Seven Ways to Leave a Church Well

[Larry]

accusing someone of “disturbing the unity of the body” also tends to be a way of avoiding uncomfortable topics, a way pastors in effect say “I’ve got the authority here, you get to submit, don’t ask too many questions.” And then those pastors wonder why so many members show up as empty seats every Sunday.

It can be, but it likely does not tend to be nor does it have to be. Disturbing the unity of the body tends to be a way of insisting on your way over the unity of the body and being willing to divide the body over your personal views. However, there are way too many factors in any given situation to address here in any meaningful way.

I think it’s important here to state what’s really being done when someone says another is “disturbing the unity of the body.” Specifically, if I make that accusation, I simultaneously am NOT addressing the specific way in which the person is (allegedly) disturbing unity. Whether it’s music, an item of theology, or Bibliology, or whatever, that particular issue is not being addressed. So I’d argue that the argument “you’re disturbing the unity of the body” is almost inherently a dodge of the real issues by its very nature. If I’m addressing the way in which someone is splitting the church, I have no need to say this at all.

Worth noting as well is that the unity spoken of in Scripture is the unity of the Spirit. You will only find the phrase “unity of the body” in the translators’ notes and headers of chapters, which are of course not part of the text.

I think it’s important here to state what’s really being done when someone says another is “disturbing the unity of the body.” Specifically, if I make that accusation …

Why use a generic “someone says” if you are going to talk about what you mean? Why not just confine your comments to what you mean without reading into what other people mean?

So I’d argue that the argument “you’re disturbing the unity of the body” is almost inherently a dodge of the real issues by its very nature. If I’m addressing the way in which someone is splitting the church, I have no need to say this at all.

If someone is dodging real issues, they shouldn’t. But it seems to me that disturbing the unity of the body is a “real issue by its very nature.” If you are “addressing the way in which someone is splitting the church,” you are addressing what is disturbing the unity of the body, are you not?

Worth noting as well is that the unity spoken of in Scripture is the unity of the Spirit. You will only find the phrase “unity of the body” in the translators’ notes and headers of chapters, which are of course not part of the text.

Worth noting is that the unity of the Spirit in the church is the unity of the body. It’s basic ecclesiology (which I am constantly reminded is a deep and pressing need in modern churches).

Yes, if the church is being led by the Spirit, the unity of the Spirit does become the unity of the body. However, it is a hasty assumption to conclude that that which keeps temporary peace in the body actually is the unity of the Spirit. My rule of thumb is that if someone is leading with “evangelicalese” which has minimal support in the Word of God, what is being spoken of is the unity of men, not the unity of the Spirit. There are probably some exceptions, but as a rule, it holds pretty well.

However, it is a hasty assumption to conclude that that which keeps temporary peace in the body actually is the unity of the Spirit.

Yes, by all means. Don’t make that assumption. Temporary peace is no peace at all, though a cessation of hostility for a time in pursuit of a biblical resolution is a good thing.

My rule of thumb is that if someone is leading with “evangelicalese” which has minimal support in the Word of God, what is being spoken of is the unity of men, not the unity of the Spirit.

I am not sure what you mean by “evangelicalese,” but if people are not leading churches on the basis of Scripture, it is bad.

But my experience, both in real life and in reading and talking with others, is that people who speak of “unity of the body” are speaking in biblical ways and seeking the good of the church in spiritual unity.

As I read you here, Bert, it seems like you have a history of making bad decisions about the churches you have attended. You have apparently gotten yourself mixed up in some pretty bad situations. It seems to have colored your views such that you don’t see as clearly as you might. My point in that is simply don’t judge everyone else by your experience. It is no doubt true in some places, but not in other places.

Larry, keep in mind that you just accused me of making bad decisions about churches; you’re blaming me for my experience, really. Now reality is that when I joined one church in 1991, I had no way of knowing that in 1997-8, that church would go seeker sensitive, neglect pulpit ministry, and fail to discern between believers and unbelievers in positions of ministry. I had no way of knowing in 2009 that the “pastor” was indeed closet KJVO and would agree to things and then change them back in mid-week. I had no way of knowing in 2013 that the pastor was quietly endorsing a soft version of prosperity theology.

