Starting Churches

[mike]

That choice, in my eyes, looks like an overvaluation of structural or organizational unity/continuity over unity of purpose and spirit. Even Jesus mentioned the potential of churches to apostatize and "loose their candlestick". When that happens and bad fruit appears, shouldn't the righteous leave?

Some of the 7 churches of Revelation. Exactly.

[seinetsodumm]

So you're arguing that the groups who are apostasizing, making it necessary for those who want to follow the apostles' doctrine to leave, are actually the ones engaging in schism - not the ones who are leaving to create new churches. I think I agree with that, but it's kind of hard to make the case that those leaving are not in any way guilty of schism. Schism is defined at "the formal separation of a Church into two Churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences." I think terms like schism are pejoratives that established groups who have departed from their historic belief and practice typically like to level at those leaving. I've experienced that.

I understand this in theory I think. But there remain questions. Who is the arbiter of "what is heresy" and "who" is actually leaving the "real faith?" The unstated presumption seems to be that the "individual" decides this, and perhaps he/she gets a few other folks who also agree, or perhaps it is just him and he starts/continues what in his mind is a "true" church.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

Some would feel the fruit of this individualistic spirit is self evident in the Protestant and Anabaptist worlds, to a degree that, most reasonable people would conclude, is ridiculous at times. Literally some groups say "X" is necessary for fellowship and some say "Not-X" is necessary for fellowship. (One case in point, though there are many, is facial hair. Some groups have required it, some have required the absence of it for church participation and fellowship. Some saw facial hair as a marker of apostasy in a church and some saw no facial hair as a marker of apostasy.)

Personally I think the above is in fact a fair contention. The truth is any schisming group will argue they are the ones following the "true faith." So it effectively becomes a "no true scotsman" type of situation.

I think the folks who are continuing to
1. follow the teachings of Jesus
2. abide in the Apostles doctrine
have the right and the responsibility to continue doing so and to expect those they fellowship with and commune with to do the same.

If an individual or church either adds to 1&2 or subtracts from 1&2, they lose their right to the claim that they have the correct worldview.

Jesus is the arbiter in the end. I don't know of anyone or any church who can determine with absolute certainty who is the real church or who is free from heresy. We do the best we can, and there is a lot of alignment between devout Christians who all study the same blueprint.

I agree with your summary here.

I was recently listening an episode on the podast Hope For Wondering Amish." In the episode entitled "The Good and Bad of Church Conflict," the speaker references the separation of Baul and Barnabas and speaks about the difference of division and separation. I enjoyed his perspective. In a nutshell, his point is that there is a difference between separating from the established group d/t sin, and separating d/t division. Scriptures teaches separation and warns against division.

Some feel the church is the one given the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, and folks bringing dissension are the ones in the "wrong" and going against the authority that has the keys to the kingdom.

I here what you are saying. I wrestle with this. But yet I come back to the reality I don't believe by preacher will be standing beside me when I stand before God.

[R7ehr]

I think truly caring about sound doctrine also means being willing to blend with others and work together with people who have faults, in which case it's less common to end up on an island with a motley collection of malcontents.

Why?

[R7ehr]

Showing respect and maintaining good relationships are great, of course. But what if they would not have given such a letter. Would it have stopped him from leaving and helping to start a new church?

Who knows? And what does it matter what this specific man may or may not have done 75 years ago? I do know that the whole leaving thing caused him to have a mental breakdown that affected him the rest of his life. Which is an indication that he did not do this lightly, which in turn indicates.....what does it indicate what he might have done? I don't know. I think one thing that we can take from this, is that in some circumstances it is possible to leave in the manner he did. And that not all people leave and shake the dust off their shoes in a huff, but rather seek to do it with more respect than is often seen today, where people go "start their own church" and like Micah, find their own preacher for ten shekels and a shirt.

It matters because it reveals the mindset that at least one person had during that division. The lifelong struggle he had with his decision is very interesting.

Don't you think there could be other ways to leave a church than these two options:

1. Leaving only after getting a letter of blessing from the church one is leaving, and even then struggling with the decision the rest of one's life.

2. Run off in a huff to start one's own church with no respect shown to the church one is leaving.

Neither seems all that great of a way to start a new church. The first option does at least seem to show more humility than the second, but if doing the right thing causes such a debilitating mental struggle, then I have to wonder how sure of a thing it is that the decision was in fact the right one.

