Sunday, April 05, 2009

The sinful sin of schismatic schism

DAVID WALTZ SAID:

“The Bible teaches us that schism is SIN; Calvin teaches that schim is SIN; and yet, Protestantism as a whole has now for hundreds of years functionally ignored this SIN.”

i) You’re indulging in some highly anachronistic equivocations. The NT is talking about NT churches, overseen by apostles. To break with that sort of church would represent a revolt against apostolic authority and apostolic doctrine.

It’s tendentious and anachronistic of you to simply reapply those strictures to various denominations–including your own–100s of years down the line.

A denomination is not “the church.” No one denomination is “the church.” At best, various denominations exemplify the church in different times and places. The church doesn’t have just one address–unless you mean the headquarters (which are located “upstairs”).

Sometimes it’s sinful to break with a preexisting denomination and start a new one. At other times, it’s morally incumbent on the faithful to break with a preexisting denomination and–if need be–form a new one.

ii) However, if you wish to frame the issue in terms of schism, then I’ll happy to concede that the church of Rome committed sin when it broke faith with the pattern of the NT church and began to develop a series of unscriptural innovations. That’s why I don’t belong to a schismatic denomination like the church of Rome.

“And Calvin, like historic Chirstians before him, understood that the visible Church has real authority, authority to form creeds and confessions; authority to discipline, et al.; and if history teaches us anything, when that authority is ignored, heresy and schism abound.”

i) The church has the authority to teach revealed truth (i.e. biblical revelation). The church also has the authority to discipline members who deviate from revealed truth in faith and conduct.

The church has no authority over and above the truth. Rather, the church is subject to the truth.

ii) The usurpation of religious authority (e.g. the papacy) is also a rich vein of heresy.

iii) Authority in the abstract is neither good nor bad. Authority in the concrete is either good or bad. It all depends on who wields it, by what means, and to what ends.

“One Evangelical scholar, who has a good grasp of history, wrote…”

i) Yes, you like to trot out that quote whenever you can. It’s part of your divide-and-conquer strategy. To drive a wedge between 16C Protestantism and 21 Protestantism.

That, however, proves nothing–except the existence of discontinuities (as well as continuities) between two different eras. Things change. The mere fact that things change does not, of itself, indicate whether the change is for the better, the worse, just as good, or just as bad.

ii) Calvin is not our rule of faith. The Protestant Reformers are not our rule of faith. Scripture is our rule of faith. We are not called to be faithful to Calvin (or the pope). We are called to be faithful to God.

Calvin is not an authority-figure. He is not a prophet or apostle.

iii) We need to avoid the twin dangers of idolizing the past or idolizing the present. We can’t assume that what’s newer is better, and we can’t assume that what’s older is better. We have to measure these things on a case-by-case basis, with the Bible as our yardstick.

For you to accentuate a contrast between the past and the present gets you nowhere with me, for the contrast does not, of itself, point in the direction of which era was right.

iv) I think your basic problem, David, is that you simply transferred your membership from one authoritarian cult (the Watchtower) to another authoritarian cult (the church of Rome).

You changed names, but the framework is the same. You have never bothered to question the underlying framework. You’ve been using the same paradigm throughout.

22 comments:

  1. Steve,

    You say, "At other times, it’s morally incumbent on the faithful to break with a preexisting denomination and–if need be–form a new one."

    What Scripture can you use to back that up? I'd truly be interested.

    Thanks,

    BJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. BJ,

    Several related issues:

    1.Some local churches cease to be true churches. Even in the NT we can see some NT churches on the brink of apostasy. Likewise, we can see some dying churches in the NT–dying, not through attrition, but loss of spiritual vitality.

    2.There is also a general principle about limiting our associations with unbelievers (e.g. 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Thes 3:14-15; 2 Tim 3:1-9; 2 Jn 10-11).

    A certain amount of association is unavoidable, but a certain amount is also voluntary, and in cases of persistent false teaching (in word and deed), we should disassociate ourselves from false teachers.

