Summer 2012 FOP/ECO gatherings
Who are the schismatics?
By Carmen Fowler LaBerge, The Layman, August 30, 2012
“Schism,” said the Rev. Dr. Luder G. Whitlock Jr., “is separating from the organized church without just cause.” Quoting Irenicum, he said, “The true nature of schism is … an uncharitable, unjust, rash, violent breaking from the union with the church or members of it.”
Addressing the Fellowship of Presbyterians and ECO: a Covenanted Order of Evangelical Presbyterians during their Summer 2012 Gatherings in Colorado Springs (Aug. 19-21) and Atlanta (Aug. 22-24), Whitlock noted that “People moving out of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are being called schismatic – so, who are the schismatics?”
If schism is “breaking the bonds of the Lord’s Church,” he asked, then who is really responsible for the current fractures?
Whitlock approached the answer to that question by posing an important underlying one, “What then is the Church?” In answering he said that the Church “is comprised of those (in all places and ages) who trust in Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.” And then added that “there are only two kinds of people: Christians and non-Christians. Within those two kinds you can nice and mean, intelligent and stupid, but when you get down to it, you’re either in or you’re out. You believe and you’re a part of the Church or you don’t and you’re not.”
The identifying marks of those who are in, according to Whitlock, include:
- “The centrality of the Gospel as essential to salvation.
- “The personal imperative to share this Gospel with all non-believers.” Adding that “We want other people to have the transforming experience of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.”
- “The conviction that God’s Word is the final authority for what we believe and how we live.”
- “The spiritual life as an index to our relationship with God.” Adding that “holiness – a life that expresses a desire to please God in every way — is the way of the believer.”
Dealing the question of unity and division, Whitlock said, “Ultimately, we’re confessing that there is only one Church. We believe in the holy catholic Church — the Church universal. It is comprised of many parts: individuals, congregations, denominations, other Christian organizations. But it all starts with the individual – if you don’t believe, you’re not in.”
Quoting John 17:20ff and Ephesians 4:3ff, Whitlock emphasized the importance of unity and then quoted C.S. Lewis who said, “The mandate for unity is clear – its putting it into practice that is a different matter.”
Denominationalism
Whitlock then embarked on a history lesson, saying, “Protestant dissenters in America regarded themselves as members of a family of related religious bodies called denominations. As such, they were heirs of a common faith. Denominations meant that you were subordinate to the Church, big C.” Quoting Timothy Smith, Whitlock added that denominationalism, thus conceived,” is the opposite of sectarianism: for it admits no claim to exclusive possession of saving truth.”
Continuing, he said, “Christians are believers and therefore love and work with each other – it is possible for Christians to live together in love and peace regardless of differences and denomination if they are willing to grant to the liberty of conscience to those who disagree with them because of the underlying unity they have in Christ.”
Do you have a church?
Seeking to help attendees assess the current situation being faced by orthodox Christian believers in the PCUSA, Whitlock asked, “if the Gospel and the authority of God’s Word are rejected, can you/do you have a church?” Continuing he asked, “What is the sine qua non of the church? (without which what) Answer: The Gospel. And how do you know the Gospel? From the Bible,” Whitlock added.
To substantiate that statement, Whitlock turned to Calvin.
- “Let them not boast in lying words, saying, ‘This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord’ (Jer. 7:4). For the Lord nowhere recognizes any temple as His save where His Word is heard and scrupulously observed.” – John Calvin (Institutes Book 4, Chap 2, 3)
- “If that Temple, which seemed consecrated as God’s everlasting abode, could be abandoned by God and become profane, there is no reason why these men should pretend to us that God is so bound to persons and places, and attached to external observances, that He has to remain among those who only have the title and appearance of the church (Rom 9:6).” – John Calvin (Institutes Book 4, Chap 2, 3)
- “Now this communion is held together by two bonds, agreement in sound doctrine and brotherly love… But it must also be noted that this conjunction of love so depends upon unity of faith that it ought to be its beginning, end, and, in fine, its sole rule… (Paul) means that apart from the Lord’s Word there is not an agreement of believers but a faction of wicked men.” – John Calvin (Institutes Book 4, Chap 2, 5)
So, how did we get here (again)?
Whitlock described the postmodern development including four essential component parts. He said that “the historic development of liberal theology is a history of accommodation to secular influences in order to remain relevant.” Secondly, there has been a shift from propositional truth to narrative. Noting that when narrative becomes reality, personal interpretation trumps absolute truth. The result is relativism where no one story is considered better than any other story. Third, “there is a power agenda to confront and punish oppressors.” And finally, “tolerance is the mandatory requirement.”
Borrowing a quote from Peter Berger, “The argument goes something like this: Since all reality is socially constructed, there is no objective truth or at least none that can be accessed. Indeed, there are no facts, ‘only narratives’. There is no objective way to make epistemological judgments as between the ‘narratives’. But what one can do is to ‘deconstruct’ them. That is, unmask the interests that they invariably express. These interests are always expressive of the will to power of class, or race, or gender. And here, of course, postmodernism links up with various ideologies of the Left – Marxism, ‘postcolonialism’, ‘Third Worldism’ and all the strands of identity politics …” – Adventures of an Accidental Sociologist, p. 94.
Is this schism or not?
Turning his attention to the issue immediately at hand and asking whether or not the formation of a new Reformed body, specifically ECO, is schism, Whitlock said, “This is rather a separation (and) realignment is a good word.”
“If the PCUSA is no longer a hospitable home for evangelical congregations, a reasonable option may be to depart, hopefully with mutual blessings,” Whitlock said.
Whitlock, director of strategic planning of Redeemer City to City, serves on the boards of Lausanne, Greater Europe Mission, Evangelical Alliance and the Barna Institute.