In Search of Guidance for the PCUSA
by
Paul Parsons
The ongoing crisis of authority and revelation in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has exposed weaknesses and culture-borne infections in our understandings of the church. Recently, in grappling with the likely results of the 217th General Assembly’s approval of the Peace, Unity, and Purity Report, many of us are left in need of a more sure doctrine of the church, one that might guide us through the troubled times in which are living. Mostly we show ourselves to be pragmatists, grappling with pensions and property. However, in doing so we often ignore the wealth of Reformed thinking over the past five hundred years. For this, it is helpful to listen carefully to John Calvin.1
How do we know the Church of Jesus Christ is present?
In seeking to be true to the Holy Scriptures, Calvin speaks of the church in two expressions. On the one hand the church is invisible. That is, the invisible church is actually in God’s presence already, “into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit. . .includ[ing] not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world.” (IV.I.7.) On the other hand, he also speaks of the visible church, which “designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ.” (IV.I.7.) Within this church, there is an admixture of wheat and tares, those who indeed are joined to Christ and those who only for a time appear to be. God alone can distinguish between those who are enclosed under His seal and those who are not. (IV.I.2.)
Participation in one God and Christ means membership in the one and only church. We are made truly one with one another and as Christ’s body, Calvin says, because “we live together in one faith, hope, and love, and in the same Spirit of God.” (IV.I.2.) In Christ, we are joined to the faithfulness of Christ, by which He will never allow His own to be torn from Him. Thus, the unity of the invisible church is the non-negotiable reality into which we have been born again and which we continually embrace by faith.
It is the visible church, however, which occupies most of our daily attention. Calvin makes it clear that we are bound by necessity to the visible church, such that it is “always disastrous to leave the church” (IV.I.4.). We have no way to be united with Christ unless we are birthed, nourished, cared for, and guided by the church visible. We can know nothing of the forgiveness of sins, true godliness, or salvation but through it. Thus, even though grave corruptions can and often do infect the visible church, “we are commanded to revere and keep communion with [it], which is called ‘church’ in respect to men” (IV.I.7.). His clear implication is that a sin against any visible expression of the Church is a sin against the Church invisible.
Calvin teaches that we know the visible church is clearly present by two marks.2 “However it may be, where the preaching of the Gospel is reverently heard and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time being no deceitful or ambiguous form of the church is seen; and no one is permitted to spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resist its counsels, or make light of its chastisements – much less to desert it and break its unity.” (IV.I.10.) Calvin allows that corruption may enter into the administration of either the teaching of the Word of God or the sacraments, but that up to a saturation point this ought not to drive us from communion with the visible church. With respect to the two marks, the essentials of the faith must be kept pure: “Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like” (IV.I.12.) However, in writing of secondary matters of faith, Calvin writes, “Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians?” (IV.I.12.) Although Calvin apparently does not address the essentials and non-essentials definitively, it is clear that he believes in the distinction and that when the “sum of necessary doctrine is overturned and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, surely the death of the Church follows.”(italics mine )(IV.II.1.)
Nonetheless, Calvin teaches that wherever the preaching of the Gospel is still heard (and thus the essentials of the faith preserved) and the sacraments are not neglected, the true Church is present. Therefore, “let no one spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resists its counsels, or make light of its chastisements – much less to desert it and break its unity.” IV.I.10,12, and IV.II.5,8. Shy of the denial of essentials or being obligated to belief and practice that has not been instituted by God, we must not leave, any more than the prophets were permitted to start a new cultus. (IV.II.8,9.)
“Still the prophets did not because of this establish new churches for themselves, or erect new altars on which to perform separate sacrifices. But whatever men were like, because the prophets considered that the Lord had set his word among them and had instituted rites wherewith he was worshipped there, they stretched out clean hands to him in the midst of the assembly of the wicked. Surely, if they had thought they would become contaminated from these rites, they would have died a hundred times rather than allow themselves to be dragged thither.” (IV.I.15, 18.)
“For the Lord esteems the communion of his church so highly that he counts as a traitor and apostate from Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves any Christian society, provided it cherishes the true ministry of Word and sacraments. He so esteems the authority of the church that when it is violated he believes his own diminished. . . [S]eparation from the church is the denial of God and Christ.” (IV.I.10.)