    Keep in mind, to, that NT churches were house-churches, so some of the domestic references are ecclesiastical references.

    We shouldn’t support false teaching through our financial contributions. We shouldn’t subject our wives and children to false teaching.

    3.Apropos (2), the ordinary remedy is disassociation through excommunication. You expel the unbeliever. That’s a special application of the general principle.

    However, excommunication presumes a certain balance of power. As long as believers outnumber unbelievers, we can disfellowship unbelievers. However, if it gets to the point where unbelievers outnumber believers, then the only way to disassociate ourselves from unbelievers is for us to leave them behind. To “got outside the camp” (as the author of Hebrews would put it. Same principle, different application.

    4.Finally, while the church is a divine institution, a denomination is just a human convention. That doesn’t make it a bad thing. It’s a way in which Christians fellowship. But there’s no divine mandate to join a denomination. And, by the same token, there’s no divine mandate to remain in one. A denomination is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Like any organization or bureaucracy, it can outlive its usefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are many authorities in life. Sometimes one conflicts with another (Acts 4:19). There's a hierarchy of authorities. Apparently, the Diotrephes of 3 John 9-11 was a church leader, but he was in conflict with a higher authority, the apostle John. Similarly, when a group like Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy advocates a false gospel, it's sinful to submit to that false gospel and its promoters rather than submitting to God and the apostles who gave us the true gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). Just as there are Biblical passages that tell us to submit to church leaders, to maintain unity with other Christians, etc., there are Biblical passages that tell us to obey our parents, submit to the state, etc. Surely all of us understand that authorities such as parents and governments are subordinate authorities, beneath the authority of scripture, and that such authorities sometimes err and sometimes should be disobeyed. We don't obey a parent who tells us to convert to Islam. We don't obey a government official who tells us to have an abortion. Etc. The same sort of principles would be applied to church authorities.

    The apostles are the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20). The highest priority in submitting to church authority is to submit to apostolic teaching. Sola scriptura is submission to the highest level of authority in the church. If a lower level of authority, such as a post-apostolic bishop or ecumenical council, conflicts with that higher level of authority in the church, we're obligated to obey the higher authority.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, with all due respect, I fail to see how any of that answered my question.

    Some local churches cease to be true churches. Even in the NT we can see some NT churches on the brink of apostasy.

    This is true, but can you provide me with one example where Paul, John, Luke, or even Christ exhorts members of these churches to leave and start another?

    There is also a general principle about limiting our associations with unbelievers

    What's the relevance of that? I assume you're saying that if the leadership of the church is made up of unbelievers, then we're to dissociate with them, and hence that particular church. Three questions:

    1. Where does the Bible suggest that as a solution for dealing with apostate presbyters?

    2. What percentage of the church leadership should be unbelieving before such drastic measures are taken.

    3. Where does the Bible say that (i.e. #2)?

    However, if it gets to the point where unbelievers outnumber believers, then the only way to disassociate ourselves from unbelievers is for us to leave them behind.

    Again, what is the Scriptural backing for that? Where does Paul, John, etc. advocate schism? Where does David, Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, or Isaiah?

    As to your point 4, since you admit that there is no biblical discussion of denominations, are you conceding that you have no biblical support for your original statement, "At other times, it’s morally incumbent on the faithful to break with a preexisting denomination and–if need be–form a new one?"

    Plus, since you say that denominations are human inventions and not divine mandates, how can you say that it is ever "morally incumbent" to start another? I don't follow.

    It appears to me that in order to substantiate your claim you need to do two things:

    1. Show from Scripture that schism is allowable.

    2. Show from Scripture that schism is obligatory and mandated in certain circumstances.

    If you cannot do those, then I respectfully submit that your original claim is fallacious.

