Of late, lengthy articles have appeared in The Banner about the sinfulness of ecclesiastical schism. It seems to me that some of the positions taken in these articles arc rather extreme. Church history indicates in no unmistakable terms that the Church can keep herself pure only by seceding from apostatizing denominations. The two branches of the Reformation now exist in several hundred denominations.
Humanly speaking, if these secessions had not taken place, the Church of Christ would have disappeared from the face of the earth. For us, as members of the Christian Reformed Church, our background is deeply rooted in the secession movements of 1834 and 1886. Have we the right to stigmatize brothers and sisters, who have withdrawn from a denomination out of love for Jesus Christ, as being schismatic? It seems to me, as denominations become increasingly more liberal, the faithful in every denomination will be drawn closer together, in spite of denominational affiliations.
What is a schismatic? The Editor of The Banner and also the Editor of the “Readers Ask” department quote at length what others have said about schisms. Very little Scriptural proof is presented. The word “schism” in the original Greek means to tear apart . . . the veil of the temple was rent . . . the net full of fishes tore apart, and so forth.
Consequently, a schismatic is one who tears the Church apart by repudiating the doctrines of the Church, and one who uses foul means to draw many others from the Church with him. If a person or a group of persons withdraws from our Church peacefully and starts a new Church with the three forms of unity as the foundation stones of their ecclesiastical structure, can we say that they have torn the Church apart and are therefore schismatics? Is the unity of the Church found in its structure, or is it found in the spiritual life which the Church expresses by virtue of a living faith in Jesus Christ? Don’t we profess Sunday after Sunday, “I believe a Holy Catholic Church?” Certainly, the Holy Catholic Church is not limited to the Christian Reformed Church. We must be very careful in using the word “schism” or “schismatics.”
Schism condemned in Scripture – There is a lot of difference between secessions rooted in the flesh and those which are rooted in the new life of regeneration. The word “schism” whenever it refers to divisions in the churches of the New Testament, condemns schism rooted in the flesh.
In I Corinthians 1:10, Paul condemns the party spirit of those who say, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas.” Such schisms among the brethren were rooted in the flesh and were therefore condemned. The schism mentioned in I Corinthians 12:25 was based on personal jealousy and selfish conceit and was also therefore rooted in the flesh.
Our Communion Form states that all those who seek to raise discord, sects, and mutiny in Church or State must refrain from the Lord’s table. Such sins are also rooted in the flesh. But can we say that Church members, who out of love for the Lord Jesus and for purity of life and doctrine, find it necessary to leave a Church, are motivated by the flesh and are therefore schismatic? The answer is obvious. In an editorial appearing in The Banner, December 11, 1970, under the title “Hand Outstretched,” the following statement is made: “Even could it be demonstrated that the CRC is ‘an assembly of the wicked’ the biblical example of God’s servants gives no excuse for leaving it.” How is this statement to be harmonized with II Corinthians 6;14, which states: “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Reformata reformanda – The Divine calling of every Church is to seek the glory of God. This can be accomplished only by a church purifying itself in doctrine and in life. God is holy and therefore He demands holiness on the part of everyone of us. The Bride of Christ must be presented without spot or blemish before the throne of God. Consequently, sanctification summarizes all the duties and responsibilities of every Church and every member of the Church. The name Reformed indicates this (Reformata reformanda – Being Reformed, we constantly reform ourselves). If a Christian finds that the life or the doctrine of his Church is inimical to his sanctification, he owes it to his Lord and Master to leave that Church peacefully and to unite with the purest Church.
The Lord Jesus said in Luke 17:1: “It is impossible but that offences will come; but woe unto him, through whom they come.” Historically, dissensions and division, which resulted in different ecclesiastical structures, have in many cases been caused by the flesh in the form of false doctrines or unethical practices in parent denominations. Shall then those, who in all simplicity and honesty believe that the truth must be defended and lived, be the ones who are to be blamed for divisions in the Church? It seems to me that the blame should rest upon those, who caused the offended to leave and begin a new Church.
Organizational unity, although much to be desired, does not belong to the essence of the Church. In these days when so many denominations are permeated with liberalism, I am more afraid of ecumenicity than divisions motivated by love for the Truth of God’s Word. Even as in the economic world, monopoly means stagnation, so in Church history the time of greatest stagnation was the time of greatest ecclesiastical monopoly.
Brotherly attitude and self-purification – Dr. H. Bavinck in his Dogmatics (Book IV, Sec. 13) writes: “Christ prepares the one holy, Catholic Church for himself, not by ignoring the existing denominations, but through them. Neither does Christ prepare this Church for Himself by neglecting the various ecclesiastical dogmas, but through them the unity of the knowledge of God is prepared and obtained.” Rev. N. J. Monsma writes in his book, The Trial of Denominationalism: “Indeed all Christians shall, while this dispensation lasts, not be able to think alike and to grasp the meaning of Scripture alike. But they shall be able to exercise love and tolerance toward each other.”
What then are we for? It is not necessary to think about this a whole year, as suggested by an editorial appearing in The Banner of December 15, 1970. What we are for is clearly stated in all the creedal statements of our denomination. In brief, we must seek the purity of the Church both in doctrine and in life. There can be no greater goals than these. Our hands will be really outstretched to all of God’s children in every denomination, when we reveal a real brotherly attitude, a firm love for the Holy, Catholic Church and a renewed effort to carry on the work of self-purification in our own denomination.
