Church Split 101 Thread and beyond ...

[Tim]

What exactly is a Church split? Does the Bible ever define such a situation? My basic understanding of a Church split would be when two groups of people unite in a difference of opinion and one breaks off from the main Church. What makes it a negative term many times would be the fact that the split is based on something generally small that is made large by emotions. Something that could be mended.

Can a Church split ever be a good thing? Should it be encouraged? Discouraged? Should it be avoided if at all possible? When a group of people leave a Church is it always a split, or could it be seen as God leaving a Church to die with the faithful few?

With all the latest news at my local Church I find the fact that leadership seems a little insensitive to the Church split that is inevitable (perhaps viewed as people leaving a dead Church to help with something that is a Godly calling) as a sign of spiritual immaturity on leaderships part. I can't understand why anyone would be willing to see a Church die? Specially one who worked so hard to pastor it and ... well .. if it is your job to pastor I would wonder if allowing a split is the climax of pastoral failure.

I understand God can call people to different fields. But. If I am right, and a Church Split is a negative thing ... then can God ever use such a thing to start a work? At least, right off the start anyway. Seems less a God-thing and more a flesh thing.

I am trying to basically understand Church splits. The good, bad and ugly.

The Scriptures don't discuss a church "split", but the Scriptures do talk about separation.  For example, if a pastor is preaching doctrine contrary to the Word of God, and you cannot get it corrected within the framework of the church, you don't have much of a chance but to leave.

As far as a working definition, a "split" is when a significant number of "core" families leave the church over some issue.

Usually, pride is at the root of many splits - someone doesn't like the way the pastor does something, or some choice he has made, or is hurt because he isn't put into a position of leadership, when he considers himself more spiritual than others. I've heard of splits over the color of carpet, and where the piano and organ are placed.  I haven't been involved in those kind of splits, but I seriously doubt that those trivial matters were the real cause -- they may just have been the incident that ignited a situation that was already in a bad way.

I wouldn't see a split as a pastoral failure alone; the pastor probably has some blame, but it isn't his exclusively.

Can a church split be a good thing?  Yes, when a church is teaching error, and people separate from the error, or when a bitter group decide to leave - amazing how disputes die down when the scorner leaves. However, a split is a thing to be avoided, if possible - it hurts the church's finances; it hurts the church's reputation locally; it discourages some people in the church.  I would not say it should be avoided "at all costs" - God's word should not be compromised just to avoid a split. But when it is a matter or pride, or hurt feelings, then "blessed are the peacemaker" who can reconcile two brothers in Christ.

My thoughts on the OP.

Thanks for your comments!

 

[Walt]

What exactly is a Church split? Does the Bible ever define such a situation? My basic understanding of a Church split would be when two groups of people unite in a difference of opinion and one breaks off from the main Church. What makes it a negative term many times would be the fact that the split is based on something generally small that is made large by emotions. Something that could be mended.

Can a Church split ever be a good thing? Should it be encouraged? Discouraged? Should it be avoided if at all possible? When a group of people leave a Church is it always a split, or could it be seen as God leaving a Church to die with the faithful few?

With all the latest news at my local Church I find the fact that leadership seems a little insensitive to the Church split that is inevitable (perhaps viewed as people leaving a dead Church to help with something that is a Godly calling) as a sign of spiritual immaturity on leaderships part. I can't understand why anyone would be willing to see a Church die? Specially one who worked so hard to pastor it and ... well .. if it is your job to pastor I would wonder if allowing a split is the climax of pastoral failure.

I understand God can call people to different fields. But. If I am right, and a Church Split is a negative thing ... then can God ever use such a thing to start a work? At least, right off the start anyway. Seems less a God-thing and more a flesh thing.

I am trying to basically understand Church splits. The good, bad and ugly.

The Scriptures don't discuss a church "split", but the Scriptures do talk about separation.  For example, if a pastor is preaching doctrine contrary to the Word of God, and you cannot get it corrected within the framework of the church, you don't have much of a chance but to leave.

