Refusal to gather as the greater sin?
- Thread starter CGS
- Start date
- Status
Agreed.
But allow me to frame the question in a different way…in regard to the groups that separated – for example, let's take the Seceders in 1733 or the folks who left the PCUSA to form the PCA – was it because:
- They disagreed with Durham’s and Rutherford’s arguments (or others/similar arguments) against separation, and believed that separation was/is a legitimate option for dealing with corruption in the church. And wouldn't this imply that there is not a consensus against separation within Presbyterianism.
- They agreed with Durham and Rutherford, but seceded despite this because they believed that the circumstances or the extent of corruption justified/necessitated it.
And again, I totally understand that what they did in the past doesn't dictate our duty in the present. I'm just trying to get a sense of whether or not those who seceded in the past were doing so with the full knowledge that they were going against well established Presbyterian/biblical principles by doing so.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
In the case of the 1733 secession, the leaders pursued every avenue of recourse until they were deposed and ejected from their churches. At that point, they had little option. So it is something like 2). When you get kicked out of a denomination for protesting unbiblical error as far as you can, have you left it or did it leave you?
But the grounds for a minister leaving a denomination are a bit different from the grounds for a person refusing to attend a church. I think we should all be able to agree with several points:
1) there are some churches that no Christian in good conscience should consider becoming a member of. They are utterly devoid of the gospel, and gathering with them regularly would not be gathering with the saints.
2) there are many churches that Christians can attend in good conscience, even if we disagree with them on important matters. Baptism and worship are not small issues, but I expect to see many people in heaven who currently differ strenuously with me on these topics. Provided they are willing to allow me to guard my conscience (and I am willing not to cause discord in their church), I can fellowship with them.
3) In a fallen world, we can't always attend a church that matches our conscience perfectly. Sometimes, if we are willing to travel a distance, the issue can be resolved, sometimes not.
4) In cases, where there is no church within suitable traveling distance (something that may vary for different families), we may need to make the determination whether to go to an existing church or worship with our families/by ourselves.
5) If a church exists that fits category 2) rather than 1) the historic Reformed advice would be to attend there, preferring to gather with an imperfect church than remain by myself. It should be noted that many of the imperfections in churches that the Reformers had in mind involved problematic worship practices, so they were addressing precisely the sort of issue behind the OP.
But the grounds for a minister leaving a denomination are a bit different from the grounds for a person refusing to attend a church. I think we should all be able to agree with several points:
1) there are some churches that no Christian in good conscience should consider becoming a member of. They are utterly devoid of the gospel, and gathering with them regularly would not be gathering with the saints.
2) there are many churches that Christians can attend in good conscience, even if we disagree with them on important matters. Baptism and worship are not small issues, but I expect to see many people in heaven who currently differ strenuously with me on these topics. Provided they are willing to allow me to guard my conscience (and I am willing not to cause discord in their church), I can fellowship with them.
3) In a fallen world, we can't always attend a church that matches our conscience perfectly. Sometimes, if we are willing to travel a distance, the issue can be resolved, sometimes not.
4) In cases, where there is no church within suitable traveling distance (something that may vary for different families), we may need to make the determination whether to go to an existing church or worship with our families/by ourselves.
5) If a church exists that fits category 2) rather than 1) the historic Reformed advice would be to attend there, preferring to gather with an imperfect church than remain by myself. It should be noted that many of the imperfections in churches that the Reformers had in mind involved problematic worship practices, so they were addressing precisely the sort of issue behind the OP.
I disagree. If you believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church you are obliged to look into the causes for separation. If they are schismatics you have no obligation to join them. You have a duty to testify against them.
Jude 19, "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
By analogy, I don't know that I support the reasoning behind the American Revolution but I'm not plying for citizenship in the Commonwealth or taking it upon myself to bear responsibility for wrongs committed 200+ years ago, nor am I ashamed to be called an American in spite of our past questionable deeds.
I recognize that the analogy breaks down, and national citizenship is not quite the same as going to church. And of course, there are limits. But the reason for a denomination's separation may not necessarily have bearing on whether a member church of that denomination now is faithfully preaching the word, and it may not have bearing on whether a particular member should separate from that church.
