Is splitting always wrong?

In  Speaker of Truth » Steve Chalke, Spring Harvest, UCCF and the Atonement Peter writes

So I must disagree with Dave Warnock’s implication that it is always wrong to divide from other Christians over doctrinal issues.

I think that is a fair implication to read into what I wrote in 42: Not At-one-ment but my view is more nuanced than that.

Division within the Church is always sinful, it is never to be delighted in, never to be sought, never to be lightly accepted, never to be ignored.

Division within the Church is often the result of being unwilling to pay the price of following Christ in accepting and loving others. It is often taken as an easy way out.

Let us not be naive. Unity is costly, it is a hard road and it is often unpopular. It does not win plaudits and it is not a route to worldly glory. Those who strive for unity will often feel the weight of the cross on their journey.

[Update]

Paul Huxley thinks he has got me in The Rock Badger: The Apostle Paul on Unity where he quotes Paul a fair bit and then says:

And a well known Christian blogger claims that division is always sinful? (clicky)

Actually I think the quotes completely support and validate what I have said. In every case Paul clearly shows loads of sin about and division is a last ditch response to that (cross reference the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18: 15-19).

So in summary. Paul only advocates division when there is serious amounts of sin about. Jesus teaches doing everything possible to avoid splitting (or throwing people out). Therefore division is the result of sin that the Church is unable to resolve. Therefore it is sinful. A better solution would always be to achieve through grace repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation and resurrection. Thanks Paul for your support :-)

PS "a well known Christian blogger" who are you trying to kid?

PPS From The Rock Badger: On the Spring Harvest/Word Alive split:

"An aside - though I disagree with almost everything that Dave Warnock writes about Christianity, he is right to point out the wonders of Ubuntu, version 7.04 of which was released yesterday."

Almost everything?!? Seriously I am thinking through what I write about Christianity and I am somewhat shocked that I am so controversial. Lucky for me that you were not on the Methodist District Probationers Committee. Mind you lucky for you that you were not or the congregations in this section of the Nene Valley Circuit would have been after you! ;-)

PPPS "Almost everything"!!

[End Update]

Two comments on Adrian's post by 1iz seem very appropriate here (see below). Particularly the point that unity involves accepting difference - that requires thought, it requires openness, it requires flexibility and most of all it requires grace.

I leave you with the challenge. Where is grace being shown in this situation?

1 i z    said...    

  Sorry had to giggle a little at a comment above. becci brown wrote:

"UCCF is committed to uniting Christians..."

Good stuff.

"UCCF are not about pushing a conservatist agenda, rather about uniting people who love the gospel regardless of churchmanship."

Regardless of churchmanship eh? Great to hear, they've clearly moved on from when I was a student.

"There are now a whole cross-section of people in UCCF; carasmatic, conservative and every nauance in between."

Ahhh...is it just me, or is that a spectrum that falls a little short of the whole cross section of Christian expression?

"Spring HArvest's decision to eject UCCF and Keswick in favour of someone who doesn't believe in a Christian view of the atonement is very telling of how much Spring Harvest 'love' the gospel and the cross."

Oh right...I get it, it's that lesser known definition of inclusive and uniting that actually excludes as not having a "Christian view" and not loving the gospel and the cross, anyone who differs on a point of theology, over which there is major debate within the Church. Cunning.

Don't get me wrong, I understand (though personally, it saddens me hugely) that that's how many people's expression of faith goes (and that's their perogative), but simultaneously claiming the mantle of 'uniting all who love the gospel' at the same time is a tad rich doncha think?

Still thanks for the giggle, the notion of 'inclusive of all churchmanships' being developed to mean 'a whole cross-section from conservative to charismatic', has amused me highly ;-)

We gospel loving 'libruls', don't mean to scare you, you know. We'll try not to make any sudden movements ;-) 

20 April, 2007 15:22

1 i z    said...    

Ben, regarding your first question, well my aunt plays the cello, but neither that nor your question have overly much to do with the point I raise.

One doesn't have to unite positions that are identical, intrinsic to the concept of uniting is difference.