Bad choices on my part? No, the information I had at the time was that these churches would all be sound. It was only later that the wrong teaching and practice became evident.

Regarding “evangelicalese”, it’s pious-sounding words that have little meaning outside of evangelical and fundamental churches, and which generally aren’t actual Biblical words or phrases. Like a phrase I’ve seen a lot when objectionable practices are discussed here, and a phrase I heard when trying to address objectionable practices and theology at churches that showed their true colors; “unity of the church”.

In other words, it isn’t just a few bad instances poisoning the phrase. It’s the fact that it’s not the Biblical phrase, and also that I’ve got a fair number of examples of it being misused.

Larry, keep in mind that you just accused me of making bad decisions about churches; you’re blaming me for my experience, really.

You are on a kick about “blame” lately. Blaming you for your experience? Who else is there to blame? Aren’t you the one who chose the churches you attended? You may have may the best choice you could make based on the info you had. That’s fine. the point is that you made the choice and it turned out bad apparently and now you are using your limited experience to tar many churches. I can’t comment on your churches because I don’t know them. And that’s the same reason you shouldn’t make broad sweeping comments about other churches: You don’t know them.

In the other thread you mistakenly equated blame with sin. Blame is actually equated with responsibility—you are responsible for something. It does not necessarily include sin, though it might. But in this case, it simply means that you made bad choices (something you agree with).

“Unity of the church” is not “evangelicaleze.” It is a biblical idea. The idea appears all over the New Testament. It’s hard to imagine how it could be questioned. When you read of things like “that they may be one,” “one body,” “made the two into one new man,” “bear one another’s burden,” “assemble together,” and on and on, the necessity (and presumption) of unity in the body is clear. Doing a concordance search on “unity of the body” and then claiming the idea isn’t in the Bible is bad theological method.

It reminds of why theological education in the church is important. When we have people questioning the “unity of the church” as a biblical idea, it is an indication that somewhere along the line, the Bible wasn’t taught. Given your recounting of your history above, it is not surprising. It’s still unfortunate thought. We have to have a revival of theology in churches. It is how we protect and preserve the future.

Bad practices and bad theology in the church should absolutely be addressed. But claiming “unity of the church” isn’t a biblical idea is bad theology that will lead to bad practice. It should be addressed.

[Larry]

“Unity of the church” is not “evangelicaleze.” It is a biblical idea. The idea appears all over the New Testament. It’s hard to imagine how it could be questioned. When you read of things like “that they may be one,” “one body,” “made the two into one new man,” “bear one another’s burden,” “assemble together,” and on and on, the necessity (and presumption) of unity in the body is clear. Doing a concordance search on “unity of the body” and then claiming the idea isn’t in the Bible is bad theological method.

I had a situation in my last church where the pastor was starting to exhibit temper outbursts. A few people even left the church because they felt disrespected. They tried telling a few of us other members that they left because of the pastor’s temper, but I personally had not experienced an outburst, so I took the pastor’s word that these people were leaving for other reasons and now they were just trying to sow discord among the rest of us. Any questions about the pastor’s emotional state were simply swept under the rug because the questioners were just “sowing discord” in the “unity of the body.” Even when my own wife experienced one of the outbursts, my first thought was that she was over-reacting. I was trying to think of a way to resolve the situation without becoming one of “those people” who disrupt the body, when the pastor abruptly resigned.

So I can certainly understand how the accusation of “disrupting the unity of the body” can be used as a way of dodging a real issue.

A phrase can be “Christian jargon” and be a biblical idea at the same time. Christian jargon usually needs to be explained, and you did a good job of listing some of the characteristics of “unity of the body.” Is “an unquestioning attitude” one of the characteristics of “unity of the body?” It isn’t? So if someone questions a practice of the church or of the pastor, and the accusation is made that the questioner is “disrupting the unity of the body,” then the accusation would really be a dodge based on minimal biblical support. Unity of the body is not the same as unquestioning loyalty.

This is a great point.

Larry, you’ve got things backwards. I am pointing out that you are blaming people for things that are not their fault because that is precisely what you are doing. You have a consistent habit of blaming people who are victims. You did it with Maddy Runkle, you’re doing it with sexual assault victims, and you’re doing it with me.