I'm not willing to defend my statement in a black-and-white, across-the-board, 100-percent-of-the-time way; nonetheless, sufficient for the day are the reasons to separate from this church or that church. I don't think we need to start unearthing past skeletons unless they have demonstrable present relevance. A denomination may have erred in the past or formed for the wrong reasons and yet the denomination as a whole or significant numbers of churches within it may be better than their origins - especially if many generations or even centuries have passed since then.
It is not that the analogy breaks down; there is no analogy in the first place. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, else would His servants fight.
There is a problem with the framing of the issue when it is reduced to "going to church." We don't just go to church; we BELONG to the church, and we MEET as the church.
Eph 4:3-6, "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
So… how was everyone’s Lord’s day?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
Too short; only 24 hours.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
You guys are right and we should definitely consider how Christ addressed the churches in Revelation. But do we not also need to take into account 1 Kings 12 and 2 Chronicles 11, and how the Levites and some from the other tribes left Israel when Jeroboam instituted false worship?
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
It was not right for the people to separate from Rehoboam the way they did. It was rebellion. God's allowance was an act of judgment. Israel itself was a schism. Matthew Henry is really good here. Perhaps had they gone about things otherwise, they might have had legitimacy. But I don't think they had it.
Concerning God's prohibition of Rehoboam to resist, it's like God's unwillingness to help Judah against Nebuchadnezzar. What Babylon did was wicked, but God would allow Babylon to conquer as a chastisement on Judah, according to the covenant curses He promised. And Babylon was punished in time for their deeds.
As for the Levites, separation from the instituted worship of Israel is separation from unlawful worship in an unlawful institution.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bear in mind that they didn't just leave. They were deposed from their rightful offices AND Jeroboam explicitly set out to prohibit rightful worship for his people. In those circumstances, it was right that some could and did head south.
But, if you are going to use the OT as an example, you also have to account for Elijah and all the others who did stay behind. We know Elijah could have left, since he fled to Judah at least once. He also could have led a "Back to the Temple" movement. Instead, he stayed, without a temple and without priests - not only with zero indication of divine censure but with every sign of divine sanction.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
It's worth considering that in the 1st century, as well as in the days of Durham and Rutherford, there was one church. It wasn't our age of endless division. In my town there are Baptist, Pentecostal, and Campbellite churches. That's all. In other parts of my county, there are methodists and a PCUSA. What church should I join? Was I wrong to separate from the Arminian, dispensational, hyper-revivalistic Baptist church I grew up in?
These are times of extraordinary division and confusion, and we can't make a one-to-one comparison with the NT church or with the established churches of our forefathers. Our land is full of unreformable churches. They won't listen to counsel, and they won't tolerate faithful ministers.
These are times of extraordinary division and confusion, and we can't make a one-to-one comparison with the NT church or with the established churches of our forefathers. Our land is full of unreformable churches. They won't listen to counsel, and they won't tolerate faithful ministers.
In thinking about these threads I was thinking along the same lines. There has never been anything in history to compare this to (I think you can say it that way?) and in some ways the writings of Durham and others may not fully address the situations.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's easy to start going down the line of thinking that if only earlier generations could see the present they would change their tune. How many confessional exceptions are rooted in that type of thinking?
Rather, we should seek wisdom to apply good principles from the past to the present day. Don't forget that in the 1st century, possibly a majority of churches were influenced by Gnosticism, and that in the post-Nicene age Arianism and Donatism were the majority vote in large parts of the Christianized world. I don't know that we are radically different or that our present age is truly something new under the sun.
I know those of us living where there are choices between OPC, PCA, etc. are fortunate. Those who have to drive hours or face moving to have a sound enough church that preaches the gospel are in a hard case. But I disagree that the shapes of the churches we are faced with are worse than those in some of the seven churches from which the Reformed have drawn antiseparatist principles, or what the puritans and presbyterians faced prior to the second reformation who followed and expounded those principles. On top of that, both those times were facing actual persecution compared to our far easier choices, had far more restricted freedoms, economics, etc.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
It was a blessing!
We gathered with our fellow saints, and sang praises to the Lord, together. Our pastor preached on John ch.4, where Christ expounds on worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were in different circumstances. Principles have different applications in different cases.
