Something to die for

Jim Coggins

It started as a renewal within a mainline church. Pressured by the denominational hierarchy to submit and conform to denominational rules, some of those touched by the renewal left the church to form an independent congregation. The new group had several gifted leaders who studied Scripture diligently. The pastor and some others decided that what was wrong with mainline denominations was that, as a result of infant baptism, they were full of members who had never made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. These leaders decided that the congregation should begin practising believers' baptism. Other leaders disagreed, and the new congregation split. Sometime later, the faction practising believer's baptism came into contact with a nearby Mennonite congregation and were impressed by what they saw. Most of the faction, including the pastor, agreed to merge with the Mennonite congregation. However, four or five families did not want to merge with the Mennonites. Led by the wealthy individual who had provided most of the money for the congregation, they formed a congregation on their own. The Mennonite conference, on the other hand, was unhappy that one of its congregations had merged with the baptizing faction, and the resulting furor split the Mennonite conference.

Does any of this sound familiar? This story was the focus of the Ph.D. thesis I wrote several years ago. It occurred in the 17th century. The mainline denomination was the Church of England, and the renewal movement was Puritanism. The independent congregation was a group of "Separatists" which fled to the Netherlands. John Smyth was the pastor who decided infant baptism was wrong and later the one who led the faction into a merger with the Mennonites. The group that decided to keep infant baptism, eventually came to the United States on the Mayflower as the Pilgrim Fathers. The final group of four to five families which refused to join the Mennonites, was led by Thomas Helwys; this group returned to England and founded the first Baptist church.

In my thesis, I argued that this congregation was significant because of the major church streams that sprang from it and because of the fundamental nature of the issues the congregation wrestled with.

One of the professors who examined the thesis disagreed, saying that churches were always splitting, that it was just the nature of the church and that the divisions didn't mean anything. This professor's area of expertise was black history. He said that it was taken for granted among blacks that if a church was built on one corner of a crossroads, within a very short time there would be competing churches on the other three corners as well.

As I studied John Smyth's congregation, I realized that theological reasons were always given for the divisions, but that often other factors played a major role as well. For instance, many of the English Separatists didn't want to join the Mennonites because they wanted to keep their English nationality. Others wanted to join the Mennonites because their congregation was too small to function on its own; they wanted a church where there were other Christian young people whom their sons and daughters could marry. The Mennonites, on the other hand, were reluctant to accept a group of poor, foreign refugees into their midst. The disagreement between Smyth and Helwys is not the last time a church split because of a power struggle between the pastor and the rich man who provides most of the money. Personality conflicts and competitions for power and position played a role in all the splits.

On the other hand, I also discovered that the theological issues were real. They were not just a smokescreen for other prejudices. Sometimes people chose to cross ethnic lines because of theology. Some willingly gave up money or position in order to follow what they perceived to be the truth. Some were even imprisoned and marytred for their faith. Although considerable bitterness accompanied many of the splits, there were also those on all sides who maintained cordial relations with those on the other. Sin and Satan have insidiously attacked the church from the inside since its foundation. But the history of the church has also been characterized by love, self-sacrifice, humble service, faithful obedience to God's leading and the courage to stand for one's convictions.

Church splits are never good news. On the other hand, they do have a positive element in them. A few years ago, rock singer John Lennon envisioned a perfect world in which there was "nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too". Religion often seems to lead to quarrels and disputes, and this embarrasses us. One need only look at the situation in Northern Ireland to become disillusioned with the idea that there are causes worth killing for. Dying is another matter. If there is nothing worth dying for, there is probably nothing worth living for either.

The positive element in church splits and quarrels is the understanding that the issues churches deal with are causes worth dying for. My principal thesis supervisor was an agnostic who nevertheless agreed that "Christianity asks the most important questions." We fight in church, not just because of sin but because church matters, because what we believe about God matters, because how we worship and serve God matters, because knowing God and serving people are the prime issues of life.

Return to the M.B.Herald Vol. 35, No. 24 Home Page