As far as a working definition, a "split" is when a significant number of "core" families leave the church over some issue.

Usually, pride is at the root of many splits - someone doesn't like the way the pastor does something, or some choice he has made, or is hurt because he isn't put into a position of leadership, when he considers himself more spiritual than others. I've heard of splits over the color of carpet, and where the piano and organ are placed.  I haven't been involved in those kind of splits, but I seriously doubt that those trivial matters were the real cause -- they may just have been the incident that ignited a situation that was already in a bad way.

I wouldn't see a split as a pastoral failure alone; the pastor probably has some blame, but it isn't his exclusively.

Can a church split be a good thing?  Yes, when a church is teaching error, and people separate from the error, or when a bitter group decide to leave - amazing how disputes die down when the scorner leaves. However, a split is a thing to be avoided, if possible - it hurts the church's finances; it hurts the church's reputation locally; it discourages some people in the church.  I would not say it should be avoided "at all costs" - God's word should not be compromised just to avoid a split. But when it is a matter or pride, or hurt feelings, then "blessed are the peacemaker" who can reconcile two brothers in Christ.

My thoughts on the OP.

Too bad the Scriptures say nothing about any other head of the church, than Christ.

You mean like the command to pastors to "take the oversight" of the church in 1 Pet 5:2?

You'd think such a "foundational doctrine" as electing a single "pastor" to lead the church, would be mentioned in every epistle.

Many epistles discuss pastors, and there is, of course the qualification list for pastors in 1 Tim 3.  The epistle to Titus discusses ordaining pastors in every city.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it DOES seem that many epistles discuss churches having pastors...

If you are opposed to a single pastor in a church, it doesn't seem to be mandated one way or the other... nearly all of the Scriptures that deal with pastors (plural) also discuss churches (plural).  I'm thinking that perhaps, if the Scriptures are unclear in this area, it should be up to each church.

But even so, I don't see what that has to do with a church split - a church with multiple pastors can split just as easily as a church with a single pastor.

I have to laugh at you, when you insist on non biblical church leadership,  and wonder why you cant find Scripture dealing with the problems which your false doctrine creates.

Well, at least I'm good for a laugh. 

I'm not sure if you consider any leadership to be un-biblical, or just the concept of a single pastor.

 

[prophet]

What exactly is a Church split? Does the Bible ever define such a situation? My basic understanding of a Church split would be when two groups of people unite in a difference of opinion and one breaks off from the main Church. What makes it a negative term many times would be the fact that the split is based on something generally small that is made large by emotions. Something that could be mended.

Can a Church split ever be a good thing? Should it be encouraged? Discouraged? Should it be avoided if at all possible? When a group of people leave a Church is it always a split, or could it be seen as God leaving a Church to die with the faithful few?

With all the latest news at my local Church I find the fact that leadership seems a little insensitive to the Church split that is inevitable (perhaps viewed as people leaving a dead Church to help with something that is a Godly calling) as a sign of spiritual immaturity on leaderships part. I can't understand why anyone would be willing to see a Church die? Specially one who worked so hard to pastor it and ... well .. if it is your job to pastor I would wonder if allowing a split is the climax of pastoral failure.

I understand God can call people to different fields. But. If I am right, and a Church Split is a negative thing ... then can God ever use such a thing to start a work? At least, right off the start anyway. Seems less a God-thing and more a flesh thing.

I am trying to basically understand Church splits. The good, bad and ugly.

The Scriptures don't discuss a church "split", but the Scriptures do talk about separation.  For example, if a pastor is preaching doctrine contrary to the Word of God, and you cannot get it corrected within the framework of the church, you don't have much of a chance but to leave.

As far as a working definition, a "split" is when a significant number of "core" families leave the church over some issue.

Usually, pride is at the root of many splits - someone doesn't like the way the pastor does something, or some choice he has made, or is hurt because he isn't put into a position of leadership, when he considers himself more spiritual than others. I've heard of splits over the color of carpet, and where the piano and organ are placed.  I haven't been involved in those kind of splits, but I seriously doubt that those trivial matters were the real cause -- they may just have been the incident that ignited a situation that was already in a bad way.

