Splits and Schisms. How to handle them
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Let's face it. Christianity as a whole is highly fissaporous.
We have a proliferation of often competing churches, denominations and sects.
Some see a virtue in this. Others find it reprehensible. Others lie somewhere in between.
No names, no pack-drill but a family has left our parish to join a group that only has two parishes in the UK and which believes itself to be the only True and proper Orthodox Church. The others are all phoney apparently because - shock horror - we don't use the 'correct' calendar and engage in ecumenical dialogue.
This family started out in an independent highly conservative evangelical Protestant group which, I imagine, had fallen out with other Protestant churches. So a tendency to separate may be in their spiritual DNA.
That said, some people in those groups can be very eirenic.
They have moved from Orthodox parish to Orthodox parish and not stayed long in any of them. I daresay they will move on from this one soon in search of something they believe to be even more authentic and uncompromised.
On the macro-level we have the egregious schism between Moscow and Constantinople.
Within Roman Catholicism we see break-away ultra-traditionalist groups or people claiming to represent the True Catholic faithTM.
Within Protestantism ... well ...
We can't 'stop' people doing this sort of thing and no, it's not a purely Protestant phenomenon. Although our deacon did ask this family how what they were doing differed from the Protestant tendency to hive off to other groups or form your own if you aren't happy for whatever reason with where you are.
I accept that there may often be real and valid reasons for people to 'move on.' I've shifted territory myself, but always reluctantly or after much heart-searching. I don't change affiliation like changing my socks. I recognise that for many people changing ecclesial address is a serious and painful business and not taken lightly.
In statistical terms 'non-canonical' or schismatic groups are a tiny minority within Orthodoxy worldwide. But with Orthodoxy being a minority sport here in the UK even a trickle of people going to more extreme or hyper-dox groups is going to have an impact.
Methodism gradually reabsorbed most of its splinter-groups here in the UK, but that wasn't necessarily a sign of strength as Methodism as a whole is sadly in decline.
Everyone is remaining open and friendly towards this family and they've shown no personal animosity towards anyone in the parish.
They have returned holy water and blessed oil though, presumably because they are no longer deemed 'holy' or are somehow tainted or invalid.
Are this family simply doing at a micro level what Big C Churches and denominations have done at a macro level?
Is it an issue? Should we be concerned or should we simply shrug our shoulders and accept schisms and splits as the status quo?
We have a proliferation of often competing churches, denominations and sects.
Some see a virtue in this. Others find it reprehensible. Others lie somewhere in between.
No names, no pack-drill but a family has left our parish to join a group that only has two parishes in the UK and which believes itself to be the only True and proper Orthodox Church. The others are all phoney apparently because - shock horror - we don't use the 'correct' calendar and engage in ecumenical dialogue.
This family started out in an independent highly conservative evangelical Protestant group which, I imagine, had fallen out with other Protestant churches. So a tendency to separate may be in their spiritual DNA.
That said, some people in those groups can be very eirenic.
They have moved from Orthodox parish to Orthodox parish and not stayed long in any of them. I daresay they will move on from this one soon in search of something they believe to be even more authentic and uncompromised.
On the macro-level we have the egregious schism between Moscow and Constantinople.
Within Roman Catholicism we see break-away ultra-traditionalist groups or people claiming to represent the True Catholic faithTM.
Within Protestantism ... well ...
We can't 'stop' people doing this sort of thing and no, it's not a purely Protestant phenomenon. Although our deacon did ask this family how what they were doing differed from the Protestant tendency to hive off to other groups or form your own if you aren't happy for whatever reason with where you are.
I accept that there may often be real and valid reasons for people to 'move on.' I've shifted territory myself, but always reluctantly or after much heart-searching. I don't change affiliation like changing my socks. I recognise that for many people changing ecclesial address is a serious and painful business and not taken lightly.
In statistical terms 'non-canonical' or schismatic groups are a tiny minority within Orthodoxy worldwide. But with Orthodoxy being a minority sport here in the UK even a trickle of people going to more extreme or hyper-dox groups is going to have an impact.
Methodism gradually reabsorbed most of its splinter-groups here in the UK, but that wasn't necessarily a sign of strength as Methodism as a whole is sadly in decline.
Everyone is remaining open and friendly towards this family and they've shown no personal animosity towards anyone in the parish.
They have returned holy water and blessed oil though, presumably because they are no longer deemed 'holy' or are somehow tainted or invalid.
Are this family simply doing at a micro level what Big C Churches and denominations have done at a macro level?
Is it an issue? Should we be concerned or should we simply shrug our shoulders and accept schisms and splits as the status quo?
Comments
Also, this isn’t fissiparous behavior. This is a personal psych issue, and if it weren’t happening with churches, you’d see them doing it with bowling leagues or book clubs. It isn’t really about the faith at all IMHO. (I’ve known several of these.)
Unselfish love remains the central Christian value. Upholding it as the standard has never been easy. I think it’s what Jesus meant by the narrow way.
Absolutely spot on. One of my best friends has this pattern - move house (husband’s work dictated this) find a church and wax lyrical about it. And then, after a while, leave. It has taken her several goes of this to realise that the problem is herself (though of course none of the churches were perfect) and now she is getting counselling, which is helping in all kinds of ways. It will be interesting to see if it helps in this regard as well. One good sign is that she has not been praising her current church to the heavens!
What is fissaporous behaviour though, I think, is the formation of schismatic groups in the first place - although I certainly wouldn't 'blame' the Reformers, for instance, for 'protesting' against late medieval Roman Catholicism.
I might have said, 'Come with us we will do you good ...' 😉
Or, like the Ecumenical Patriarch, 'Learned Germans, keep in touch for fraternal reasons if you don't mind but don't call us, we'll call you ..." 😉
Ok, I'm being flippant and I don’t wish to downplay the issues but there does seem to be a lot of 'Big Enders' vs 'Little Enders' stuff going on in the Swiftian Lilliputian sense.
I mean, of all the things to separate over, church calendars must surely be way down the list of priorities?
Of course the real issue will have been deeper than that. Changing calendars to a 'newer' version ('new? New?! Is Outrage!) coincided with increasing ecumenical dialogue so they'll have become conflated and identified with a dangerous swing towards modernity.
I think that's rather different to the scenario @Arethosemyfeet describes where someone understandably changed church affiliation over issues of racial segregation.
Back in my full on charismatic evangelical days splits and schisms seemed to happen over and over again. I lived through at least 3 painful substantial splits and lots of comings and goings over an 18 year period. It was an emotional roller-coaster.
Now, if this family left your parish to start their own church, and if they tried to take others in the parish with them, it’s getting closer to schism.
I've re-read my post and can't see where I've explicitly accused the family of schismatic behaviour - other than by implication insofar as they're joining a ready-made schismatic group.
Hand on heart, Orthodox can glibly point the finger at Protestants for 'consumerist' behaviour and changing churches every five minutes or starting their own - but priests and people (as it were) do chop and change jurisdictions at times in ways which some RCs see as tantamount to 'denominationalism' in the Protestant sense.
An Orthodox ecumenist I greatly respect recently said that we have no grounds to point the finger at anyone else as we've got a whopping big Schism in our own ranks right now.
Indeed. So that justifies all splits ad schisms that have happened since?
As I've observed before on these boards, I think it's scandalous, for example, that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox have yet to resolve their differences after 1600 years when those differences are entirely 'academic' as far as I can see.
We could all give other examples I'm sure.
Although I've known both Protestant and Orthodox Christians insist that 'Christianity isn't a religion.'
Which sounds terribly pious.
I know what they are getting at of course.
If the family isn’t being offered as an example or evidence of “splits and scandals,” then I’m not sure why so much information about them is relevant in a thread that, according to its title, is about “splits and schisms.”
Fair call. I think the instance of this particular family made me think of splits and schisms more generally- as they left to join a schismatic group. Although 'left' doesn't carry the same weight as it might in other traditions.
Orthodox are free to attend any parish they wish, although choice is often limited of course and when people are 'received' it's into Orthodoxy per se and at a jurisdictional level rather than a local parish level if that makes sense.
If I were to rewrite the post I'd make two separate points I think. One about splits and schisms in general terms and another about the quest for apparent perfection - which sometimes (but not always) accompanies people moving around between or within churches and denominations.
But, speaking as a former pastor, no matter how "right" a position you have, it still hurts. It hurts the people who have chosen to stay put. It hurts the leaders who have gone through the split. I think it also hurts those who left.
The mission of the church is disrupted.
If people choose to go, the best you can do is give them a peaceful release.
For those that stay, deal with the grief issues that are there. But then reaffirm the mission. You may have to change how you go about accomplishing the mission, but the mission is still there.
I am reminded of the father who had no choice but to give his son the inheritance the son demanded. Even though the son chose to leave, the father kept an eye out for the son. While we may give those who wish to depart a peaceful release, we keep the door open for them, But we never lose sight of the ultimate goal is to carry out the mission, perhaps in new ways.
Although fines weren't always levied that assiduously, but even so, some RCs were fined very heavily indeed.
