Protestant, Robert Morey on "Schism"
Here's a few excerpts from an article written by Dr. Robert Morey (Christian-radio listeners know him as "Dr. Bob"); to read the full article go here.
THE SIN OF SCHISM: A SOLEMN WARNING TO THE CHURCHThe first thing that ought to strike the reader is that Morey's choice of Scriptures is rather interesting (I think there is a lot of truth in what he says above); however, the reader ought to also be puzzled (at least a little bit) by the fact that Dr. Bob is a Reformed Protestant who proudly follows in the footsteps of Calvin and Luther, two of the most noteworthy schismatics in the past half century!by Dr. Bob Morey
Now I beg of you, my brothers, mark those who are actively causing schisms and occasions of stumbling contrary to the teaching you learned. Have nothing to do with them because they are not serving our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own agenda. By slick words and plausible speeches they are able to deceive the hearts of innocent people. (Rom. 16:17-18)
1. The peace and unity of the Church is a divine mandate of the highest priority: Psa. 133:1-3; Mat. 5:9; Rom. 12:18-21; 1 Cor. 7:15; 14:33; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4:1-6; 1 Thess. 5:12-15; Heb. 13:1; James 3:13-18; 1 Pet. 3:8-12
Note: Where is the divine mandate to destroy the peace and unity of the Church? To turn the happiness of the saints into sadness; their joy to weeping; their blessings to cursings; their love to hate; their contentment to anger? There is not a single verse in the Bible where God tells you to tear the church to pieces.
2. The sin of “schism” is such a heinous sin because it is committed against the Church, the Bride of Christ, and is thus considered more wicked than those personal offenses that occur between individuals or families. Christians may sin against each other in many different ways. But if someone splits a church by persuading members to join him in leaving that church, he is now guilty of the heinous sin of schism.
3. The sin of schism has always been condemned throughout biblical history and punished severely by God. In Num. 16 those involved in schism died when the ground opened up and swallowed them alive! Throughout biblical history and Church history God sent fire and plagues upon those who sought to disrupt the peace and unity of the people of God.
It seems Morey defines "schism" in a much different way than an Orthodox Christian would. For Morey, a "schismatic" is anyone who denies his (Morey's) faith. For example, a man interested in reading more about Easter Orthodoxy called into Dr. Bob's radio show. Dr. Bob proceeded to warn the caller that if the caller so choosed to become Easter Orthodox the caller would thence be an apostate. It seems Morey believes he has the prerogative to anathematize people, while the Orthodox Church, according to Morey, doesn't. All very interesting. It reminds me of a taped lecture I have in my possession where John Gershner says that if someone truly understands dispensationalism and still holds to dispensationalism, that person has ceased to be Christian.
What Orthodox find so sad about these types of cases is that you basically have schismatics (once removed) condemning other schismatics because the other schismatics don't hold to the same particular theology that the accusers hold to.
The Orthodox Church allows for Morey and Gershner to be Christain, even as schismatics. I think Morey and Gershner ought to exercise some humility and consider showing other Christian groups some similar generosity...especially when the claims made by Morey and Gershner are "Christianity according to Morey, according to Gershner, according to Seuss, according to _________." Who is your Christianity according to?
Posted by at February 4, 2003 08:12 PMGreat points!
As I pointed out to a friend the other day, it is not "schismatic" to leave one's Protestant church for Orthodoxy...in fact it is the opposite of that: it is repentance and restoration! Sometimes the schism are based on actual truth and not just political maneuvers and the whims of human fancy. And when one finds oneself on the wrong side of a schism the very best thing to do is to return to Orthodoxy, not "put down roots" and not rock the boat.
Posted by: Karl Thienes at February 5, 2003 08:04 AMDennis Prager often talks about intellectual "borrowing" and the importance of crediting a source. Look into it.
Love, Your loving wife.
Sweetie, I'm sorry about that! I had in my original opening paragraph included the information that you sent me the article...when I revised I evidently forgot to replace that. I am sorry babe. I owe all knowledge of this article to YOU. Thank you.
