Have you experienced a church split?

[salamacum]

Have you experienced a church split? Are you able to share?

Was was it over? Doctrine, practice, personality?

Could it have been avoided?

 

[BrBob]

Well, more of an explosion than a split. We didn't seem to go toward one place as the term 'split' implies, we all went different ways leaving a small bunch at the original church. That church then changed its name and everything.

The split was over doctrine, apostolic authority in particular.

Bob
Spearfish, SD

 

[salamacum]

Could it have been avoided?
Was it a doctrinal issue that couldn't have been resolved?

 

[BrBob]

Check out "Congress WBN" (Google it). The church became involved with that and set itself up with a hierarchical stratum. Authority flows from the top down and the top gets it's authority from an "Apostle" and so on....

We tried to resolve it. Didn't happen.

I don't want to sound innocent here. I went along with the teaching for quite a while but finally saw the truth of the beast. It's cultic. Period.

Bob
Spearfish, SD

 

[salamacum]

I can understand that thing about 'apostles'. Sort of had it ourselves.
The 'stream' that we tagged along with ended up inevitably only majoring on what those apostle/leaders were doing and like Paul in the NT, ended up doing lots of tours and foreign ministry. Local church became quite boring.
Also, there was the authoritarian thing. Only other apostles could reprimand or hold accountable the vision (it was all about calling and vision) and certainly not some Joe in a congregation with his do-it-yourself bible exposition.
And yet, no leader likes the earnest test-all-things by scripture Joe. Another thing is that in all the small churches I've attended there always seems to be just one guy who puts it about that he knows his bible and his job is to act as a watchman. Funny, there can't be two.
Meanwhile the pastor just wants to stick by his small core of basic beliefs and get on with the job. Frequently he's away when his aspiring biblical scholar gets to preach.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I once attended a liberal church, and saw it "branch off," you might call it. Some of the members, and deacons and other officials who had received training under the pastor, formed their own church that was even more liberal in its theology. The original church, which accepted homosexuals and taught that it wasn't a sin they had to repent of, was part of an established denomination; the branch church was independent, so the split probably couldn't be avoided. And the issue was over exactly how liberal to be--while the original church was part of Christianity and taught that Christ shed His blood for salvation, the branch church ignored John 14:6 and taught that Christ is only one of many ways to reach God. I don't know if there were any hard feelings, but I never attended the branch church because it was just a little *too* liberal for me.

 

[salamacum]

Hello lovebirdsflying,

Sounds like a church I attended a couple of times. They were a split. It was because they were prepared to work on a few moral issues with other churches in the town.
That group got labelled as ecumenical, compromised and social-gospellers by the original setup. So thsi was reformed, not liberal.
Also, there was an argument over the "Song of Songs". Was it an analogy of Christ's shepherding of his Church or was it also or even primarily a book about sex / a dirty book.

 

[edie19]

my church is a split - but it was extremely amicable
the church we split from helped us get started (my current pastor and my previous pastor are still good friends)

now that said - while I'm not sure if it would qualify as a split, but my parents' church had a major upheaval (and lost a goodly number of members) ~15 years ago when their pastor was having an affair with a church member. From what my folks said it was pretty awful and it took a lot of recovery time, I'm pretty sure there are folks who left and never returned.

 

[salamacum]

I wonder if it's mostly small earnest independent churches which suffer more?
Because they are so dependent on personality to drive them and form them.
Mainstream churches may well be emphasising as part of their training the need for management skills.
Doesn't fit easy with Martin Lloyd Jones, who said that the only qualification was to be godly. That's OK, if you've made yourself, like the pulpit architecture, 6 foot above criticism or even accountability.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Nope, never been involved in that. And I hope I never have to be. I'm not aware of any issues in my congregation or denomination (Assemblies of God) that could lead to it.

 

[dayhiker]

I've not been involved in a church split.
But I did move away from a church just a few weeks before they split. I didn't even know there were issues. It was back in the 70's when sheparding was being taught.