Within the Orthosphere in the West we effectively have 'gathered communities' of the 'faithful' who attend regularly and which are a mix of 'ethnically' or 'cradle' Orthodox from Eastern Europe and elsewhere and converts from other faith or Christian traditions. Then there is a broad penumbra of those who only turn up at Easter or Christmas, many for largely cultural reasons.
Consequently, whenever anyone moves on whether amicably or otherwise it leaves the same sense of loss as would be the case in Protestant churches - and RC parishes too, I'd imagine. I've not been involved with those so can only speculate.
My brother has cautiously started attending his local RC parish and finds that there's little 'community' there at all. People turn up for Mass then clear off.
It's different in Orthodox parishes which have built up around a number of converts. They tend to be closer knit.
I fully agree with the sentiments @Gramps49 has expressed. When people move on we need to release them with good grace.
The other aspect I wanted to explore was the issue of 'schismatic groups' in general - and I don't want to get into a reductionist 'We're Orthodox and everyone else has separated from us ...' argument, which is all too common, particularly online.
But I do wonder whether 'Semper Reformanda' inevitably leads to 'Semper Seperanda' - to coin a phrase.
Once we start separating from one another it seems to go on indefinitely.
Protestants don't have as much of an issue with that, obviously, as their ecclesiology accommodates that. It's different with RCs and Orthodox of course but it's not as if we don't have our own separatists, schismatics or fringe groups.
It's hard though, from an Orthodox perspective, to avoid being perjorative about splits and secessions, although as has been said, we are in no position to throw stones.
The stable door is open and has been for some considerable time. I'm not saying that the Orthodox or the RCs should go round trying to corral everyone else back into the 'fold'. But the door is open should anyone wish to do so.
I'm just thinking aloud again ...
The principle everyone seems to be sharing here though is one to which I believe we should all aspire. Love and charity in all things.
Was your 'splinter church' a good thing for those left behind? Or only for those who left to join it?
You don't have to splinter over every disagreement though. Splits and Schisms are evidence less of disagreement than of inability to deal with disagreement.
That said, I’d never describe the splinterings as “a good thing.” Even when they’re a necessary thing, they’re not a good thing. They’re evidence of our failings and our brokenness.
I firmly believe that the Lord can 'work all things together for good,' but splits and schisms whether on a macro-scale such as between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or between the Orthodox and the 'West' or between Protestants and RCs or on a smaller scale at parish, congregational or denominational level, they are not a 'good thing.'
Good can come out of them but they are not ideal.
Also remember to treat all humans with the love and care that they are due regardless of religious affiliation.
Seems pretty straightforward.
I have personally witnessed 2 church splits, one Baptist and one Anglican, and they were very traumatic experiences even for those of us who were not present when they began. I found the experiences inexplicable and somewhat distressing.
We arrived newly married at our new Baptist church to discover that the minister was a recent appointment and not a unanimous one. The church had experienced several recent upheavals and the new minister was being held responsible for them by some people, even though the decisions were made before he arrived. Several members left the church for another nearby but kept their membership so they could attend the monthly meeting where they would call a vote of no confidence in the minister. This went on for months, possibly more than a year, the minister was a godly, patient man but eventually agreed to resign so that the church could move on.
When he left we had just moved house so we made a new start attending the local parish church. And here we discovered that they had a new vicar and some of the old guard had taken a dislike to him. Several members of the pcc were refusing to take communion from him and there were various accusations about his behaviour. This led to the nervous breakdowns of the vicar and his wife but the situation continued until they removed him using the ecclesiastical courts. We had already left by then, we had found ourselves making excuses not to go to church, then we went to the Greenbelt Festival and gave a sigh of relief to be with other Christians. We never went back to the church.
I believe both churches are now in good states but it happened twenty years ago.
The lesson might be that people should take that on themselves instead of spreading it.
No Christian tradition is immune to these things. They happen right across the board.
They are almost always painful.
Back in my restorationist 'new church' days we were sometimes told to 'shun' those who had 'broken covenant' as the saying went. I never did but I did give one particular friend a hard time when he left but later apologised and made up for it.
As time went on, that particular 'stream' loosened up and didn't condemn those who, for whatever reason, left to go elsewhere.
The church I was involved with back then fizzled out in the end and people went elsewhere.
There was an indication of how things had changed though when the teenage daughter of a couple there decided to become an Anglican and go to a fairly High Church parish. She went with the blessing of her parents' church and people from that congregation attended her confirmation to support and affirm her in that.
I was delighted to hear this was the case.
The Vatican has spent a lot of time and effort trying to build bridges permitting other groups in the RCC to use the old liturgy for example, but the SSPX simply refuse to accept the teaching of the last Council. And their publications and social media are full of bile and frankly un-Christian stuff against the RCC. They maintain they are the true church and the Vatican etc have led the rest into heresy.