    Jason,

    Obedience to a higher authority does not necessarily imply schism, and usually doesn't. In other words, disobedience to an unjust/immoral command does not equal or even imply schism. If my parents tell me that I need to become Muslim, is it "morally incumbent" (to use Steve's terminology) for me to break with my preexisting family and-if need be-form a new one? I suggest certainly not. However, if you think it is, please provide some scriptural support.

    Thanks to you both,

    BJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BJ Buracker wrote:

    "Obedience to a higher authority does not necessarily imply schism, and usually doesn't. In other words, disobedience to an unjust/immoral command does not equal or even imply schism. If my parents tell me that I need to become Muslim, is it 'morally incumbent' (to use Steve's terminology) for me to break with my preexisting family and-if need be-form a new one?"

    I was addressing issues of authority in general. I wasn't limiting myself to "schism", I don't know how you're defining that term, and I wasn't limiting myself to what "usually" happens.

    You ask Steve where scripture gives "a solution for dealing with apostate presbyters" and where men like Paul and John "advocate schism". On some issues, we're only given general principles. An apostle doesn't have to "advocate schism" in order for schism to be an option within the framework the apostles gave us. Something can be neither advocated nor condemned by scripture. And schism can be implied without being advocated explicitly. Similarly, the apostles and other relevant authorities don't have to "advocate" some form of separation from parents, government officials, and other authority figures in order for such a form of separation to be acceptable within the framework of the general principles we've been given. Just as the apostles didn't go into much detail about church practice, they didn't go into much detail about how we're to relate to parents and the state. A general principle like Hebrews 13:17 has to be kept in balance with general principles like the ones we find in Galatians 1:6-9, the passages Steve cited, etc. If scripture sometimes calls for separation from particular people and particular practices, such as in the passages we've cited, and a church represents such people and practices, then separation from that church is implied. The proper actions to be taken after leaving that church will vary from case to case, and if we haven't been given many details about how to proceed, then we'll have to go by more general principles. We're in a similar situation with other authorities in life, like parents and the state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BJ Buracker wrote:

    "It appears to me that in order to substantiate your claim you need to do two things: 1. Show from Scripture that schism is allowable. 2. Show from Scripture that schism is obligatory and mandated in certain circumstances....Obedience to a higher authority does not necessarily imply schism, and usually doesn't."

    If you think that schism is sometimes implied by the principle of obedience to a higher authority, but isn't usually implied, then why are you asking Steve for evidence that schism is allowable and sometimes mandated? Are you questioning whether the concept of obedience to a higher authority is a Biblical principle? If so, how would you respond to the passages I cited concerning a hierarchy of authorities? If you agree that the concept is Biblical, and you agree that it implies schism sometimes, then aren't you acknowledging that you've already been given the evidence you're requesting from Steve in the two items above?

    ReplyDelete
  8. BJ BURACKER SAID:

    “This is true, but can you provide me with one example where Paul, John, Luke, or even Christ exhorts members of these churches to leave and start another?”

    i) To begin with, if a church becomes a dead church or apostate church, then it ceases to be a church. In that event, you’re not leaving the body. You’re leaving a corpse.

    ii) Since NT churches were under the care of apostles, we wouldn’t expect apostles to urge Christians to leave churches under their own care.

    However, no post-apostolic church is under the care of an apostle. Therefore, the situation has changed. We adapt. We apply general principles to specific situations. The application varies according to the situation.

    “Where does the Bible suggest that as a solution for dealing with apostate presbyters?”

    i) As I pointed out before, in the current situation we’re not dealing with churches planted by the apostles. Rather, denominations are human associations. You don’t need special authorization to dissolve your ties with a human association. That was just a social convention to begin with.

    ii) In addition, as I explained once before, it involves the logical application of a general norm to a specific situation.

    For example, in OT law we have both general norms (the Decalogue) and case-laws which illustrate the general norms. But the case laws are not exhaustive. An OT judge would have to analogize from one situation to a comparable situation.

    The Bible doesn’t contain specific solutions to every conceivable situation. Rather, it contains a mix of general norms and exemplary applications.