Re your second question, are you suggesting that for you to accept that I love the gospel, you need to be sure that we share identical definitions of what the gospel is? Maybe we should also have a debate on the semantics of the word love?

Or perhaps, we can cut to the chase and agree that (it would seem, if I read you to be concurring with becci?) we appear to have different definitions of seeking unity of a 'whole cross section of churchmanship'.

My point being that what would seem to want to define itself as inclusive loveliness actual walks and talks like common and garden exclusivity.

Which as I say is a position anyone has the prerogative to take, but seeking to hijack the language of the opposite position lacks integrity.

Put simple saying 'we seek unity between all forms of churchmanship', when what is really meant is "oh actually sorry we didn't really mean a whole cross-section, but actually just that slice of the spectrum that includes people that coincide with our particular narrow interpretation of this that and the other", is highly disingenuous.

Sorry, I know it's a tough break, but if someone chooses to concentrate on what divides, they don't get to use with legitimacy the language of seeking unity. If they take a exclusionist stance they don't get to portray with integrity themselves as inclusive.

Or at least not without raising a wry smile or two en route.

In case it's not clear, my point is this, if a party wishes to dismiss another as non-Christian/unsound/hell-bound in a hand cart, due to their different interpretation of an aspect of theology, then they should be upfront and honest about that. They certainly shouldn't make the pretence of waving a flag of desiring unity, if they can't tolerate difference.

Furthermore for them to suggest that those that take a different view on a point of theology don't love the gospel or take it seriously or understand what it is etc is hugely offensive and a straw man of an argument.

21 April, 2007 01:14

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

Dave, let me give you two scenarios. The first is true. The second is not but you will recognise the analogy.

1. Two nearby but rather different churches wanted to do something for their young people, but neither had enough young people to set up a viable group. So they got together to form a joint youth group. The group grew over several years. But also some tensions arose between the leaders of the joint group and the leadership of one of the churches. That church eventually decided that it would be better to set up its own independent youth group. There were now enough young people from each church for two viable youth groups which continued to grow, one at each church. Was it wrong to split the youth group? The way it actually happened was a bit messy. But surely the split was justified by the results: two thriving works instead of one.

2. Your church is involved in a joint project in your town with another church from a rather different tradition. Although relations are sometimes tense, and you suspect that they want to take over complete control of the project, you persevere because you think it is right to work together and wrong to split. Matters come to a head when unsubstantiated allegations are made against one of the leaders from your church of the joint project team, who you are certain is innocent. The other church demands that you ask this person to step down, and will not even consider the evidence you have of their innocence. Do you capitulate to their unreasonable demands? Or do you take a stand at some such point and refuse to continue to work together with that other church? A tricky one, I know, but if your position is that you will never take a stand against even the most unreasonable demands of your partners, you will simply never get anywhere.

Joint projects between different churches and para-church groups can be excellent things. But I think that they should generally be entered into on a provisional basis, on the understanding that if they don't work out the partnership can be dissolved without recriminations. I hope that the Spring Harvest, UCCF and Keswick partnership was of this nature.

But if you demand unconditional and irreversible unity, you will simply end up with an unwieldy monolith, presided over by the power hungry who step all over people like you who won't stand up to them. Is that the kind of church you want?

[Dave Warnock]

Peter,

Surely the answer comes from Romans 8:28

I do believe that these splits are sinful by breaking unity. But sin happens and God deals with it. He works for good through it and he forgives us - but it is still sin and we should be trying to avoid it as much as possible.

I am not demand unconditional and irreversible unity. I am expecting us to work really hard at unity as a sign of the kingdom. I am expecting us to show repentance, seek forgiveness and reconciliation when divisions happen.

I do not see this in public very often. In the Spring Harvest/Word Alive split I see rejoicing and bad mouthing from the Word Alive supporters and that is not good.

[dave]

I think your senarios are helpful - it's why partnerships should be carefully entered into - agreeing on why and on what basis they want to work together.

"I see rejoicing and bad mouthing from the Word Alive supporters"

I don't doubt you see this, but it's tragic and heartbreaking ungodliness that people are responding this way. It's sorrowful when someone turns from the truth, it's sorrowful when two parties who used to stand firmly together no longer can... For those of us who think Chalke & co have veered from the truth there is no joy in proving this or identifying it. We always want to see restoration, repentance etc.