They now plan to consecrate four more bishops saying that the RCC is not a body that they feel can save souls. This is against the express wishes of the pope. The Vatican has told them that they will have excommunicated themselves and put themselves into schism if they go ahead in July.
My feeling is that they should just go ahead and leave for the health of the wider church.
Sometimes schism is a good thing.
"But with Orthodoxy being a minority sport here in the UK even a trickle of people going to more extreme or hyper-dox groups is going to have an impact.
They have returned holy water and blessed oil though, presumably because they are no longer deemed 'holy' or are somehow tainted or invalid."
I think there has been a bit of rise in the "hyper-dox" groups recently.
I think it's related to identity crisis and spiritual dis-ease.
It's an attempt to perfection or "The Truth" because some people are so lost. Modern society has that effect.
But of course perfection in church is not going to happen this side of the eschaton.
There's that lovely phrase. If you find the perfect church, don't join it, you'll ruin it.
In my migration, I've actually found myself more settled in a generous orthodoxy. I've been in churches that felt heterodox-liberal "glorified social welfare agency." And don't get me wrong, they're wonderful people and I could've settled there. And they're less abusive by far than lockstep conservative churches of "think this way or Go To Hell For All Eternity Because God Loves You. But I think my soul is happier in a church with a stronger sense of dogma and internal identity. There's a balance in good discipleship.
I have read that a lot of modern conservatism is based on a deep anxiety about multiculturalism, a fear of dissolution. But I just haven't seen how that's necessary. I'm comfortable with my liberal church, strong in my convictions. Society has always been a mixed bag of nuts vis a vis the church, forever has been if you read back, I think.
The idea that one perfect church, or even one perfect relationship could trigger the eschaton is weirdly appealing, but probably not realistic. And I have children to consider.
I kind of think we're already there. It's on us.
Oh, don't apologize! I love the joke! It feels very appropriate to my life.
I finally decided that even when I disagreed extremely strongly with various things in the Episcopal Church, even when they erred, I believed they were generally trying at least to be on the side of grace. So I resolved to stay after all. And I’ve been glad I did. (My position has changed on literally one or two things since then—for example, I came to accept the ordination of female priests/bishops circa 2003, I think, and there’s even a thread on that on the old archived Ship—but mostly the same, and I try to be as orthodox as know how to be).
A once-close friend of mine had joined the ACA for the reasons above, the ACA (including the former friend) later basically joined Rome wholesale under Benedict, so I think the ACA barely exists now, and sadly that friend went down a very bad conspiracy-theory-laden path (i.e., I ran across his posts supporting Qanon years later after our falling-out—I don’t know if he still believes that—God, I hope not).
That doesn’t have to have been a cause/effect thing, but I sometimes think he and I were on the same path and went two ways at a fork in the road…
I believe orthodox theology is extremely important, but one aspect of that selfsame theology, as I understand it, is that love and grace are the most important of all. (The sheep and the goats are not divided by which ones have the best doctrines, etc., and 1 Cor. 13…)
On the 'modern society' thing. We are all part of 'modern society' for better or worse. We can't all withdraw from it. An Amish or monastic option isn't open to everyone.
Somehow we have to navigate 'being in the world but not of it' and there's going to be no 'one size fits all' approach for how we do that nor which issues we may choose to focus on.
We all live between the 'now and the not yet.'
Which brings me to @ThunderBunk's point. Yes, you were joking but there is a serious point here too. Many 'sectarian' or 'schismatic' groups saw (or see) themselves as somehow bound up with the eschaton. Heck, it's clear from the NT that many early Christians considered themselves to be living in the 'last days' with the imminent return of Christ looming close.
I never wholly bought into it but many of the leaders in the independent charismatic evangelical group I was involved with in the 1980s/90s were convinced that we were 'ushering in the reign of Christ' and that we were on the cusp of a mighty end-times revival that would culminate in the return of Christ.
There was a lot of rhetoric about that just as overblown eschatological expectations characterised early millenarian sects and groups like the Brethren and the early Pentecostals - for all their differences in style and approach.
There seems to be a correlation between a belief that we are forming 'purer' or 'more biblical' or more whatever-else forms of church and an expectation that this will somehow trigger the eschaton.
As if we are somehow of ultimate importance and significance in the overall scheme of things. There might be a few dozen of us meeting in a hired hall but that doesn't matter. The final fulfilment of the Kingdom all depends upon us.
It's heady stuff. We can roll our eyes but people do get intoxicated with these kind of ideas. Even very astute and clever folk.