Therefore, Calvin addresses the grave need to avoid the sin of schism at all costs. In his understanding, it is a fundamental breach of what it means to be a Christian and never to be entered into.
When corruption is increasing in the visible church, such that the marks of the church are being compromised, what stand should we take?
To begin with, Calvin recognizes that there is no pure visible church. All local churches and all affiliations of churches are corrupt in some measure. In commenting on the parable of the wheat and tares, as well as the grain that lies hidden under the chaff on the threshing floor (Mt.3:12), he writes, “But if the Lord declares that the church is to labor under this evil – to be weighed down with the mixture of the wicked – until the Day of Judgment, they are vainly seeking a church besmirched with no blemish” (IV.I.13.).
The question that weighs upon us is not whether there is corruption in the church but rather if it can ever become too much? As indicated above, Calvin sees plainly that corruption does creep into the teaching of the Word and the practice and meaning of the sacraments (IV.I.12.). He affirms with Augustine that the reality of the church is always “many sheep are without, and many wolves are within.” (IV.I.8.) There are times when the church winks its eye at corruption, refusing to bring church discipline against it: “Such are tolerated for a time either because they cannot be convicted by a competent tribunal or because a vigorous discipline does not always flourish as it ought.” (IV.I.7.) In fact, Calvin believes that in the Corinthian congregation, “almost the whole body was infected. There was not one kind of sin only, but very many; and they were no light errors but frightful misdeeds; there was corruption not only of morals but of doctrine.” (IV.I.14.) Nonetheless, for all of this, he finds that the church of Jesus Christ was still present because the ministry of the Word and sacraments remained unrepudiated there.
Calvin consistently observes that within the visible church there are degrees of corruption. Speaking of the decline in Israel as opposed to Judah, he writes, “First, I say that in falling away there were certain degrees.” (IV.II.8.) In Israel, the teaching of the Word of God and the worship of God was utterly corrupted and subverted. In Judah, while such wickedness was commonly adopted, the teaching of the Law, the priestly order, and the righteous worship of God were still permitted, such that the church of God was still present. Thus it is in the visible church today. In one situation, the infection may be so thorough, Calvin says, that the church is no longer present. “Again, if the true church is the pillar and foundation of truth [I Tim.3:15], it is certain that no church can exist where lying and falsehood have gained sway.” (IV.II.1.) In another situation, the church may still be found, even though the stench of lies and evil practice is all around the people of God. In such circumstances, we must follow the example of the prophets who “considered that the Lord had set his word among them and had instituted rites wherewith he was worshiped there, [thus] they stretched out clean hands to him in the midst of the assembly of the wicked.” (IV.I.18.)
When it becomes necessary, Calvin advocates degrees of familiarity that correspond to degrees of corruption.3 Therefore, in commenting on the reality of evil that existed in the Corinthian church, he states, “I do not deny that it is the godly man’s duty to abstain from all familiarity with the wicked, and not to enmesh himself with them in any voluntary relationship.” Nonetheless, he goes on to say, “But it is one thing to flee the boon companionship of the wicked; another, in hating them, to renounce the communion of the church.” (IV.I.15.) Thus, separation within the church may be necessary as a way of establishing a decreased degree of familiarity, while remaining within that the visible church and avoiding the sin of schism. In furthering his case for such differentiation, Calvin on the one hand speaks to the rightness of continuing to partake of the Lord’s Supper, even though it might be in the very presence of someone living in wickedness. (IV.I.15.) On the other hand, in chapter II, he speaks of the Old Testament prophets who did not depart from the Law nor the true worship of Yahweh, but with respect to the increasingly pagan worship practices and teachings of their day, they “had to depart from agreement with those assemblies, which were nothing but a wicked conspiracy against God.” (IV.II.10.) Again, this displays degrees of familiarity that correspond to degrees of corruption.
Degrees of familiarity require the hard work of Christian maturity and charity. For one thing, they demand an unrelenting attempt to correct the falsehoods growing within the church. As Augustine put it, “Mercifully to correct what they can; patiently to bear and lovingly to bewail and mourn what they cannot; until God either amends or corrects or in the harvest uproots the tares and winnows the chaff.” (IV.I.16) Moreover, differentiation from within must be carried out only with the utmost self-examination as to motives, for the very option of such differentiation is often driven by a sense of superiority, desire to punish ones’ opponents, pride, and stubbornness (IV.I.16.). In addition, those employing degrees of familiarity must make forgiveness our hallmark. (IV.I.23.)
