female pastors. Thus, what may be a deal breaker for some is the very reason why others have chosen to belong to a particular denomination. Several of our contributors discussed how their background influenced their choice of denomination, such as Timothy George and Doug Sweeney. They were not looking to build walls between themselves and other Christians but there was a comfort level that led them to identify with Baptists and Lutherans, respectively. In sum, we wanted to convey that factors in addition to theology contribute to one’s decision in choosing a denomination.
Books At a Glance:
On a practical level, how can a church maintain its distinctives with integrity and express its more fundamental unity with churches who differ on these matters? And how can this be done without generating confusion among the members or relegating distinctive doctrines to a level of irrelevance? At some point would not our cooperation be a confession that our distinctives are not significant after all?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
The local church can express corporate unity and maintain convictional integrity in any number of ways. Regarding the former, pastors and other church leaders can demonstrate unity by praying for other local congregations during the worship service, networking with local pastors and ministries on a variety of levels, as well as refusing to network with churches that have compromised or dismissed the gospel message altogether.
The best way to keep the membership from being confused is to maintain distinctives within the congregation itself. This could be done by teaching the membership why the local church is structured in a particular way, what the sacraments (ordinances) mean and do not mean, and by participating in the life of one’s denomination by attending and reporting on meetings, budgeting for denominational entities, and sharing the denominational heritage with incoming members.
Books At a Glance:
These are difficult questions, but can we probe just a step further? Once we say, for example, that baptism should (or should not) be administered to infants, have we not also said that those who practice otherwise are disobedient our Lord’s command? How does this bear on the question of our unity and our fellowship together? How are such questions decided?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
Our book does not address this topic, but as individuals we do not draw the conclusion that a person is disobedient regarding baptism when they are actually seeking to obey Scripture. A person who does not get baptized because he or she thinks it is unimportant is different from someone who gets baptized in a particular way that actually correlates with the long tradition of the church. Thus, we would distinguish in this instance between disobedience and a disagreement. However, we do not believe that this is a mere or relative disagreement; hence the value of belonging to a denomination where one’s local church can claim biblical fidelity in light of historic continuity.
Books At a Glance:
Finally, how can a Christian best answer an unbelieving friend who suggests that the very presence of so many denominations shows Christianity itself to be confused?
Chute, Morgan, & Peterson:
The first response would be to admit that the presence of so many denominations does not look good. The unbeliever is on to something when he or she assumes that Christians should get along. However, the church has a history and church members have idiosyncrasies, and becoming a Christian does not reverse the former or altogether remove the latter. We would tell the unbeliever that the gospel is the most important thing in the world to get right but there are other things that Christians can disagree over but still count one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We would then recommend that our unbelieving friend read two books: John Stott’s Basic Christianity and Chute, Morgan and Peterson’s Why We Belong.