Firstly, I don’t think the fact that this minister tried to leave humbly and as peacefully as possible with a letter, was the difference between him having a breakdown or not. I find it hard to think that he would have avoided the breakdown had he left without a letter, and perhaps had been a bit more cranky or indignant about it all. I believe it was his decision to leave/schism/split/divide that took the toll, not the decision of getting their approval or not. No doubt some of the people who left would have certainly left even without a letter, and perhaps some of them did leave prior to the letter. While others may have waited on the letter before feeling clear to leave and join those who left.
The mental breakdown speaks to his high view of church unity to me. He was doing something that was he found very difficult to do, that he believed was necessary, but at the same time I believe he had an elevated degree of uncertainty as well.
But then I don’t know exactly how easy or difficult getting that approval was. I thought it took a little effort but was not an overly toxic ordeal. But maybe it was more than I think.

Yes, I do know there are ways to leave besides those two options above. It’s a continuum.

[mike]

Who knows? And what does it matter what this specific man may or may not have done 75 years ago? I do know that the whole leaving thing caused him to have a mental breakdown that affected him the rest of his life. Which is an indication that he did not do this lightly, which in turn indicates.....what does it indicate what he might have done? I don't know. I think one thing that we can take from this, is that in some circumstances it is possible to leave in the manner he did. And that not all people leave and shake the dust off their shoes in a huff, but rather seek to do it with more respect than is often seen today, where people go "start their own church" and like Micah, find their own preacher for ten shekels and a shirt.

It matters because it reveals the mindset that at least one person had during that division. The lifelong struggle he had with his decision is very interesting.

Don't you think there could be other ways to leave a church than these two options:

1. Leaving only after getting a letter of blessing from the church one is leaving, and even then struggling with the decision the rest of one's life.

2. Run off in a huff to start one's own church with no respect shown to the church one is leaving.

Neither seems all that great of a way to start a new church. The first option does at least seem to show more humility than the second, but if doing the right thing causes such a debilitating mental struggle, then I have to wonder how sure of a thing it is that the decision was in fact the right one.

Firstly, I don’t think the fact that this minister tried to leave humbly and as peacefully as possible with a letter, was the difference between him having a breakdown or not. I find it hard to think that he would have avoided the breakdown had he left without a letter, and perhaps had been a bit more cranky or indignant about it all. I believe it was his decision to leave/schism/split/divide that took the toll, not the decision of getting their approval or not. No doubt some of the people who left would have certainly left even without a letter, and perhaps some of them did leave prior to the letter. While others may have waited on the letter before feeling clear to leave and join those who left.
The mental breakdown speaks to his high view of church unity to me. He was doing something that was he found very difficult to do, that he believed was necessary, but at the same time I believe he had an elevated degree of uncertainty as well.
But then I don’t know exactly how easy or difficult getting that approval was. I thought it took a little effort but was not an overly toxic ordeal. But maybe it was more than I think.

Yes, I do know there are ways to leave besides those two options above. It’s a continuum.

The pain of such a hard decision is very real.

[Ernie]

That choice, in my eyes, looks like an overvaluation of structural or organizational unity/continuity over unity of purpose and spirit.

Exactly.

Even Jesus mentioned the potential of churches to apostatize and "loose their candlestick". When that happens and bad fruit appears, shouldn't the righteous leave?

Yes. The big question in my mind is whether it is ok to leave before the candlestick is withdrawn by God (since we don't have any encouragement to do so in the New Testament that I am aware of) and if it is ok to leave before, how soon before. How long should we be long suffering? And what if a person stays with a church that has had its candlestick removed?

[ken_sylvania]

I think truly caring about sound doctrine also means being willing to blend with others and work together with people who have faults, in which case it's less common to end up on an island with a motley collection of malcontents.

Why?

Why what?

[eccentric_rambler]

That choice, in my eyes, looks like an overvaluation of structural or organizational unity/continuity over unity of purpose and spirit.

Exactly.

Even Jesus mentioned the potential of churches to apostatize and "loose their candlestick". When that happens and bad fruit appears, shouldn't the righteous leave?

Yes. The big question in my mind is whether it is ok to leave before the candlestick is withdrawn by God (since we don't have any encouragement to do so in the New Testament that I am aware of) and if it is ok to leave before, how soon before. How long should we be long suffering? And what if a person stays with a church that has had its candlestick removed?

And how do we know the candlestick has been removed?