Chapter Seventeen
May We Ever Leave a Church?
After
all this emphasis on the importance of unity, some may be troubled with
the question of whether one is ever justified in leaving one church (or
denomination) to join another. You might think I believe (as some have
written) that a person must stay in the church he is in for the rest of
his life, barring a large geographical move.
Actually,
however, my view is toward the opposite extreme. I believe that there are
many legitimate reasons for moving between churches and between
denominations. Indeed, I believe in very liberal emigration procedures.
The walls between denominations and churches ought to be very low. My hope
is that so many will move back and forth from one denomination to
another that in time it will be difficult to tell the
denominations apart!
As
to the justifications for such transfers, I have referred to them from
time to time in earlier chapters, but I would like to present them more
explicitly here. In a sense this chapter is something of a digression, not
part of the overall argument in favor of church union. Those who want to
follow the argument narrowly defined should skip this material and move
on to the next chapter. I do, however, feel some obligation to pause here
in order to gather together some loose ends. So, as in the last chapter I
gave some "Guidelines for Church Union," I will in this chapter
give some "Guidelines for Church Division."
When
is it permissable to leave one body and join another? First, I believe
that it is almost never right to leave one denomination in order to start a new one. There are plenty
of denominations around already! These have a wide variety of theologies,
practices, styles. Surely one is not being very thoughtful if he cannot
find a single one that honors his concerns. Why should we ever create a new division in the body of Christ,
a new barrier to reunion?
In
terms of the above principle, I believe that both OPC and PCA have
erred. Both denominations broke away from their previous denominations
and started new ones. Neither was justified in my view. The
founders of the OPC, granted that they had just cause to leave
the PCUSA, could have joined the Christian Reformed Church, the
United Presbyterian Church of North America, the Reformed Presbyterian Church
General Synod, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church or
others. The founders of the PCA could have joined the already
existing OPC or some of the other bodies mentioned. (The
United Presbyterian Church of North America no longer existed when
the PCA founders left the PCUS.)
Why
did they not join already existing bodies? Hard to say. My guess is that
they did not want to endure the shock of the unfamiliar in addition to the
other shocks they were receiving. They wanted a fellowship pretty much
like the one which they left, minus the grievance which brought the
break. That motive, of course, is not scriptural.
The
argument they used, however, was this: "our previous denomination,
whether through apostasy as such or just through committing grave sin, has
relinquished its right to the allegiance of God's people. It is our
purpose to be the continuance of
our former denomination's testimony." Thus one of the early names for
the PCA was the "Continuing Presbyterian Church." But to be the "continuing"
body, they could not join some already existing denomination.
I
hesitate to describe this argument as a bad one, pure and simple. I
suspect it would have seemed a lot more plausible to me if I had been in
on the founding of one of these denominations. Yet at this moment, while I
understand the sentiment underlying this concept, I must reject it
as unbiblical. Scripture doesn't call us to "continue" the
testimony of old, wasted denominations. It simply calls us to testify
for Jesus. The PCUS, of which the PCA saw itself a
"continuance," was itself a mere denomination, a split in Jesus
body. A split in Jesus' body is not a fit subject for Christian
celebration, or even perpetuation. The PCUS and the PCUSA broke with one
another during the Civil War. That split should not have occurred, in
my opinion.[1]Therefore,
in my view, the PCUS should never have existed. It does not deserve to be
"continued" by its evangelical successor.[2]
If
there are any exceptions to this rule I do not know of them. Therefore, I
would urge those who have good reasons for leaving a church body to join
an already existing denomination rather than starting a new one.
But
when is it legitimate, then, to leave one church/denomination and join
another? I think there are many legitimate reasons, but also many
potential dangers.
In
many cases, such transfer is a minor matter. When a church member is
transferred to another city and for some reason or other prefers to join a
church of a different denomination (one fairly close to the first in
doctrine and practice) he or she rarely undergoes any criticism at all.
When the pastor of a church accepts a call to be pastor of a church in a
different denomination (again, of the same doctrinal family), he
rarely arouses any opposition. That is the way it ought to
be. Denominations are not New Testament institutions, but divisions imposed upon the New Testament church.
In the New Testament, apostles, prophets and church workers (like
People
sometimes argue that interdenominational transfer is a breaking of vows or
a betrayal of fellowship, but I cannot see any value in that sort of
argument. Of course, people often take vows when they join a church, but
those vows never include the promise that one will remain a member of
that church/denomination for life. Nor is one who seeks transfer necessarily
"betraying" anything, anymore than did the Apostle Paul when he
said good-bye to the Ephesian elders and went on to
It
is sometimes said (indeed, I once used to say this) that one ought not to
transfer in order to escape from some interpersonal problem in the church.
It is true that people sometimes leave a church in order to avoid having
to confront a brother or sister about a difficult situation according to
Matt. 18 and Matt. 5. That of course is wrong. We must settle
our differences in biblical ways. Still, one can settle
differences with a brother in a biblical way without remaining in the
same congregation or denomination with him. Thus whether there
are unresolved interpersonal problems is irrelevant to the question of
whether someone can/should leave.
I
also once said that one should never leave a church or denomination in
order to flee possible discipline. But I have changed my view also on that
matter. When one is under discipline by one denomination, he has the right
to appeal to the Christian church beyond that denominational limit, just
as during the N. T. period there were (I believe) courts of the whole
church to which such a one might make his case. When someone under
discipline leaves one church to join another, he is in effect making
an "appeal" of his conviction to another part of the body of
Christ. That second part may uphold the initial discipline, or they
may question it. In either case, it seems to me that justice is
being done, albeit in a very imperfect way.
I
also used to say that one should never leave a church if that church needs
him/her in order to survive. But from God's point of view, no human being
is indispensible. If he wants a weak church to keep going, he will supply
the gifts that church needs. On the other hand, I have come to the view
that it is not a tragedy when a tiny, stagnant, sick church folds up and
dies. It is better for the members of such churches to be part
of living, dynamic fellowships than to stay forever in a
situation where they are constantly discouraged and, most likely, not
being properly fed.
So
today I can think of no circumstances in which one would be forbidden to
leave a church or a denomination. If one makes such a change, e.g.,
because he prefers the preaching in the new church, that may be a
perfectly legitimate expression of need. Perhaps the first pastor's
sermons were too simple or too difficult. We need to be where God's word
addresses us meaningfully (otherwise we could worship in a language
unknown to us!) Perhaps one wishes to make a change because another
church has a better Sunday School. To put it that way may seem to
cater to the oft despised "consumer mentality." But this may
simply represent a desire to have better teaching for one's
children; and that is a perfectly scriptural desire.
Some
denominations erect very unscriptural barriers against transfer,
especially when it is a congregation rather than an individual which is
seeking to make a move. Some denominations hold that they have a
"proprietary interest" in their congregations, even to the
point where the congregation's property is "held in trust for the
denomination." The PCUSA has even taken congregations to secular
courts (directly violating I Cor. 6:1-11) to maintain its
supposed property rights. But no matter what the secular courts may
say, the New Testament gives no such proprietary rights to
any denomination. One might make a case to the effect
that congregational property is held in trust for the church; but as we have seen, "denomination" and
"church" are not the same thing. So much confusion is caused by
the inability to distinguish these two concepts!
Indeed,
from an ecumenical point of view (to rejoin the main drift of this book),
it would probably be best if there were more frequent transfers from one
denomination to another, of both individuals and congregations. We need to
tread down the denominational barriers over and over again. Perhaps
then eventually they will fall so low that they won't ever be noticed again.