Schism and schismatics


At the 1999 General Assembly the Form of Process was quoted in linking “schism and separation from public ordinances” with “incest, adultery, trilapses in fornication, murder, atheism, idolatry, witchcraft, charming, and heresy and error”. By placing schism in this list there can be no doubt as to the seriousness of this sin. Those guilty of it must be subjected to the harshest of discipline. But what exactly is schism? Many people think that they know, without any proper reflection on the subject.
For example, were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Knox guilty of schism when they separated from the Catholic Church of their day and formed the Protestant Churches? They were certainly accused of schism. Rome’s argument was that there is only one true church and all who separated and refused to acknowledge the authority and discipline of the Church were schismatics and heretics. But the Reformers were fully justified in the stand that they took. A church can become so degenerate that the only proper action is to separate. The heretics and the schismatics are those who condone error and stay in the corrupt body.
In 1843, a large section of the Church of Scotland left to form the Free Church. Were they schismatics? Was their action sinful? We would argue that it was not. They were deeply concerned about the freedom of the Church of Christ to carry out its affairs without state interference. Prior to this division some congregations were denied the freedom to call the minister of their choice. They had unworthy men imposed upon them.
The situation in 1900 is an interesting one. A very small minority of the then Free Church refused to accept the will of the majority. They would not join in a union with the United Presbyterian Church. Both churches had much in common. No one was being forced to change his beliefs. There was nation-wide enthusiasm for this union. It had the overwhelming sanction of the Courts of the Church: Presbyteries, Synods and General Assembly. Were the dissidents schismatics? We would not belong to the Free Church today if we believed that they were. Although the minority defied Assembly findings, they rightly argued that these findings were incompetent because they were ultra vires (beyond the Assembly’s power).
What is schism? Chambers Dictionary defines it as a “breach of unity without justifiable cause”. The great Puritan, John Owen, defines schism as “causeless differences and contentions amongst the members of a particular church, contrary to that exercise of love, prudence and forbearance which are required of them to be exercised amongst themselves, and towards one another”. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul expresses his deep concern about divisions. Here the problem was party spirit rather than doctrinal differences. Pride had come in amongst them and had divided the body of Christ. They worshipped under the same roof but they did not relate to one another as Christians ought to do. Some were giving to leaders like Paul, Apollos and Peter, the place which only Christ should have. This tendency is still to be seen today. The answer to this divisive spirit is to be found in self-humiliation, love and devotion to Jesus. They were to recognise that within the body of Christ we all have different functions to perform. As members of the one body, we need one another.
In the early centuries there was no clear distinction between schism and heresy. Traditional Roman Catholic theology has regarded bodies out of communion with the papacy as outside the Church of Christ. In Scottish Presbyterianism there has also been an attempt by denominations to claim that they alone are the true successors of the Reformation and therefore the only true church. Other denominations are regarded as being in a state of schism. To leave the “true” church is viewed as a schismatic act, as would be the forming of a new church or the continuing in a different church. A more realistic and Scriptural position is to see the positive benefits of various denominations witnessing to different elements of the truth. We cannot bring ourselves to view the Free Presbyterian Church or the Associated Presbyterian Churches or evangelicals in the Church of Scotland as schismatics. Rather than having one large church with a lowest common denominator type of theology or where different ministers are constanly in conflict, it is better to have several different denominations bearing testimony to the full truth with their own Scriptural and Confessional emphasis.
Another quotation from Owen is helpful at this point. He states:
I am most certain that a separation from some churches, true or pretended so to be, is commanded in the Scriptures, so that the withdrawing from or relinquishing of any church society whatever, upon the plea of its corruption, be it true or false, with a mind and resolution to serve God in the due observance of church institutions, according to the light which men have received, is nowhere called schism, nor condemned as a thing of that nature, but is a matter that must be tried out, whether it be good or evil, by virtue of such general rules and directions as are given us in the Scriptures for our orderly and blameless walking with God in all his ways.
Schism is a dividing of the church without any just cause. The sins listed in the Form of Process make plain that the schism there referred to, is related to heresy, a rejection of the truth and the Gospel, and therefore equivalent to adultery, witchcraft and murder, in that it destroys souls. Schismatics are those who by pride or error in doctrine or practice, cause others to separate from them.

Any comments or questions please E-Mail me or Rev William Macleod the Editor.

[Back to Reformed Christian Pages][Back to Free Church Foundations]