    “What percentage of the church leadership should be unbelieving before such drastic measures are taken.”

    Where does the Bible give percentages in 2 Cor 6:14-18, 2 Thes 3:14-15, 2 Tim 3:1-9 & 2 Jn 10-11? Should we disregard these injunctions because they fail to give a statistical breakdown?

    “Again, what is the Scriptural backing for that? Where does Paul, John, etc. advocate schism? Where does David, Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, or Isaiah?”

    Backing for what? For what forms of disassociation are logically possible? We don’t need Scriptural backing for a logical implication. We only need Scriptural backing for the principle to which we then apply logic.

    “As to your point 4, since you admit that there is no biblical discussion of denominations.”

    You’re equivocating. You need to master the elementary distinction between what is prescribed, proscribed, and permitted.

    i) A denomination is just a collection of local churches. There were local churches in the NT.

    ii) Moreover, our range of choices is circumscribed by our concrete situation. In modern times, we don’t have churches planted by the apostles. We have denominations and independent churches. So we’re confronted with a set of forced options. We can join a denomination, or not join a denomination. We can join an independent church or not join an independent church.

    “Plus, since you say that denominations are human inventions and not divine mandates, how can you say that it is ever ‘morally incumbent’ to start another? I don't follow.”

    There’s a general divine mandate for Christians to fellowship with each other. There’s no divine mandate on how, specifically, to fellowship with each other.

    “1. Show from Scripture that schism is allowable.__2. Show from Scripture that schism is obligatory and mandated in certain circumstances.__If you cannot do those, then I respectfully submit that your original claim is fallacious.”

    i) Your demand is fallacious. While something must be permissible to be obligatory, something needn’t be obligatory to be permissible.

    ii) Moreover, something can be obligatory in one respect, but permissible in another respect.

    It can be obligatory to avoid certain voluntary associations with unbelievers. It can be permissible to form one of several different possible associations. That we associate with fellow believers is obligatory. That leaves a range of permissible alternatives in terms of how we associate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BJ,

    According to you profile, “for 5 years, [you were] a youth director at Sandhills PCA, a Presbyterian church in Southern Pines, NC.”

    Can you provide me with one example where Paul, John, Luke, or even Christ exhorted you to join a Presbyterian denomination?

    And where does David, Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, or Isaiah advocate youth directors?

    Moreover, you later left Sandhills to study in Edinburgh. Show me from Scripture where you have the right to leave the local church where you used to fellowship?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    Why wouldn't Calvin be an authority-figure? He is after all a doctor of the church. Surely there's a difference between being an authority and being an infallible authority. Scripture itself must always be the criterion by which we judge all authorities, but this does not nullify the testimony of men like Calvin. We should be ready to depart from Calvin where Calvin departs from Scripture, but we shouldn't ignore what Calvin has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kyle said:

    Why wouldn't Calvin be an authority-figure? He is after all a doctor of the church. Surely there's a difference between being an authority and being an infallible authority. Scripture itself must always be the criterion by which we judge all authorities, but this does not nullify the testimony of men like Calvin. We should be ready to depart from Calvin where Calvin departs from Scripture, but we shouldn't ignore what Calvin has to say.

    A couple of things I'd like to please say:

    1. As far as I know, it's Christians down through the ages who have informally granted Calvin the title "doctor of the church." But even if an official Christian university or other relevant institution granted him the title, it's not as if a received title makes one ipso facto authoritative for the church.

    2. Also, I'd think the same person can be authoritative in one sphere while not authoritative in another. For example, a tax lawyer might be an authority in tax law, but not necessarily in maritime law. Or an American lawyer can be authoritative in American law, but not in British or Commonwealth law.

    I daresay many Reformed churches wouldn't find Calvin authoritative on issues such as ecclesiology or baptism even if they find him authoritative in other respects!

