Table of Contents | Next Chapter 
Chapter Sixteen
Guidelines For Church
When
we find a likely candidate for reunion, what then? I cannot here suggest a
very specific set of steps; that will vary from case to case. But let me
suggest a perspective that ought to guide us through the often difficult
process of bringing churches back together.
Church
Union as
I
have been using the phrases "church union" and
"merger" because of their familiarity and because I wanted to
postpone some refinements to these concepts until this point in the
book. Actually I prefer to speak (as I have from time to time) of reunion rather than union. This is to
keep reminding ourselves that organizational church union is not something
which we are seeking to create for the first time. Rather, it
was created by Jesus Christ and (in its organizational
dimension) destroyed by the sins of human beings. That disunity has
been perpetuated by sinful attitudes and practices of which all of
us have probably in some measure and at some times been guilty.
What we seek now, therefore, is most precisely described, not
as union, but as reunion.
The
particular kind of reunion we are speaking about involves reconciliation.
We are apart because of sin, or at least because of perceptions of sin (recall
Chapter Eleven). Scripture tells us that when someone sins against us
(Matt. 18:15ff), or when someone rightly or wrongly perceives that we have
sinned against him (Matt. 5:23ff), we must go to that person and try
to straighten things out. Scripture puts such a high priority
on reconciliation that it tells us to interrupt an act of worship,
if necessary, to accomplish it (compare Eph. 4:26: "do not let
the sun go down on your anger"). If reconciliation has such a high priority
in Scripture, certainly church reunion, a form of reconciliation, also has
a high priority. Church reunion is not a luxury that we can postpone
indefinitely; it is a sore need of the church today (recall Part One).
In
the (lamentably defunct) Presbyterian
Journal,[1] there was an
article entitled "Yes, But Can She Cook?" which compared church
union discussions to courtship and suggested a thorough analysis of one
another's strengths and weaknesses before any union could take place. The
courtship metaphor is a common one in discussions of any kind of
"merger," ecclesiastical or corporate. That metaphor does add
some vividness (and sometimes refreshing levity) to the discussion. And it
does describe well the kind of thinking which, alas, usually dominates
discussions of church union. But we must remember that it is only a metaphor, and, in one sense,
a deeply misleading one. Church union is not "courtship;" it is
reconciliation after illegitimate separation. A much better family
metaphor would be the remarriage of a couple who had sinfully divorced.[2]
Now,
"Yes, but can she cook?" is a question appropriate to courtship.
A single person normally has no divine obligation to marry any other
particular person, and so he or she has the luxury of being able to
carefully scrutinize all the strengths and weaknesses of any marriage
candidate. So any number of things, cooking included, may be sufficient to
postpone or cancel the wedding plans. There is nothing obligatory or (in
most circumstances) urgent about such a marriage.
But
the situation is very different in the case of two people who have
sinfully divorced. They must remarry;
God requires it.[3]
And since reconciliation is involved, the matter is urgent, not to be delayed. People in this position do not have
the luxury of sorting out all of each others' strengths and weaknesses, as
if, say, the man could forego remarriage if he decided his wife were not
intelligent enough. They must remarry whether or not the remarriage
appears to be wise from the standpoint of human calculation. They must
remarry even though they might now prefer to remain single or to
choose other partners. They must remarry even if their human
wisdom concludes that remarriage would weaken them or frustrate them
in some way.
In
the reconciliation model, "yes, but can she cook?" is a
tragically inappropriate question. Imagine a sinfully divorced man
refusing reconciliation on the ground that he doesn't like his wife's
cooking. We can see how different is the courtship model from the
divorce/reconciliation model of church reunion. The courtship model denies
the urgency and the obligation of reunion. It pictures church union as
something we can take or leave, depending on even minor personal
preferences. The reconciliation model, however, reflects Jesus' passion
for the unity of his body.
On
the reconciliation model, church union may not be refused-- except for
conscience sake. That one qualification is necessary. Some union
invitations, after all, come with strings attached; they require (or
render likely) changes in doctrine or practice which an individual, church
or denomination cannot accept in good conscience. We cannot enter any body
where we will be required to sin as a condition of continued membership in
good standing. Such invitations are not true opportunities
for reunion; they do not rebuild the church that Jesus
established. But with that one exception, we must affirm the implication
of the reconciliation model: We must
accept any union proposal that we can accept in good conscience.
Burden
of Proof
Because
of our "exception" above, union is never a foregone conclusion.
