Neither Church nor Sect

For more than a century, scholars have often used the terms “church” and “sect” to describe different kinds of Christian communities. The distinction is especially associated with Max Weber and Ernst Troeltsch.¹ Put simply, a church is usually understood as a large, established, and organized Christian body. It tends to have a stable relationship with society and political authorities, and its membership is often broad and inclusive.² A sect, by contrast, is usually smaller and more demanding. Its members join voluntarily, are expected to show strong personal commitment, and often keep a clearer distance from the values and institutions of wider society.³

This distinction has been useful. It helps us notice differences in organization, membership, moral discipline, authority, and attitudes toward society. However, problems arise when this historically generated typology is applied to a very different historical context and allowed to become fixed labels for determining what a Christian community is—or what it ought to be.

A Typology Shaped by European History

The first problem is historical. Troeltsch developed his ideas mainly from European Christian history.⁴ In Europe, established churches had long been closely connected with governments, social classes, and national culture. This made it natural for Troeltsch to describe the “church” as a large institution that sought to influence the whole of society. But Christianity in other parts of the world did not always develop in this way. China is a good example. At first sight, one might identify the state-sanctioned Protestant church as a “church” and the house churches as “sects.” House churches often have voluntary membership, strong internal discipline, independence from official structures, and a clear sense of difference from the surrounding political order. Yet the distinction does not fit neatly. The official Protestant church in China has never occupied the same social position as the old established churches of Europe. It has not shaped public life and national culture in the way that some European churches once did. At the same time, many house churches are not simply withdrawn from society. They may resist political or religious control while remaining deeply concerned about family life, education, charity, public morality, and the wider community. The Chinese case therefore reminds us that a model developed from European history cannot simply be transferred to every Christian context.

When Sociological Typology Becomes Theological Judgment

There is a deeper problem with the church–sect typology. “Church” and “sect” are sociological categories: they describe how Christian communities are organized, how people become members, how strictly they regulate communal life, and how they relate to wider society. But these descriptive categories can easily take on a theological meaning they were never designed to carry.

Once this happens, the “church” type can appear to represent what the Church properly ought to be—open, socially engaged, and concerned with the wider world—while the “sect” can appear to represent a defective form of Christianity: narrow, separatist, and withdrawn. A sociological distinction then becomes, almost without notice, a theological judgment.

This is problematic because the theological identity of the Church cannot be determined simply by its social form. A small, disciplined community that maintains strong boundaries from the surrounding culture may look “sectarian” sociologically, yet those same practices may arise from deeply Christian convictions about holiness, faithfulness, and resistance to practices incompatible with loyalty to Christ. Conversely, a large and socially established institution may resemble the sociological “church” type without necessarily embodying the theological identity and vocation of the Church.

This incongruity becomes especially visible when Christianity exists as a minority faith under strong political pressure. In such contexts, strict membership, moral discipline, and resistance to political incorporation may serve as ways of preserving Christian identity rather than signs of withdrawal from the wider world. The early Church itself illustrates this complexity. Early Christian communities were often small, disciplined, and noticeably different from their surroundings, yet Christians continued to live in cities, work, marry, trade, care for others, and participate in ordinary social life. Therefore, we should be cautious about allowing categories created by sociologists to become theological judgments about what the Church should look like.

Rethinking “Separation from the World”

One good example is the idea of “separation from the world.” In sociological discussions, this is often treated as a typical characteristic of a sect. Yet the idea itself has deep roots in the New Testament and early Christianity. The New Testament repeatedly calls Christians not to conform to practices that are incompatible with faithfulness to Christ. Paul tells believers not to be “conformed to this world” but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2). Similar themes appear in 2 Corinthians 6:14–18, Ephesians 2:1–3 and 5:6–10, and Philippians 2:14–16. Early Christian writers drew similar boundaries. Tertullian, for example, warned Christians against participating in religious and cultural practices of the Roman world that he believed were incompatible with Christian discipleship, especially certain public entertainments (De Spectaculis; De Praescriptione Haereticorum).