    3. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd tend to think it's possible for one's authority to diminish or no longer apply depending on time and/or place. After all, we're 500 years removed in time and in a vastly different place (politically, socially, culturally, etc.) than Calvin was.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We don't have doctors of the church. That's a Catholic conceit which Protestants should avoid emulating.

    I didn't say we should ignore Calvin. But that doesn't make him an authority-figure. The mere fact that he says something doesn't authorize the statement.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Patrick,

    I don't use "doctor" as an official title. All I mean by the title is that Calvin is a preeminent teacher of the church. And that can hardly be denied; the influence of his Institutes is everywhere. And if we grant that, as a general rule, Calvin's teaching is biblical, then some authority is naturally (and rightly) accorded to his opinions. Again, this does not make him an infallible authority, nor would his opinion be a rule of faith.

    Steve,

    Are pastors "authority-figures" in the church? Maybe you're using a stricter definition of "authority" than I am. But I find it puzzling, to say the least, that Calvin cannot be considered an "authority-figure." As I said, it is one thing to be an authority, another thing to be infalling (or a rule of faith).

    ReplyDelete
  14. By "infalling," I mean "infallible," of course. :/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kyle,

    Calvin is not your pastor. Calvin is dead. Do you think dead pastors have authority over you? There are lots of dead pastors. How many dead pastors do you think have authority over you?

    We need to shift the issue from authority to truth.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve,

    That's a tendentious characterization of the issue.

    My pastor isn't a prophet or an apostle, either. So by your statement above, how could he qualify as an "authority-figure"? The question is relevant to Calvin, even though he's dead, because he is one of the preeminent teachers of the Reformation, and his influence extends to us who are part of the Reformed church, as I think most would admit.

    Of course, fallible authorities can be wrong. That's why we have the Scripture as the rule of faith by which to judge all authorities, and not any man or man-made confession. But how does this make Calvin a non-authority?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kyle,

    Remember the context of this discussion. Waltz is using the Protestant Reformers to trump modern Calvinism or evangelicalism. He’s treating Calvin as the pope of Calvinism.

    An authority-figure, especially in the sense that he’s using the Protestant Reformers, is a person in a position of moral authority whose opinions command our assent. While there are also some weaker senses of authority, the weaker senses aren’t relevant to the debate with Waltz.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The following selection, from a Presbyterian author, is quite interesting:

    An especially pernicious tendency in contemporary America is the growth of independency. A multitude of churches exist which militantly proclaim their autonomy. They arrogantly boast of no connection or common government with any other ecclesiastical assembly; it is as though they believe that schism is a virtue. An outgrowth of independency is the development of an entire industry of para-church agencies and self-appointed ministers.

    Membership in the church is viewed as a matter of small significance: a person may attend regularly without ever joining a church anywhere or incurring any particular obligations. Members are free to adopt virtually any belief or lifestyle, according to their own individual preferences. Even open scandals and doctrinal aberration are allowed to continue without any corrective action from the church. In the last analysis, the situation in these so-called churches is nothing short of ecclesiastical anarchy. A proper resort to church courts and scriptural confessionalism could cure churches from these maladies of independency. (Kevin Reed, Biblical Church Government.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve,

    Then you're using "authority" in a narrower sense than I was. Thanks for clarifying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve, Berny, and Jason,

    First of all, thanks for your responses. I've been milling over them throughout the day. I appreciate the stimuli.

    I'm sure this will be a long reply, but I want to respond to as much as possible. Things that do not relate to my original comment or Steve's original statement, will not be addressed here.

    Berny,

    I'm sorry to have miscommunicated. I was not looking for proof-texts. I agree with Westminster - "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture."

    Thus, I was, and still am, not convinced that Steve has shown expressly or logically derived his claim - "At other times, it’s morally incumbent on the faithful to break with a preexisting denomination and–if need be–form a new one." - from Scripture.

    In the future, please do not assume you know what level of biblical argumentation I am aware of. I find that condescending and insulting, although I'm sure you did not intend it as such.

