So it's self-evident that the Christian church is divided into many branches and many denominations. One common response to this is to lament it, or to nostalgically look back to some time in the past when the church was, in one sense or another, more unified.
It's true that, historically, denominations have often been at each other's throats. But recently, these boundaries have meant less, and it's fascinating that "meta-concerns" have been overriding denominational allegiances. That is, many mainline or "liberal" denominations have found themselves in more agreement, and likewise what's called the "conservative" wings of those denominations have aligned with each other explicitly or implicitly. For example, we Reformed Presbyterians have WAY more in common -- both theologically and personally -- with Reformed Baptists, than the liberal wings of Presbyterianism (e.g. PCUSA).
The result is that healthy denominations are recognizing that their distinctives are often simply the result of a particular time and place. The members of a denomination don't need to prove that theirs is "the best" or even "most biblical", just that their ecclesiastic system works well in America in the 21st century. We can debate with others on a whole host of practical and theological matters, but in the lower-stake context of here and now, not eternally.
Looking back, we see that the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century set the stage for this present reality. People of many backgrounds came together to set down the "fundamentals" of the faith. Now, not everything that came out of that movement was worth keeping. I think there's valid criticisms that it was reductionistic, and tended towards anti-intellectualism. However, the ideas of "various backgrounds, one faith" has quietly become the model of how different Christian groups relate to each other.
So looking at these different groups today, we can look at different denominations as outworkings of the Holy Spirt in various and sundry ways. It would be surprising if just one ecclesiastical system worked everywhere. And when we don't consider our own denomination at the be-all and end-all, we can learn from and especially be corrected by other Christian traditions. There's faith that Christendom will not come crashing down just because our own denomination adjusts its priorities or teachings. It allows us to "always be reforming", by the grace of Christ.
We even can see a model of this in the Old Testament, from the history of Israel told in Exodus, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. It's easy to think of a unified 12 tribes under David and Solomon as somehow being the most important point of their history, as "true" Israel, but that's profoundly reductionistic, and doesn't match how the Bible itself tells that story. The passages of Judges are powerful and memorable, even if the the tribes aren't unified. But even more powerful and memorable are the books from exile, after the entire nation is carried off in captivity, like Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Or consider the rivalry between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel, how they had their own histories and cultures, even coming into conflict, but both were clearly stated as "belonging to God".
The outworking of all this is very practical. There's nothing in my (Presbyterian) denominational creeds that exclude other baptized Christians from fellowship or, especially, sharing with us in the Lord's Supper. There are, in fact, people from many different church backgrounds in our congregation. If those who hold to Baptist beliefs extend grace towards our congregation in their baptizing of infants (and sprinkling vs dipping), and if our congregation extends grace and consideration towards them in their decision to delay baptism, we can worship and baptize together without conflict, and we can have their older professing children baptized in our church, without anyone violating their conscience. It allows for "big tent" congregations.
Because the most important thing is that, in our local congregation, we are not divided. That we are at peace with our Christian brothers and sisters in the pew over. That we trust the work of the Holy Spirit to lead and shepherd our congregation, and also to work in the hearts of our fellow congregants. We can overlook offenses because we trust Christ. And from that foundation of Christian charity, we can extend it beyond our church, to trust the work of God's Spirit wherever people put their faith in Christ.
The outworking of all this is very practical. There's nothing in my (Presbyterian) denominational creeds that exclude other baptized Christians from fellowship or, especially, sharing with us in the Lord's Supper. There are, in fact, people from many different church backgrounds in our congregation. If those who hold to Baptist beliefs extend grace towards our congregation in their baptizing of infants (and sprinkling vs dipping), and if our congregation extends grace and consideration towards them in their decision to delay baptism, we can worship and baptize together without conflict, and we can have their older professing children baptized in our church, without anyone violating their conscience. It allows for "big tent" congregations.
Because the most important thing is that, in our local congregation, we are not divided. That we are at peace with our Christian brothers and sisters in the pew over. That we trust the work of the Holy Spirit to lead and shepherd our congregation, and also to work in the hearts of our fellow congregants. We can overlook offenses because we trust Christ. And from that foundation of Christian charity, we can extend it beyond our church, to trust the work of God's Spirit wherever people put their faith in Christ.
