Church leaders must not be spiritually immature (1 Timothy 3:1–7) lest they pour the gasoline of fleshliness on the flames of emerging church schisms rather than the water of sacrificial love and godly wisdom. Mature leaders foster cultures in their churches that help saints pursue “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And they’re not naive. They know that factors like fleshliness, maturity diversity, and false Christians make this corporate pursuit hard. But they also know it’s necessarily hard. In this age.

Things fall apart. It’s the second law of thermodynamics. It’s Romans 8:20 happening all around us. It’s a reality I increasingly experience in my body as I pass through the second half of middle age. Cracks permeate everything — including every church I’ve known.
Christian relationships encounter all the temptations common to man. That’s why Christian churches will rarely experience a kind of unity that knows no conflict or struggle.
But an absence of conflict and struggle is not what God has in mind for Christian unity in this age. As I’ve explained more thoroughly elsewhere, God gives unity as part of our inheritance in Christ (Ephesians 1:5, 11), but Christian oneness has a participatory dimension through which God accomplishes some glorious work in us and the world. So when God, through Paul, commands us to eagerly “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3), he intends for this endeavor to be hard — for some very good reasons.
But more than that, God intends our churches to experience seasons of noticeable disunity. In fact, these seasons are necessary, because they bring to light some very important realities. The old hymn pinpoints it well:
Tho’ with a scornful wonderThe world sees her oppressed,By schisms rent asunder,By heresies distressed.Yet saints their watch are keeping;Their cry goes up, “How long?”And soon the night of weepingShall be the morn of song.
When it comes to Christian unity in this age of things falling apart, the reality we experience is “sorrowful” over our frequent factions, “yet always rejoicing” over the future grace of perfected unity set before us (2 Corinthians 6:10).
By Schisms Rent Asunder
Church schisms happen, as we all know. And they get a lot of bad press from Christians and non-Christians — often much deserved, as we also know. But schisms perform necessary functions in the church by revealing numerous areas requiring attention. Let me address three types of division in the church.
1. Fleshly Schisms
Paul illustrates the first type of schism in his blunt reproof of the Corinthian church:
I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? (1 Corinthians 3:1–3)
Fleshly schisms plagued this church. They were divided into partisan loyalties and impressed by worldly wisdom and rhetoric (chapters 1–3), easily swayed by those who slandered Paul in his absence (chapter 4), tolerating shocking sexual immorality (chapter 5), suing each other in civil court (chapter 6), damaging each other’s faith over issues of Christian freedom (chapter 8), and more. Paul didn’t call them false Christians; he called them fleshly Christians — people governed more by carnal discernment and desires than by the Spirit in numerous areas.
True Christian unity can be experienced and maintained only where Christlike love governs — the kind Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13. Therefore, it’s a much-needed mercy to bring our unity-killing fleshliness into the light so we can see it and repent. And church schisms often perform that function.
2. Maturity Schisms
A second type of schism overlaps with the first, but its function is distinct enough to highlight. I call them maturity schisms.
Read More
Related Posts:

God created us as embodied beings comprised of both bodies and souls, nourishing our physical hunger through eating naturally nourishes our minds and hearts. As we engage in rich conversation, we draw closer and grow in intimacy with each other. Our souls are in turn nourished by this communion we achieve with others during the meal. Since our minds, bodies, and souls are in union with each other, when one is nourished, they are all nourished. It is in this act of dining that we can harness the true communal potential of shared meals that our Creator intended them to be.

In 2019, a disheartening survey was released on the eating habits of Americans. It found that only 48 percent of respondents eat at the dining room table, with 47 percent saying they eat on the couch or in their bedrooms instead. Tellingly, 72 percent of respondents also said that they grew up eating in the dining room. This is the latest illustration of a trend that has been happening for quite some time in America. Families and households are putting less of an emphasis on one of the most fundamental pillars of family and communal life—a shared meal.
Social science bears out the central importance that family dinner has on positive outcomes for children, including lower rates of drug abuse, teen pregnancy, depression, obesity, and eating disorders as well as higher grade-point average, self-esteem, and vocabulary. But the benefits of family meals—or any shared meal—go much deeper than what social science can prove. Dining together fills an innate need that all human beings crave: the desire for true communion and fellowship with our Creator and with one another.
The Centrality of the Meal in Scripture
Scripture tells us a great deal about just how fundamental meals are to human flourishing. Moreover, the Bible contains many examples of how the provision of food often served as a means for teaching important spiritual truths. For example, in the Old Testament, God fed the Israelites manna in the desert. Despite their disobedience (which resulted in the people having to wander in the desert for 40 years), He fed them, teaching them to depend and rely on Him for their daily sustenance (Exodus 16). Similarly, throughout the gospels, Jesus chooses a shared meal as the context not only for building relationships but for enacting His salvific plan.
His desire for forming intimate bonds over a shared meal is shown through His dinner with tax collectors and sinners at the home of Levi (Luke 5:29-32), eating at the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), dining at the home of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:25-42), and staying at the home of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Strikingly, Jesus also emphasizes communal dining with His disciples in His resurrected body. He sups with two disciples that He meets on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), with His disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 14:35-48), and again with His disciples on the shores of the Sea of Tiberius, sharing a miraculous catch of fish and bread over a charcoal fire (John 21:1-14).
Indeed, Christ’s plan of salvation is miraculously revealed multiple times in the context of a shared meal. It is at a wedding feast at Cana that Jesus performs His first miracle of turning water into wine, ushering in His public ministry (John 2:1-11). After feeding the souls of 5,000 men (besides women and children, which means the total number may have been as much as 15,000) by teaching them about the kingdom of God, He orchestrates a miraculous, spontaneous dinner for everybody when He multiplies a few loaves and fish to feed the entire throng, so much so that there are 12 wicker baskets left over after everyone has eaten their fill (Matthew 14:13-21, Luke 9:10-36). At the Last Supper, Christ reveals a fundamental aspect of His sacrificial mission through sharing bread and wine with His disciples (Luke 22:14-23).
It’s clear that Christ placed great emphasis on the importance of the meal as a conduit for revealing the depth of His love for His flock. But a natural question arises here—why did Christ do this? What is the true nature and potential of a shared meal?
“From Eating to Dining”
Judging by the survey referenced earlier, for the most part, eating has become a pretty mundane and isolated exercise for many Americans. At the same time, the popularity of cooking shows and eating out prove that even the fragmented nature of everyday life in our culture has not fully tamped down the pleasures of a good meal.
Read More