When is it necessary to leave?
Nonetheless, Calvin confesses that there are times when leaving is required. Actually, he writes in terms of being “expelled,” or “cast out” (IV.II.6). Although that so-called church, full of corruption, may accuse those who hold to the marks of the church of separating themselves, the truth is that those forced out have remained the true church (IV.II.6.) He speaks again of varying degrees of falling away that might go on within sectors of the church, and there can come a time in which, “we can scarcely have any meeting with them in which we do not pollute ourselves with manifest idolatry.” (IV.II.9.) It is at this point, he teaches, that division in the visible Church must come. What are the conditions of such a breach?
One must withdraw when a church denies essential doctrines of the faith. As Calvin says it, “it behooved us to withdraw from them that we might come to Christ”, where His Word is heard. (IV.II.6.) His clear implication is that in an apostate church we no longer can hear Him in the so-called preaching of the Word, nor see Him in the administration of the sacraments. “Doctrine (apart from which Christianity cannot stand) has been entirely buried and driven out. Public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and ungodliness. In withdrawing from deadly participation in so many misdeeds, there is accordingly no danger that we be snatched away from the church of Christ.” (IV.II.2.) It is the heart of the Gospel which is missing, the fundamentals, the core of the Christian faith which one would no longer hear. Such was the case, he says, in the medieval Catholicism of his day. (IV.II.3,6)4
One must withdraw when a church forces people to believe what they do not believe the Scripture teaches. Such an action binds the conscience to falsehood. In Calvin’s day, they were being compelled to participate in “all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies,” a participation which in Calvin’s understanding corrupted them. (IV.II.9.) The Old Testament prophets, in contrast, though surrounded by vile corruptions in worship, “were not compelled to any superstitious worship; indeed, they were obligated to nothing that had not been instituted by God.” (IV.II.9.) As Calvin says, “We therefore conclude that among the godly the communion of the Church ought not to extend so far that, if it degenerates into profane and corrupted rites, they have to follow it headlong.” (IV.II.9.)
The sin of schism apparently would become a reality if a denomination were to leave intact the essentials of the faith, and not compel its people to take part in any practice which the Scripture teaches as evil, but some part of the church would leave anyway without being released to another legitimate expression of the church. It would just as certainly become a reality if that same denomination were to deny an essential of the faith and/or compel its people to take part in any practice which the Scriptures clear teach as evil, thus in essence walking away from the Word of God.
In light of Calvin’s ecclesiology, we face several key questions in the present crisis:
1All references are taken from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, marking each one with the Book, Chapter, and section numbers in parentheses.
2Calvin did not directly make church discipline a mark of the Church. Nonetheless, he combines the necessity of church discipline to the preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments, saying that where these two marks are found, “let no one spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resist its counsels, or make light of its chastisements – much less to desert it and break its unity.” (IV.I.10.) Perhaps this helped lead to the addition of church discipline as a mark of the church in the Scots Confession (ch.xviii) and the Belgic Confession of 1561. The PCUSA has observed these three as the marks of the church.
3I do not mean to infer that Calvin develops a full blown program of “degrees of familiarity.” Rather, the need for varying degrees of differentiation simply shows up in his grappling with an increasing corruption in the church.
4Calvin concedes that in the Reformation there were churches within Roman Catholicism in which the marks of the church were still visible: “I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people, however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of the church remain – especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the devil’s wiles nor human depravity can destroy.” (IV.II.12.)
5Paul Zabl, in an article entitled “Ultimate Penultimates,” believes that indeed such ordinations signal that an essential of the faith is denied. On the surface, he writes, it would seem to be a secondary matter. But in fact, “What is involved is the authority of the Bible to deconstruct a raging self-will incited by the Zeitgist. What is involved is a form of self-assertion that refuses instruction. The agenda on the left is this: Behold, ye shall be as gods.”
Paul Parsons
is associate pastor at Colonial Presbyterian Church in Kansas City, MO. He is
a member of the Coalition’s Future Task Force.