Is it schismatic to leave a NAPARC church or denomination
to form a church outside of NAPARC? No, it is not, certainly not inherently so.
Jeremiah Burroughs is helpful here. You do not have to agree
with every point he makes or every detail to see that his framework is correct
and beneficial. Many men remain in compromised Reformed and Presbyterian
churches or denominations because their Elders heap false guilt upon them, groundlessly
charging them with being schismatics, claiming that leaving a Reformed and
Presbyterian Church that belongs to NAPARC (North American Presbyterian and Reformed
Council, which includes many Reformed and Presbyterian denominations such as
the PCA, OPC, ARP, RPCNA, URC, etc.) to join or find a new church or
denomination that is not associated with NAPARC is tantamount to sinful
division, fracturing the body of Christ, disturbing the peace and purity of the
church, ipso facto declaring any and all in NAPARC to be a false or apostate
church, etc. Yet, as Jeremiah Burroughs shows us, none of these things
necessarily follow. If you refute them on these points, some of these NAPARC Elders
will then resort to charging you with joining or forming a false or
illegitimate church if you join or form one outside of NAPARC or a “NAPARC approved”
denomination.
But, as Burroughs demonstrates, you can join a new church or
denomination without damning or anathematizing the one you no longer belong to.
You can still believe that your former church or denomination, along with its
minister and Elders, are true Christians and a true congregation. In other
words, you do not need to think that NAPARC or any particular denomination or
particular church is apostate or false like the Roman Catholic Church or
something similar, in order to join a Reformed and Presbyterian church that is
not associated with NAPARC. You could even think that NAPARC is perfectly
healthy and still join a Reformed and Presbyterian Church that is not NAPARC
for a host of legitimate reasons.
Now, I do believe that NAPARC is quite compromised and that
many of the denominations within NAPARC are compromised by the Egalitarian and
Feminist spirit of our age and can rightly be said to be apostatizing. But you
do not need to have that level of distress to join a church or denomination, or
even to form one, that is outside of NAPARC or one of its member denominations
(such as the PCA, OPC, ARP, RPCNA, URC, etc.). If they try to argue that you
are joining a micro-presbytery or are (at least temporarily) becoming an
independent church, that argument also holds no weight, and by making it they
contradict themselves. NAPARC includes several micro-presbytery denominations,
some of which number only single digits in terms of congregations, and total
membership per Wikipedia of the Presbyterian Reformed Church denomination
within NAPARC is said to be only 226 members: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Presbyterian_and_Reformed_Council).
If the question is
asked, COULD leaving a local church or denomination be schismatic, the answer of
course is yes. But the reason for the schism is not because you are leaving any
particular denomination or particular church or particular council and
constellation of denominations, but because you are departing and joining or
forming something new for unbiblical and illegitimate reasons.
But without further ado, here is Burroughs chapter on these
matters, from his book Irenicum:
Chapter 23 -- The Fourth Dividing Practice: Gathering of
Churches Disorderly
This is cried out as the greatest dividing practice of all.
You may speak of this or that being dividing amongst us, say some, but above
all things, this gathering of churches is the great divider amongst us. To this
I shall speak in these six things.
First, it is not absolutely unlawful for a church to be
gathered out of a church. Voetius, that learned professor of Utrecht, answering
Jansenius pleading against us for separating from the Romish Church, which was
the most ancient and famous Church: No, says he, it is not absolutely evil to
separate from such a church; for then the Christians gathering themselves out
of the Jewish Church were schismatics, which is false.
Doctor Jackson, a prelatical man, in the 14th chapter of his
Treatise of the Church, gives two reasons which he says are just and necessary
for which men (whether few or many) may and ought to separate themselves from
any visible church. First, because they are urged or constrained to profess or believe
some points of doctrine or to venture upon some practices which are contrary to
the rule of faith or love of God. Second, in case they are utterly deprived of
freedom of conscience in professing what they inwardly believe or are bereft of some other means either altogether necessary or most expedient to
salvation. For which latter he quotes 1 Cor. 7:23: "Ye are bought with a
price; be not ye servants of men." Although (says he) we were persuaded
that we could communicate with such a church without evident danger of
damnation, yet inasmuch as we cannot communicate with it upon any better terms
than legal servants or bondslaves do with their masters, we are bound in
conscience and religious discretion when lawful occasions and opportunities are
offered to use our liberty and seek our freedom rather than live in bondage.
This doctrine was allowed in the bishops' times. Now suppose
upon these two grounds there be a withdrawing from a church; Christ does not
require his people to live without ordinances all their days rather than they
should join themselves together into another body.
Secondly, yet where these causes are not but men may
communicate without sin, professing the truth and enjoying all ordinances as
freemen of Christ. Men must not separate from a church though there be
corruption in it to gather into a new church which may be more pure and in some
respects more comfortable. First, because we never find the saints in Scripture
separating or raising churches in such a case; and secondly, there would be no
continuance in church fellowship if this were admitted: for what church is so
pure and has all things so comfortable but within a while another church will
be more pure and some things will be more comfortable there? The general peace
of the church should be more regarded by us than some comfortable
accommodations for ourselves.
Thirdly, although you cannot for the present communicate
with the church in which you are without sin or bondage, yet you are not
presently to withdraw to gather into another or join with another. You are
bound to give so much respect to the church as to continue with much
long-suffering to seek the good of that church to remove the sin that is upon
it with all good means you can. You must bear much with a brother; much more
with a church.