See the pattern here? In your view, Maddy Runkle was supposed to accept whatever punishments the school board decided to dish out—punishments meted out over a period of time—simply because they had the authority and she’d agreed to that. Didn’t mean anything that Paul was far more compassionate in 2 Corinthians to the man caught sleeping with his stepmother, and said the punishment inflicted—temporary exclusion from fellowship— was enough. By the same logic, citizens have no rights to protest the actions of the government they elected.

In the same way, rape victims who had a gun pointed at them (and whose rapists weren’t even prosecuted for open and shut weapons charges) are supposed to go forward with charges because it is their responsibility—never mind that the rapist was still free and armed. Similarly, I am supposed to believe that accusing me of “bad decisions” isn’t blaming me, and that “guilt” and “blame” have nothing to do with accusing someone of sin.

Funny, that’s not what my dictionary says, and it’s not what my Bible says. The words “guilt” and “blame” are routinely used when referring to sin—and not at other times.

And no, “unity of the Body” is not a Biblical concept. You will find precisely zero examples of this phrase in Scripture. The Biblical concept is “unity of the Spirit”, and that puts a huge bound on the practice of achieving “unity of the body”. Specifically, it doesn’t mean that congregants, students, members, and the like simply accept whatever leaders say because they were selected for that position. It means that their authority ends when they depart from the counsel of the Word of God.

Which is a concept that far too many so-called “fundamental” leaders seem to need to learn. Perhaps if they do, they could slow the exodus of young people who thankfully don’t have a 1950s version of the privileges of authority.

Is “an unquestioning attitude” one of the characteristics of “unity of the body?” It isn’t? So if someone questions a practice of the church or of the pastor, and the accusation is made that the questioner is “disrupting the unity of the body,” then the accusation would really be a dodge based on minimal biblcal support. Unity of the body is not the same as unquestioning loyalty.

I am glad you agree with me.

I am pointing out that you are blaming people for things that are not their fault because that is precisely what you are doing.

No, you are simply wrong. I am doing no such thing. I won’t respond to most of this because it is absolute nonsense.You really want to rehash Maddy Runkle and pretend that somehow Paul was more compassionate who said the church should have kicked the guy out and have no fellowship at all with him? Come on, Bert. Not even you believes that. That was a case of clear cut sin.

And me blaming sex assault victims? Show me one place I have ever blamed a sex assault victim for being assaulted.

I am supposed to believe that accusing me of “bad decisions” isn’t blaming me, and that “guilt” and “blame” have nothing to do with accusing someone of sin.

No, I was clear. You simply didn’t read carefully. I am blaming you for your decisions. There is no else to blame. You made them based on what you thought was right. But you made them. It was your choice. That doesn’t make it sin necessarily. But you were not forced into that. You made the choice freely. It turned out to be a wrong choice. I have done the same and I am to blame for it. Many times that wasn’t sin. But it was still my fault.

It should not be hard to understand that one can be blameworthy or guilty of something without it being sin. I coached a soccer tournament all day. If a player makes a defensive mistake that leads to a goal, he is blamed for the goal. But he didn’t sin by doing that. It’s a really simple idea. And blame can belong to two or more people.

The whole idea that someone can make a choice and not be responsible for it is a atrange one. If you don’t think you are responsible for choosing those churches, then who is?

And no, “unity of the Body” is not a Biblical concept.

How can you say this? Because of bad methodology. You are of the type who looks for a word or a phrase and then if you don’t find it claim the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. By your standard, trinity is not a biblical concept because “You will find precisely zero examples of this [word[] in Scripture.” (Those were your words quoted.) That’s just bad theological method. That is not the way you study Scripture or develop biblical doctrine.However, I gave you multiple examples from Scripture of the concept being taught. If those verses are not about unity in the body, what are they about? And what is the alternative? Disunity in the body?

You talk about “unity of the Spirit” in Scripture. Surely you know that “one body” is the first thing to follow that. You know why there is “one body”? Because of “unity of the body.”

Specifically, it doesn’t mean that congregants, students, members, and the like simply accept whatever leaders say because they were selected for that position. It means that their authority ends when they depart from the counsel of the Word of God.

Here, you are right. I am glad you agree with me. (It is somewhat ironic coming from you who seems unable to allow anyone to disagree with you.)