Here's an interesting quote I came across from Calvin on whether to keep going in existing non-ideal churches or start your own. It's worth pointing out that this doesn't address the issue of starting new churches for missional reasons, or congregations leaving an existing denomination because they persecute true believers.
Dreadful are those descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others, deplore the disorders of the Church of Jerusalem. There was such general and extreme corruption in the people, in the magistrates, and in the priests, that Isaiah does not hesitate to compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah. Religion was partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were generally disgraced by thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and similar crimes. Nevertheless, the prophets on this account neither raised themselves new churches, nor built new altars for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but whatever were the characters of the people, yet because they considered that God had deposited his word among that nation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped, they lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the impious. If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from these services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather than have permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was nothing therefore to prevent their departure from them, but the desire of preserving the unity of the Church. But if the holy prophets were restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the Church on account of the numerous and enormous crimes which were practised, not by a few individuals, but almost by the whole nation,--it is extreme arrogance in us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church where the conduct of all the members is not compatible either with our judgment, or even with the Christian profession.
John Calvin, Institutes 4.1.18
HT to CQOD.
4 comments:
Thank you Custard. Good point. But it begs the question, when does one finally leave and start a new church then? And doesn't this dilemma also face us in various situations? When does a mate finally leave the abusive spouse? When does a mate finally leave the alcoholic spouse? When does a child finally speak about abuse? And because I have had to face some of these issues, my answer would be, "when hope is no longer feasible". I made up a rule about these situations. I'm not sure if its right but it seems sensible. I only let go, when holding on is more painful than letting go. What do you think?
I think I'd leave and start a new church when I was forced out and possibly not before, except for missional reasons. After all, that's what Luther, Wesley, etc did. Missional would include needing a church my teenage kids would be willing to go to though.
And if I was somewhere I didn't agree with, I might well make stuff difficult, but strive to be godly in the way I did it.
Leaving in marriage is different - I'd say that it's possible when it's clear that the other person is unrepentantly violating marriage vows (as with abuse) but that when to go after that depends on how much the abused partner can cope with. "When hope is no longer feasible" seems about right there.
And abused children is different again - I'd say they should speak out fairly early.
The problem with "I only let go, when holding on is more painful than letting go" is that we aren't necessarily good at seeing what is more or less painful in the long run.
That was wonderful insight, especially the part about being able to see in the long run. I guess that's why hindsight is 20/20. I still struggle with the idea of a "split" church because in a sense, I don't see the church as being split. When I look at God, I see a multi-faceted diamond. And when I look at the various churches, I see each church more or less focusing on just one or perhaps two aspects of the God diamond. Perhaps, the problem isn't with the "church" as much as it is our insistence on attending just ONE type of church and depending on just ONE type of church to present absolutely everything there is about God.
I was not raised in any one particular faith so I was blessed with the freedom of pursuing my spiritual path without any preconceived ideas. I found that the Catholic Church is very good at representing the "Holy" aspect of God. I attended Baptist Churches that are very good at representing the "Just" aspect of God. Etc., Etc. For me, I have always yearned for that union with God and so I was never content with looking at God thru just one set of glasses. I want to see all of Him and so I continue to look at Him through many different glasses. Does this make sense?
gently,laura
Yes - that does make sense and it's a helpful picture.
Of course, being an evangelical Anglican, I think that focusing on just one facet of God's character is potentially unhealthy and unbalanced in the long run. One church, focussing on the whole of God is where I think we should be aiming for.
Post a Comment