As I scrolled down my Facebook feed, as I often do when I'm too sleepy to do much else, I came across a meme I found particularly amusing. It was a single-slide cartoon, seen in the header image, in which a teacher stands next to a very long, splitting timeline, beginning in 1AD. She proudly announces "and this is where our denomination showed up and got Christianity right".
I found this very amusing, and as I re-posted it, I realised Roman Catholics would, too. They probably wouldn't find the cringeworthy atheist troll page from whence it sprung especially amusing, but Catholics, much like atheists, are quite fond of the argument from sectarianism.
But I find it amusing for an entirely different reason. Seeing the abysmal logic in "we can't all be right, therefore I am", I would never use such a stupid argument. However, I would argue that the most accurate thing about this chart is the complete absence of any other date than 1AD. This chart could come from any era, from the first century to the last, and the teacher's claim to have "got Christianity right" would be just as valid.
Now, I know for a fact that there were divisions in the early Church. How do I know this? Because much of the New Testament was written to address these divisions. The errors they made, the sins they committed, and even, in the case of the Galatians, the flat out apostasy they skirted, is all permanently recorded in the earliest, and I'll add only God breathed, Christian source.
Because of this, I can say that by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around 54 A.D., the chart in the cartoon is entirely realistic. Any one of those branches could be "“I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”" (1 Corinthians 1:12). Catholics, note that you are among the "I am of Cephas" category, as the following is a matter of dogma, per First Vatican Council (1869-70), that "If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible Catholic comeback
At this point, especially if they know where I'm going with this, a Catholic might point to the fact that "I am of Christ" is in there, thus if I am going to be consistent in my interpretation, I must also rule out my own claims. To cut this objection off, I will note that it continues to say "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Well, I was, in fact, baptised in the name of the Father, the Son (i.e. Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, claiming "I am of Cephas" is a problem, whereas claiming "I am of Christ" is the ideal, because if you are a Christ-ian, you are, in fact, of Christ, and if you are not of Christ, you are not a Christian. By contrast, if you are not of Peter, you are not a Roman Catholic, but if you are a Roman Catholic... you're still not of Peter, because...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in reality, Peter, a.k.a. Cephas, never heard of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no reliable evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome. Many of Rome's unique doctrines still belonged to the pagans, up to and including "Pontifex Maximus", a title of the Pope, still belonging to the chief priest of the Roman College of Pontiffs. Roman Catholicism, as a denomination, did not exist in the entire first century.
But by the end of the first century, what did exist was "...the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3). This faith had a... shall we say a rocky start. And no, I don't mean Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18, as First Vatican Council erroneously claimed the Church has always taught. I mean, as previously stated, it was a house divided against itself. It began, as indeed it should have, in the synagogues. The Christian God is the Jewish God. Jesus was a Jew. Jesus' Apostles were Jews. Most of the first believers, with a few exceptions, were Jews. Thus, Christianity began not as its own religion, but as a denomination within Judaism (which I would contend it still is).
But of course, not only did the Jews crucify Christ Himself, but many of them also rejected Him and His followers after the Ascension. And, having been cast out from the synagogues, Christianity became viewed as a separate faith. This included losing the protected status the Jews enjoyed within the Roman Empire. And so initially, the faith was just called "The Way". But what's interesting is that we see the very birth of the name "Christianity" in Scripture: "And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." (Acts 11:26).
Now, we don't see exactly why this is. Did we call ourselves that, or did we hijack our enemies' attempts to insult us as "little Christs"? This is debated within academia, and the internet is littered with scattered evidence for both. I know, in times past, I have certainly asserted the latter. But at any rate, we see here that this is the name the disciples were first given. But there's more! Not only does the Bible say "this is what the disciples were called", but that this is what God Himself calls it.
See, to begin with, Paul actually gives his seal of approval to the term later on in Acts. When Agrippa says to him, in Acts 26:28, "...You almost persuade me to become a Christian", Paul's response is "I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both almost and altogether such as I am, except for these chains." (v29). Hey Agrippa, you want to become a Christian? I wish you would, and everyone else, too!
But the third and final time the term appears is significantly more explicit. It's very simple, "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." (1 Peter 4:16). If anyone suffers as a what? A Roman Catholic? A Southern Baptist? A member of the 95th branch of Bapticostalutherangelicalism? (Don't worry, I made that last one up, I'm quite hopeful it's not a real thing). No, simply as a Christian.
So we see that Scripture speaks quite negatively about divisions, but quite strongly about being a Christian. We aren't supposed to be divided, but rather, "...I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10).
But how are we supposed to do that? Are we to look for one supreme person, or a collection of people? Certainly not. Pay attention to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:1-7: "Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God. Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?"
This one passage, no matter which translation you read it in, utterly annihilates Catholicism in particular. Now, I mention translations because there is a variant in verse 6. Whereas the KJV renders this "...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written...", other translations, such as the notably Catholic NABRE, render it "...that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written...".
This is actually a fantastic Sola Scriptura prooftext, but ultimately, no matter which translation you go with, it does establish Scripture as the standard for how we view our fellow human beings. In particular, it notes the Apostles as "stewards" of the mysteries of God, and that even they must be found faithful. This is consistent with the rest of Scripture, as we also find this same Paul effectively threatening himself and his fellow Apostles in Galatians 1: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ."
So we see the stewardship the Apostles had. They received the message, they passed it on, they themselves were subject to it. Thus, he also says "For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" So we get to look at the Roman pontiff and ask "hey, what makes you differ from me? What do you have that you didn't receive? Why do you boast as if you had not received it?" And we can even say, as Paul did of Peter (Galatians 2:14), that the Pope is not being straightforward about the Gospel. And my friends, there is not a single preacher, in a single denomination, who is immune from this treatment!
