Should we, as evangelicals, separate from the PCUSA?

Many of us are now asking this question.  We know there is no genuine theological solution to the homosexuality issue. We know that any continued unity would be contrived. So, why can’t we just admit the presence of irreconcilable differences in our marriage to the PCUSA and file for divorce? Such a decision, although unfortunate, seems increasingly desirable for many of us.

But should we pursue this as an option? After all, we know that a divorce would probably be messy. There will be no “gracious separation” as some of us may have hoped - far too much money and power is involved for that to happen. Do we want to have a nasty, public fight?

We may be thinking, “Sure, it will be nasty, but it will be worth it in the long run.” But surely this can be our choice only if we are convinced that we are fulfilling the will of God. That’s where the confusion creeps in.

Some are saying that schism is repulsive to God. Others are insisting that separation is necessary for us to remain faithful. These conflicting voices bewilder us. What we need is a theology of unity and disunity that would help us understand whether separation might be in the will of God or not. To spark thinking in this direction, let’s first look at some of the most relevant scriptures about unity and disunity, as well as two classic formulations from church history. Then let’s draw out some of the implications for the present situation in the PCUSA.

I.  SOME RELEVANT SCRIPTURES

A. Disunity and Unity in Christ’s Ministry

Division marked Jesus’ ministry. The Gospels seem to describe an inseparable chasm between those who accepted Christ’s authority and those who rejected it.

This proved true even from Christ’s earliest days. When Christ first came to the Temple as an infant, the prophet Simeon said that he was:

… destined for the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed …  (Lk 2:34-35).

Thirty years later, when Christ preached his first sermon, it proved so divisive that “all in the synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove him out of town, and led him to the brow of the cliff on which their town was built” (Lk 4:28-29).

In Luke 14:26 Jesus tells his disciples that they must love him more than “father and mother, brothers and sisters, yes, even life itself.” In Lk 12:49-53, Jesus describes the effect that his call to discipleship was having on families:

I came to bring fire to the earth. … Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided:

father against son

and son against father,

mother against daughter

and daughter against mother,

mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law

and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

When Christ sent out the twelve, he warned that synagogues would reject them (Mt 10:17). This also proved true for Paul, whose preaching divided synagogues and forced the expulsion of messianic believers (see, for example, Acts 18:1-17).

The parables as well speak of the divisive nature of Christ’s ministry. In the parable of the wheat and weeds, Jesus taught that the two plants would grow together in the world until a final separation at the harvest/judgment (Mt 13:24-30). Toward the end of his ministry, Christ’s parables become increasingly strident in warning of eternal separation, as seen in the parables of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-44), the wedding banquet (Mt 22:1-14), the ten bridesmaids (Mt 25:1-13) and the talents (Mt 25:14-46).

Those who continue to reject Christ’s authority ultimately separate themselves from God. So, we see Christ warning the towns of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Jerusalem of coming judgment (Lk 10:13-16, 19:44). And in Mt 25:31-46, the entire world is judged by Christ’s words from his throne.

From this sampling we can see that a great deal of Christ’s ministry caused division, not unity. Yet, it was clearly a division between those who rejected his authority and those who accepted it.

In marked contrast to this, Christ intended that his followers be one. If Christ’s authority was a cause of division with the world, it was to be a reason for unity among his followers.

We see this most clearly in his Last Supper prayer in John 17:9-21:

I am not asking on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those whom you gave me … Holy Father, protect them … so that they may be one, as we are one. … I ask not only for these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. 

The unity of disciples is a sign to the world that Christ did, indeed come from the Father: “I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me …” (Jo 17:23). The oneness of believers reflects the oneness of Jesus with his Father: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us” (Jo 17:21, see also17:11).

In the Gospels, Christ’s ministry resulted in both division and unity, depending on the response of people to him. This dynamic influences the rest of the New Testament as well. Let’s look at a variety of examples.

B. Unity in Christ Heals a Cultural Rift (Acts 6)

In Acts 6:1-7 the Jerusalem church was divided into two major cultural groups, Hebraic and Hellenistic. Both groups believed in Christ, so the expectation was that they should be one in Christ. But their cultural differences began to get in the way. A split seemed inevitable.

The apostles felt it important to preserve the church’s unity in Christ. Instead of allowing the church to divide into two homogenous groups, the apostles addressed the cultural issues in a sensitive way and so avoided the split.

C. The Jerusalem Council Clarifies the Basis for Unity (Acts 15)

When the Gentiles began to turn to Christ, some Jewish disciples insisted that these new-comers had to be circumcised. After all, whenever Gentiles previously had turned to the God of Israel, this was the expectation. But if the church adopted this as a policy, circumcision would become the basis of unity, not Christ.

A rip-roaring theological debate erupted, the first major one within the fledgling church. A council was convened in Jerusalem to resolve the matter (Acts 15).

The Council decided that the Gentiles’ faith in Christ was sufficient for their salvation. Peter said in Acts 15:11, “We believe we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they (the Gentiles) will.” This decision reaffirmed that Christ alone is the basis of Christian unity.