[PamBG]

We always want to see restoration, repentance etc.

I do wonder how to have conversations with that part of the Christian church that thinks a theological view should be "repented" of.

Do not read me as having said this in an angry tone. Read me as having said it in a "Mr. Spock" sort of way. It's a genuine question. I really don't know how to have these conversations. It means that the other theological view isn't being listened to but rather that it's being regarded as a sin.

[Peter Kirk]

"I am expecting us to work really hard at unity as a sign of the kingdom." Indeed. But unity is not the same thing as dull uniformity, nor is it the same thing as considering it sinful for there to exist diverse Christian works in the same place. Are you really saying that it was wrong and sinful for two separate churches to have their own separate youth groups? The logical conclusion of your attitude is that the existence of separate congregations is wrong and so all Christians, or at least all in any one city, should be required to worship together in one huge congregation regardless of whether this is convenient for them or to their taste. If this is what Christian unity means, then no thanks!

[Dave Warnock]

Peter,

I am not far from your view. I am totally not in favour of uniformity - that seems to be a great waste of God's creation. I am not against diverse Christian works in the same place.

I am in favour of creating diversity within a single Church through multiple services.

I am in favour of churches having their own youth work if that is what works for them. I support other Churches in every place where I am the minister.

None of that is about splitting the Church.

Splitting the Church comes when one faction says we will not accept you, we will not support you, we will not share worship, communion, fellowship with you. When by thought, word and deed they say you are not really Christian because you are different from us.

Cue the split between Word Alive and Spring Harvest. The motivation is not to grow the kingdom (although the marketing is). The motivation is "we are right and you are wrong", it is about division and exclusion. It comes when one side are sure that have everything right and assume that means the other must have it all wrong.

I don't know the details of this situation, but I do know where most of the noise is coming from and I am certain that division like this is wrong.

It is not about diversity (in fact many seem to say the split is because diversity is wrong). I do not believe it is about growth, I certainly believe it is a bad witness. It appears to be more like some Pharisaic demand for legalistic purity.

Fortunately, God will not abandon us (see today's Gospel reading John 21, restoration of Peter) and as mentioned earlier he will work for good through this. That does not make the action itself good!

[Peter Kirk]

Thanks for the clarification, Dave. Indeed our positions are very close. Perhaps here the marketing, if not entirely open and honest, is managing to avoid too much of a bad witness.

[DaveW]

Peter, Looks like the cat is out of the bag:
word alive - Google Search.

[dave]

PamBG... it was Jesus who said repent and believe the good news...

I'm taking my theological beliefs not as Spockian assents to lifeless propositions, but as wholehearted convictions as to who God is and what he has said and done.

We need to foster the kind of environment where we can disagree robustly and lovingly with one another. I can love someone and disagree with them. I can be godly and not unite with everyone. Doing this with fear of God and with gentleness is a challenge to my godliness... in my sinfulness I'm likely to misread, misrepresent or misjudge others - but that doesn't mean we have to avoid talking.

In Titus qualified elders are those who will encourage believers, and also refute, rebuke and silence those who oppose sound doctrine. Similarly much of the New Testament is refuting differing belief, and calling people to return to the truth.

It's a battle ground God cares for - why? Because false teaching ruins God's people and defames God.
I don't want God's people to get gangrene and I don't want what God has said about himself to be denied...

[Peter Kirk]

Yes, Dave W, the cat is certainly out of the bag, for the news has even made it into the Cartoon Blog, for which that Dave credits you! Meanwhile I am preparing a post on how this issue has become public.

[Dave Warnock]

Dave (Bluefish),

My key problem is not with the points you are making but with the tone you are using. That means my perception of what you are writing is that you are presenting yourself as always right and trying to put yourself in a position of authority over those who hold other views. It feels like you are trying to claim that you are the headmaster and Pam & I are naughty schoolchildren. I personally find that irritating, condescending & arrogant.

I resent the implication that by disagreeing with you I am/we are giving God's people gangrene. I also feel strongly that I am/we are not denying what God has said about himself.

