One of my goals for this now passing balcony month was to think and pray through the issue of Christian unity. Specifically I wanted to think and pray through the issue of unity between churches. Baptists have long recognized the potential utility of free will associations between like-minded local churches. There are things that we can do more effectively and more efficiently in partnership with others. However, there are dangers associated with partnership as well and the Bible warns about them frequently:
Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33 ESV)
Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. (Romans 14:22 ESV)
A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 ESV)
A careful Bible reader knows that the issue of partnership has to be approached carefully. It is not as simple as saying: “Jesus prayed for his followers to be united, therefore all association is good and all caution is bad.” Jesus did pray for his disciples to be unified but he also said that not everyone who says they are a Christian really is:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21–23 ESV)
Jesus also told us to beware of false shepherds and prophets:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15 ESV)
And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. (Matthew 24:11 ESV)
So, not everyone who says they are a Christian IS and not every pastor who says he is a Christian IS and there are many Christians and Christian leaders who look like they work for Jesus when in fact they are ravenous wolves intent on scattering the flock of God. That makes partnership complicated.
The matter is further complicated by the need to figure out what things a church must DO to actually BE a local church. A church cannot outsource preaching or the sacraments or discipline and still think of itself as a church. There are some things that are not properly the focus of partnership. Baptists have traditionally understood that a line exists somewhere beyond which partnership is a bad thing, rather than a good thing. Finding that line in our day and age can be tricky.
This little article is not intended to sort through all of those complications. Some of them have been thought through elsewhere on this site. My intention with this article is to focus very narrowly on the issue of denominational partnership. How broad should a fellowship of churches seek to be? Is there a point where the elasticity of toleration snaps apart and the group ceases to have a discernable reason for being? What keeps churches from drifting apart? How do you decide when its time to leave? That is the more limited concern of this public offering.
To help my thinking on this matter I resolved to read and digest the biography of J.C. Ryle. Ryle is often mentioned as the second most influential figure in British Evangelicalism in the 19th century after C.H. Spurgeon. Evangelical leaders often debate with one another how much association is helpful as opposed to harmful to the cause of the Gospel. J.C. Ryle and C.H. Spurgeon had that debate in the 19th century. John Stott and Martyn Lloyd Jones had it again in the 20th century. We’re having it now in the 21st. Ryle is associated with the concern for greater unity. While Spurgeon was leaving the Baptist Union during the famous downgrade controversy, Ryle was serving as the Bishop of Liverpool and arguing against Evangelical churchmen leaving the Church of England in order to join the Dissenters. While I make no claim to being able to arbitrate their differences, and while I admit to a default tendency to “never argue with Spurgeon” I had the sense that reading Ryle’s story and hearing his argument might help me know where to land on this contentious issue in our own time. I offer these very few insights in the hopes that they will be helpful to you as well.
Of Anchors And Holding To The Centre
The primary reason J.C. Ryle felt comfortable remaining in the Church of England was the moderating effect of an authorized creed and liturgy. His biographer comments:
“Ryle rejoiced in the comprehensiveness of the Church of England. The National Church, he maintained, is like our National Army which is made up of different regiments, each convinced of its own importance – the Guards, the Cavalry, the Artillery. So the Church of England includes High, Broad, Evangelical and No-Party men. Though they hold to their own distinctive beliefs and practices, they are united on the essential doctrines of faith, love the same Bible, subscribe to the same Articles, believe the same Creeds, use the same Prayer-book.”[1]
Ryle was convinced that as long as neither the 39 Articles nor the Prayer Book were modified or discarded there was no reason to leave the denomination and no reason to despair of Biblical revival. The 39 Articles are one of the great Reformation Creeds. They are thoroughly “Protestant” and orthodox. Ryle viewed that anchor as giving a rallying point for Christian unity and partnership. The Prayer-book similarly functioned to greatly limit liturgical innovation. So long as a minister subscribed to the Articles and was bound to the Prayer-book, Ryle decided to care little for whether he turned to the east when taking communion (an Anglo Catholic ritual that annoyed Evangelicals) or wore a colourful vestment rather than the standard black robe. Charity in non-essentials was his creed, provided subscription to the Articles was universal.
Of Limits And Boundaries
Ryle was clear that unity at the expense of truth was of no value whatsoever. His biographer quotes him as saying:
“Unity purchased at the expense of creeds and doctrines is a miserable, cold, worthless unity. I, for one, want none of it.”[2]
This did not mean that Ryle refused to partner with anyone who would not subscribe to the 39 Articles, in fact Ryle was well known as a partner with Dissenters (think Baptists and Methodists). However he limited that partnership to “temperance work (and) moral and social work”.[3] The level of agreement dictated the level of partnership.