    You're asking for a reference that provides an apostolic prescription to separate from the church rather than an argument from Scripture that...

    I'm asking Steve to prove his claim. Nothing less, nothing more. I've brought in nothing about the distinctions between Catholicism and Reformed Theology, nor do I think it's relevant.

    Jason,

    And schism can be implied without being advocated explicitly.

    Where? I haven't seen any Scripture provided. Did I overlook something, or can you provide some references? Again, I'd be genuinely interested.

    For the record, I acknowledge that Steve gave references about separating from unbelievers. However, with the little bit of explanation he gave, I remain unconvinced. Perhaps just mere elaboration would do the trick.

    why are you asking Steve for evidence that schism is allowable and sometimes mandated?

    Because that was his claim. I'm merely asking for him to back up his claim.

    Steve,

    In addition, as I explained once before, it involves the logical application of a general norm to a specific situation...

    The Bible doesn’t contain specific solutions to every conceivable situation. Rather, it contains a mix of general norms and exemplary applications.


    I agree with your last statement. But what is this general norm? I am unclear as to what you refer.

    You’re equivocating. You need to master the elementary distinction between what is prescribed, proscribed, and permitted.

    Like I asked Berny, I'd appreciate you not take it upon yourself to tell me what I need to master. As with him, I assume you mean no harm, but that is quite offensive.

    Nevertheless, you are the one who made a statement about what is prescribed, not I. Again, I remind you of your original statement, "At other times, it’s morally incumbent on the faithful to break with a preexisting denomination and–if need be–form a new one."

    I have simply asked you to substantiate this claim that some times it is morally obligatory to sever oneself from a church (and start a new one). If it is morally incumbent, then for I or another not to do so would be sin, correct? I would like to know where such a sin is laid out within God's holy Word.

    The rest of your questions, although interesting, do not directly pertain to the question at hand. Whether or not I can find backing for joining a church, has nothing to do with whether or not you can substantiate your claim. Perhaps we can save that for another time.

    Thanks again,

    BJ

    ReplyDelete
  21. BJ Buracker wrote:

    "Where? I haven't seen any Scripture provided. Did I overlook something, or can you provide some references?...I'm merely asking for him to back up his claim."

    Again, you said earlier:

    "Obedience to a higher authority does not necessarily imply schism, and usually doesn't."

    I cited Biblical evidence for the concept of a hierarchy of authorities. Do you agree that the Biblical principle of a hierarchy of authorities sometimes implies schism, even if it doesn't usually do so?

    ReplyDelete
  22. BJ BURACKER SAID:

    “I agree with your last statement. But what is this general norm? I am unclear as to what you refer.”

    Limiting our contact with false teachers and unbelievers. Conversely, associating with fellow believers.

    Keep in mind that was not my only argument.

    “Like I asked Berny, I'd appreciate you not take it upon yourself to tell me what I need to master. As with him, I assume you mean no harm, but that is quite offensive.”

    I judge you by the level of your performance. Don’t presume to take offense unless you have a right to be offended.

    “I have simply asked you to substantiate this claim that some times it is morally obligatory to sever oneself from a church (and start a new one). If it is morally incumbent, then for I or another not to do so would be sin, correct? I would like to know where such a sin is laid out within God's holy Word.”

    You’re repeating yourself. I already responded to your question/objection. Interact with what I wrote in reply to your question/objection.

    “The rest of your questions, although interesting, do not directly pertain to the question at hand. Whether or not I can find backing for joining a church, has nothing to do with whether or not you can substantiate your claim.”

    To the contrary, it goes directly to your methodology. Do you have one standard for yourself, and another standard for your opponents?

    You yourself belong to a denomination. Moreover, the PCA is a “schismatic” body.

    Yet you presumably think that Scripture authorizes you to belong to a denomination despite the “schismatic” origins of your denomination. And I mentioned some other issues as well.

    ReplyDelete