Skip to main content

The Problem of Congregationalism


We live in the age of Congregationalism. A period in Church history when believers are grouped into congregations or collectives of believers of a particular denomination. The problem with congregationalism is that is creates a small community rather than the large community that was once known as Christendom. Because many churches believe they are the true faith and reject all other believers, save for the Ecumenical Movement, this creates small communities or pockets of congregants.

Instead of being able to go from Rhineland to Rhodes in former times, and being able to enter a church and be part of community in any country, congregants are isolated to their church in their city or rural location. A sense of isolationism stems from this and as result unity and a larger sense of belonging is lost. For Catholics and Orthodox Christians, even other larger Protestant denominations like Lutherans and Anglicans experience a sense of larger community across countries; a surviving Christendom if you will. In contrast, congregationalism can be church specific; that is to say that some churches aren't even truly part of denomination, diocese, or church family. An Assemblies of God church can be independent of the Assembly and therefore not in union with all other Assemblies Churches.

Congregationalism is the new Schisma. There are complete congregations that have no ties to any outside oversight or church body. A anti-Christendom of sorts has been born; with congregations being independent of larger denominations. IF someone says they are Protestant, that is insufficient information, because it could mean they traditional, i.e. Lutheran or an isolated church with no history called Church of 95 Thesis of Reform. Congregationalism has become a new form of fragmentaling that allows communities of Christians to completely break away from a larger body; often called the fold. The dangers of this is cultism; with no oversight and no accountability, a pastor can become a pope and congregates can become crazed and duped into "drinking Kool-Aid." The other danger is an insular way of life; where the community has no connection to the outside Body of Believers and thus develops doctrines that aren't necessarily heresy, but definitely legalistic or too lenient towards sin. Because there is no oversight, there is no means to investigate the health of believers or help curb cultism and insularism.

Those who are Congregationalists may argue that if you have oversight, it can be abusive, as demonstrated for over 1500yrs by the Papacy. Abuse of power is danger with oversight, but the same danger lies within a lack of oversight; a pope can arise within a small congregation, his name is Pastor and he "hears God better than everyone else." Ideally, a church would be run in manner of the Apostolic Age, within a homes of believers and having contact with some kind of trustworthy oversight and leadership for cases of disagreement, reconciliation, and doctrinal issues.

Congregationalism has been a tool to break the Church into denominations of denominations. Instead of there being Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and more; sub-denominations take form such as Pentabyterianism and Cathodox. The problem is these fringe groups expand until there are limitless variants of the denomination. I once read an estimate that there over 3,000,000 denominations of the Church! Some of them with less than six members!

My qualm is not with freedom of religion or starting a new movement. The Reformers are a great example of innovation and the need for change in the church. However, serious change and schism are not the same thing. Preferably the solution would be a bridge of Christendom and Congregationalism. Here is what I mean, Christendom is all Christians who believed the Scriptures and Gospel, and Congregations are the churches in Christendom that differ over "gifts of the spirit: for today or not?" and other doctrinal differences. This would allow a unity and conformity, but at the same time maintain an independence and individual solidarity. Ecumenicalism seems to be a similar plan to this, but Christendom & Congregationalism does not require fealty and ignoring the differences of each denomination. The Ecumenical Movement wants unity between all churches; but this is done by avoiding the topics, doctrines, and issues that divide churches. In Christendom & Congregationalism believers would be able to unite over what they agree, but maintain the unity of their own unique beliefs among themselves; without having to hide their differences. 

Ultimately, this post is a examination. Not solution to the problem. A theory is proposed, but making it happen would take God. Unity and Diversity in One is Utopia. Something that will likely not happened until Jesus Christ Returns and the New Heaven and Earth is made. Then all the rivalries, disunity, and sinful infighting will die; and we shall have unity we have sought as a body; but yet we shall still be individuals. Thus the ultimate solution is the return of the Savior. Until then we experiment and try to achieve the next best thing; which really is not even that, but an somewhat adequate placeholder tell the Prince of Peace arrives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel’s Conquest of Canaan: The Nephilim and Giants

  Christianity Today asserts that the conquest of Canaan can be a “stumbling block” for believers. This probably is because of a foolish idea of comparing it to a modern conquest happening in our world. The truth is that God had Israel conquer Canaan because it was ruled by evil giants, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.” (Numbers 13:33). These are Anakim or Nephilim, the children of angels and human women, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. The...

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a man who did two things, he took 70th week of the Book of Daniel and stretched out to the End Times, and he was the father of  Dispensationalism , a belief system that God dispenses different peoples with separate blessings and covenants. According to Darb'ys doctrine of Dispensationalism, God dispenses different covenants. There are total of seven dispensations that divide the history of man: I. Dispensation of Innocence (prior to the Fall, "Do not east of the Fruit of Good and Eve, Eden), II. Dispensation of Conscience ( You must assuage guilt and sin with blood sacrifices.) III. Dispensation of Human Government (Multiply and Subdue the world, example the Tower of Babel Gen 11:1-9, and Genesis 1:28). IV. Dispensation of the Promise (Dwell in Canaan, Jerusalem) V. Dispensation of the Law ("Obey the Law of Moses and the Prophets"). VI. Dispensation of Grace (The Church, Jesus Christ has come...

Jesus’ Name in Aramaic

There has been a trend to render Jesus’ name Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ , Yeshua. The problem is neither Christ nor his apostles, nor the Jews in 30-33 A.D. spoke Hebrew, they spoke Aramaic. A ramaic is the oldest language on earth and was the language Jesus spoke. In fact, the oldest Old Testament is the Septuagint a Greco translation around 132 B.C.E. (165 Years Before Christ)that was translated from Aramaic. The Masoretic Text, The Hebrew Old Testament most Bibles use, dates from 7th to 10th Century A.D. (Medieval Times).  This translation does not cross reference with the words of Christ in the New Testament which are Aramaic and Koine Greek.  If the Aramaic was what Jesus spoke, then by what name would have been called? Jesus’ name in Aramaic is Isho or Eesho, spelled ܝܫܘܥ . That is the name of our Lord in Aramaic! He would have heard his name in this dialect, “Hail Isho or Eesho!” as well as the Greek, Ἰ ησο ῦ ς , Iesous.  Aramaic is disappearing, only a few peop...