However – and this is a crucial point for us today – to say that partnership has to be determined by creedal agreement is not to say that one has an uncharitable attitude to people outside the boundaries of your own doctrine. Ryle spoke fondly of those same Baptists and Methodists that he refused to formally unite with:
“Show me a man who repents and believes in Christ crucified, who lives a holy life, and delights in his Bible and prayer, and I desire to regard him as a brother.”[4]
As to when it might be appropriate to leave one’s denomination, Ryle said:
“When the 39 Articles are altered, when the Prayer-book is revised on Romish principles and filled with Popery, when the Bible is withdrawn from the reading desk, when the pulpit is shut against the Gospel, when the Mass is formally restored in every parish church by Act of Parliament… then it will be time to leave the Church of England. Then we may arise and say with one voice, ‘Let us depart, for God is not here.’”[5]
Lessons From J.C. Ryle:
I read J.C. Ryle because I am inclined already to think like C.H. Spurgeon. There is profit sometimes, in reading the other view. Ryle inclines toward partnership – with important qualification and until certain inviolable lines are crossed. I become convinced that this approach is wise. However, the trouble with our Canadian Baptist context is that we do not HAVE the anchor of authoritative creeds. We do not have a liturgical guide. We have autonomous local churches drifting fast in a thousand different directions. It is useless to say: “We have the Bible” when the Bible is being held up by everyone on every side of the issue. A Creed (or Statement of Faith in Baptist parlance) is not authoritative OVER the Bible, rather it functions to codify how that Bible is being read by the undersigned parties. In the CBOQ we have people who read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as though it says NOTHING about sexual ethics. We have people who read 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as though it says nothing about creation roles for men and women. We have people who read the New Testament and yet don’t believe in hell. We have no centre and instead we have exalted unqualified diversity. This is the suicide of any free will association. Robert Putnam, in his landmark article E Pluribus Unum: Diversity And Community In The 21st Century said prophetically:
“Mass scale diversity tends to make everyone more insular and less engaged in civil society”.[6]
Unlimited diversity within a free will association erodes the perceived value for association. It results in people doing less together. The unlimited diversity that is so often trumpeted as a virtue within the CBOQ is far more likely to be the cause of its gradual and inexorable decline.
We’ve advocated for a more authoritative Statement of Faith within the CBOQ but that appeal has fallen on deaf ears. We’ve tried to compensate by advocating positively for historic principles of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) but again, that seems to fall on deaf ears. We even tried bringing formal discipline against a pastor who seemed to be in obvious, public defiance of Scriptural teaching. Crickets. The absence of a central anchor on doctrinal drift and variance remains the single greatest threat to the long term viability of the free will association known as the CBOQ.
While we continue to pray for a breakthrough on that front, it occurs to me that our time might better be spent on defining outer limits. Until there is a central rallying call bringing churches back to a defined centre, it may make sense for churches to work together with churches drifting (or remaining) in the same direction while beginning a discussion about what the outer markers are that, if crossed, would necessitate formal disassociation. Inspired by J.C. Ryle I suggest the following:
1. When the denomination/associations refuse to ordain Bible preaching, Gospel upholding preachers because of their traditional views on gender in the home and church.
2. When the denomination openly affirms gay marriage or ordains practicing homosexuals to the pastorate.
3. When the denomination requires a per head contribution to the central coffers.
Should any of those things happen, we should with one voice arise and say: “Let us depart, God is not in this place.”
Until that time, we ought to rejoice in the wisdom of our grandparents who enshrined the autonomy of the local church in our collective DNA. We ought to partner where we can with like-minded churches, locally and within the denomination. We ought to pray for a revival of God’s Word in the pulpits of our churches. We ought to accept the censure and derision of our fellows and our colleagues. We ought to preach, share the Gospel, change, grow and SHINE. Let our fruitfulness be our argument in the present. Even so, come Lord Jesus!
SDG
Paul Carter
[1] Eric Russell, J.C. Ryle: That Man Of Granite With The Heart Of A Child, (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2001), 220.
[2] Ibid., 224.
[3] Ibid., 224.
[4] Ibid., 226.
[5] Ibid., 238.
[6] As quoted in Jonathan Last’s What To Expect When No One’s Expecting (New York: Encounter Books, 2014), 21.