“So, the dones are leaving behind the church. But they do not necessarily leave their faith. In fact, it seems they have a strong desire to maintain their spiritual lives. The reason the Dones have dechurched themselves is not that they no longer believe in God. Rather, it is because they feel the church is no longer fostering an environment in which they can spiritually grow.”

I have a dim view of Mallory Challis’ glowing review of “Church Refugees” by Josh Packard and Ashleigh Hope. (https://baptistnews.com/article/these-christians-are-leaving-behind-the-church-but-not-their-faith/) There is a celebratory glee in reporting upon strong, faithful, and committed  Christians leaving the oppression of the church. The author reports at least four reasons justifying these heroic former members walking away in a fit of pique. These include hateful teachings about homosexuality that offend their friends or family members. Some are done with church because of a lack of support for a member’s pet projects. While others have walked away because of the time and resources dedicated to Sunday morning corporate worship that could be spent elsewhere. And finally, some have walked away because the church has too great an emphasis on doctrine, rather than on personal relationships.
The book and the article term these people as the “Done.” Many were a part of the 20 percent who did 80 percent of the work, but have become dissatisfied. That name, “Done,” is instructive. “I’m done!” connotes anger to such a degree that one is committed to cutting off any further contact or communication. Hardly a mature and faithful response to issues within the church. And yet, amazingly, the author of the review claims,
“So, the dones are leaving behind the church. But they do not necessarily leave their faith. In fact, it seems they have a strong desire to maintain their spiritual lives. The reason the Dones have dechurched themselves is not that they no longer believe in God. Rather, it is because they feel the church is no longer fostering an environment in which they can spiritually grow.”
But the church is the place for spiritual growth, as the Westminster Divines said:
25.3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
The Divines based this high view of the church on Scripture and not on feelings:

I Cor 12:27—Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.. (NASB-95).
Eph 4: 11—And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (NASB-93).

Is this to say that every one of the estimated 300,000 particularized congregation in America is a place of spiritual growth? Certainly not. The Scriptures speak of synagogues of Satan. The Scriptures speak of false teachers. The Scriptures speak of the Lord extinguishing the lampstand of faithless churches. But the Lord promises that He will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt 16:18).
We may well ask the Dones what the Lord asked Elijah in I Kings 19:13b-14: “And behold, a voice came to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 14 Then he said, “I have been very zealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars and killed Your prophets with the sword. And I alone am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.”
But Elijah was not the only believer left. Just a guess, but I doubt all 300,000 churches are false churches. A true church is one that faithfully preaches and teaches the Word of God, that rightly administers the sacraments, and that practices church discipline. Every aspect of the church involves the Word of God. We see the Word preached. We see the Word on display in the sacraments. And we see the Word in action via church discipline. It seems more likely that the Dones are consumer-oriented connoisseurs of boutique Christianity than that all churches in America are false.
The mission of the church is to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Matt 28: 19-20). And yet, if accurate, this quote, from Miss Challis, is quite disturbing:
“Outside the church, the dones often seek ways to foster spiritual growth. Small groups, Bible studies and other non-institutional activities that prioritize relationships and conversation over doctrine and business-like decisions provide spaces in which they can explore their personal relationships with God free of judgment and structure that is holding them back.”
The very offices (elders and deacons) that God has ordained to oversee, teach and care for His people are the very people accused of holding back the Dones from spiritual growth. No evidence is proffered. Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep. That is a high and noble calling.
One of scariest verse in the Bible is in Judges 21: 25, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” It seems history is repeating itself, even though we have a king. Our king, the Lord Jesus Christ, has ordained that His church be ruled administratively by elders. Our rule may be imperfectly executed, but it is the Scriptural pattern for the church.
As elders, we need to examine those imperfections. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the Word of God is preached well, that our doctrines are taught to the next generation, that the sacraments are rightly administered, and that discipline is practiced at from the local congregation to the General Assembly.
The sheep are scattering. As under shepherds, we must seek them out and call them back to the church.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church in York, Penn.
Related Posts: