When To Leave a Church?

You can probably deduce from the post’s title that the topic of leaving a church is on my mind of late. When do one’s circumstances indicate that one should leave a church? This is obviously a very important question; one that, thankfully, most Christians never have to face or consider. But for a few, it can become an all-consuming concern.

For some, the reason for contemplating such a course of action lies in themselves. That is to say, they bring to a church their own unrealistic, perhaps overly idealistic, expectations of what the church actually is or can be. They are dysfunctional in themselves and so their expectations and their relationships with others in the congregation—especially the ruling body of elders—is also characterized by dysfunctional behaviour.

But this is not necessarily always the case. In spite of the fact many authorities maintain that the problem is almost always in the unhappy members, it has been my experience that just the reverse is as often the case. It is often the congregation that is dysfunctional and more specifically, the ruling body of the congregation (as the elders go, so goes the congregation). Now I don’t mean dysfunctional in an organizational sense. Usually, it is a kind of spiritual dysfunctionality that is the problem. We see examples of this in the first chapters of Revelation in the churches of Sardis, Ephesus and Laodicea. These churches were filled with born-again believers. Yet (in some respects) the congregations were nevertheless displeasing to Christ. There is nothing to indicate any organizational problems. They were criticised by Christ for their lack of commitment to Him and His Word and for their own sense of complacent self-righteousness (Rev. 2:4-5; 3:1-4, 15-18).

Some, when they think a church should be doing one thing or another, will get self-righteously angry that the congregation is not doing whatever it is he or she thinks it should be doing. They come to church with resentment or anger in their hearts. Coming to church this way is biblically unjustifiable and is actually down-right sinful. The problem for these people is that their understanding of both the form as well as the purpose or function of the church is incorrect or immature. They do not understand that every church and congregation has an inherent culture and is made up of people who are more or less in agreement with that culture. They fail to realize that the culture of the church or congregation is indifferent as long as it does not contravene Scripture or otherwise impede the progress of the Gospel.

For some, the culture within a congregation is intolerable. But that has nothing necessarily to do with the culture of that congregation and the congregation as a whole should feel no compunction to change, although it is free to do so. It is rather, given the admonishments in Scripture, the obligation of the unhappy individual to maintain the peace within the congregation and to learn to love and respect the congregation—and particularly those who are seen as the root of the problem—for the sake of Christ and to the extent he or she is able. Doing so is actually a form of sacrificial service to God and His good purposes. If they are unable to do this on their own, it is incumbent upon them to seek spiritual guidance from their pastor and elders. (But in point of fact, if a problem has become this serious for even one member of the congregation, it is a strong indicator that the ruling body of the church—comprised of the minister and his elders—is not performing its role in a manner intended by Scripture.)

But whether to stay or go gets more tricky at this point. According to the Biblical model, the unhappy individual should take his case to the offending party or parties, then, failing resolution, to the rulers of the congregation. But what if the rulers of the congregation are the offending party? One option available within the Presbyterian form of church government is to take the problem to a “higher court” usually the governing Presbytery. Even though most problems can and should be dealt with long before they get to Presbytery, occasionally the issue is too important or may have broader implications than can be fairly dealt with at the level of the local congregation. The problem here of course is that taking an issue this far is often perceived as inherently divisive by the church authorities if not by anyone else. Pressing the case this far up the chain of responsibility and accountability is considered to be “bad form” and to be breaking (or at least severely bending) the unity of the church. Partly because of this social pressure and—importantly—because we, as Christians, are taught to obey authority, this usually is a very unpleasant situation to be in. Consequently, all kinds of injustices, unbiblical behaviour and impediments to the progress of the Gospel are tolerated in the name of unity and obedience when they should not be.

When a high degree of dissatisfaction is being experienced by many congregants, and when there is a high degree of consistency or similarity in those dissatisfactions, it is a strong indicator that something serious has gone amiss in the congregation. It is traditionally one of the main functions of an elder to employ appropriate levels of discipline within his congregation, particularly with those for whom he has especial oversight. He is to maintain the integrity and purity of doctrine and to curtail evident sin in a sensitive but firm manner, much as a responsible father will discipline his errant children: always with love and with increasing severity as required. But in a healthy, biblical, Christ-centered church, this kind of discipline will (or should) almost never be necessary. Why? Because in such a case the ruling body will be caring for its flock in a loving Christian way. It will be engaged with its flock. It will express love for the people over whom it has a charge. The ruling body, acting as individuals, will be servants first and overseers second.

(It is a firm conviction by most biblical Christians that there are three marks of a true church: biblical preaching and gospel proclamation, proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. I have no problems with these, except I think they are incomplete. There must surely be a fourth mark of a true, biblical, Christian church: love for the brethren. Surely if we love Christ, we will love our brothers and sisters and—what is perhaps even more important—we will be free and courageous enough to express our love openly and without shame. As I was reminded recently by a member of our bible study group, Paul makes it very plain for us: “If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2, emphasis added). Given this, who can deny the importance of love in the Christian congregation?)

So we see from this that it is often a difficult thing to decide when or if one should leave a congregation. In my mind, if one person has decided to leave a congregation this may not necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the congregation itself, its leaders or its culture. It could simply be a case of a bad “fit.” This is usually the case. However, when several households are experiencing difficulties within the congregation and when the people of these households do not appear to be in a state of rebellion or unrepentant sin and who exhibit no interest in embracing heretical beliefs, then the ruling body cannot assume that there is no cause for concern. In fact, they should be very concerned.

In such a situation, what should the congregants do who are experiencing the difficulty; in other words, should they leave or stay?

I believe the affected individual congregants should first make their concerns known to the ruling body in a respectful but honest way. It could involve emails and phone calls but should also include a face-to-face exploration of the problems. Failing resolution, it is in the best interests of all the affected parties to act in unison. Members of a single household or family going before the ruling body will often be seen as nothing more than malcontents, but when several households are represented the matter becomes far more real (as well as serious). Several members acting in concert might also necessitate calling formal meetings or even convening a judicial church court.

If the affected congregants are convinced by the ruling body that they are being disobedient, that should bring the matter to a close. However, if the affected congregants are convinced, after meeting and discussing the issues with the ruling body, that there is a problem within the church that conflicts with their understanding of the church and her purposes and responsibilities as determined by Scripture—with possible support from the denomination’s Book of Church Order, Constitution or other subordinate standards such as the Westminster Confession of Faith—then they are required to defend their position. To do so is not to be disobedient but rather obedient—to Christ and His Word. It is important to remember that the ruling body only has authority derived from Scripture. All its actions, attitudes and decisions must be the result of engaging with, and conforming to, God's Word.

There may come a time in the life of a congregation when a significant number of people can no longer remain in the congregation. But their leaving should not occur over frivolous matters. There must be some serious flouting of Scripture by the ruling body either in doctrine or practice before one should leave the church. Remember, we are not in church to please the elders but to please Christ. We are there not because it is expected of us but because we, as God’s people, are called to worship Him in spirit and truth. If you cannot do that according to your understanding of Scripture and cannot be convinced of the error of your ways, but rather are more firmly convicted of the rightness of your position, then and only then, should you consider leaving the church. But by then you must leave in order to remain faithful to Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Thoughts While Waiting in the ER

I spent the entire evening last night—from 6:00 PM to 1:30 AM this morning—in the ER of my local hospital. I went there as a result of believing I might be having—or was in immanent danger of having—a heart attack.

This post isn’t about the horrible state of the health care system in BC. It’s not about using our medical resources better than we do; it’s not about the dedication and commitment of individual workers in the system. All these are worthy topics mind you. But right now I need to talk about something else.

Let me contextualize my own experience by the experience of another family. As I sat, waiting for my name to be called, I couldn’t help but notice a mother and (I suppose) daughter. They were going in and out of the entrance to the ER itself. Both were pale, their faces drawn. The eyes of the daughter were bleary and red-rimmed. Someone they loved was in big trouble this night. Soon other members of the family began to arrive; children, teenagers and middle-aged adults. They would disappear into the ER for a while and then emerge more distraught than when they went in. This continued for about thirty minutes and finally, walking right by me, they all went through the double doors of the waiting room and stood outside in the cold. I could just make them out through the frosted glass as they huddled together, holding on to each other, the young ones clinging desperately to the grown ups the grown ups embracing the children as if both to comfort and protect. The high-pitched weeping of the children intermingled with the groans and wails of the adults in a heart-tearing melody of grief and pain. Here, I thought, here is where we all come to. Here is where it will end for us; maybe not in a hospital, but definitely in grief, pain and misery.

And of course this forced me to think of myself and my own predicament. For all I knew, in a few hours or less, that could be my family on the other side of the ER door. It could be my body they would be wheeling down the hallway on a gurney, bound for the morgue.

A sobering thought. Yet here I was, with only my body to tell me it was in trouble of some kind, perhaps the worst kind. Everyone else was too busy to tend to me. That’s OK. I’ll wait my turn.

