I agree that what I’m saying is somewhat simplistic and a bit problematic sort of thing (not to mention remarkably pragmatic; which I usually detest). And Scriptural evidence of the sort you ask for is perhaps not there. Very troubling, I’m sure. Much more thought is required, but at least I’ll flesh out my thoughts a bit more.

I really don’t think so-called schism is going to be resolved until way into the future of Christ’s Church, as we become more conformed to His image and His plan for His Church. In the meantime, I think the back and forth and pulling and pushing of different groups may well be a means of keeping us somewhat centered. The mission of the Church is in many spheres, concerned with bodies and souls, the now and the not yet and no matter how hard we try individually we can’t do it all; it’s paralyzing!

The Dartmouth professor and social historian/philosopher Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy had a conept he referred to as “The Cross of Reality” which has four points Inward
|
|
Backward (Past) —— Forward (future)
|
|
Outward

“Man’s life, social as well as individual, is lived at a crossroads between four “fronts”: backward toward the past, forward into the future, inward among ourselves. . . , and outward against what we must fight or exploit. . . . Hence both mental and social health depends on preserving a delicate mobile balance between forward and backward, inward and outward trends. Integration, living a complete and full life, is accordingly not some smooth “adjustment” we can hope to achieve once for all, as popular psychology imagines; it is rather a constant achievement in the teeth of forces which tear us apart on the Cross of Reality.” -Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy

All individuals and all societies are pulled in those directions. This works in churches with different individuals having different emphases (one wants more evangelism, another is concerned with teaching and caring for those already in the flock, another is always trying to preserve the past: creeds, confessions, whatever history that particular church, and another is concerned with looking to the future) and it’s painful but works for greater growth in that Church.

So my idea in my previous post was that since I think this is true for individuals and for a local churches, it may be true also for larger church organizations and even The Church: that different denominations and different local bodies may provide the pull in those directions that will make a “complete and full life” possible.

I think this concept is similar or related to the death and resurrection concept that we can see everywhere. The being torn apart may seem to cause death, or even is a kind of death, but it’s the source of a more complete and full life.

Stripped of its context, this verse could seem to be damning for the Sola Scriptura crowd. But take a look at the entire context (verses 16 – 21), and it’s pretty clear that what is being defended is the trustworthiness of scripture itself: even though it was delivered to us through human vessels, what they wrote down was not their own thoughts but was the Holy Spirit speaking through them. I’m not a Greek scholar, but I have consulted my Greek interlinear, my Greek expository dictionary, as well as my encyclopedia of Bible difficulties and a Bible commentary, so these conclusions are not subjective. I’ll type in verses 20 and 21 for you, as I think they make the point:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretations. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1: 20, 21

That said (and this is in reference to an earlier remark about Protestants not having a leader), we in the Reformed tradition have a definite understanding of the necessity of leadership, authority, and hierarchy in the church as set forth in scripture. The necessity of that leadership and authority is precisely for the preservation and proclamation of sound doctrine as well as for matters of church discipline. Furthermore, the concept of “private interpretation” has definite boundaries: first and foremost, while there may be many applications of a particular text, there is only one meaning, and each believer is obligated to seek the correct interpretation. That pretty much rules out those who want to get subjective in their interpretations. Other rules for interpretation are that scripture itself is to be the prime interpreter of scripture, meaning obscure passages are interpreted in the light of clear passages, the implicit passages in light of the explicit.

John, keep in mind, though, you split from us, we didn’t split from you. :P

-Lilly

I’m coming to think that what we consider disunity in the Church is not always exactly that. Francis Schaeffer has a neat little book called The Mark of the Christian; he states that the mark of the Christian is love and goes on to argue that in some cases some forms of “disunity” are loving and necessary. That is, if you disagree with a certain group of people about some issue of relative unimportance maybe you shouldn’t be in the same local church because you won’t be able to love them the way you need to if you’re always at loggerheads.

Also, think of how different groups have different abilities: Baptists make excellent evangelists, Roman Catholics and Lutherans do the best at hospitals and nursing homes, and so on. I think that God works through the so-called “schism” for better progress in the church as a whole. If we maintain a unity in love and in faith, I’m not convinced that our other differences are a disadvantage. As a very brilliant man I know is always telling me, God turns our liabilities into assets.

The Protestants aren’t the ones being divisive. The majority voice (to be safe…it may well be the universal voice) of the early Protestant leaders, including Calvin, was that Catholic baptisms were valid and Catholics would go to heaven. Roman Catholics are members of the Church. This far, we aren’t divisive—in fact, the real schismaticism comes not from the Protestants but from the (traditional) Roman Catholics who consider Protestantism a heresy. But, I wouldn’t be able to take them nearly as seriously if they weren’t divisive. After all, you have to be divisive when you’re combating false doctrine. Paul was. Jesus was. Protestants are and so are Catholics. But the point is this. You either have to be a “neo-conservative” Catholic, believing Protestants to be in some undefined realm between apostate and fully within the visible bounds of the Church—in this case, only, would you be able to accuse them of being divisive—or you can hold the traditional Catholic position with regard to Protestants, in which you have no more ground to call Protestants divisive than Ron Paul to call Sean Hannnity too libertarian. Catholics insist on much greater division than Classical Protestants. Again, though, I wouldn’t have it any other way, so long as we genuinely differ on theology.

(And, just as a way of reminder, you believe in predestination too, because you believe in the Bible. There’s no way of getting around Ephesians 1 and Romans 8-9, where St. Paul says explicitly, of all words, predestination. It’s just a matter of how you deal with the reality of predestination as revealed in Scripture. Augustine has one way, Calvin has another. But you can’t ignore that predestination is there.)

*edit* There were so many darn typos here, sorry if you read this before the first five minutes after I posted it. :-P