I received the following gracious question in response to a sermon I preached at Sierra Bible Reno this past Sunday. The question is very important so I decided to create a blog post with my response.
I have been thinking through Sunday's message, and as I look forward to our small group this week, I would love to have some additional insight on the topic of "unity". I am sure there will be a spirited discussion.
As was shared on Sunday, there is no question that the Bible calls the church to unity. And yet, "the church" is not truly united. There are so many Christian denominations, and groups that lean one way or another on certain doctrines or their interpretation of what the Bible says. Even in our own small group we differ in our opinions of what certain portions of Scripture tell us. And while the Bible tells us to submit to the authority God has placed over us, it also tells us to study the Word and know what is there, and to seek truth with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously, there are some good examples of church leaders who have gotten off base, and therefore no longer deserve to be in authority. So, my question is this;
When is it appropriate to break the unity?
Certainly, if one of our pastors went "Rob Bell-ish" we would be right to stand up and call him out and to separate ourselves from his teaching and authority. I have heard some say that Rick Warren is getting a little off in some areas. At what point do individuals, perhaps, undermine the unity and stand up to, speak out about, or walk away from a (local) church and/or leadership that we do not agree with? When do we as a (local) church take a stand and separate ourselves from other churches that claim to be Christian churches, but teach doctrine that we don't agree with? What is the dividing line? Is it the Gospel message of faith alone in Christ alone? Homosexuality/gay marriage? Speaking in tongues? The Rapture? Women pastors? Dancing/playing cards? What kind of instruments we use for worship?
Lest you wonder, I am not feeling the need to "stand up to, speak out about, or walk away from" SBC, I just want to understand this better. [Just in case. ]
Hi [name removed to protect the innocent]!
First, let me say that I appreciate your spirit and the depth of your wrestling with this issue. I do not at all perceive your inquiry as being borne of any bad spirit or ill motive. In fact, as I mentioned, I've wrestled not only with my message but also with my response. My passion for this issue will certainly be reflected in what follows--I truly hope that this passion is not taken in any negative way. It is not intended as rebuke or admonishment at all. Indeed, it is probably overkill!
There are so many things that can be said in regard to the questions you raised but I will not attempt to capture them all. Instead, I want to focus on a key observation you made--a primary problem that leads to the schismatic issues that you reference toward the end of your message.
"The Bible calls the church to unity. And yet the church is not truly united."
There are two factors that are critical to unity, in my estimation. One is supreme allegiance (or faithfulness) to Jesus Christ above all things. Before anyone ever breaks fellowship they should spend some time with our Savior's prayer in John 17--placing themselves in the hours before the cross as Jesus pleads with the Father that the disciples will experience the "You-in-me and I-in-you" type of unity that the Father and the Son shared.
The second factor is a reckoning of our accountability before God. James (3:1) warns against people assuming the role of a teacher because teachers have a higher level of accountability. Elders are accountable for those under their leadership (Heb. 13:17). The church is called to submit to the authority placed over them (Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Accusations are not to be even received against elders except in cases of sin, and then only in the presentation of multiple credible witnesses (1 Tim. 5:17-21). Indeed, the church should exercise great care in the selection of elders (1 Tim. 3, 5) because of the importance of their role.
I'll make two observations on the basis of these factors. First, congregations are not spoken of in Scripture as being accountable for how their elders lead them. They are, however, accountable for submitting to authority. When people break fellowship they are acting on an assumption--that they are free to make such decisions for themselves when in fact we are to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Freedom from sin doesn't create autonomy, it gives us a new, righteous, holy, and benevolent master. We are bound to him and to one another.
This gets tricky because there are no perfect elders. Elders sin. Elders should be mature but they are still themselves being transformed into the image of Christ. There is not an elder, pastor, or teacher alive today with a perfect and pure grasp on all doctrine and theology (which makes every single one of us wrong or incomplete in some point). The call to follow is not predicated on having perfect elders. The call to follow is an acknowledgement of God's created order. When we level charges against elders (our own or those in another local body) we are judging another man's servant. He is ultimately accountable to his fellow elders and ultimately more so to God.
