“Church Splits – Are They Worth The Cost?”

by Erwin W. Lutzer

I'm weary of hearing about church splits over trivial issues.

In one church, a few men wanted their pastor to enforce a dress code and to conduct the services according to their liking. He didn't fully accommodate them. Because they thought their authority was slighted, small matters were magnified.

Soon everything the pastor did was wrong. His detractors scrutinized his sermons to find hidden meanings directed toward them.

That pastor resigned. He probably had the support of 90 percent of the congregation, but he grew tired of the hassle. He was not a fighter. He left an effective ministry because of a few disgruntled members.

How long has it been since you heard that a church was divided because of the virgin birth or salvation by faith in Christ alone? Most of the strife I hear about concerns budgets, music, or leadership philosophy. Often, the real issue is who's in charge.

My friend's resignation caused me to reflect on this question: What should a church member do if he or she wants to voice a legitimate complaint? Most of the people are not on a church board, yet they have deep feelings about the ministry of the church.

What usually happens? Unfortunately, many church members take one of two courses of action. The first is to share criticism with others in order to drum up support.

The tongue is the greatest cause for division within the church. "And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell" (James 3:6).

To use our tongues to rally support for our viewpoints is to spread the fires of hell within the church. Sometimes the church is already polarized over an issue before the elders or pastor even know about the problem.

An equally disastrous procedure is to bring up the matter in a church business meeting. Often, that is done to score points publicly even when no attempt has been made to resolve the issue privately. Any matter that can be dealt with between one or two members or that could be cared for through other legitimate channels should never be mentioned for public discussion.

I know a pastor who was humiliated in a church business meeting; he had to endure totally unexpected personal criticisms. Surely Satan must rejoice in church meetings where everyone feels he has the freedom to air his favorite gripe. We must instruct our congregations on the need for unity, but at the same time we should allow for dialogue regarding disagreements. If not, resentment and misunder-standing will only build.

What can be done? First, we ourselves must set an example of submission. Paul wrote, "Be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Ephesians 5:21).

I wince when I hear a pastor teach his congregation to submit to authority when he believes he is an exception to the rule. "I'm accountable to God alone" sounds pious, but it can be poisonous.

The New Testament teaches that a congregation is to have a plurality of godly leaders with no one person assuming the role of dictator. Though some congregations are polite enough to tolerate authoritarianism, others chafe under the strain. Individuals know that their input is worthless because the pastor receives his instruction privately from God.

Don't be surprised, then, when believers feel frustrated in their attempts to get their points across. If the pastor is a law unto himself, why cannot they be? Like pastor, like people.

No doubt many churches have split because God wanted to bring the pastor and the congregation to a place of mutual submission. But when the pastor isn't responsive to the authority of his board, the congregation often rejects the authority of the pastor as well. Meanwhile, the gap between the pastor and the board widens.

Second, we must teach that Matthew 18:15-16 applies to all kinds of disagreements. "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."[1]

The believer is responsible to go directly to the person against whom he has a grievance. If the issue involves specific sin, then there is an obligation to go to the person even if he is a church leader. But Paul warned, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses" (1 Timothy 5:19).

If the issue remains unresolved, then others, particularly other members of the church board, must become involved. And the elder or pastor must defer to their authority.

But what about opposition to a building program, the pastor's salary, or the length of his sermons? To discuss such disagreements with members of the congregation sows seeds of discord that grieve the heart of God. Here also, members should go directly to the person responsible even if it means a trip to the pastor's office or writing him a signed letter.

At this point our attitude as pastor is critical. If we ignore what is said or if we dismiss the criticism without learning from it, we may be encouraging the concerned member to try another approach — to recruit other members to his position through gossip.

I've found that an honest discussion clears the air and can cement a relationship even if the disagreement persists. There's something gratifying about having someone else earnestly try to see your point of view even if he remains unconvinced.

That doesn't mean we have to take all the suggestions given to us. But I've often found that there may be more truth to criticism than we are willing to admit. It's easy to listen politely but then dismiss what has been said without thoughtful consideration and prayer.

In my opinion, that is as far as a church member is allowed to go in pursuing a point of disagreement. Of course, I don't mean to stifle profitable discussion among church members about improving the ministry or talking about matters in preparation for a church business meeting. We should expect our people to discuss various ministries within the church. But once a decision is made, there must be submission to the will of those in authority.

In a day when people demand their rights, it's difficult for a congregation to submit to church leaders and wait for God to work His will even in controversial decisions. Sometimes a member of the congregation might have an idea that is correct, but the timing is wrong. We forget that God works among His people despite diversity of opinion and imperfections of church leaders.

That holds for those of us who are on a church board as well. I've had to submit to the will of leaders even on those occasions when I may have had a difference of opinion. God is honored when we are willing to set aside disagreements over nonbiblical issues for the unity and harmony of the Body.

Only heaven will reveal the damage done to the Body of Christ by members of the congregation who feel called to correct all the faults of the church or to campaign for their pet grievances.

I fear for those who are determined to force the resignation of a man of God by petty criticisms. I fear for those who have divided a congregation because of intransigence over a building program or the proposed budget.

Yes, there are times when a church split is justified, perhaps even necessary. But let's be sure that it's over a clear biblical issue and not just a preference we hold dearly.

Paul wrote; "If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are" (1 Corinthians 3:17). The word temple refers to the congregation of believers.

God says He will destroy the one who destroys the work of the church. Often, He grants that person a hard and bitter heart, or He may use other means of discipline.

Dr. Paul Brand says that white blood cells, the armed forces of the body, guard against invaders. When the body's been cut, these cells abruptly stop their aimless wandering and home in from all different directions on the scene of the battle.

As if they have a sense of smell, they hurry through tissue via the most direct route. When they arrive, many give their lives to kill the bacteria. They subject themselves to the good of the larger organism that determines their duties.

If a cell should lose its loyalty and cling to its own life, it shares the benefits of the body but sets up a rival organism called cancer.

Our churches are filled with parasites who benefit from the ministry but who refuse to submit themselves to the leader of the organism. As a result, the body is cancerous, weak, and unprepared for battle. Sometimes so much energy is spent in resolving internal conflict that there is no time to confront the world with Jesus Christ.

If we're guilty of dividing the Body, we'd better repent. When we disagree with church leaders, we should talk to God rather than our friends.

He is able to direct His own church in His own time and in His own way. To destroy the temple of God is to toy with the wrath of God. g

Taken from Pastor to Pastor, Tackling Problems of the Pulpit, by Erwin W. Lutzer, Moody Press, Chicago, IL., 1987. Used with permission. Further reproduction prohibited without written permission from the publisher.

---

[1] Editor’s note: While there is some disagreement on the interpretation or application of these verses relative to the Church, there should be agreement on the principle of addressing issues privately before the need to do so publicly.