I have heard many stories lately of community groups,, but especially church groups, that have split, or left the wider community or denomination to which they belonged. Or in one situation the denomination has kicked out several groups on the basis of disagreements over a policy (they would say adherence to what they believe are biblical teachings).
And that’s my specific interest here. So often these disputes or divisions relate to an interpretation of passages or themes in the Bible. This is especially so in the widely diverse branch of the Church that calls itself ‘Evangelical’—though my Roman Catholic colleagues have long asserted that ‘splitting’ is inherently characteristic of Protestantism. Once you split the Church, they say, it will go on splitting. They have a point. There is rich diversity in the Catholic Church and yet it manages to maintain a unity: all that diversity affirms the oneness of the Catholic Church.
Some decades ago, in the ‘ecumenical movement’, we used to affirm the notion of ‘unity in diversity’, or later ‘hospitality to diversity’.
But that is not how it is with many other groups. There is a view that faithfulness to the Gospel, or to Christ, requires a kind of doctrinal or perhaps behavioural purity, and thus if there are those who interpret key beliefs and articles of faith differently it is necessary to separate from them. Only those who adhere to the right views may belong to their group. Sometimes the term ‘apostate’ is used to describe those who hold the wrong views. Some will even deny that such persons are christians at all.
[In passing, let me add that such divisions and contentions are not unique to Christianity. This is important to note. There seems to be something about religious groups, but also other community activities, including political and business groups, that gives rise to these dynamics and struggles.]
I belong to a community whose historical roots are with the separatists. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were many groups who struggled against the Established or state churches, seeking freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and struggled to ‘reform’ the church as they knew it. Many hoped to do so from within the established church: Luther did not want to abandon the Church as such and thus hoped to remain within the Church of Rome. Similarly, John Wesley did not want to leave the Anglican Church. Other groups were indeed persecuted, such as the early Anabaptists, many of whom had to leave England, while some such as John Bunyan was imprisoned for 12 years for his dissension. The ‘separatists’ did indeed believe they needed to break from the Established church and its royal controls, in order to be faithful to Christ as the sole ‘head’ of the Church.
One of the interesting considerations here is the propensity of such groups to appeal to the Bible for their specific stance. The ‘free churches’ claim a freedom to interpret the Bible and to discern the leading of God’s Spirit—but on what basis? What exactly does this mean? In reality, the great Protestant slogan sola scriptura—that the Bible alone is the supreme authority in our life of faith—is actually an appeal to ways of interpreting the Bible. It too is a tradition, despite the claim against ‘church tradition’ as authoritative. Inevitably, our reading and understanding of the Bible, and indeed our discernment of the Spirit, if that is what is claimed, is culturally shaped and a very human activity, involving our life stories and experiences, influences, and needs. Most groups of this nature have a doctrinal tradition which functions as a de facto creed.
Sometimes, sadly, these things are better described as power struggles. It is a matter of whose appeal to what ‘authorities’ will hold sway.
The appeal to sola scriptura will often go quite directly to a short passage in the Second Epistle to Timothy, Chapter 2. Here, the Apostle Paul urges his protege to study and work to merit approval, of God and the people, and this is to be based upon a responsible handling of the ‘word of truth’.
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Tim. 2. 15)
There are many ways to translate this verse, especially in regard to the ‘handling’ of ‘the word of truth. An older and widely known translation is ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’. And the ‘word of truth’ is taken to mean the whole Bible, even though at the time the only scriptures as such were the Hebrew Bible (later called the Old Testament). Perhaps what is meant by the ‘word of truth’ might well have included a range of sources toe be studied and reflected upon—rightly or responsibly.
‘Rightly dividing’ has had many meanings. The great Baptist preacher of the 19th century C H Spurgeon in one sermon identified as many as six distinct possibilities, some with ancient usage, others more relevant to the practices of Christians in his time, but all asking for a considered, responsible, and pastoral concern. The verse clearly demands humility and accountability. Here I think is a vital clue: those who might appeal to a passage such as this, in seeking to divide their church, perhaps to adhere to ‘pure doctrine’, are in fact urged to consider this idea of seeking ‘approval’ or commendation. On what basis of hard work, study, deep and open-minded reflection, do we take this stand? And most importantly, to whom and to what do we submit, seeking that approval or commendation?
My sense is that if we all approach the difficult and easily divisive matters of doctrine, ethics, and church practices with such humility and submission. we will be much less likely to ‘divide’ and more likely to welcome possibilities, diversity, and yet belonging—open to what is yet to be learned and lived into.
‘Rightly dividing’ will most likely not divide us at all, but draw us into a greater wholeness. May it be so!