Any church or denomination contemplating union must do some thinking about
it first. But that thinking should be limited to the question whether
there are any barriers to conscience
in the proposed union. The question is not whether we will be strengthened
or weakened by a union;[4]
the question is rather whether we will commit sin by entering into it.
The
question, then, is not "why merge?" but "why not merge?" Our job is
negative, rather than positive: to look for conscientious obstacles to
union, not to look for reasons to unite. That means that the burden of
proof is always on the opponents
of union. This fits the biblical pattern we observed earlier in this book:
In scripture, people are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of
proof is always on the prosecution. Union discussions are much like
judicial trials: opponents of union are in fact accusing the other
denomination of some error or sin that would prevent union. They must bear
the burden of proof; they must present convincing evidence. Otherwise, the union should
be accepted.
I
cannot express this point too strongly. Let me reiterate it by sharing an
experience. In 1986, the OPC General Assembly discussed whether they
should unite with the PCA. I was a commissioner, and I made a speech contending
for the above point, that commissioners should vote for the union unless they were persuaded on conscientious
grounds not to do so. I emphasized that the burden of proof was on the opponents of
union and argued the point somewhat as I have here. Later a fellow elder
stood up and made a speech in which he argued the opposite: that those in
doubt about the union should play it safe, in effect, by voting against
it. He may have used Rom. 14:23, "Whatsoever is not of faith is
sin." The elder did not refer at all to my previous speech, and he
made no attempt to reply to my arguments; therefore I did not take him
very seriously and I made no attempt to reply. But after the
union vote failed, a number of men told me (to my astonishment,
I confess) that my fellow-elder's speech had greatly influenced
the decision.
So,
in case that sort of reasoning is persuasive to any of my readers, let me
reply now as I should have replied at the Assembly: Scripture puts the burden of proof on the opponents of union.
Therefore, if someone is in doubt about union with another denomination,
except on ground of conscience, he must
resolve that doubt in favor of the union. To do otherwise than follow
Scripture is not to "play it safe;" it is to invite the fatherly
discipline of God upon ourselves, which can at times be very severe. And
as for Rom. 14:23, an anti-union vote contrary to scriptural
criteria cannot be done "in
faith." Voting against union in
such circumstances is sin.
One
more point about burden of proof. Bearing the burden of proof means taking
responsibility for the quality of evidence presented. I have often been
appalled at the amount of gossip, unsubstantiated rumor and such that are
presented as evidence in discussions of church union. In a judicial trial
of an individual, civil or ecclesiastical, the court would be
subject to rules of evidence, cross-examination would be allowed,
replies to all allegations would be solicited, unclear matters clarified. But
in union discussions, all these safeguards are typically absent, and
discussion proceeds as if anything can be said that comes to mind, no
matter what harm to people or loss of truth. This is sin. That would be
obvious, if someone were being excommunicated on the basis of such flimsy
evidence. But to reject a union is in effect to excommunicate an
entire denomination! Yet we accept extremely low standards of
evidence in such serious deliberations. In my view, church union discussions
ought to be conducted with judicial formality, with representatives of the
other body invited to reply to allegations, and strict rules of evidence.
Non-Conscience
Problems
I
have said that we should support unions except where conscience prevents
us. What of those problems which are not really problems of conscience, but which make
unions difficult to achieve? Say that we disagree strongly with the
way the other denomination finances its missions efforts. Or that
we do not particularly like the Sunday School materials produced
by the other group. Or that we don't want to be assessed to
support their college. Should issues like these prevent or
postpone reunion? Many, certainly, would want at least to negotiate
such matters before agreeing to unite.
But
what does God say? Again, imagine a sinfully divorced husband and wife
"negotiating" their remarriage. Since the divorce, the wife has
acquired some drapes that the husband doesn't care for; or her obnoxious
brother has come to live in the house; or she has had an ugly house
addition built over the husband's back yard putting green. Must these
matters all be worked out before remarriage? God says no. Remarriage is
a biblical norm. Then how are these differences to be
resolved? Within the marriage, of course. The couple should remarry even
if they cannot agree on all these secondary matters. Then they should
work out the problems (under the headship of the husband, I believe) and
in openness to the counsel of the church if necessary.
Same
for church unions. What is God's method for resolving disputes over
mission financing, support of colleges, etc.? The deliberation and
government of the church, of course. In my Presbyterian theology, such
decisions are made (at appropriate levels, and with provision for appeal)
by local sessions, presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies.
Other governmental systems have different ways of doing it. But
clearly the way to resolve these matters is not to shout at one
another over man-made denominational barriers, or to throw out
ultimatums that this or that must change or we will not unite.