[PamBG]

I'm taking my theological beliefs not as Spockian assents to lifeless propositions, but as wholehearted convictions as to who God is and what he has said and done.

I really hope that you are not suggesting that you think my faith is a "lifeless proposition"?

You write...

We need to foster the kind of environment where we can disagree robustly and lovingly with one another.

And I'm asking you how you expect Christians who disagree with you to hold a "robust conversation" if you think that it's your duty to refute, rebuke and silence those who disagree with you.

It's your duty to silence me but you think that you and I can have a "robust conversation"? Can you tell me how you imagine the scenario works? If you were making a short video clip of you and me talking together in light of your responsiblity to rebuke and silence me, what would the video clip look like?

[dave]

Hey I'm being warm in this - so I'm saying false teaching is gangrenous... but I'm up against the point of view that a doctrine I hold very dearly is child-abuse or violent retribution...

I do think you're denying something God has said... but it would seem you think the same about me... and we can talk like that - seriously I'm not the arrogant heartless conservative you think I am...

In a matter of irrelevance, I grew up a few miles away from where you work. Nice area.

[dave]

"lifeless proposition"?
No, I'm definitely not saying that about you. I was trying to say that my beliefs aren't such things.

I'm following what the book of Titus says about theological conversation - it's not my idea. Titus style theologising is always about God's fame, the health of God's people and changing lives to adorn the gospel more... it's friendly and positive.

The video...
A conversation about this would look like you talking and me listening... and then i might ask some questions, and you might let me talk - and I'd smile and say what I agree with, and then I might say I disagree about something for reasons that I would state.... and the you could say what you agree with, and show me why some of what i said was wrong...

I'm not talking about fascist silencing, but wanting to get us both closer to what God says. Good chance you'd persuade me in many things, maybe I'd persuade you a little...

[PamBG]

OK, dave bluefish, speaking in that way to each other sounds good.

I wonder how we can do that because I think we're talking past each other.

See my post in the other thread. I'm not particularly interested in Steve Chalke's book. I'm interested in theories of atonement and trying to think the issue through. For full transparency, I'm hoping to do a dissertation on non-violent theories of atonement, but I've not yet started it (I'm visiting the college where I might do my dissertation on Wednesday, so very early stages!)

Dave W - FYI, yes, that does mean I've given up trying to do the dissertation at Cambridge; I'm just not interested in pastoral theology and can't summon up the will to live and do that dissertation at the same time. *grin*

[Peter Kirk]

Dave Bluefish, can you please clarify whether the view of the atonement which Chalke spoke out against is "a doctrine I hold very dearly" as you say here, or a straw man presentation which no one actually holds, as you implied in another comment thread on this blog?

[Dave Warnock]

By the way great article supporting Paul as being primarily interested in relationships:
JOLLYBLOGGER: How Paul Resolved Problems

How does this challenge both sides in the atonement debate? What are we going to do in response to that challenge?

[thebluefish]

This is getting confusing - too many questions across two threads.

From "Redeeming the Cross" it seems that what Chalke thinks PSA is is unbiblical. And he writes like he thinks that is what PSA is - i.e. it's what Reformed Christians believe. I didn't grow up 'Reformed' and no one ever taught me about the Cross til I was 18, but I never heard those things... if that's how it's done then the Reformed people created themselves a 'monster' in a sense...

That said - what Chalke reverts too isn't a careful 'psa' (which albeit imperfetly) Pierced for our transgressions outlines.

Relationship is vital - it's the context of change. But I think there are points at which two people recognise change isn't going to happen and therefore partnership ends. That is a last resort - and notice that it's been 3-4 years coming to that in the Spring Harvest - Word Alive situation... which is quite a long time in a 14 year association.

Much conversation and debate has happened, much pleading and communicating. I'd recommend Mark Lauterbach's post in this debate, and his book The Transforming Community which are very helpful in how change can/should happen.

[Peter Kirk]

Well, Bluefish, I'm sure the last three or four years have been difficult, but it is really sad when the statement which one side puts out has to be denied as factually inaccurate by the other side. Can't you even agree on how to disagree?