And as I waited, I prayed. I prayed to God, to Christ, that should it really be my time, that I was not placing any hope anywhere but in Him alone. I pled the shed blood of Christ, taking refuge in it and Him alone. “Oh Heavenly Father” I prayed, “Into your hands I commend my life and my spirit. To you and you alone do I look. Let your will be done in this as in all things; let my passing be as and when you determine. This only I ask; care for my wife and son and give them the comfort and the strength they will need.”

I prayed several times during the night. But at no time was I ever afraid. Perhaps I didn’t believe this could really be happening to me; perhaps I knew this was just some passing fit of anxiety or some other anomaly. But I believe there really was more to it than that. I believe that we as Christians really do have nothing to fear. That we have a friend and Saviour who is ever by our side and who is ever in waiting to receive us at our journey’s end. I do not count myself special in this. This is a blessing that comes as part of God’s covenant with His people. It is something He has promised to all of us and to each one of us.

I thought of that family and of how they were experiencing the death of a loved one. Were they Christians? I don’t know. Was the one being grieved over a Christian? I don’t know. But I do know that if they were Christians, their grief should have been mitigated by the simple fact of their faith. To be a Christian is to walk by faith, not by sight. It is to know the presence and compassion of a loving, sovereign God who works everything according to the good pleasure of His perfect will. He is with us even when we forget Him. He promised to prepare a place in heaven for each of us. These are comforting thoughts, but do us no good if we don’t really believe them. If we are Christians the end will be the same for all of us—a glorious end. But if we aren’t aware of these truths, if we don’t embrace them in the here and now, our lives will miss the peace we have been promised. The promise of peace is not just for the hereafter. It is for now. It is ours, but only if we appropriate it through faith.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Baptism and Protestant Bathing Phobia

Sorry that I've been lax in my posting of late. I've been quite busy with one or two other concerns, the least important of which is Second Life (which I won't attempt to explain here). However, I found the following little snippet in my archives and thought it might be amusing to post. Here it is. Enjoy.

Let me say something you’re probably not expecting and which I hope doesn’t sound too ludicrous. I’ve done some research on the Reformation and the history of the Church and am confident that there is a close connection between those subjects and the beliefs and customs that surround bathing and personal hygiene as they were practiced in Elizabethan and Jacobean Britain. I think that it is possible that the reason there is so little recognition of baptism as immersion in the WCF and other Reformation documents is partly because the Jacobean Reformers had both a cultural and theological aversion to bathing.

For instance, during the Middle Ages the Church discouraged bathing in Roman style public baths, fearing the spread of syphilis and the plague. During the Reformation baths were associated with entertainment and immorality. Philip II of Spain is said to have authorized the destruction of the public baths built by the Moors on the grounds that washing the body was a heathen custom dangerous to Christians. It was believed that hot water especially dilated the pores and allowed harmful organisms to enter the body through the skin. Even newborn babies were not washed, and until the eighteenth century they were swaddled in bands of cloth that were changed twice a day at most. After 1760 baths and bathrooms began to spread very slowly, and as late as 1835 a young man asked through an American reform journal whether he should continue his habit of taking a warm bath every three weeks.

And Will Durant, in his The Story of Civilization, says “Cleanliness, in the Middle Ages, was not next to godliness. Early Christianity had denounced the Roman baths as wells of perversion and promiscuity, and its general disapproval of the body had put no premium on hygiene.” And again, describing the age of Reformation, Durant says, “Social and individual hygiene hardly kept pace with the advance of medicine. Personal cleanliness was not a fetish; even the King of England bathed only once a week and sometimes skipped.” The same historian, after describing the dress­ing manners, writes, "How clean were the bodies behind the frills? A sixteenth-century Introduction pour les jeunes dames spoke of women ‘who had no care to keep themselves clean except in those parts that may be seen, remaining filthy...under their’ and a cynical proverb held that courtesans were the only women who washed more than their face and hands. Perhaps cleanliness increased with immorality, for as women offered more of themsel­ves to view to many, cleanliness enlarged its area.”

I don’t know if anyone else has made this connection. I don’t know but that it is a completely outlandish idea, devoid of merit, yet I find it more than coincidental. It would certainly not surprise me if the Reformers, many of whom were Puritans, found the whole idea of immersing ones body in water to be repugnant for two main reasons: firstly it probably was seen as a way of increasing, not decreasing the likelihood of disease and secondly (and perhaps more importantly) it was probably associated with the public baths of bygone eras, especially of pagan and then Catholic Rome, and which public baths had a reputation as centers of worldliness and immorality. Certainly, for whatever reasons, Jacobean and Reformed England was largely unwashed and unsanitary. Given this argument, it does not seem unreasonable for the Protestant Divines of the Reformation to have repudiated the immersive mode of baptism due to their own cultural bias and not simply on the biblical evidence.