On any given Sunday churches of varying denominations meet to give praise to the one God who they believe unites them in spirit and in truth. These denominations represent the diversity to be seen in the Christian Church. They enrich the body in worship and in the specific emphases they make in the interpretation of Christian theology. There are denominations that subscribe to a more liberal understanding of God and those who hold more conservative beliefs. These various approaches largely enhance our appreciation of who God is and how He fits into the grid of our daily existence.

But denominations have been a profound source of disunity in the body of Christ. Far from promoting unity and a conscious desire to work together, the splintering of the Church into different denominational enclaves has caused serious divisions, dissensions, and even hostilities between Christians, which have profound implications for how the Church carries out its mission to the world. There have been attempts at ecumenism, and attempt to bring churches together for greater unity and cooperation, but this has not worked as it should. Ecumenical councils tend to become mere talk shops in which ideas are exchanged, but from which nothing meaningful emerges that can lead to important changes in how the churches do business.

How well do the different groupings of churches in Jamaica work together to foster meaningful change in the society? What kind of relationship is enjoyed between the Jamaica Council of Churches and, say, the Full Gospel Ministerial Fellowship? The inconvenient truth is that there is a level of suspicion among the brethren that prevents them from working robustly with each other. I sense also that there is an aura of superiority that infects so-called mainline or high churches and those believed to be of lesser pedigree.

There may be the belief among some churches that they have a better interpretation of the mind of God and have best captured the essence of who He is in their worship experience. They contrast what they believe to be a “proper” theology of worship to the “chakka chakka” Pocomania, which is believed to characterise others not learned in the intricacies of Christian theology. The well-ordered and tailored Anglican and Roman Catholic approach cannot be compared to others.

It is not only in the interpretation of Christian theology and worship that there is great divide, but in the matter of church polity and administration. Each church denomination is governed by its own order and constitution. There is great suspicion, at least in my mind, as to the extent to which these constitutional authorities conform to the mind of Christ, or to life constrained by the new reality of living to be found in Him. Some of these constitutions, like in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, are very magisterial and hierarchical. Even a cursory reading of the canons and constitutions of these churches will reveal clear lines of demarcation, and thus privilege between the clergy and laity. The higher up you are in the clergy ranks the greater power you have over the flock. And some, infected by the power demon, are not averse to remind congregants who is in charge.

A deeper wedge is driven between denominations by the constitutions of each church which places little emphasis on ecumenism or practical cooperation for change. They become very insular and thus set up barriers to effective communication with each other. Never mind the occasional meetings of ministers’ fraternal which may bring some levity to clergy relationships, but no real decision to work together for change. They do not motivate a willingness to work together to further the mandate of Christian mission in the world. Deep down they fail the test of Christian unity in the cut and thrust of living out the implications of revolutionary love in the community.

I am not presumptuous or foolish to think that we could ever banish Christian denominations in the world. One can argue, as some have, that the rise of denominations was inevitable with the splintering of Christendom, furthered by the Reformation sparked by Martin Luther. They are what they are today and there is no way in which this genie can be pushed back into the bottle. But while they will persist, there is no written rule that they must perpetuate the divisions we see within the Church. I do not foresee a Church of God preacher any time soon preaching from a Roman Catholic pulpit, but I can see the head of the Roman Catholic or Anglican Church sitting with the head of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or any other denomination for that matter, to work on social programmes and projects that can advance Christian charity and unity in the society. This would indeed be revolutionary. Perhaps I am naïve, or just simply daydreaming, but if this should happen perhaps people would begin to see us as Christian disciples.

Can I see a time when we do not think that the resources that each denomination has is its own, but the common property is the body of Christ which can be used to further the twin commands of loving thy neighbour and making disciples of people? I do. Can I hope for a re-evaluation of our constitutional ethos in the Church, where the emphasis is placed on the clergy being more shepherds of the people than mere church administrators and where the laity is not under suspicion as being a threat to the power and privilege of the clergy, but can be incorporated to exercise their talents and gifts in the body as they ought to?

I answer ‘yes’ to these questions largely because I am an eternal optimist with hope grounded in a brighter future that can dawn. Unless we democratise the Church, work more cooperatively with each other, and shed the dead skin of parliamentary privileges that so divide us we will never become the Church for whose unity Jesus prayed in his high priestly prayer in John 17. There is only one body, as Paul enjoined the Christians at Corinth. And there is only one Spirit, the Holy Spirit, that indwells it.

In re-evaluating our constitutions I urge a return to the revolutionary spirit of the early church which was characterised by a spirit of enthusiasm, gratitude and generosity. The present way of ‘doing’ church does not lend itself to this spirit of generosity. There is a close and tight-fisted attitude in our churches which is a violation of this spirit of compassion and generosity. It is not un-Christian to hope that the Church can once more be infused by this spirit. It is a spirit that does not know denominational borders. In fact, it breaks through any barrier that can be constructed by any denomination.

The Church was never mandated to make members of people, but disciples. The paradigm needs to shift from member-making to disciple-making. This will happen when we truly believe — as we often trumpet — that these resources are not ours, but the common resources of the body of Christ. The present model of each group doing its own thing, without consideration of what others think, is not working and needs to be revamped. This must begin with the confession that we have lost our way, like lost sheep, and have followed too much the devices of our own hearts and there is no health in us. If we do not, the society will see no reason to take us seriously. More will depart from the churches and many others will refuse to join. We will then continue to float as little islands in a sea of misery, irrelevance and disillusionment.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer or stead6655@aol.com.