And you can include me in this, by the way. I'm not even going to pretend I'm an Apostle, and certainly not, as Paul did, that "...I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5). But what I am going to claim is that I am subject to, and have received, the same message. From where? Let's let our fellow Gospel recipient, Irenaeus, answer that one for us: "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
Now, not wanting to go beyond what is written, I don't put as much stock into Irenaeus as I do into Scripture. However, here's what is written, which I believe shows Irenaeus to be 100% correct: "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
Well isn't that interesting? Whenever I write about verses 16-17, I often struggle, because there is literally no better way to state it than the way it is stated. But perhaps collapsing it a little might help. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, (...) that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Well if the man of God may be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work, by diligently studying (2 Timothy 2:15) the Scriptures, what do I need any denomination for? At this point, the answer seems to be nothing more than fellowship (which Scripture prescribes as a good work).
But can I not fellowship with members of different denominations? Can a Baptist not unite with a Lutheran? Can an Anglican not unite with an Evangelical? Must a Pentacostal shun a Presbytarian? And can I, who claim no denomination for myself, not look at members of every one of these denominations and say to them "brother", or "sister"?
If you're a Catholic, you might actually be more consistent with your denomination if you say no. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has been staunchly exclusive. "No salvation outside the Church", they claimed, until "Protestants" (a term I utterly reject) were upgraded to "separated brethren". So you have a choice. You can either be a modern Catholic and try to unite with the rest of the Christian world, or you can be a traditional Catholic and do anything from shunning us as future fuel for Hellfire to advocating for our brutal murder as heretics. The answer, ironically, is how much of a Christian you are.
But how do I answer this question for myself? With Scripture. See, the Bible predicts these divisions. It tells us there are Christians of varying degrees of faith, knowledge, and integrity. Thus, I can afford to take every claim to be a Christian seriously. If you say you're a Christian, that doesn't mean you are one, but in the absence of contrary evidence, I will accept that. And if you start preaching falsehoods? Or sinning? Well, so did the early Church. The early Church committed sins that are not even named among the unbelievers (1 Corinthians 5:1). The early Church disgraced the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:17). The early Church had ridiculously disordered church services (1 Corinthians 14:26). Now, I'm going to lay off the Corinthians for now, but suffice to say, the New Testament wasn't written to a shimmering, well-oiled Church, full of people who never did wrong, or stumbled, or erred. They goofed frequently, and massively, and that's why I cannot take it seriously when Catholic apologists appeal to their version of the early Church. But what I can do is look at the mess from which my religion sprung, and say that while it is still in a messy state, I, as a messy Christian, can fellowship with my fellow messy Christians, regardless of whether part of their mess includes being involved in a messy denomination.
Furthermore, I can look at the Bible, which is by no means a mess, and use it to identify the mess. See, almost everywhere a denomination goes wrong, it goes wrong because it isn't adequately studying or applying Scripture. Of course, there are exceptions. Sometimes, the Bible will tell us to do something, but it won't specify how. It tells us to gather, it doesn't tell us how often, or where. So most of us just say "right, see you Sunday morning". Well if you have a denomination that says "actually, our services are held on a Saturday", guess what? There's no sin in this.
Now, ironically, this is how many denominations form. It's a big name for a little difference. But then you get to bigger differences, like who is the head of the Church? Is it Christ, or is it the King of England? I can look at my Bible and tell you, the Anglicans have it just as wrong as the Roman Catholics with their Pope. So that's two denominations that have Christianity wrong.
But then which one has it right? None of them. If you could wave a magic wand, erasing every Christian denomination from the face of the Earth, Christians wouldn't earnestly study Scripture and bring them all back. Now of course, humans being humans, you'd end up with whole new ones instead. But the ones that exist right now? They'd be gone forever. You might end up with denominations with similar names, simply because denominations tend to name themselves after religious terms that are significant to them, but things would never be the same again.
And that, I believe, is what all Christians should aim for. Not for some supernatural ability to wipe away all denominations. I'd do it in a heartbeat if I could, but no. This all actually starts on an individual level. If we want to get rid of denominations, we don't do it with magic, we do it by studying our own Bibles, both together and alone. My advice? Start with Psalm 119. It's the longest chapter in the entire Bible, and it's all about the importance and benefits of studying the word of God. Throughout that chapter, you'll see that you, as an individual, can become wiser than even your teachers, just by studying Scripture day and night. You don't need a Pope, or a Bishop, or a Priest, or even a pastor. And yes, faithful teachers are useful, as are faithful fellow students, but there's a gargantuan difference between, for example, "...teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs..." (Colossians 3:16) and "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold,..." (Council of Trent, Session 4, 1546). The former is a Godly way of protecting groups from the errors of the individual, and the individual from the errors of the group. The latter? This is a frankly Satanic way of saying "lump Scripture, you believe what we tell you, and if the Bible says otherwise, we will reinterpret it for you".
And that's why I utterly reject all denominations, Roman Catholic or otherwise. Everything we will ever need to know is found within the Holy pages of God's own word. We are the sheep, that is the voice of our shepherd. If we are to follow a fellow sheep, let it be because they heard Him more clearly, and certainly, let us never be lead by that shifty looking one with the grey paws. The name of my denomination is "Christianity", and the name of my creed is "The Bible". Beyond that, I refuse to play the denominations game.