Are Denominations Good Or Bad for the Church?

Published On: September 20, 2025

It’s a question that troubles honest Christians: Does Jesus’ prayer in John 17—for unity in the church—remain unanswered? How is it that we now have thousands of denominations and splinter groups scattered across the globe? Critics even point to our divided house as evidence of Christianity’s failure. Do our denominational walls contradict Christ’s vision of “one flock, one shepherd.”

The Reformed tradition offers nuanced wisdom here. Rather than defending denominations as inherently good or condemning them as necessarily evil, we should, perhaps, be asking a better question: When do institutional structures serve gospel faithfulness, and when do they hinder it?

UNITY IN DIVERSITY: THE BIBLICAL FOUNDATION

Scripture reveals a stunning paradox:

God’s people display unity precisely through diversity. Paul’s body metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12 shows us uniformity doesn’t always equal unity. “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’” (v. 21). Each part serves the whole through its distinctiveness, not despite it.

This isn’t organisational accident—it’s divine design. Ephesians 4 shows Christ giving different gifts to build up the church: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. These roles naturally require different emphases and approaches, though not necessarily separate institutions.

The apostolic precedent confirms structured decision-making when disputes arise. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 established authoritative procedures for resolving doctrinal questions. Paul’s confrontation of Peter in Galatians 2 shows us maintaining gospel truth sometimes requires institutional boundaries. His instruction regarding divisive false teachers in Titus 3:10-11 indicates some separations do serve gospel faithfulness.

However, we must distinguish between apostolic authority (which was unique and foundational) and later ecclesiastical developments. The New Testament describes local churches with elders and deacons, not the complex denominational structures we see today.

WHEN DENOMINATIONS MAY SERVE GOSPEL FAITHFULNESS

First, they can preserve biblical truth. Paul charged Timothy to “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Timothy 1:13-14). While individual churches can drift doctrinally, confessional accountability through presbyteries, associations, or conferences can help preserve biblical truth across generations—provided these structures remain subordinate to Scripture.

The Westminster Confession acknowledges visible churches are “more or less pure” (25.4) while some have “so degenerated as to become…synagogues of Satan” (25.5). When churches abandon gospel essentials, separation becomes necessary for gospel preservation.

Second, they can enable focused mission. Paul’s missionary strategy adapted to different contexts (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Different churches naturally develop different strengths: some excel in teaching theology, others in evangelism, still others in mercy ministry. Voluntary associations can coordinate these strengths effectively.

Third, they can provide biblical church discipline. Jesus outlined a process of accountability in Matthew 18:15-17 that ultimately appeals to the church. But which church? In a connected world, some broader structure becomes necessary to prevent church-shopping that avoids discipline.

THE DANGERS WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE

Reformed theology also recognises significant problems with denominationalism:

Denominational pride can eclipse gospel unity. When we treat our traditions as more important than our common faith in Christ, we violate Paul’s teaching about the body (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). No denomination has cornered the market on biblical truth.
Institutional maintenance can become an idol. Jesus warned human traditions can make void God’s word (Mark 7:13). When denominational survival trumps gospel faithfulness, reform becomes necessary.
Multiplication of divisions can confuse gospel witness. While some separations serve truth, endless fragmenting over secondary issues can obscure the gospel message and weaken Christian influence.

CONTEMPORARY REFORMED VOICES

Modern Reformed scholars show considerable diversity on these questions. Some emphasise confessional boundaries as essential for doctrinal integrity, while others pursue broader evangelical cooperation. The Reformed Church in America participates in “Formula of Agreement” with Lutheran churches, recognising substantial unity despite denominational differences. Meanwhile, other Reformed bodies maintain stricter boundaries based on detailed confessional requirements.

Carl Trueman and other Westminster scholars emphasise the importance of confessional subscription for pastoral training, while acknowledging the complex realities of denominational cooperation. Sinclair Ferguson focuses on gospel-centred unity that transcends but doesn’t necessarily eliminate institutional distinctions.

A BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK

Scripture suggests several principles for evaluating denominational structures:

Unity in gospel essentials (1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Galatians 1:6-9): Churches that affirm salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone share fundamental unity, regardless of denominational labels.
Liberty in non-essentials (Romans 14:1-15:7): Scripture allows diversity in matters like worship styles, church governance, and applications of biblical principles.
Truth over institutional peace (Galatians 2:11-14): When gospel truth is at stake, separation may be more faithful than false unity.
Love as the supreme virtue (1 Corinthians 13:1-3): Even correct doctrine becomes worthless without love. Our denominational convictions must be held with humility and grace.

FAITHFUL STEWARDSHIP UNTIL CHRIST RETURNS

The goal isn’t perpetual division but faithful witness until Christ returns. Denominations serve the church well when they preserve biblical truth, enable effective ministry, and maintain gospel boundaries while remembering they’re means, not ends.

This requires constant vigilance. We hold our distinctives firmly but graciously, convinced that truth matters while remembering that we “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We work for visible unity where possible while refusing to sacrifice biblical truth for institutional peace.

Revelation 7:9 shows our ultimate destiny: people from every tribe, tongue, nation, and denomination worshiping together before God’s throne. That glorious diversity-in-unity begins now through churches—denominational or not—that faithfully steward the gospel while recognising their place in Christ’s greater church.

Denominations aren’t inherently good or bad—they’re tools that can serve gospel faithfulness or hinder it. The question isn’t whether they exist, but whether they serve the King and His kingdom. When they do, we can be grateful. When they don’t, another reformation is always possible.

