Churches vs sects: a logical viewpoint

[Evangelical]

In Christianity today, there are many buildings with the words "something church". Today, it seems anyone with a pastoral degree and a denominational affiliation can start a church.

Most Christians don't know that the groups that call themselves churches are actually sects, according to a definition of church which has lasted for 1200 years (until the Reformation). Since the Reformation until today, Catholics have not changed their view about this. On the other hand, in Protestantism, confusion reigns. Today, most Protestant Christians can easily define a church versus a cult, but find it challenging to properly define what is a sect versus a church. That is because they confuse the meaning of church versus sects and this actually stems from the Reformation, when for the first time, a group of Christians attempted to chart a new course apart from the Catholic church. These groups themselves, became the "new normal" in the countries they gained hold - Lutherans in Germany, Church of England in England. The term sect was then applied to any groups or dissenters which broke away from these. So on and so forth....

Today, the meaning of "sect" is largely reserved for JW's and Mormons, or any group which does not believe in the Trinity and is "different enough" from the major or well known denominations.

As the Catholic encyclopedia says:
The Protestant denominations which assume such an attitude are at a loss to determine the essential elements of a sect. In countries like England and Germany, where State Churches exist, it is usual to apply the name "sect" to all dissenters.

Over time, the meaning of the word sect and difference between a sect and a church has been lost. Today, Christians apply the word church to any group of Christians which reveals the truth of God, such as by preaching the Bible and holding to sound doctrine.
The flip side of this view is that any group who decides to preach the Bible and agree with the status quo is considered a "genuine church". It is not surprise then, that today almost anyone can start their own church and be accepted by the majority of denominations as a genuine church. Attributing the meaning of "church" to a group which preaches sound doctrine or is of sound quality, however, is a definition which does not stand up to the test of logic.

In another thread I raised a question regarding LGBT churches and their status as churches. Here is another: Why, according to most Christians, is a church which calls itself the LGBT church, not a church, but a church which calls itself "the Lutheran church" is a church?

Many Christians might say that the LGBT church is not a church because it stands for unbiblical things. They might say the Lutheran church is a church because its statement of faith is biblical and its doctrine is sound. However, suppose the LGBT church had only 10% actual LGBT members and the rest were faithful Christians, and 90% of the Lutheran church was LGBT with only 10% faithful Christians. Many Christians would not change their definition of which group is a church and which one is not. This is a kind of illogical viewpoint.

There is only one definition of a church that makes logical sense and is easy to apply and can resolve this paradox. That definition is that church is a single entity as defined by locality, and that both the LGBT and Lutheran churches are not churches but sects, or sub-groups within the Body of Christ. That is, the illogical viewpoint can be resolved by defining church not by quality, but by something which is independent of quality such as locality.

Under this definition, we can easily and clearly explain why the LGBT church is not a church. Why the LGBT is not a church? Not because they believe and practice unbiblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality. Likewise, the Lutheran church is not a church, not because they believe and practice biblical things, but because they are a sub-group of the church in the locality.

To many Christians it may seem unfair to label both the the Lutheran and LGBT churches as sects, but we should realise that to label them both as sect in no way means that the quality of both churches is the same or that they are equal. There is clearly a difference - the quality of the Lutheran church may be very good. The term "sect" is viewed by many Christians as a negative thing, however its true definition does not have such negative meaning:

Some churches, however, still take exception to the application of the term to themselves because of its implication, in their eyes, of inferiority or depreciation.

The use of the word sect has become frequent among Christians. It usually implies at present disapproval in the mind of the speaker or writer. Such, however, is not necessarily the case as is evidenced by the widely used expression "sectarian" (for denominational) institutions and by the statement of the well-known authority H. W. Lyon that he uses the word "in no invidious sense" ("A Study of the Sects", Boston, 1891, p. 4). (The Catholic encyclopedia).


The Catholic encyclopedia says:
To the Catholic the distinction of Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorised leadership.



We have seen that to judge what is a church and what is not on the basis of quality or doctrine is not logical and leads Christians into confusion about what a church actually is. This is because what the church says it is and what it actually is may be different. The quality and doctrine of a church may change over time, just as it did for the apostle Paul in the New Testament. This does not, however, mean it is no longer a church.

For example, when the church in Corinth was founded, it was probably in a pure state. However various problems crept in over time, which the apostle Paul addresses in his letters found in our New Testament. According to the typical definition, the Corinthian church in the bible would not be a church because of its problems and immorality. However, we find that the apostle Paul never defines a church by its quality or soundness of doctrine. Paul never says to the Corinthians that they are not a church anymore because of their failures. Likewise for the Ephesians and other churches. In Revelation, most churches had problems, yet Jesus did not stop referring to them as churches. Ephesus had lost their first love for Christ, yet Jesus did not tell them to start a new denomination of the few lovers in their midst, and call it the "lovers of Jesus church".

So far I have defined church by its locality, as one way to define church without basing the definition on quality or doctrine. To my knowledge there are only two alternative ways that a church may be defined (without basing on quality or doctrine):

1. Catholicism /Orthodox - appeal to church history, traditions, lineage to the time of the apostles. Those who hold to this view may appreciate the organisation, structure and rich traditions. They make many convincing arguments regarding their authenticity as the genuine church. They do not see Protestant churches as real churches, but divisions or sects, because they consider themselves to be the one genuine church. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church - a Catholic church, no matter how poor it is, will always be considered a genuine church, over a very good protestant church in the same locality.

2. Protestant and non-denominational - The true church is none of those which call themselves churches, but a third invisible, pure and perfect entity. This view I consider to be impractical. It exists in theory but not in practice. Those who hold to this view may have trouble settling down in one place and may be constantly seeking for "the perfect church". Some may settle for a good denominational or non-denominational church or one close enough to it (Baptist, for example), and live in the expectation that everything will be fixed on Jesus's return. Or they may stop attending church altogether out of frustration in being unable to find a church which fits their ideals. I believe that Spurgeon falls into this category - against denominationalism, and looking forward to a future time when the true church is revealed, while remaining in his denomination. This view might be characterised as a pessimistic or defeatist view. Their viewpoint is independent of the quality of a church, but they would never say that a church in the here and now can be a genuine church, because they do not believe that is possible until a future time when Jesus fixes all the problems. Typically, they believe that the genuine church no longer exists and cannot exist until a future time.

This viewpoint is somewhat right in the sense that Jesus will return and fix all the problems, and the many differences that divide Christians will be resolved. But this view is also wrong, in the sense that the New Testament does not speak of church in such a way, but as a practical and visible entity in the present.

There is a third definition of church I have not discussed which is independent of quality/doctrine which is that all who call themselves churches are genuine churches. While a number of Christians may hold to this view, I consider this view to be one that lacks discernment and common sense so will not address it.

reference:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13674a.htm