Posted by: jer at February 5, 2003 11:03 AMYou drop this right into what I would like to call a "postmoderist purgatory." From what would be called an Orthodox view, it is indeed the Protestant who has created the schism. Thus, all protestants are "schismatics" as you suggest.
The problem is, many (most?) Protestants would claim that they are not the schismatics. Being unaware of Dr. Bob's denominational polity (I avoid Christian radio usually and Christian TV definitively,) I can cast this into my own tradition thusly:
"Martin Luther did not cause schism. Since the Roman Catholic church excommunicated Luther, it was the Roman Catholic church which created the schism. It separated itself from Luther because Luther was preserving the One True Christian Church. So Lutheranism is hence the only true orthodox faith. And nothing you might write can convince me by logic nor spirit otherwise. Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah...."
Do I believe the above? Not really, and I hope that the last two "sentences" shows the parabolic rhetoric I'm aiming at. Yet it is true that when it comes to right acceptance or right thinking, we usually accept wherever we came from as the correct starting point, and thus anyone who disagrees is the "schismatic." So you have Protestants who protest people breaking away from the protesting view, but the breakaways thus become the creator of schism.
To try and make this shorter while writing more (ugh!) Agreement upon who "causes" or "creates" a divide assumes that both speaker and hearer share the same objective framework. Indeed, to assume that a schism even exists presupposes an objective ability to know at what point the fabric was whole and pristine. Yet from a subjective position those who are across that divide appear to be the causation, since we didn't rend the fabric ourselves, right? SO... to folks like Dr. Bob, subjectively believing they are preaching the singular authentic Christianity, so it would have to be, "Christianity according to the Orthodox" also, no?
For my own sake, Lutheranism can also acknowledge Christianity outside of itself (e.g. I'm a Lutheran Christian. Surely I won't condemn Orthodox Christians for not being such. Yet there are groups which fall outside of my understanding of being "Christian" that would also like to lay claim to the title. )
Sometimes it itches a little for Orthodox Christians to lay claim to, "orthodox," which by defintion seems to imply all who are not Orthodox Christians must be heterodox. If that's confusing, study the "O'Kelly" Christian church in the roots of the United Church of Christ; O'Kelly and adherents simply called themselves Christian, rankling many who were thus excluded...
It's too much to write more at 1AM here. Thanks for a unique blog site (which I found via looking up Theosis references...)
The Laughing Vulcan
Posted by: Darren E. at February 6, 2003 12:04 AMDarren, Thank you for writing; I’m glad you found my website. Allow me to respond to some of your points.
You write:
~~~Agreement upon who "causes" or "creates" a divide assumes that both speaker and hearer share the same objective framework.~~~You raise this point toward the latter half of your comment post, but I think it is actually at the crux of our discussion. Needless to say we both come to the table with quite different “frameworks.” I will attempt to demonstrate that not all frameworks are created equal, and, more to the point, the Lutheran framework is a novelty to Christianity, for there remained at Luther’s time The Framework preserved in the East, even while it was perverted in the West.
You write:
~~~"Martin Luther did not cause schism. Since the Roman Catholic church excommunicated Luther, it was the Roman Catholic church which created the schism.~~~Your point here is simply not supported by history. There was a four-year span of time between the 95 Thesis (1517) and Luther’s excommunication in 1521. During those four years, especially after Luther’s ideas began to grow in popularity, which allowed his ambition to proceed with less and less restraint, Luther refused, on more than one occasion, to settle for compromises, i.e., what would be seen as an attempt to reform from within. Instead, Luther’s “reforms” became more and more pronounced to the point that by 1519 Luther publicly stated that some of his teachings were simply incongruous with Roman Catholic Doctrine. Moreover, by 1520 Luther explicitly denied papal authority and, more importantly, Luther denied the RCC view of the seven sacraments (he eventually “reformed” the seven down to two). Hence, in this all too brief synopsis, you should be able to see that well before 1521 Luther had effectually and publicly broke with Rome. If the point was not clear enough, when the RCC sent Luther the Papal Bull (an act forewarning excommunication) Luther publicly burned the Papal Bull along with the canon law that accompanied it (1521). If these are the actions of a man seeking to reform the church from within, then you win. But I think we can both be honest with one another and admit that Luther was the cause (albeit the well intentioned cause) of the most consequential schism in all of history.