I wouldn't see a split as a pastoral failure alone; the pastor probably has some blame, but it isn't his exclusively.

Can a church split be a good thing?  Yes, when a church is teaching error, and people separate from the error, or when a bitter group decide to leave - amazing how disputes die down when the scorner leaves. However, a split is a thing to be avoided, if possible - it hurts the church's finances; it hurts the church's reputation locally; it discourages some people in the church.  I would not say it should be avoided "at all costs" - God's word should not be compromised just to avoid a split. But when it is a matter or pride, or hurt feelings, then "blessed are the peacemaker" who can reconcile two brothers in Christ.

My thoughts on the OP.

Too bad the Scriptures say nothing about any other head of the church, than Christ.

You mean like the command to pastors to "take the oversight" of the church in 1 Pet 5:2?

You'd think such a "foundational doctrine" as electing a single "pastor" to lead the church, would be mentioned in every epistle.

Many epistles discuss pastors, and there is, of course the qualification list for pastors in 1 Tim 3.  The epistle to Titus discusses ordaining pastors in every city.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it DOES seem that many epistles discuss churches having pastors...

If you are opposed to a single pastor in a church, it doesn't seem to be mandated one way or the other... nearly all of the Scriptures that deal with pastors (plural) also discuss churches (plural).  I'm thinking that perhaps, if the Scriptures are unclear in this area, it should be up to each church.

But even so, I don't see what that has to do with a church split - a church with multiple pastors can split just as easily as a church with a single pastor.

I have to laugh at you, when you insist on non biblical church leadership,  and wonder why you cant find Scripture dealing with the problems which your false doctrine creates.

Well, at least I'm good for a laugh. 

I'm not sure if you consider any leadership to be un-biblical, or just the concept of a single pastor.

You can't understand,  because you project onto passages like 1Peter 5,  and others, some assumptions of facts that the Scriptures don't give.

For instance: we can safely assume a plurality of Elders are given oversight of the church, because we find it spelled out here:

    Acts 20:17
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

But there isn't one single passage where any one says "choose one man to lead you" or anything even close.

So if Peter talks about oversight, he is talking to a Presbytery, not a singular Bishop.

BTW, nowhere is the word "pastor" used to describe a Bishop.

Pastor doesn't mean "shepherd", either.
It refers to one who feeds, but is not dedicated to sheep.

A pasture feeds all grazers.
A pastoral garden, is a grass meadow, for livestock.
A repast is a meal

A shepherd only herds sheep.

So many layers, the Nicolaitan Church-Kings have added, so that as it were, even the elect are fooled.

What exactly is a Church split? Does the Bible ever define such a situation? My basic understanding of a Church split would be when two groups of people unite in a difference of opinion and one breaks off from the main Church. What makes it a negative term many times would be the fact that the split is based on something generally small that is made large by emotions. Something that could be mended.

Can a Church split ever be a good thing? Should it be encouraged? Discouraged? Should it be avoided if at all possible? When a group of people leave a Church is it always a split, or could it be seen as God leaving a Church to die with the faithful few?

With all the latest news at my local Church I find the fact that leadership seems a little insensitive to the Church split that is inevitable (perhaps viewed as people leaving a dead Church to help with something that is a Godly calling) as a sign of spiritual immaturity on leaderships part. I can't understand why anyone would be willing to see a Church die? Specially one who worked so hard to pastor it and ... well .. if it is your job to pastor I would wonder if allowing a split is the climax of pastoral failure.

I understand God can call people to different fields. But. If I am right, and a Church Split is a negative thing ... then can God ever use such a thing to start a work? At least, right off the start anyway. Seems less a God-thing and more a flesh thing.

I am trying to basically understand Church splits. The good, bad and ugly.

The Scriptures don't discuss a church "split", but the Scriptures do talk about separation.  For example, if a pastor is preaching doctrine contrary to the Word of God, and you cannot get it corrected within the framework of the church, you don't have much of a chance but to leave.