I won't belabor this point, but as a side note I've found that criticisms and accusations leveled against people and ministries rarely turn out to be as presented when the person or situation is actually known. There are professional accusers (authors, web sites, and such) who spend most of their time "warning the church" about whom to fear and why everything outside of their very small circle is bad; misusing Scripture and taking advantage of the fact that the flock is not well-equipped to understand these issues and destroying reputations (and unity) in the process. We would all be well to be reminded that Satan is the accuser of the brethren.
The second observation is that people who break unity are nearly always trying to assume roles not assigned to them (The Spirit has placed the members in the body as it has pleased Him). They try to evaluate things without knowledge of the issues. They listen to accusations. They are not gifted by the Spirit or recognized by local bodies as teachers and yet they feel as though they can behave as such--criticizing what is taught or, worse yet, offering alternative doctrines to directly counteract what is coming from the pulpit. They are not elders and yet they take on the role of deciding what is right/wrong or good/bad for the congregation, creating a situation where the church is pulled in every direction by the clamor of competing agendas. Elders are accountable for their oversight and leadership. Teachers are accountable for what they teach. Christians are accountable for following and obeying. And all so to God and to love one another.
There does certainly need to be a sense of watchfulness in the church. However, our trust in the Holy Spirit's ability to teach, lead, preserve, and restore in the church must be greater than our fear of the enemy's mission to twist and thwart. When we trust God in this way we will find it much easier to love without fear and live in peace with one another as Scripture instructs us to do. As we learned in Ephesians 4, when we are maturing, the various parts of the body supply the body with the things it needs and the body is built up in love. Conversely, if the body is being hacked apart with dissension and discord, it is not receiving what it needs and as such it suffers. The church (in the Western world, at least) has been in a schismatic condition for centuries. I would argue that the maladies you mentioned are not causes for breaking unity but rather the results of disunity, and if the problems of today's church are caused by disunity then they certainly will not be healed by more disunity.
If we had stayed in communion together, what healing might have come? What damage has come to the church and her mission in the world because we fight one another rather than the enemy? What love has not been spread abroad because we reserve it for those who meet our standard? What internal trouble in the church would prevent us from clothing Jesus when He is naked, feeding Him when He's hungry, or visiting Him in jail? What prevents us from experiencing and displaying love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, patience, and the like?
In the 19th Century the church was attacked on a variety of theological fronts. So, we all ran into various theological camps and circled the wagons. In the 20th Century we saw public morality take a beating. So, we all retreated into the fortresses of church institutions and ministries so as not to expose ourselves or our children to the world. As a result, the dark and decaying world has been largely lacking in salt and light and the church is so splintered that her voice has been negated and her power largely neutralized. Rather than repent, we chalk it up to "living in the last days" and live with a sense of resignation disguised as anticipation for Jesus' return to do away with the whole mess. We disengage from the world we've been left to preserve and enlighten. Jesus is returning. Yet I am reminded of the words of our Savior, "Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes” (emphasis mine).
In the early part of my message on Sunday I said that there is no place for division in the body of Christ. At the end I said that if we are characterized by dissension and division we negate the very Gospel we claim to preach. I poured over these statements. Agonized over them. I am aware of the issues you raised and, like you, it seems to me that there must be times when you have no choice but to break unity. However, as I study Scripture, I can come to no other conclusion. When is it OK to go against the heart of Jesus? When is it OK to participate in the erosion of the witness of the Gospel in the world? It may seem overly dramatic (how much damage does one person or family leaving a church do?) but at some point Christ-followers have to determine to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
There are times when people move and times when God moves people for the purposes of placing them in new venues of service. We are, after all, glad that Ted and Sarah are now serving with us and recognize that this required them leaving Mosaic in order to be here! This type of movement, however, accounts but for a tiny fraction of the transience of the church.
Again, I hope that my directness in this "epistle" is not taken as any type of rebuke or visceral reaction to the question you posed. In fact, it is such a great question that I am strongly considering forwarding it to all of our fellowship group leaders (I'll remove your name to protect the innocent!) along with my response because I think this is something that will undoubtedly come up in some of the other groups and as such I wished to address it thoroughly. Hence the length of my response.
Blessings to you as you endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Pastor Eric