Cornelius J. Van Schowen, emeritus, lives in Sioux Center, Iowa, where he taught Bible at Dordt College from 1954 until his retirement in 1968.
Humanly speaking, if these secessions had not taken place, the Church of Christ would have disappeared from the face of the earth. For us, as members of the Christian Reformed Church, our background is deeply rooted in the secession movements of 1834 and 1886. Have we the right to stigmatize brothers and sisters, who have withdrawn from a denomination out of love for Jesus Christ, as being schismatic? It seems to me, as denominations become increasingly more liberal, the faithful in every denomination will be drawn closer together, in spite of denominational affiliations.
What is a schismatic? The Editor of The Banner and also the Editor of the “Readers Ask” department quote at length what others have said about schisms. Very little Scriptural proof is presented. The word “schism” in the original Greek means to tear apart . . . the veil of the temple was rent . . . the net full of fishes tore apart, and so forth.
Consequently, a schismatic is one who tears the Church apart by repudiating the doctrines of the Church, and one who uses foul means to draw many others from the Church with him. If a person or a group of persons withdraws from our Church peacefully and starts a new Church with the three forms of unity as the foundation stones of their ecclesiastical structure, can we say that they have torn the Church apart and are therefore schismatics? Is the unity of the Church found in its structure, or is it found in the spiritual life which the Church expresses by virtue of a living faith in Jesus Christ? Don’t we profess Sunday after Sunday, “I believe a Holy Catholic Church?” Certainly, the Holy Catholic Church is not limited to the Christian Reformed Church. We must be very careful in using the word “schism” or “schismatics.”
Schism condemned in Scripture – There is a lot of difference between secessions rooted in the flesh and those which are rooted in the new life of regeneration. The word “schism” whenever it refers to divisions in the churches of the New Testament, condemns schism rooted in the flesh.
In I Corinthians 1:10, Paul condemns the party spirit of those who say, “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I am of Cephas.” Such schisms among the brethren were rooted in the flesh and were therefore condemned. The schism mentioned in I Corinthians 12:25 was based on personal jealousy and selfish conceit and was also therefore rooted in the flesh.
Our Communion Form states that all those who seek to raise discord, sects, and mutiny in Church or State must refrain from the Lord’s table. Such sins are also rooted in the flesh. But can we say that Church members, who out of love for the Lord Jesus and for purity of life and doctrine, find it necessary to leave a Church, are motivated by the flesh and are therefore schismatic? The answer is obvious. In an editorial appearing in The Banner, December 11, 1970, under the title “Hand Outstretched,” the following statement is made: “Even could it be demonstrated that the CRC is ‘an assembly of the wicked’ the biblical example of God’s servants gives no excuse for leaving it.” How is this statement to be harmonized with II Corinthians 6;14, which states: “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Reformata reformanda – The Divine calling of every Church is to seek the glory of God. This can be accomplished only by a church purifying itself in doctrine and in life. God is holy and therefore He demands holiness on the part of everyone of us. The Bride of Christ must be presented without spot or blemish before the throne of God. Consequently, sanctification summarizes all the duties and responsibilities of every Church and every member of the Church. The name Reformed indicates this (Reformata reformanda – Being Reformed, we constantly reform ourselves). If a Christian finds that the life or the doctrine of his Church is inimical to his sanctification, he owes it to his Lord and Master to leave that Church peacefully and to unite with the purest Church.
The Lord Jesus said in Luke 17:1: “It is impossible but that offences will come; but woe unto him, through whom they come.” Historically, dissensions and division, which resulted in different ecclesiastical structures, have in many cases been caused by the flesh in the form of false doctrines or unethical practices in parent denominations. Shall then those, who in all simplicity and honesty believe that the truth must be defended and lived, be the ones who are to be blamed for divisions in the Church? It seems to me that the blame should rest upon those, who caused the offended to leave and begin a new Church.
Organizational unity, although much to be desired, does not belong to the essence of the Church. In these days when so many denominations are permeated with liberalism, I am more afraid of ecumenicity than divisions motivated by love for the Truth of God’s Word. Even as in the economic world, monopoly means stagnation, so in Church history the time of greatest stagnation was the time of greatest ecclesiastical monopoly.
Brotherly attitude and self-purification – Dr. H. Bavinck in his Dogmatics (Book IV, Sec. 13) writes: “Christ prepares the one holy, Catholic Church for himself, not by ignoring the existing denominations, but through them. Neither does Christ prepare this Church for Himself by neglecting the various ecclesiastical dogmas, but through them the unity of the knowledge of God is prepared and obtained.” Rev. N. J. Monsma writes in his book, The Trial of Denominationalism: “Indeed all Christians shall, while this dispensation lasts, not be able to think alike and to grasp the meaning of Scripture alike. But they shall be able to exercise love and tolerance toward each other.”
What then are we for? It is not necessary to think about this a whole year, as suggested by an editorial appearing in The Banner of December 15, 1970. What we are for is clearly stated in all the creedal statements of our denomination. In brief, we must seek the purity of the Church both in doctrine and in life. There can be no greater goals than these. Our hands will be really outstretched to all of God’s children in every denomination, when we reveal a real brotherly attitude, a firm love for the Holy, Catholic Church and a renewed effort to carry on the work of self-purification in our own denomination.
Cornelius J. Van Schowen, emeritus, lives in Sioux Center, Iowa, where he taught Bible at Dordt College from 1954 until his retirement in 1968.