God tells us to be one, but it is also true that at times the church has split. This essay is suggesting that sometimes separation and schism is needed. Sometimes a line has to be drawn. For sometimes churches rot, and become one with Babylon: and from Babylon we must flee.

In writing this, I am quite aware that I am not perfect and that no church is perfect. It is not enough to say that the church is corrupt or that the ministers are sinful: every human institution is corrupt and all people are sinful. If one can, one should become trenchant and preach correction to the faithful: if the elders and ministers will not do this then it becomes the turn of us lay people to take up a burden and remind our leaders of their duty.

We are called to submit to due authority, but not be stupid. And we are called to obey God, and not man. Many — Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican and Catholic — have died rather than submit to that which is clearly evil.

But what are the reasons we should leave? When should we remove ourselves? When should the church split?

Reason one: Sin and Apostasy has become official church policy. It is not enough that the church is imperfect. It always is. That is not the issue. Luther split with Rome when a Papal Bull said that no one should follow his teaching on salvation by faith (which is the correct exegesis, as more recent Catholics and Lutherans have agreed). Heresy was institutionalized. Luther left.

Four hundred and sixteen years later Martin Luther’s departure from the Romish Church had its exact parallel in the exodus of certain members from the Presbyterian Church in the USA. Being an exact parallel, it inexorably follows that if Luther was right, we who have left the Presbyterian Church in the USA are right. And if our action was wrong, then Martin Luther’s was wrong and we should all still be in the Roman Catholic Church. But perhaps you will not concur in the statement that the two exoduses are exactly parallel. Well, why was it that Luther left the Church of Rome?

First of all, it was not because there were evils in the church. He did not leave the church as soon as he discovered that the doctrine of purgatory was contrary to the Scriptures, nor when he became convinced that the acceptance of indulgences by the priests was an iniquitous procedure. Luther did not think, nor do we, that there could be a perfect church on this earth, since every one of its members has the corruption of sin within, but he remained in the church for some time, trying to bring about reform. Obviously, he did not leave because of sin in the church. But he left because a new factor suddenly entered: The highest authority in the church ordered him to support that sin. From this order there was absolutely no appeal within the church. To reverse his teachings would have been to proclaim something which he knew to be contrary to the Word of God. To keep silent would have been to cooperate with the bull. He saw immediately that each alternative was equally sinful. He was thus brought face to face with the same question which was thrown up to the early Christian martyrs—should they bow down before men or before God? To do the former was sin, and Christians must hate and flee from evil in all its insidious forms. So Martin Luther had to leave the church.

Secondly, the gospel is disavowed. I work in a field where I see the poor (not poverty: it does nto exist in NZ) and with the broken. I am aware of the need for practical works. But when the gospel is not proclaimed, then we move into corruption and apostasy. One could argue this is the same as the first issue, but there may not be any bull. Instead the gospel is just starved. At some point, you have to leave and find a congregation where the word is preached just to get the encouragement of believers. This may not necessarily split a church, but instead destroy a congregation.

Now, I am having difficulty finding another threshold issue. One of the reasons that I stay with the Presbyterian main church is that there are still people to support. This statement summed up our opposition to the government (and yes, we lost: gay marriage is legal in NZ).

The Christian ideal of marriage lies behind all New Zealand’s marriage legislation, and is part of our national heritage that should not be abandoned lightly. Christians believe that marriage is the gift of God, defined by God, and approved by God. On the basis of the teaching of the Bible, Christians believe that God’s intended context for sex, reproduction and family is loving, faithful marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is not just a social custom or a legal contract which can be drastically re-defined to suit human thinking. Marriage is recognized by the State but does not belong to it. Marriage as given by God reflects the essential complementary role of male and female as created in the image of God. It is grounded in nature, and in basic male-female physiology. The concept of same-sex “marriage” is spiritually offensive to many Christian people, who still constitute a very significant proportion of this country’s population and its voters. It is also objectionable to many cultural minorities and non-Christian faiths. The Church does not seek to impose its convictions on everyone else, but can and must speak up for what it believes is right and true, and for the good of families and society as a whole.

Presbyterian AFFIRM, August 2012

The Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand, one of New Zealand’s largest mainstream church denominations, does not currently have a specific policy on same-sex marriage, but since 2006 it has ruled that people who are in relationships outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman should not become ministers or leaders in the church.

One may wonder why I keep on harping on this issue of letting Gay people be ministers and Gay marriage. I would prefer to deal with some of the real evils in this world… or watch the World Cup.

But this is the test issue of our day. Although the theology most people ascribe to is orthodox and reformed, the practice of the church has become increasingly liberal under pressure from the progressive secularists, inside the church and outside. We need to return to correct practice in our lives, and correct doctrine: but without correct doctrine we cannot get correct practice.