I didn't say that the churches in our day are worse than the churches in their day. What I said is that there was only one church in their day, while my little town of Resaca has dozens of churches that have no official connection one to another. Just about all of us have made a choice to separate from one church and join another. When you've separated from Arminian churches, liberal churches, Pentecostal churches, etc., and end up in a church that is Reformed in some sense, why does it suddenly become schismatic when you separate from a church that teaches, for instance, the practical antinomianism of R2K, or a church that brings in food trucks for a festival on the Sabbath Day? If these churches are unreformable (unlike the united churches of the 1st century or Reformation times), why are we bound to adhere to churches whose officers have dethroned Christ?
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Do you believe that a church that brings in a food truck is a false church? To speak of a church as having dethroned Christ strongly implies that it is fully apostate.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
If they are unreformable and resistant to his law, they have effectively dethroned him. The covenanters used the same language for the king's usurpation of Christ's Kingship in the Church. I don't mean anything more than they meant by it.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
So such a church - the one bringing in a food truck - is apostate?
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
No.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
So then a church can dethrone Christ yet not be apostate. Can you explain that for me?
You mean one church in one city or place? That's not necessarily true. Presbyterians argue there were multiple congregations in some locations. Even so, if not, the faithful didn't split and form second church of Corinth or Sardis for its corruptions; there were certainly enough to do so. But we don't read of any case of that with Corinth or the seven churches, etc. If you are arguing one may leave because of a grievous factor for a church where that is not going on, that is one thing (and Durham grants attend the next parish over in such a case) and many of us have availed of that freedom at one time or another. We have no disagreement there. Must leave is where we need to be careful not to become separatist in doctrine.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
By one church, I mean there weren't different denominations. The congregations were united under a common presbyterial government.
I just don't see that that makes a difference as far as Scottish Presbyterianism's anti-separatist theology. I'm not understanding.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
It makes a difference as far as the application of the theology. We can't jump from Durham saying that someone shouldn't leave the Church of Scotland, which was the church in those days, to arguing that someone shouldn't leave the PCA (or whatever body) in our day. It's apples and oranges. The church is in a desperately unsettled state, as compared to 17th century Scotland.
I'm not saying, btw, that you are making that argument.
Okay; thanks. I think the issue is not someone saying someone should't or can't leave the PCA; that's granted by analogy from Durham as I've noted; but the problem is those saying one must leave a church like the PCA. That is the separatist argument.
G.I. Williamson has a good discussion in regard to leaving churches/denominations in his commentary on the WCF. In the section where he is discussing WCF 25.3-6 (pages 246-250), he addresses the question of how do we know when a church reaches the "point of no return" (apostate)? He makes reference to the three marks of the true church found in the Belgic Confession (Article 29): "If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing sin." The Belgic Confession goes on to contrast these with the marks of a false church.
He concludes with this: "We even believe that it is proper to leave a true church that is much less pure to join a true church that is much more pure [emphasis added], provided the motive is the glory of God, the welfare of one's spiritual concerns (and that of his children), and a testimony against error."
He also says that when one separates from a church it should be with a clear statement of the reasons for the separation. I assume this means one should provide the session of that church with a clear statement of why you are leaving.
He concludes with this: "We even believe that it is proper to leave a true church that is much less pure to join a true church that is much more pure [emphasis added], provided the motive is the glory of God, the welfare of one's spiritual concerns (and that of his children), and a testimony against error."
He also says that when one separates from a church it should be with a clear statement of the reasons for the separation. I assume this means one should provide the session of that church with a clear statement of why you are leaving.
Dating to I think 1964 or so, Williamson likely had separations such as the forming of the OPC in mind. Interestingly, Rutherford absolutizes on this point (as opposed to Durham), though he almost surely is trying to hem in the congregationalists from separating and if pressed I wonder if he would grant Durham's parish example? He may be speaking of a church broadly (as we would denominations). He adduces no proofs but one can imagine using many of the examples from Scripture already cited on the thread (Corinth, most of the seven churches in Asia, etc.).
CONSIDERATION NINE. There is no just cause to leave a less clean church (if it is a true church), and to go to a purer and cleaner, though one who is a member of no church has liberty of election, to join to that church which he conceives to be purest and cleanest.
- Status
Similar threads