Fourthly, if things were in that ordered and settled way as
they ought, there ought to be no gathering of any new churches without
consulting and advising with neighboring churches. Christ would have all
churches unite themselves and have conjunction one with another being all of
the same body of Christ. If then there is to be raised a new sister church that
expects and desires the benefit of communion with the rest, there is all the
reason in the world that the help, advice, and assistance of the other churches
should be made use of in raising and ordering this church that they are thus to
own in the way of communion with them to whom they are to give the right hand
of fellowship.
Fifthly, all believers who live in a place together ought,
as far as they can, to join into one Church, even if they have different
judgments and temperaments. Whatever differences they have, if they can coexist
with grace, they have no encouragement from the examples of any of the Churches
we read about in Scripture to divide themselves into small groups. The way of
Christ throughout Scripture is that all the Saints in such a place, who are not
more than can join in one, should join together and form just one Church.
Certainly, this is more for the honor of Christ's Body than the division of
Saints in the same place into several small societies. Christ places great
importance on the union of his Saints in one, in all ways, by all means
possible.
Sixthly, as things currently stand with us, there is no
substantial reason for the outcry against the gathering of Churches as a
divisive practice, as many seem to make it. How can this practice be so
offensive when almost all of you think it lawful for a man to move from one
Church to another for convenience, provided he relocates his dwelling? But
these do not establish new Churches.
Answer: If a group of men with estates is not satisfied with
the Ministry they are currently joined with and decides to buy land close by,
build on it, and receive permission from the State to create a new Parish from
those dwellings, who would blame them for gathering a Church in this manner?
Hence, it is apparent that withdrawing from our Churches and gathering others
is not against any Church Principle according to our Brethren's judgments; the
offense lies only against some Civil constitution.
Secondly, this practice has been commonly practiced before
without any offense to the godly and is still practiced without complaint. Has
it not been, and is it not still common for many not to communicate in the
Parishes where they live? Nor commonly to hear there, but from all parts of the
City to come to some Parishes where they perceive the best Ministers to be, and
there to hear and communicate regularly, with allowance for the maintenance of
such Ministers? Yes, and thus the husband goes one way and the wife another,
yet none are offended; perhaps the gentleman is content with his Parish-Church,
but his wife or lady is not satisfied and must go elsewhere.
If it is said that this was during a time of great confusion
when things were not as reformed as they are now and may be further reformed:
Answer: 1. Then it is not inherently unlawful. 2. It
continues so still in many places of this City. 3. When you have reformed
further, perhaps men's consciences will be further satisfied; you may reform
enough to prevent much of what you now complain about.
But though they came for their present relief, they did
not bind themselves to one another by Covenant as men do now.
Answer: If those who came constantly to your Ministry and
Sacraments had professed their willingness to join with you in all the
Ordinances of Christ as far as they knew and to walk accordingly, you might
have more comfortably administered ordinances to them; it could not have been
offensive to you.
Objection: But their Covenant binds them so that they
cannot return back again, regardless of any reformation.
Answer: Pray for and endeavor to advance Reformation to the
utmost, and then see what they will do; they have not yet declared themselves
as holding themselves so joined by any Covenant that they may not join with
you. Whatever relief they have had for the present time or whatever agreement
there has been among themselves should not hinder them from following that way
consistently presented in Scripture; namely, for all the Saints that live
together to join in one as far as possible.
But those who gather Churches in this way view all others
who are not in that way as Heathens; what division must this cause?
Answer: If this were true, it would indeed be a sad dividing
practice; wicked men cannot endure being judged this way or being cast out as
unworthy of Church-fellowship. Much less can the Saints bear it; it must deeply
affect their hearts. Aben Ezra says the Ammonites and Moabites burned the Books
of the Law because of Deuteronomy 23:3: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not
enter into the Congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth Generation."
If an Ammonite or Moabite cannot bear being shut out of the Congregation of the
Lord,* how can the Saints bear it? But God knows, and our Brethren may know—I
hope they shall know— that this is not the case: O no, they view you as
precious Saints of God, their dear Brethren in Jesus Christ. They bless God for
the graces they see in you and rejoice in the hope of living eternally in
Heaven with you.
But why then will they not admit them to their communion?
Answer: In all worship that belongs to Saints as Saints,
they joyfully join with them; but they believe there is some worship that
belongs to Saints gathered in a Society under officers, which cannot be
performed orderly except in that way. They think it unreasonable for anyone to
have the benefits of Church privileges while being under no power or discipline
of any Church; that they should pick and choose Ordinances yet live at liberty
so that if they walk disorderly, no Church has any power to call them to
account. Suppose this is a reason why they do not admit some; this is different
from judging them as Heathens.
Let me say further: I know none of these congregated
Churches, either here or elsewhere, that ever refused anyone who appeared godly
from communicating with them if they acknowledged themselves as members of any
Church elsewhere, even if that Church was in a different way regarding
government.
You will ask, what need is there for that?
Answer: If it is to prevent looseness in men who will be
under no government or because they judge Sacramental communion as a Church-Ordinance;
or if it should be through a mistake—yet howsoever—this must not be judged as
them considering all who do not join with them as Heathens; this is the most
uncharitable interpretation possible.
Comments
Post a Comment