ARE DENOMINATIONS GOOD OR BAD? RELATED FAQs

What does the phrase, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” mean for denominational debates? This famous phrase (often attributed to Augustine but likely from 17th-century Reformed theologian Rupertus Meldenius) provides a helpful framework for evaluating denominational differences. The “essentials” include core gospel truths like the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, and Christ’s deity—areas where unity is non-negotiable. “Non-essentials” encompass matters like baptism mode, church governance, and worship styles where Christians can disagree while maintaining fellowship. The “charity in all things” reminds us that even when defending essentials, our manner should reflect Christ’s love. DA Carson notes this principle helps distinguish between theological hills worth dying on versus preferences that shouldn’t divide churches. However, Reformed scholars like Carl Trueman warn that the line between “essential” and “non-essential” isn’t always clear and requires careful biblical discernment.

How do contemporary Reformed scholars view ecumenical movements and denominational cooperation? Modern Reformed scholars show considerable diversity on ecumenical engagement. Ligon Duncan and other Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals leaders emphasise cooperation around gospel essentials while maintaining confessional distinctives. They support initiatives like Together for the Gospel (T4G) that unite Reformed, Baptist, and other evangelical denominations around core doctrines. However, scholars like R Scott Clark advocate for stronger confessional boundaries, arguing meaningful cooperation requires substantial doctrinal agreement. Carl Trueman takes a middle position, supporting evangelical cooperation while warning against lowest-common-denominator theology that weakens denominational distinctives. Most agree cooperation should be mission-focused rather than aimed at institutional merger, preserving what Sinclair Ferguson calls “unity without uniformity.”
What role should church confessions play in maintaining denominational boundaries? Reformed scholars generally agree confessions serve as vital guardrails for denominational identity and doctrinal integrity. Westminster Seminary’s Carl Trueman argues confessions provide churches with historical wisdom that has been tested over centuries, preventing each generation from reinventing theology. However, he distinguishes between “system subscription” (affirming a confession’s overall theological system) and “strict subscription” (accepting every detail), with most Reformed churches adopting the former approach. RC Sproul emphasised confessions are “normed norms”—authoritative but subordinate to Scripture. The challenge, according to Michael Horton, is maintaining confessional fidelity while allowing for theological development and avoiding what he calls “dead orthodoxy.” Contemporary Reformed churches increasingly struggle with how strictly to enforce confessional boundaries when members or ministers take exceptions to specific points.

Do denominations help or hinder church planting and missions? Reformed missiologists present mixed views on denominational structures in missions. Tim Keller argued denominational networks provide crucial support for church planters through funding, mentoring, and accountability that independent churches often lack. The Presbyterian Church in America’s church planting statistics support this, showing higher success rates for denominationally-supported church plants. However, Ed Stetzer and other church planting experts note denominational bureaucracy can slow decision-making and limit contextual adaptation in rapidly-changing mission fields. Some Reformed scholars advocate for “denominational flexibility”—maintaining theological distinctives while adapting organizational structures for mission effectiveness. The emerging “church planting movements” approach often transcends traditional denominational boundaries while preserving core Reformed theological commitments, suggesting that the future may require more fluid institutional forms.

How should Reformed churches handle the growth of non-denominational Christianity? Reformed scholars acknowledge the non-denominational movement reflects legitimate frustrations with denominational bureaucracy and institutional maintenance taking priority over gospel mission. Kevin DeYoung notes that many “non-denominational” churches are functionally Baptist or Presbyterian in their theology and practice, just without formal institutional ties. However, Reformed theologians like Ligon Duncan warn that rejecting denominational accountability can lead to doctrinal drift and pastoral isolation. Carl Trueman argues that true independence is impossible—every church exists within some network of relationships and influences. The solution, according to many Reformed voices, isn’t abandoning denominational structures but reforming them to better serve gospel purposes. Michael Horton suggests Reformed churches should emphasise their gospel distinctives rather than institutional traditions when engaging non-denominational Christians.
What specific challenges do Reformed scholars foresee for denominational Christianity in light of biblical prophecies about end times apostasy? Reformed eschatologists point to passages like 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (“the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine”) as indicating increasing challenges for confessional churches. RC Sproul Jr. and others argue denominational structures may become more important, not less, as individual churches face pressure to compromise biblical truth for cultural acceptance. However, they also warn denominations themselves aren’t immune to apostasy—citing mainline Protestant denominations that have abandoned biblical authority on sexuality and salvation. Albert Mohler suggests future faithfulness will require “convictional denominations” that prioritise theological integrity over institutional unity or growth. Some Reformed scholars anticipate a future where faithful churches form new networks around gospel essentials while historic denominations continue liberalising. The challenge is maintaining both doctrinal faithfulness and evangelical cooperation as cultural pressures intensify against biblical Christianity.

How do Reformed scholars balance denominational loyalty with broader Christian unity, especially regarding secondary separation? This question divides Reformed scholars significantly. Some, influenced by fundamentalist separation principles, argue for “secondary separation”—avoiding cooperation with Christians who cooperate with theological liberals, even if they’re personally orthodox. However, most contemporary Reformed scholars reject secondary separation as unbiblical and counterproductive. John MacArthur and others advocate for “primary separation” only—separating from those who deny gospel essentials while maintaining fellowship with orthodox believers in imperfect denominations. Carl Trueman argues secondary separation creates an impossible standard since all denominations contain some theological error. Instead, he advocates for “principled cooperation” that evaluates partnerships based on specific ministries rather than denominational affiliation. DA Carson’s approach focuses on gospel-centred unity that transcends denominational boundaries while maintaining personal conviction about secondary issues. Most agree the goal is faithful witness to Christ rather than denominational purity.

ARE DENOMINATIONS GOOD OR BAD? RELATED FAQs