Should All Christian Groups Become One?
by Mathew D. Staver

Over the years, I have periodically been asked the following question – “Why don’t Christian groups unite together as one?” The assumption behind the question is that there are too many similar Christian organizations, and if all the groups with similar objectives became one organization, then this one group would have a bigger impact than the several smaller groups.

This question has an appeal on its surface, and some people argue that one group as opposed to many is biblical. After all, didn’t Christ say that He wanted all His followers to be one as He and His Father are one? Certainly the idea of having one organization is mechanically easier for a donor because there is no decision to be made as to which organization to support.

While I believe that all similarly situated groups should cooperate with one another, I also believe that merging all such groups into one is not only bad policy and ill-advised strategy, it is also unbiblical. Some people will point to the passage in Proverbs that says a three-fold cord is not easily broken. Pointing to this scripture, some people declare that separate groups should merge into one. However, the reason why a cord is strong is not because it is one strand, but because it remains three separate and distinct strands that come together for a common purpose. If the separate strands no longer exist and only one a single strand remains, the strength of the cord will significantly decrease.

Never in the history of our American experience has there been the notion that a monopoly is best for society. In fact, competition always increases quality. Competition is the mother of invention. We would not be better off if there were only one software maker in the world. If in fact there were only one software maker, we would still be using DOS. Microsoft would have never been born. If Microsoft were the only software in the world (although Bill Gates might like it to be), then Macintosh and many other software systems would never have been developed. Multiple long distance carriers give consumers a choice. This choice increases quality and drives down cost. I’m glad we don’t have one grocery store to patronize or one school to select for our educational careers.

Although those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus are one body in Christ, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to select from multiple denominations and different worship styles. If there were only one church to attend, what would you do if the church began teaching unbiblical doctrine? You would have no choice but to cease attending, as there would be no alternative. If we all joined forces behind a fallen leader, we would all fall together.

But some people say that a group like the ACLU has become effective because it is a large singular group. What most people don’t realize is that there is diversity even within the ACLU. There is the National ACLU and then there are individual state chapters, and within each state, there are individual regional chapters. These multiple chapters sometimes disagree with one another. As liberal as the ACLU is and has always been, it has not been the main organization to break new ground on the homosexual agenda. Newer organizations, such as LAMBDA Legal Defense Fund, have become driving forces spearheading the same-sex marriage litigation movement. The Center for Reproductive Rights has been one of the main groups advancing pro-abortion litigation.

In order to appeal to donors, some might argue that one organization is better than many. Such a view is misinformed, arrogant, and primarily designed to raise funds. Think of The United Way for example. The United Way acts as a type of clearinghouse where donors contribute to one organization and then The United Way distributes the money to individual groups. But look what The United Way did with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts’ stance on morality no longer met with The United Way’s approval, so the organization decided to exclude the Boy Scouts unless the donor specifically designates the money to go to this fine organization. The United Way example illustrates the problem with having one Christian organization as a clearinghouse for other groups. What if the strategy pursued by this monopolistic group is wrong or ill advised? If that were the case, then all who follow the “Pied Piper” will walk off the cliff together. Moreover, a monopoly stifles innovation.

When Fred Smith submitted his master’s thesis, his professor gave him a bad score, stating that his idea of a federal express system would never work. Well, not only did it work, his company, Federal Express, became a business phenomenon.

Some of the legal strategies that Liberty Counsel has executed since its inception in 1989 have been first-of-a-kind cases never before tried in American history. One such case includes a challenge against the historic 200-year-old law in the state of Virginia that banned churches from incorporating and limited the amount of property they could own and control. On behalf of Dr. Jerry Falwell and Thomas Road Baptist Church, Liberty Counsel became the first organization in American history to ever challenge this law, and our lawsuit was successful. We have conducted many other successful unique legal strategies. If Liberty Counsel were part of one overarching organization, many innovative strategies would never have been permitted.

Having all groups become one is not only bad policy and strategy, as I said before, it is unbiblical. God gives a vision to a specific person. He gave a vision to Moses to lead His people from Egypt. He called John the Baptist to be the forerunner of Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. If Moses, John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul were all under one monolithic leadership umbrella, they could not have pursued their specific calling. While similarly situated Christian groups should cooperate and coordinate where possible, they should never become one.

An assumption that all Christian groups should become one underestimates the effect of the Fall. In a perfect world, perhaps all similarly situated groups should become one. However, God’s people are not perfect. A person or group which begins pursuing a principled approach to fulfill a God-given vision may end up ineffective, or possibly even corrupt.

I learn from the example of others. Human ingenuity and God-inspired revelation push each one of us on to new and higher achievements. In fact, I enjoy presenting a problem to someone who doesn’t consider it routine. Such a person is not confined with old reasoning and may end up solving the problem in a radically different and more efficient way.

I am glad that not all Presbyterian churches are the same. If that were the case, we would not be hearing from Dr. D. James Kennedy. If all Baptist churches were the same, then Dr. Falwell, Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University would not even warrant a footnote in history.

I realize that having similar groups means stewardship cannot be mechanical. A good steward has a responsibility to give that which belongs to God and to give responsibly. We must be good stewards of our time, talent and treasure. This not only means to give, but it also means to give responsibly.

While unity of purpose and cooperation may be desirable, consolidating similarly situated groups into one is bad policy, ill-advised strategy, and frankly unbiblical.