In other words, rather than being merely a characteristic of the sociological “sect” type, “separation from the world” belongs to the calling of the ekklesia itself.⁵ Theologically, the Church may be understood as a people called by God out of conformity with the world and gathered into a community of allegiance to Christ. This calling does not require withdrawal from society, but faithfulness within it, including the refusal of practices that compromise Christian discipleship.

Wang Mingdao’s Engaged Nonconformity

This point becomes especially important when we turn to Wang Mingdao. Wang Mingdao has frequently been described in terms corresponding closely to the sect type.⁶ He is particularly associated with a strong emphasis on separation from the world,⁷ urging Christians to refuse practices they regarded as sinful or morally corrupting. Because of this strong language of separation, some scholars have portrayed him as socially withdrawn or primarily concerned with spiritual matters.⁸

However, his descriptions of Christians refusing certain entertainments and social practices bear an interesting resemblance to the way some early Christian writers negotiated their relationship with Graeco-Roman culture. For example, Wang’s description of Christians refusing invitations to gardens, banquets, dancing, music, and theatrical performances bears a suggestive resemblance to early Christian negotiations of public entertainment, particularly those discussed by Tertullian in De Spectaculis (cf. De Spectaculis 16–17, 24–25).⁹

For Wang, separation entailed refusal to participate in practices he regarded as sinful and morally contaminating rather than withdrawal from social life as such: “Because she refused to be defiled by going along with the world, she was countless times insulted, ridiculed, slandered, attacked, rejected, and cast out. It seemed as though she had become cut off from the world. She appeared to have no share in the pleasures of social life. In the eyes of the world, she was hopelessly out of step with the times, superstitious, and miserable.”¹⁰

Meanwhile, Wang’s writings engage a range of social concerns, including corruption, commercial dishonesty, gender inequality, family practices, and other forms of moral disorder. His admiration for the Old Testament prophets likewise informed a conception of Christian ministry that included criticism of society.¹¹ As Leung Sau Wah aptly observes, Wang responded critically to society much as contemporary intellectuals did, though from a different perspective.¹² As Cook observes, “…, his teaching resonated with a notable segment of Chinese society, particularly in the urban areas. … He pointed in a direction that could reestablish ethical society.”¹³

Most importantly, Wang explicitly rejected the idea that Christians who had been “called out of the world” should retreat from society:

Some may ask, ‘Since God has called us out of this corrupt world, should we withdraw from society, retreat into the mountains, seek an earthly paradise, and become reclusive hermits?’ This is not only impossible in practice but also fundamentally contrary to what is right.¹⁴

Instead, he located Christian distinctiveness within ordinary social participation. Public officials remain in public service while rejecting bribery and faithfully fulfilling their duties; merchants remain in commerce while refusing deception and conducting business with integrity.¹⁵ His account of ministry follows the same pattern. A preacher must understand human need, moral evil, social circumstances, and “the ways of the world and human affairs” in order to serve and guide others.¹⁶ Thus, Wang’s separation from the world did not mean abandonment of the world but a distinctive mode of presence within it.

Neither “Church” nor “Sect”

Thus, the church–sect typology becomes problematic for two main reasons. First, it was developed from a particular historical setting, especially the experience of European Christianity, and its explanatory power does not always transfer well to very different social and political contexts. Christian communities in China, for example, developed under circumstances quite unlike those of the established churches of Europe. A community may be small, disciplined, and resistant to political control not because it wishes to withdraw from society, but because these practices help it preserve its Christian identity under pressure. In such a setting, features that appear “sectarian” in sociological terms may have a very different meaning.

