Understanding congregational splits

Fred Starke and Bruno Dyck

It was 45 minutes into January 1, 2000, and thus far all was well. Essential services were still functioning, terrorist activity and nuclear disaster seemed less likely by the minute, and I was enjoying great food in the company of good friends – 2000 was shaping up to be an excellent year. Then, very casually, I happened to say to anyone listening, “You do know that it’s not really the beginning of the next millennium, don’t you?” The words slipped out of my mouth before I knew it, and the raised eyebrows of one friend in particular indicated his view that I was a few eggs short of an omelette.

He proceeded to share that, well, yes, he did believe the third millennium began at 12:00 midnight, January 1, 2000. He had heard perplexing reports that some people were trying to dampen the festive Y2K spirit with the ludicrous suggestion that the new millennium begins in 2001, but he hadn’t actually met someone in the flesh who held this bizarre point of view. That is, until now. Twenty minutes of intense discussion over timelines drawn on napkins, and spirited debate over whether or not one’s 40th year begins before or after one’s 40th birthday, did not bridge the gap between us. We agreed to disagree, and parted company with our friendship intact. I count this as a blessing, knowing that churches have split over issues less fundamental than the space-time continuum.

But I’m afraid it’s not always that painless when Christians disagree. More often than not, we sense that the stakes are much higher and therefore warrant more drastic measures. My little disagreement with my friend didn’t affect our relationship all that much; the millennial concept is a relatively minor issue. However, this is not always the case. There are times when Spirit-filled, Christ-seeking, Bible-believing Mennonite Brethren have honest disagreements about a variety of important issues that relate to our common life of faith. Unfortunately, the exchange that occurs between people with conflicting points of view often produces more heat than light – and we’re all the poorer for it.

I’m not for one minute suggesting we shy away from expressing conflicting views simply to maintain a kind of silent peace. If I could do this past New Year’s Eve all over again, I would still try to convince my friend about the correct starting date for the upcoming millennium. In my view, we ought to encourage more debate and discussion, not less, so that people who’ve got it wrong on a certain issue can get it right, including me. What I am suggesting are a few principles to help us in our mutual pursuit of faithfulness to Christ. I think adhering to the following four guidelines will help us keep each other accountable as we seek to be faithful, though sometimes disagreeing, disciples of our Lord.

Don’t ignore conflict due to fear. This is known as the “coward complex”. Sufferers from this complex feel an intense horror at the thought of challenging a view they perceive to be false because it would mean daring to defend a view they perceive to be true. Unfortunately, for those with the coward complex, what begins with a yellowish hue around the gills usually turns to a stabbing in the back as those afflicted with this complex discover it is much less threatening to bash the other’s view when they’re not around. The cure for this vicious disorder is a healthy dose of courage. Don’t ignore conflict due to intellectual dishonesty. This is a more serious version of the coward complex mentioned above. Sufferers from this malady avoid argument and debate due to a sneaking suspicion that their arguments may not withstand the scrutiny of others. Instead, these individuals prefer engaging imaginary opponents of straw rather than live, breathing defenders of a conflicting view. The cure for this is a healthy dose of courage laced with integrity. Make sure you understand what you believe and why before presenting your view. Verbal diarrhea is never a pleasant experience, least of all for those in the immediate vicinity of the one spouting off. I know that many times I’ve showered wave upon wave of verbal waste on undeserving opponents simply because I wasn’t clear on my own position. Repeated injections of silence and reflection should stem the flow. Make sure you understand what your opponent believes and why before passing judgement. Though often mistaken for A.D.H.D. (Actively Defending Honest Devotion), this disorder is best described as a form of hearing impairment. In this case, zeal for one’s view reduces the ability to hear what the other person is actually saying. Extended listening will cure this ailment almost every time.

These are just a few tips to help strengthen the quality of our disagreeing. Obviously, more things could be said, such as:

When using the Bible to support your view, handle the text with the humility, diligence and respect God’s Word deserves. Bless, don’t curse. Pray for sensitivity to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Seek God’s glory, not personal glory. Don’t be a smart aleck.

Nonetheless, I think the four principles outlined above can help us replace fear and fuzziness with courage and clarity. Fear prevents one from entering into a potentially productive debate. Fuzziness prevents the communication necessary for productive debate. Courage and clarity, on the other hand, can help stimulate productive debate no matter what millennium you’re in.

Myron Penner is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C., and a graduate student at Regent College in Vancouver.

Last modified May 31, 2005.

© 2005 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.