 

[Zoness]

My ex-girlfriend's Dad started a split in a church. There was a really conservative baptist church here in town that split over the issue of women being allowed to wear pants. One church said it was ok, the other did not so they formally split. Very similar churches in different buildings on different sides of town, all too conservative for me. It was a long and bad experience (much like dealing with my ex's family but that's another story for another thread).

 

[E.C.]

Have you experienced a church split? Are you able to share?

Was was it over? Doctrine, practice, personality?

Could it have been avoided?

I myself have not been involved (thank God ), but I did once have a Baptist friend whose church split because, if I remember correctly, there was a disagreement over the verse "He [Christ] wept". It was either two pastors or two deacons, but two leaders of some sort within this church were arguing over if Christ's weeping was a mere sob or if His tears were greater than those famous fountains in Las Vegas.

Personally, I think it could have been avoided. From what my friend told me the two leaders in particular had personality conflicts which eventually split his church. Quite sad really.

 

[salamacum]

< < < Personally, I think it could have been avoided. > > >

Well, that's an understatement!

What if the issue had been "Was Christ BROKEN for us on the cross". People in our church break the bread and say "His body broken for you". Well was it? Wasn't it important for fulfilment of prophecy that not a bone should be broken?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

< < < Personally, I think it could have been avoided. > > >

Well, that's an understatement!

What if the issue had been "Was Christ BROKEN for us on the cross". People in our church break the bread and say "His body broken for you". Well was it? Wasn't it important for fulfilment of prophecy that not a bone should be broken?

I was just thinking about this last Sunday, when we had Easter communion at our church. Here's the conclusion I came to.

His body was broken. His bones weren't. But He'd been flayed before the crucifixion, and He was a mess. The muscles on His back were probably exposed, the skin laid open. Then there's the piercing of the hands and feet--probably more accurately, the wrists and ankles, where the spikes would have gone between bones, rather than through. The stabbing with the spear after His death would have gone between ribs. Even the crown of thorns would have drawn blood. Most of the blood He shed, by the way, would have come from that flaying. Nails piercing His hands and feet would have meant puncture wounds, and I know from experience that puncture wounds don't bleed much. The piercing of His side drew blood mixed with water, indicating that His circulation had stopped.

So His blood was shed and His body was broken. But His bones stayed intact.

Now, splitting a church over "Jesus wept" is entirely ridiculous. If we were meant to know how much He cried, the verse would have been more specific, "Jesus shed some silent tears," or "Jesus bawled His head off." The point is that He was touched by human sorrow and that He loves us.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Thank God I'm a Catholic.
We don't do the "split" thing.

 

[E.C.]

Thank God I'm a Catholic.
We don't do the "split" thing.

You sure?

There was once a Roman Catholic parish in the city that had to split. The reason? Over crowding

Seriously though, there are the Old Catholics that left after Vatican I. That is a split. Actually a schism, but a schism is a type of split.

You are correct though, you do not split, you just ride the priest out of town that wanted to bring traditional Roman Catholic ways of doing things to a parish that was going liberal. I am not saying you in particular, but this happened in my area and was a great cause on why I eventually left the Roman Church.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

You sure?

There was once a Roman Catholic parish in the city that had to split. The reason? Over crowding

Seriously though, there are the Old Catholics that left after Vatican I. That is a split. Actually a schism, but a schism is a type of split.

You are correct though, you do not split, you just ride the priest out of town that wanted to bring traditional Roman Catholic ways of doing things to a parish that was going liberal. I am not saying you in particular, but this happened in my area and was a great cause on why I eventually left the Roman Church.

Yeah, and there was this Augustinian monk who nailed 95 theses to a church door, and got in so much trouble that you guys eventually kicked him out. Then he (and some other guys) went and started this thing called the Reformation.

 

[E.C.]

Yeah, and there was this Augustinian monk who nailed 95 theses to a church door, and got in so much trouble that you guys eventually kicked him out. Then he (and some other guys) went and started this thing called the Reformation.

Two different things there, but this is not the thread for that.

I merely posted what I did because TEP made a claim. I posted a counterexample to his claim.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I understand. And I suppose it was actually TEP I was replying to.