You continue:
~~~It separated itself from Luther because Luther was preserving the One True Christian Church. So Lutheranism is hence the only true orthodox faith.~~~I know some of what you write here is in jest, but Let me comment anyway. Unlike Martin Luther, the Eastern Orthodox Church did not have to “re-discover” the true orthodox faith some 1,500 years after the Church’s inception. Instead, the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved, day in and day out, that one Christian faith since its inception! Put another way, the EOC has maintained the true Christian framework for 2,000 years.
As you may know, the Lutheran framework, just 500 years old, differs in many ways from the framework of the EOC. It seems to me that if the EO ecclesiastical claim is true, then you must concede that Lutherans today practice a framework at variance with the unbroken framework of the Christian Orthodox (not merely by novelty, but by true divergence). Moreover, even if you want to deny the EO ecclesiastical claims, you must nonetheless deal with history. And history will lead you back, not just to the Protestant Reformation in the West, but further back, and eastward. There you will find the Church of the Apostles intact, holding fast to the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints! Perhaps more amazing still, is that once you have thus inquired back into history, you could then merely inquire down the street. And what would this search down the street reveal? Looking down the street would reveal the Orthodox church today-- you would see that same intact church of old doing what it has always done: holding fast to The Faith.
God be with you, and may God have mercy on us all.
Posted by: jeremy at February 6, 2003 08:28 PMThere is a general assumption that a church pushes someone out during the rite of Excommunication. I think this is not the case.
Rather a church makes public what has already happened: a given person has left and expressed no desire to come back. Whatever the denomination of the "home church" the departure of her children is sad. But at some point (unless one is an Anglican) one can move so far out of orbit as to be free.
To undo an excommunicaiton, all one needs to do is Metanoia - turn around 180 degress and come back.
Posted by: Huw Raphael at February 7, 2003 10:38 AMWhy the favorable sideways reference to dispensationalism, a schismatic view (if ever there was one) developed by Plymouth Bretheren in a hyper-schismatic move in the, what was it 1800s?
The comparison seems strange, for an Orthodox.
Posted by: Daniel Silliman at February 18, 2003 10:50 PMDaniel,
I don't think the reference to dispensationalism was really "favorable", but just demonstrating how dogmatic people can be in their beliefs. What Jeremy is pointing out is that Robert Morey and John Gershner do not have the authority to anathemetize people. In the case of John Gershner, there is a tape of him saying that dispensationalists are not Christian.. By what authority can he say that?
Virtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors.
Posted by: Rhodes Mark at January 9, 2004 05:45 PMI know I'm 3 years late with this comment, but I wanted this group to know that I was once a near-to-joining parishioner of Dr. Robert Morey, when he was pastor of New Life Bible Church in New Bloomfield, PA, around 1990. [New Life is now in Duncannon and Dr. Morey is now in Irvine, Calif. running "Faith Defenders".]
Morey himself created a schism in his own church that caused it to split; I was among those who left. There was a trend among Reformed Baptist pastors at that time, toward 'lording it over' their flocks excessively, "micro-managing their lives. The problem was so pervasive that John Reisinger's Christian newspaper, "Sovereign Grace", ran a series of articles on this cancer among the Reformed Baptists. Morey is a sweet and highly intelligent man, but also very arrogant, sensationalistic (he suggests nuking Mecca and Medina as cures for Islamic terrorism), and caustic. It is ironic that he would pontificate on the evils of causing a schism in the Church.
Posted by: John at September 4, 2006 07:12 PM