Second, the words “church” and “sect” themselves easily carry theological judgments. “Church” can sound like the proper, mature, or more authentic form of Christianity, while “sect” can suggest something narrow, extreme, separatist, or less truly Christian. Once this happens, a sociological description quietly becomes a theological verdict. Yet social form alone cannot tell us whether a community is faithfully living out what it means to be the Church. A small and disciplined Christian community may embody important aspects of the Church’s calling, while a large, well-established, and socially accepted institution may fail to do so. Size, organization, public recognition, or closeness to political authority cannot by themselves determine ecclesial faithfulness.

So instead of beginning with the question “Is this group a church or a sect?” we should begin with more basic theological questions. What is the identity and calling of the ekklesia as presented in Scripture? How were these convictions embodied in the life of the early Church? What does faithfulness to Christ require in a particular historical setting? And how well does a given Christian community embody that calling in its worship, moral life, internal relationships, public witness, and engagement with society?

This approach allows us to keep the useful sociological insights of the church–sect discussion without allowing its labels to control our theological judgment. It also gives us a more flexible and historically sensitive way of understanding Christian communities whose social forms do not fit neatly into categories developed from another time and place.

1. Cf. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols. (translated from Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, 1912) (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1931).
2. Troeltsch, Social Teaching, vol. 1, 331.
3. Troeltsch, Social Teaching, vol. 1, 379–380.
4. Duane K. Friesen, “Normative Factors in Troeltsch’s Typology of Religious Association,” The Journal of Religious Ethics 3, no. 2 (1975): 271–283.
5. In the four Gospels, the term occurs only in Matthew: twice in Matthew 18:17, where it denotes an assembly or local community, and once in Matthew 16:18, where Jesus declares, “I will build my ekklesia on this rock.” In the Pauline Epistles, ekklesia likewise refers to particular local congregations (“all the churches of Christ greet you,” Romans 16:16) and to the Church in a more comprehensive sense (“I persecuted the church of God,” Galatians 1:13), while the images of the body of Christ in Ephesians 1:22–23 and Colossians 1:18 further articulate the Church’s corporate identity.
6. Cf. Philip L. Wickeri, Reconstructing Christianity in China (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2007), 121.
7. Chloë Starr, Chinese Theology: Text and Context (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 201–207.
8. Wickeri states that “In urging his followers to separate themselves from the world, Wang Mingdao seemed to be ignoring the fact that it was a world in which they had to go on living and working.” Philip L. Wickeri, Seeking the Common Ground: Protestant Christianity, the Three-Self Movement, and China’s United Front (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988), 168. Wang has sometimes been understood as an escapist whose concerns were predominantly spiritual. Cf. Lam Wing Hung, Chinese Theology in Construction (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1983), 22–23, 75–76; Troeltsch, Social Teaching, vol. 1, 332.
9. Wang Mingdao, “Bride of Christ (Jidu de Xinfu),” in Works of Wang Mingtao, vol. 4, ed. Wang Zhengzhong (Taichung, Taiwan: Conservative Baptist Press, 1998), ch. 1.5.
10. Wang, “Bride of Christ,” ch. 1.4; Wang, “Truth or Toxin?” (Zhenli ne? Dusu ne?), in Wang Mingdao: The Last Forty Years, 277–286.
11. Wang Mingdao, The Fifty Years (Wushinian Lai) (New Taipei City, Taiwan: CCLM, 2012), 103–105.
12. Leung Sau Wah, “The Social Implications of a Transcendental Faith—A Re-interpretation of Wang Ming-Tao’s Social Teaching,” Pneuma & Logos, 9 (1998): 169–304.
13. R. R. Cook, “Wang Mingdao and the Evolution of Contextualized Chinese Churches,” in Contextualization of Christianity in China. An Evaluation in Perspective, ed. P. C.-M. Wang (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007), 222.
14. Wang Mingdao, “A Voice in an Evil Age (Eshi zhong de Husheng),” Spiritual Food Quarterly 5 (1928): 25.
15. Wang Mingdao, “The Call That God’s People Should Heed (Shushen de Ren Dangting de Husheng),” in Works of Wang Mingtao, 298.
16. Wang, The Fifty Years, 121–122.