In a recent article Jake Meador wrings his hands anxiously because he believes that ‘evangelicalism’ is a “controversy generator machine,” and he believes that this is the source of needless strife that admits of no clear resolution. By contrast, he sees in the institutional church a suitable alternative that has prescribed processes for resolving controversy. I confess, such an opinion makes me want to lay my head in my hands and weep. Meador and I are both members and frequent observers of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal controversies, and for him to make such claims is extraordinary indeed.

Where there is the church there will be controversy. The people of Israel were divided over Christ (Jn. 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). After his resurrection the first sermon bearing witness to him arose because many of the Jews mocked the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:13), and soon thereafter the apostles so irritated the authorities that they were threatened and commanded to no more preach Christ’s gospel (4:1-21). When Paul and Barnabas visited Thessalonica, the Jews and pagans drew some believers before the magistrates with the bitter accusation that “these men who have turned the world upside down” were “acting against the decrees of Caesar” (17:5-9).

And as Christ and his people caused controversy in Israel and the Roman Empire, so also was there much internal controversy from an early date. From the first extension of the gospel to the gentiles there was controversy over their inclusion (11:2-3; 15:1-21), and there were subsequent internal conflicts which gave occasion for writing much of the New Testament. False teaching of various stripes (1 Cor. 15:12; Col. 2:8, 16-23; 2 Tim. 2:16-19; 1 Jn. 2:13-14, 18-26) and other internal disagreements appeared (2 Cor. 11:4-5, 13-15; Phil. 4:2; 3 Jn. 9), and Christ himself controverted the practices of some churches (Rev. 2:4-6, 14-16, 20-23; 3:2-4; 15-16). Shifting one’s survey to later church history shows that controversy was a recurrent theme. Heresy after heresy arose, and there were major schisms even where heresy does not seem to have prevailed (e.g. the Donatist split).

None of this should be surprising. Christ said:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matt. 10:34).

And Paul said “there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized” (1 Cor. 11:19). Indeed, so common was controversy that he regarded it as an essential trait of elders that they know how to avoid it where it was unprofitable (1 Tim. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:16; Tit. 3:9), and how to handle it where it was appropriate (2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 1:9).

In this we touch a matter of the utmost importance. Granting that controversy is inevitable, God has given us instructions on how to handle it. If someone controverts sound doctrine or stirs up division and will not repent when rebuked, he is to be avoided:

“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” (Rom. 16:27)

“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him” (Tit. 3:9)

“Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6)

“If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess. 3:14)

Indeed, scripture provides for much stricter discipline than we are inclined to imagine. 2 John 10 says that we are not even to greet false teachers. 1 Cor. 5:11 says to not even eat with anyone who professes faith and is guilty of certain severe moral faults. And Christ says that those who refuse to repent private offenses are to be regarded as outside the church (Matt. 18:15-17). These things being so, how much more worthy of avoidance are those that stubbornly promote false doctrine or commit scandal before the whole world!

And yet there are some in our day who seem to be discontent with such straightforward instructions, or who are perplexed that controversy is so common in our midst and receives the response mentioned above. In a recent article Jake Meador wrings his hands anxiously because he believes that ‘evangelicalism’ is a “controversy generator machine,” and he believes that this is the source of needless strife that admits of no clear resolution. By contrast, he sees in the institutional church a suitable alternative that has prescribed processes for resolving controversy. I confess, such an opinion makes me want to lay my head in my hands and weep. Meador and I are both members and frequent observers of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)’s internal controversies, and for him to make such claims is extraordinary indeed.

One, the church is not merely an institution represented in those formal ecclesiastical bodies that Meador vaunts, but is also the communion of saints, comprising “all those throughout the world that profess the true religion,” as the PCA’s official confession of faith puts it (Westminster Confession 25.2).

Read More