Another
fellow-elder who opposed the OPC-PCA union argued that much more
discussion was needed over the sorts of matters described in the last two
paragraphs. He felt that not to discuss these matters was to submit to a
"corporate takeover," i.e. simply letting the other church take
us over on its terms. In a sense he was right. That particular union would
have submerged our tiny OPC (20,000 members) in a much larger PCA
(200,000 members), so that the larger church surely would have had
the deciding voice in any matter on which the two bodies differed.
So my fellow elder favored more negotiations, agreements
as conditions of union, promises that on at least some matters things
would be done our way.
My
reply: what my fellow-elder was asking for was really quite undemocratic
and unpresbyterian. Had we merged with the PCA, we would have remained
elders, members of various church courts in which we would have been
entitled to one vote each. In effect, the former OPC men would have one
vote to the ten of those who had been in the PCA. That is only fair; in
the Presbyterian system one elder has one vote. On the basis of
such votes, the various issues could have been resolved. What
my fellow elder was asking for was something more than "one man,
one vote." He was asking to have an influence out of proportion
to his actual status as one elder in the
God's
way is that such issues should be resolved in the
church, not over pre-merger negotiation tables. The proper order is first
to unite (if we can do so in good conscience) and then to deal with those
problems that are not matters of conscience.
Problems
of Conscience
I
have said, however, that we should reject mergers that would involve us in
sin. What sorts of things do I have in mind?
In
discussing the nature of a true church in Chapter Twelve, I used (with
some supplements and explications) the reformation criteria of the
preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, and discipline.
Certainly if a merger proposal is not to create problems of conscience it
must involve nothing but true churches. But beyond this: recall that many true churches
have fallen prey to serious errors in doctrine and practice. I would not
advocate union with any body that required me to teach error or to do
something I regard as sinful.
To
give an example, I would never advocate that my PCA merge with the
large, mostly liberal
Now
if it were possible to protest these unscriptural practices within the
PCUSA with reasonable hope that these policies might be reversed in the
exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, then it would not be wrong for us
to join the PCUSA while conscientiously refusing to follow its policies in
these areas, assuming that they would accept us as members under
such conditions. But we should recall that the mark of
"discipline" is needed in order to reverse such errors. The
important question, then, is whether there is adequate discipline in the
PCUSA to reverse these errors. At the moment I am inclined to say no.
In
a sense, then, questions about the Word and sacraments reduce to questions
about discipline. If there is sufficient discipline, errors in the other
areas can be dealt with; if there is not sufficient discipline, even
agreements on Word and sacraments cannot be expected to continue.
Therefore
the most important question when contemplating merger is, Can we trust the courts of a united denomination?
If we can trust the courts of a united denomination, then we can work out
disagreements of doctrine and practice, together with the more trivial
kinds of concerns (the "yes, but can she cook?" questions)
discussed in the last section. If that italicized question can be answered
yes, then we ought to unite; if not, then no, at least for now.
In
my view, then, this is the only
question that ought to be "on the table" prior to merger. All
other questions, insofar as they have some legitimacy, are wrapped up in
this one.
Joining
and Receiving
Some
years ago, representatives of three small Presbyterian bodies (OPC, PCA,
RPCES) met to discuss the possibility of union. It was assumed that if
these bodies wished to unite they would first have to go through a period
of negotiation to determine the nature of the new united church.
No one looked forward to such negotiations; typically they would take
years, deal with all sorts of trivia, seek to overcome all sorts of petty
objections. But one of those at the meeting had a bright idea. One
representative asked the others, "What if we simply asked to join you?" The idea caught on, and
the concept of "joining and receiving" was born. Indeed, that
concept led to union between RPCES and PCA in 1981. The OPC was left
out of the 1981 union but was given a second chance, which it
turned down in 1986.[6]
"J&R"
is an exciting concept, one which fits very well into the reconciliation
model I have been advocating. It says: if you can do it conscientiously, then
simply join, and afterward work out your problems, as God intended, in the
councils of the church, not around an interdenominational negotiating
table. It is a promising model for those situations in which problems
of conscience are not likely to be raised, usually where two or
more denominations are very close to one another in doctrine
and practice. In general I find it far superior to the
negotiating table procedure, both for theological and for practical
reasons. It is faster, more efficient than the other, as well
as adequately representing the biblical urgency of union.
It
does not necessarily succeed, of course. The 1986 attempt failed because
some in the OPC developed (in my view unjustified) problems of conscience,
and because others elevated non-conscientious problems to an unbiblically
high priority. But it was a worthy attempt, and I would recommend
consideration of it in other evangelical circles.[7]