Once the Council reached this moment of clarity, it issued a letter to the Gentile churches. The tone of the letter is a rebuke to the Judaizers in their ranks – what amounts to a form of church discipline. However, we read of no effort to expel the Judaizers from the apostolic community, even though their teaching was not officially endorsed. As for Paul, his razor-sharp mind clearly understood the implications of a legalistic faith. He passionately argued against the Judaizers both before and after the Council (see Gal 1:6-9, 5:2-12, Phil 3:2-3).  

D. Paul Develops a Theology of Salvation for All People  (Romans and Galatians)

The controversy prompted Paul to develop a theology of salvation that would explain how both Jews and Gentiles are included. His earliest thoughts are found in Galatians, in the heat of battle with the Judaizers. Later, his thinking reaches a more complete expression in Romans.

The theme verse of Romans is Romans 1:16-17. There it states that the Gospel is able to save both Jew and Gentile since both receive a righteousness from God by faith in Christ. Thus, the Gospel has a theological dimension, by being an expression of grace. And it has a sociological dimension, by including both Jew and Gentile. Paul then works out the implications of this theme, first for the Gentiles (Romans 1-8), then for the Jews (Romans 9-11).

If Jew and Gentile are one in theory, can they be one in practice? Paul addresses the real-life tensions associated with oneness in Christ in Romans 12-16. He reinforces the kinds of attitudes that promote unity (Romans 12-13). He also stresses that disciples must value unity over adiaphora (ad .i-AF-uh-rah) - theological opinions on morally neutral questions (Rom 14:1- 15:13). We are not to pass judgment on each other over secondary matters. Instead, we are to live our lives with regard to the brothers and sisters for whom Christ died.

E. Paul Develops a Theology of Unity within the Church (Ephesians)

Galatians and Romans contain Paul’s theology of salvation – his soteriology. Ephesians contains his ecclesiology – his theology of the church.

Ephesians reflects the same theological milieu of Acts 15, Romans and Galatians — namely,  how Jew and Gentile could be one in Christ. Since Paul really was the only theologian focused on this subject, we assume he wrote Ephesians, despite the objections of some scholars. Ephesians is a theologically brilliant letter for the times, something only Paul could have composed.

The point of Ephesians is that the miracle of unity in Christ is worked out in churches — they’re God’s workshops for making one new people out of many. Salvation is not just knowing Christ; it is becoming a new people for God. As the theme verse states, in Ephesians 1:9-10, God’s eternal plan is to “gather up all things in him” (Christ). That includes both Jews and Gentiles.

Ephesians 2 explains that this all happens through the Cross, which destroys the dividing barrier of the Law and so enables Jew and Gentile to be one.

In Ephesians 3, Paul describes his own apostolic ministry as a part of the outworking of God’s plan of salvation for the Gentiles (3:1-13). He also prays for his Gentile readers to grasp their place in God’s greater scheme as well (3:14-19).

In Ephesians 4, the Apostle turns from the theoretical to the practical. He delineates for us the attitudes and behavior that best promote unity within a church. Even more specifically, in Ephesians 5 and 6, he gives advice for how to promote unity within the Christian families of his time (5:21 – 6:9). Finally, he exhorts the Ephesians to stand as a united army of soldiers in their struggle against the powers of darkness (Eph 6:10-20).

In the Roman world, the gulf between Jew and Gentile was enormous, marked by suspicion and prejudice. In contrast, the Gospel has the power to make all people one. That’s why Christian unity is an essential part of Paul’s theology of the church —  it proves to the world that Christ is able to create a new humanity (2:15).

F. Personality, Pride and Power as Causes of Disunity

Behind many church schisms are often power conflicts. The presenting issues are not the real issues. Perhaps this is the dynamic present in 1 Corinthians, where one faction said, “I follow Paul” while another said, “I follow Apollos” (1 Cor 3:1-4). In response, Paul taught them to be humble before God (1 Cor 1:26-31). Similarly, when the Corinthians exercised their spiritual gifts, they were to do so in humility. Spiritual gifts are for the common good and should be practiced in a spirit of sacrificial love (1 Cor 12 and 13, Rom 12:1-8).

Personality clashes are another reason for disunity. We see this in the very human story of the splitting up of the missionary team of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41). Reading between the lines, it is easy to understand how the separation was over differences in personality and power just as much as it was over the presenting matter of John Mark and his fitness for service.

Personality and power clashes may also have threatened the peace of the Philippian church. We lack the details, but in Php 4:2 Paul urges Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind. And in Php 1:27 he urges the believers to stand firm, like soldiers in a phalanx formation, with one mind. He speaks of those who “preach Christ out of envy and rivalry” (Php 1:15). Most importantly, in Php 2:1-11, he reminds them all of the humility of Christ, which they are to show toward one another. Believers are to strive to make their unity in Christ work, despite clashes caused by personality, pride and power.

G. The Practice of Church Discipline Helps to Preserve Unity

Church discipline was exercised to preserve purity and unity. Two noted examples of church discipline are the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11, and the discipline of the sexually immoral man in 1 Cor 5:1-13.

H.  The Apostle John Responds to Disunity Caused by Heresy (1 and 2 John)

1 and 2 John reflects a situation when a heresy had infiltrated a Christian community and was causing disunity. Apparently, it was a very early form of Gnosticism.

In response, John clearly teaches that the basis of Christian unity is our shared knowledge of the Father and the Son. “We declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).

The heretics did not share in this knowledge. John asserts that because the heretics denied the Incarnation, they knew neither the Father nor the Son (1 Jo 2:22-23, 4:1-5). This was the reason for their disunity with the apostolic community — why the heretics hated, instead of loved (1 Jo 2:7-11, 4:7-12). They finally left the church (1 Jo 2:19).

2 John reflects a similar situation. John warns about those who deny the Incarnation: “those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh … any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” (2 Jo 7). The letter urges believers to practice church discipline: “do not receive into the house or welcome anyone who comes to you and does not bring this teaching; for to welcome is to participate in the evil deeds of such a person” (2 Jo 10-11).

Today, some interpreters say that the proto-gnostics were simply adherents of an “alternate form of Christianity,” and that the Apostle John “should have been more tolerant of diversity.” Yet, when Gnosticism fully came of age in the second century AD, it entered into a death struggle with apostolic Christianity. The Apostle wanted there to be no confusion —  there is no true unity between those who accept and those who reject Christ. This attitude is also found in other scriptures that deal with proto-gnosticism (such as Colossians, 1 Timothy and Revelation 2-3).

John also makes it clear that certain theological doctrines are essential since they make a knowledge of God possible – beliefs such as the Incarnation and the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ (1 Jo 2:2).

I. Christ Judges His Churches  (Revelation 2-3)

In Revelation 2-3, Christ addresses the seven churches as their Lord and Judge. As we read the account, we realize that these churches were a mixture of both pure and impure disciples. One church, in particular, had only a “few persons … who have not soiled their clothes” (Sardis – Rev. 3:4). Other churches were beset by doctrinal aberrations (Pergamum, Thyatira), while still others appeared to be suffering from a spiritual malaise (Ephesus, Laodicea). Only Smyrna and Pergamum were commended without question for their faithfulness.

Before conclusions are drawn from this review of the New Testament, let us also consider two historical examples which are relevant to a theology of unity and disunity.

II.  TWO HISTORICAL EXAMPLES

A. The Donatist Controversy

The Donatist controversy provides us with a classic formulation for the study of all church schisms. The controversy arose during the Diocletian persecutions (303-305 AD). Some faithless priests and bishops actually handed faithful Christians over to the government to be put to death. After the persecutions ended, some of these church leaders continued to exercise their offices! The Donatists railed against them in fiery sermons. After all, disciples died because of these traitors. How could anyone receive Baptism or Holy Communion from their hands? If ever there was a reason to split, it was then.

Amazingly, though, Augustine opposed the schism. As the leading theologian against Donatism, he taught that the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the office of priest or bishop, not on the character of an individual priest or bishop. In saying this, Augustine was admitting the imperfection of the Church, yet he also was affirming the ability of God to work through an imperfect church. His argument against schism is simple: it will not create a perfect church.

At www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Petilian_Encyclical_Letter.html you can read an actual Donatist sermon, written in the form of a letter. It presents a compelling argument; however, it also drips with judgmentalism. In decrying the imperfections of the Church, the Donatists both usurped Christ’s role as the Judge of his Church and they also implied that they were being perfect.

The Donatists died out around a century after the Diocletian persecutions, but their influence has continued. During the Reformation, the magisterial reformers labeled the Anabaptists, “Donatists!” In turn, the Anabaptists idealized the Donatists as heroes who stood against the corrupt state church of their time.

Through Anabaptism, Donatism has also come to influence the evangelical movement. If we admit this, it may help to explain the tendency of some evangelicals today to separate themselves from churches they consider to be impure.

B. The Reformation and the Marks of a True Church

The Reformers defined the marks that distinguish a true from an apostate church. In our reformed tradition, these distinctions are very important for any theology of unity and disunity.

Calvin in his Institutes (final edition, 1559) mentions two distinguishing marks: preaching the Word and administering the sacraments:

… if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a beneficial result.

(Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 9)

But in Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 12, Calvin seems to indicate a third distinguishing mark: church discipline. There, alongside talking about the teaching of doctrine and the keeping of sacraments, he also mentions the need to “strive to reform what is offensive.”

The three distinguishing marks are all clearly listed together for the first time in the Scots Confession of 1560, in Chapter XVIII, where it talks about: (1) the “true preaching of the Word of God,” (2) “the right administration of the sacraments” and (3) “ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered, as God’s Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.” The following year, the Belgic Confession of 1561 – the oldest confessional standard of the Christian Reformed Church — also lists the same three marks. Since that time, these three distinguishing marks have become a solid part of reformed thinking.

Calvin develops a theology of unity and disunity around these distinguishing marks (Book IV, Chapter 1 of the Institutes). Interestingly, he argues against separation in most cases. A summary of his main argument can be made in five points:

• He warns against trying to create a perfect church, as the Donatists and some of the Anabaptists thought they could do by separating (Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 13).