Are the differences between the Chistian Churches really important?

It cannot be the intention of this website to tell people which Christian Church is the only true one or the best one. All we can do is thoroughly discuss matters which deal with this question. So that Christians can make their own judgments and their own choices on the basis of knowledge. In this context we want to discuss two subjects which put the differences between Christian Churches in their proper perspective. And we want to call on our readers to wonder whether the differences discussed are of great importance or of little importance.

Many differences between Christian Churches with regard to their teachings have an academic character and only play a role in discussions among professional spiritual leaders. This kind of differences can easily be exposed as such by asking the question: What does God think about this? What does the Bible say about this? If the Bible does not say anything about a certain mater and God’s point of view is unknown, there is every reason to pay little attention to it.

Some examples:

The doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine asserts that there is one God, who consists of three divine Persons: the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. Each of these three persons is, individually, a God. In addition: the three of them together are God. All three of them have existed for ever and are without a beginning and without an end. All three of them are omnipotent. And there is not any form of hierarchy between the three persons so that one of them must obey another. Jesus Christ is just as much an eternal, omnipotent God as His father JHWH. Or even: Christ is JHWH.

As a matter of fact: neither the word Trinity nor the notion behind the word can be found in the Bible. The Bible tells us all the time that Jesus Christ was born of the Father. Which means that Jesus Christ was created by the Father. Jesus is always called the first-born and this word firstborn is never used for JHWH or for the holy spirit. In addition the Bible tells us that JHWH knows things which Jesus does not know, among them the date on which He will establish His Kingdom. And the Bible constantly emphasizes the fact that Jesus owes His Father obedience and that He came to earth to do the will of His Father. In short: the doctrine of the Trinity is totally unscriptural and as such objectionable. The doctrine developed in the fourth century as a result of the fact that people started applying terms from Greek philosophy to the Bible. And these two, Greek philosophy and the Bible, have nothing to do with each other and have nothing in common. This means that Churches which propagate this doctrine are guilty of teaching traditional views made by men instead of the views of God. Highly objectionable. But mind: no Christian Church uses the word Trinity when people are reading from the Scriptures, or when people are saying a creed, or saying the Lord’s Prayer, or having a church-service. No Christian ever prays to the Trinity or worships it. In daily Christian life the doctrine does not play any role at all. What does it matter then in our 21st century what “scholars” wrote about this subject so many centuries ago?

The fact that Christianity has adopted many things from other religions. It is an established fact that during the first century A.D., the only century about which the Bible gives us information, Christianity had no churches, no anointed priests who wore special clothes and formed a special social class, it did not use images of Biblical figures, it did not use things like candles, incense, special music, religious hymns or rituals. But where in the Bible does it say that everything that Christians did in the first century is the definitive standard for all centuries to come? Where does it say in the Bible that it is forbidden for Christians of later centuries to adopt things from other religions as long as these things do not go against Biblical rules? Where does it say in the Bible that it is forbidden for Christians of later centuries to do things differently, compared to the way they were done in the first century? Well then, if such prohibitions cannot be found, all changes which were brought about in later centuries are acceptable.

The fact that most Christian Churches now have a structure of organization which differs from the one of the first century. The Bible tells us that in the first century the Christian congregations were very independent and that there was no central institution that guarded the unity of the organization and its teachings. Congregations were governed by councils of elders (presbyters) in which everybody was equal. But where does it say that this free, loose and non-hierarchical Church structure was the standard for all future ages and that it was forbidden to organize the Church differently in later centuries? During the fourth and fifth centuries the Church was confronted with persons and movements which threatened the unity of teachings and of organization. Is not it very understandable and natural that in that period the Church felt the need of a much clearer structure of organization with a central authoritative institution and a clear hierarchy?

Many things in Christian religious practice can be viewed and judged in different ways. You can view them as horrible and reject them. But you can also view them as valuable, approve of them and even recommend them.

Two examples:

The Roman Catholic doctrine that during the celebration of the Eucharist the priest can really change bread and wine into the body and the blood of Christ. There is every reason to reject this notion or even abhor it: there are no passages in the Bible where priests perform miracles. Eating human flesh is cannibalism, drinking blood is absolutely forbidden by the Bible. But……… the Bible also contains Jesus’ words: he who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood will never enter the Kingdom of God. If Roman Catholics want to understand the mentioned words exactly the way Christ meant them and just want to do what Christ commanded His followers to do (and of course He did not urge them to practice cannibalism or to drink human blood)……then that there is nothing wrong with it. It is fine!

The baptism of infants. There is every reason to be against it because in the Bible only adults are baptized and by having themselves baptized these adults express that they really regret the sins they have committed and want to start serving JHWH. This means that the baptism of infants has no Biblical basis whatsoever and that this practice gives baptism a meaning which is totally different from the meaning it has in the Bible. But again: is it forbidden to change practices from the first century of the existence of the Church? Where does the Bible say that this is not allowed? Where does the Bible say that everything that the first Christians did in the first century A.D. is the lasting standard for all future generations? Is not it very wise to admit humans into the Christian community as early as possible and to consider them real members after their baptism, no matter how young they are?