As far as a working definition, a "split" is when a significant number of "core" families leave the church over some issue.

Usually, pride is at the root of many splits - someone doesn't like the way the pastor does something, or some choice he has made, or is hurt because he isn't put into a position of leadership, when he considers himself more spiritual than others. I've heard of splits over the color of carpet, and where the piano and organ are placed.  I haven't been involved in those kind of splits, but I seriously doubt that those trivial matters were the real cause -- they may just have been the incident that ignited a situation that was already in a bad way.

I wouldn't see a split as a pastoral failure alone; the pastor probably has some blame, but it isn't his exclusively.

Can a church split be a good thing?  Yes, when a church is teaching error, and people separate from the error, or when a bitter group decide to leave - amazing how disputes die down when the scorner leaves. However, a split is a thing to be avoided, if possible - it hurts the church's finances; it hurts the church's reputation locally; it discourages some people in the church.  I would not say it should be avoided "at all costs" - God's word should not be compromised just to avoid a split. But when it is a matter or pride, or hurt feelings, then "blessed are the peacemaker" who can reconcile two brothers in Christ.

My thoughts on the OP.

Too bad the Scriptures say nothing about any other head of the church, than Christ.

You mean like the command to pastors to "take the oversight" of the church in 1 Pet 5:2?

You'd think such a "foundational doctrine" as electing a single "pastor" to lead the church, would be mentioned in every epistle.

Many epistles discuss pastors, and there is, of course the qualification list for pastors in 1 Tim 3.  The epistle to Titus discusses ordaining pastors in every city.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it DOES seem that many epistles discuss churches having pastors...

If you are opposed to a single pastor in a church, it doesn't seem to be mandated one way or the other... nearly all of the Scriptures that deal with pastors (plural) also discuss churches (plural).  I'm thinking that perhaps, if the Scriptures are unclear in this area, it should be up to each church.

But even so, I don't see what that has to do with a church split - a church with multiple pastors can split just as easily as a church with a single pastor.

I have to laugh at you, when you insist on non biblical church leadership,  and wonder why you cant find Scripture dealing with the problems which your false doctrine creates.

Well, at least I'm good for a laugh. 

I'm not sure if you consider any leadership to be un-biblical, or just the concept of a single pastor.

Sent from my LGL43AL using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

You can't understand,  because you project onto passages like 1Peter 5,  and others, some assumptions of facts that the Scriptures don't give.

For instance: we can safely assume a plurality of Elders are given oversight of the church, because we find it spelled out here:

    Acts 20:17
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

But there isn't one single passage where any one says "choose one man to lead you" or anything even close.

So if Peter talks about oversight, he is talking to a Presbytery, not a singular Bishop.

BTW, nowhere is the word "pastor" used to describe a Bishop.

Pastor doesn't mean "shepherd", either.
It refers to one who feeds, but is not dedicated to sheep.

A pasture feeds all grazers.
A pastoral garden, is a grass meadow, for livestock.
A repast is a meal

A shepherd only herds sheep.

So many layers, the Nicolaitan Church-Kings have added, so that as it were, even the elect are fooled.

I still don't see how this discussion relates at all to the OP about a church split.  A church with multiple pastors or elders, if you prefer, can still have a split.

It's just a little hard to follow what you are advocating... are you saying that all churches, regardless of size, should have multiple elders?  Are you also opposed to the term "pastor"?  I assume you disagree that "elder", "bishop", and "pastor" refer to the same office.  From I Pet 5, it seems clear that all of the aspects of that office are in view, with the command being given to "elders", and the command to "feed the flock of God" (a "pastor" kind of job), as well as "taking the oversight", which is implied in the word "bishop".

Maybe you just dislike "pastor", and are OK with elder & bishop being the same office?

Pastor seems to be the common phrase used today, rightly or wrongly.  Pastors are listed as a gift to the church in, I think, Eph 4. It appears to be a valid office.