Written by Nicholas T. Batzig |
Tuesday, August 2, 2022
Divisions, while undesirable, are, nevertheless, not necessarily schismatic in and of themselves. In fact, such divisions may actually serve to help foster unity by allowing various people in the one body of Christ to affiliate with those of similar theological and sociological persuasion without sharing the same ecclesiastical government.

The 20th Century will be likely be remembered as the Century of ecclesiastical ecumenism. The 21st Century is shaping up to follow suit–not simply because of a widespread desire for co-belligerency, but on account of a doctrinal reductionism that seeks to dilute Christianity down to the most basic creedal statements of the early church. One of the driving forces behind the push for ecclesiastical ecumenically is the quest for societal community–as evidenced by the rise of Marxist and Communist ideology in Western society. Ironically, many of those seeking radical community also (perhaps unwittingly) embrace elements of the radical individualism of post-modernity. Champions of our current ecumenism view previous communal labors for doctrinal continuity as being either archaic or overly restrictive. While doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, were once considered ecumenical–among various ecclesiastical bodies in the Reformed and Protestant world–they are now frowned upon (sadly even by many ministers who vow to uphold their teachings in a number of Presbyterian denominations). All of this leads us to reopen the question as to whether or not denominations and doctrinal divisions are antithetical to the unity of the church throughout the world.
In 1985, J.I. Packer delivered a lecture at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia titled, “Divisions in the Church,” in order to tackle the important issue of doctrinal and denominational unity and diversity. In this particular lecture (and in the subsequent related essay in The Collected Shorter Writings of J.I. Packer, vol. 2), Packer dealt with the following three categories: shameful divisions, inescapable divisions and dealing with divisions. Starting with the biblical call to unity among the one community of believers throughout the world, Packer noted, “Neither you nor I are the only pebble on God’s beach.” He then went on to affirm the unity that all believers have, regardless of the denomination in which they have bound themselves:
“The church may be pictured like the wheel of a bicycle. Christ is the hub. You and I are spokes. Because we are linked with Christ we belong to the church and have something to give by way of stability and usefulness to the rim of the wheel, that is, the church’s outward witness, worship and life. United to the one Saviour we are united to each other in the one universal church. This church is the family of God. It is also the body of Christ. The New Testament speaks of ‘members,’ not of the church, but of Christ; ‘membership’ is part of the notion of the church as Christ’s body. ‘Members’ means ‘limbs,’ not people who sit in pews and pay their dues but people vitally united to Christ–limbs, organs and units in his body. which is the visible church worldwide. The church is also the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Believers share in the life of the Spirit, giving and taking in the fellowship which the Spirit sustains. ‘Give and take’ is the constant formula of Christian fellowship.”
 Shameful Divisions
The Bible’s emphasis on the unity of all true believers–by virtue of their union with Christ and of the subsequent indwelling of the Spirit within each believer–is always at risk of being lost. In the New Testament, we find the Apostles laboring tirelessly to preserve the unity of the members of the body of Christ. Packer explained:
“Paul was distressed to discover that at Corinth…there were people separating into parties according to which was the favorite preacher for each group: ‘I belong to Paul,’ ‘I belong to Apollos,’ ‘I belong to Cephas.’ And evidently there were a few people who, in the face of this, tried to keep their end up as simple Christians saying, ‘I belong to Christ; I don’t know about you, but Christ is the one to whom I give loyalty.’ It distressed Paul that there should be divisions in that congregation.
If we are going to study divisions in the church, we had better recognize that we are studying something pathological. We are studying a form of spiritual ill-health in Christ’s body. Our study is compared to a doctor studying blindness in the eye or paralysis in the limbs. Division in the church means that ‘something is wrong.’ The body is out of sorts.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Sinful comfort feels immediately satisfying, but it’s an illusion. It will only draw you deeper into loneliness and despair. God’s comfort sustains, protects, and nourishes your soul. Pray honestly and ask, “Lord, teach me to receive the comfort only you can provide.” The Lord longs to answer when you call out to him.

In this fallen world, we’ve all experienced suffering, distress, and anguish—and we’ve all sought relief in sinful ways (Rom. 3:10). Maybe you’re seeking relief from a stressful job through secret pornography use. Perhaps experimenting with opposite-gender clothing makes you feel secure in a harsh world, or an unholy relationship has become your refuge when you feel forgotten and unknown by your spouse.
Men and women walking away from sinful patterns often lament the loss associated with leaving their sin behind. This makes sense because that choice sin feels vital. What our sin provides often feels like life to us; through it we experience comfort and pleasure. We feel loved, significant, in control.
What happens when we give those things up? Does Jesus provide the comfort and pleasure sin once supplied? Can God’s comfort and deliverance really compare with sin’s attractions?
The Psalmist’s Testimony
Psalm 116 introduces us to someone in agony. We can likely relate to the psalmist’s urgency and need: “I suffered distress and anguish” (v. 3), “O Lord, I pray, deliver my soul!” (v. 4), “I am greatly afflicted!” (v. 10), “All mankind are liars!” (v. 11).
Yet we also see the perspective of one who has been delivered: “For you have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling; I will walk before the Lord in the land of the living” (vv. 8–9). He has received God’s comfort—and it delights his heart.
What God’s Comfort Doesn’t Provide
Control
God doesn’t give his glory to another. He is Lord of all. He’s in control of everything and his ways are perfect. Our hearts long to be “little lords” and control our universe. When a single woman feels the sting of loneliness, she takes control over her feelings by watching things she knows are ungodly. When an older man doesn’t have the sexual intimacy he desires with his wife, he seeks control by chatting with much younger women online. In contrast, the comfort God gives is not something we can turn off and on to modulate our discomfort on demand. Receiving God’s comfort requires a heart willing to submit to his ways rather than grasping for control.
Immediacy
Modern life trains our bodies and minds for immediacy. One hundred years ago, no one would’ve believed that I can now take a small device out of my pocket and, within an hour, a person I’ve never met will deliver donuts to my door. A big draw toward sinful patterns is the immediacy of relief they provide. In the words of a former Harvest USA staff member, “God’s comfort doesn’t always rush with excitement in the same way sexual sin does.”
Read More
Related Posts:

Once allowances have been made for terminally ill children, the question will inevitably be asked, “What about physically suffering children who aren’t terminally ill?”…This is how the culture of death works its slow poison. This is how voices of death are elevated as kind and compassionate, while voices of life are drowned out as inhumane, fanatical. 

Look to Holland. That’s what conservatives tracing the progress of international euthanasia law over the years have learned to do. For that matter, look to either Holland or Belgium. These two countries are to Europe as Oregon or California are to the United States: first and worst. As they have raced each other to the bottom, they offer a glimpse of what the future might look like, unless someone cares enough to change it.
Holland first made euthanasia legal for adults in 2002, and Belgium followed only months later. In 2014, Belgium became the first country to legalize “voluntary” euthanasia for terminally ill children of any age. This week, Holland has finally followed suit, after years of limiting the “service” to minor teens and terminally ill newborns (who could be killed with parental consent if a doctor judged that the baby’s suffering was “unbearable” and incurable). Now, the gap between ages 1 and 12 has been filled. No child left behind, as it were.
Read More

Related Posts: