James Durham & Scandals of Division

Jedi Rev has been thinking about the Scandal of Division in the Scottish church.  Jedi Rev is wary of self-publicising, but he was deeply challenged by the implications of this under-grad essay.   Large sections have been chopped out.

James Durham and Church Unity

James Durham’s work, A Treatise Concerning Scandal, (published posthumously in 1659) was a product of the near unique day in which he lived.   A day when there was, to our minds, literally one church, not fractured by the denominationalism that marks our own day, as the dominant force in Scottish ecclesiastical life.   James Walker’s comment, in Scottish Theology and Theologians, that to the men of Durham’s day; Rutherford, Gillespie, Henderson, Brown, etc., the very idea of different churches operating side by side was utterly inadmissible is reflective of Durham’s work.

…

Durham opens his argument in part IV of Concerning Scandals by marking out distinctions between Heresy, Schism and Division.   Giving one of the most concise definitions of Heresy ever made in the Scottish Church, Durham writes:

“Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy [sic], and endeavour to propagate the same.”

Heresy is a deliberate refusal to cede to the correction of the church courts, coupled with propagation of such false teaching on the fundamentals of the Christian Faith.   (Or to quote D. Macleod, “An error in fundamental doctrine, tenaciously held and vigorously taught.”)   The point here is to ask this question of the modern day Church of Scotland.   Is there a clear case of Heresy within the denomination?   For Durham, union with the Roman Catholic Church was out of the question – the whole church (still a church, making, for example, valid baptisms) was in error.   Separation was valid, indeed necessary.   Is the same now true of the Church of Scotland?   Some brothers there clearly think so.   Does it necessitate separation – that is the $6,000,000 question.

…

The Westminster Assembly fell in favour of a Presbyterian polity for the government of national church, with preaching, not the administration of sacraments, central to worship.   …  Compare the language of the Assembly:

“If you can join with us in occasional acts of worship, you ought to act with us in joint communion, not in separate congregations.   That you should be a distinct Christian organisation, taking members from our Churches, who may have scruples of conscience, is schism undoubted in the body of Christ.”

with Durham:

“Schism implies [as a] consequence: that either the church of Christ on earth is not one, or that one church may be of such heterogeneous or dissimilar parts, as the one of them ought not to have communion with the other; or at least this, that a person ought to seek his own satisfaction and consolation, though to the prejudice and renting [sic, rending?] of the church, and to the general offence and stumbling of others.”

The dream of a united church in Britain came to nothing.   But it was not the ideal of unity, set out by James Durham, par excellence, in Concerning Scandal that failed.   The failure of the Westminster Assembly lay in part with the Parliamentary support for the Erastian party, and Cromwellian support for the Independents.   The point here is to ask, What will stand in the way of a like minded drive for unity today?   Will it be the political expediency of some “evangelicals” not wanting to enter a narrow church with a strict Confessional Subscription?   If the lessons of the 19th century teach us anything, it is that there remains a clear need for some form of unity in doctrine.   The higher that standard is placed, the better.

Is separation ever valid?

Reading Durham’s work, it seems not.   Durham goes to great lengths to support the notion of Church Unity.   He lays down six rules to govern the approach one should take to the matter.  Durham’s language is hard to follow on some of these points; the following is as good an interpretation as possible:  (Jedi Rev was going to make contemprary comment on these points, but realised that was far too easy…)

Firstly, Durham states that if a cause of current division is not such as would create new schism in the church, the parties must come together in unity.   There are plenty gross miscarriages and defects, such as do not lead to schism that have caused such, these should be overlooked.

Secondly, such defects as do not cause continuing communion with the church and her fellowship to become a sin are no cause for division or schism.   Such causes of inconvenience are not causes to break the unity of the church.

Thirdly, a man may have a burden to two courses of action within the church.   One of these may well lead to division, and so is not an acceptable course.   Unity is the higher purpose.   A minister, for example, must follow the duties of his calling.

Fourthly, some courses of action may lead to greater edification of the individual, but lesser unity of the church.   The unity of the body of Christ is to be maintained, such that in time greater edification might be achieved.

Fifthly, in a case were two courses of action will present inconveniences either way, the greater good of, or least hurt to the united church must be sought.   This course of action is to be discerned by examining which course has the most dangerous and potentially destructive inconveniences; which inconveniences seem most inevitable; and which side or course has the most pressing call to duty, to the commands of scripture.

Finally, given that no church polity is free of defect, individuals are advised to act for unity foremost, especially when there is no danger of personal guilt, or accession to the guilt of others.   However, no one can be made to act against his or her own conscience, or against there own duty.

Given these rules, it is difficult to see what grounds, if any, there might be for legitimate division.   But, it should be remembered, Durham was at this point writing on scandalous division; divisions that had no grounds in heresy.   Under these differing doctrinal circumstances, separation would prove a valid course of action.   That is clearly the situation in the modern day – Heresy demands separation, but with other denominations already in existence, is there legitmate grounds for not uniting with them?

Conclusion

The sub title to Durham’s work, “The Dying Man’s Testament to the Church of Scotland”, gives some insight into why it was written.   Durham was nearing the end of his days, and was acutely aware of the problems facing the church.   There was fast approaching a day when the Doctrine of the Visible Church would not be at the forefront of discussions on Christian Unity (i.e. today, when the Doctrine of the visible Church is used to support silly notions like baptising the infants of people with no faith in Christ); the Westminster Assembly had failed to craft a nationwide Presbyterian church; and the Church of Scotland looked fraught with futile divisions that would benefit no one.

Jedi Rev is left wondering about our day.   The futility of Reformed Churches, operating side by side, but refusing to cooperate at a higher level is a scandal indeed.   The Church of Scotland is now clearly rife with Heresy – as defined by Durham, not the nasty insults of a Python-esque Spanish Inquisition.   Will anyone answer the call of James Durham or, in a more contemporary setting, John Ross?