When Is Separation Faithful?

A church breaks, a movement claims necessity, and suddenly the question is not just about Rome or canon law. It is about you. When is separation faithful, and when does it become sin? We start with the SSPX conflict and the consecration of bishops without papal approval, then push past the headlines to the harder issue underneath: who gets to declare that “extraordinary circumstances” exist, and what happens when conscience collides with authority?

We anchor the conversation in Scripture before we run to our favorite tradition or hero. The Bible holds two truths together that Christians love to tear apart: God passionately desires the unity of his people, and God never asks us to purchase unity at the expense of truth. From Babel to the prophets, from Jesus’ prayer for oneness to his warning that truth can divide, we trace a pattern that values correction and restoration first, with separation only when obedience leaves no other path.

Then we let church history do what it always does: humble us. We talk about the Great Schism, Martin Luther’s reform efforts and excommunication, and John Wesley’s reluctant “extraordinary action” during the sacramental crisis after the American Revolution. Along the way, we connect these lessons to modern denominational fractures, including the Global Methodist Church, and name two dangers that distort discernment: institutional idolatry and individual self-rule.

If you are wrestling with whether to stay, speak, submit, resist, or leave, this is a careful, pastoral guide to slowing down, searching the Scriptures, examining your heart, and remembering where your deepest allegiance belongs. Subscribe, share this with a friend navigating church conflict, and leave a review with your take: what should Christians do when unity and truth seem to pull in opposite directions?

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:10

Hello

The Question Beneath The Headlines

SPEAKER_00 0:11

and welcome back to Uncomfortable Grace, or Truth and Mercy alive. Today I want to slow down. Not because the topic isn't important, but because I think it's too important to write truth. The Society of Saint Pius X, the SSPX, has once again found itself in conflict with Rome. Despite direct pleas from Pope Leo, the Society proceeded to consecrate bishops without papal approval. Now if you're Protestant, if you you've probably seen the headline and immediately moved on. You have thought, well, that's Catholic business. But I want to suggest today that it isn't just Catholic business. It is the business of every Christian. It is a question, a Christian question, it is a church question, it is your question, it's my question. Because underneath all of the headlines, all of the debates over bishops, underneath all of the discussions of canon law, there is one haunting question that every generation of Christians eventually has to answer. When is separation faithful? And when does separation become sin? That question has echoed throughout the history of God's people. It echoed in Israel, it echoed in the early church, it echoed during the Protestant Reformation, it echoed during the birth of Methodism, it echoed in the formation of Global Methodist Church and the ACNA, and today it echoes once again. Now before some of you decide that I'm taking sides today, I'm not. My purpose isn't to tell Roman Catholics what to think about the SSPX. My purpose is to ask a question that every believer should wrestle with. How do we know when remaining is faithfulness? And when when is leaving faithfulness? When does that become faithfulness? Because if we're honest, every one of us wants the answer to be easy. We want a checklist, we want God to hand us ten simple rules. If this happens, leave, if this happens, stays, or if that happens, fight, or if this happens, submit. But history refuses to give us those categories. History is messy. Church history is messy. The people we now celebrate as heroes were often called rebels in their own day. The people who believed they were preserving the church sometimes ended up dividing her, and others were accused of divisive behavior that ended up being the ones preserving the gospel itself. History has a way of humbling every generation. One of the most dangerous assumptions I think we make as believers is that we believe if we lived during the Reformation, we automatically would have stood with Luther, or that if we lived in the first century, we we certainly would have followed Jesus. And if we lived during Wesley's day, dude, we surely would have recognized what God was doing. And to that, I simply say, maybe, maybe not. The truth is every generation believes they're the faithful generation. Every movement believes they're the faithful movement. That's why today's conversation it requires humility. Because the question isn't, friends, am I convinced? The question is Am I submitted out to Christ? There is a difference. So let's begin with the headlines.

SSPX And The Rome Standoff

SPEAKER_00 5:01

Who exactly is the Society of Saint Pius X? Most Protestants have never heard of them. The SSPX was founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebre believed that many of the reforms following the Second Vatican Council represented dangerous departures from historic Roman Catholic teaching and practices. Now, I will be fair. Supporters of Vatican II would strongly disagree with that assessment, obviously. They would argue that the council faithfully applied timeless truth to a changing world without abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints. The SSPX, we know, saw things differently. They believed something precious was being lost. Not merely traditions, not merely language or or or anything like that. It was theological clarity. They objected to changes in the mass. They objected to certain ecumenical statements, they objected to teachings regarding religious liberty, and again, whether they were right or wrong is not the point of today's episode. The point is this they became convinced that the church they loved was drifting. Have we heard that story before? Eventually the conflict reached its climax in 1988. Archbishop Lefrebray consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II. That act changed everything. Under Roman Catholic canon law, bishops are not simply free to consecrate other bishops whenever they believe it's necessary. The Pope alone possesses that authority to grant that permission. Rome viewed Lefibere's action as a grave act of disobedience. The Vatican declared the consecrations illicit. Excommunications followed. To this day, Roman Catholics continue to debate the historical significance of those events. Some see Le Fibere as a courageous defender of traditions, others see him as a tragic figure whose actions unnecessarily fractured communion. Fast forward nearly forty years, the society's bishops are elderly. They have two. One has passed on, one is no longer a part of the group anymore. So they have two and they're in their sixties. The society believes that if they are going to continue ordaining priest and administering confirmations, they need more bishops. Poblio refused permission. Not because he denied they needed bishops forever, but because he argued that there was no extraordinary emergency that justified acting apart from the norm, acting apart from church established order. The SSPX, as you could guess, disagreed. They argued the crisis in the church, it is itself the emergency. Therefore, waiting would be irresponsible. So despite repeated warnings from Rome, they consecrated bishops anyways. Immediately, headlines exploded across the Christian world. Some held them as defenders of tradition, others condemned them as schismatics. Most Protestants simply shrugged. But I think we're asking the wrong question. Track with me. Cause here it is, guys. The interesting question isn't who's right. The interesting question is, how does a Christian determine when extraordinary circumstances actually exist? Who gets to decide that? Your conscience? Your institution? Church history? Scripture, tradition? This is where things become uncomfortable. Because suddenly, listen, this isn't about Rome anymore. This is about us. You see, we often imagine division as something that only happens when people stop loving Jesus. But the Bible paints a much more complicated picture. Sometimes division happens because people reject truth. Sometimes it happens because people defend truth poorly. Sometimes division happens because of pride. Sometimes it happens because of courage. The scriptures are remarkably honest about this. So before we talk about Luther or Wesley or the Global Methodist Church or the SSPX, we need to ask a much older question. What does the Bible actually teach us about division? And that's where we'll begin next.

Who Decides An Emergency Exists

SPEAKER_00 10:32

Now, before we jump into church history and things such as this, I think we need to do something that we often fail to do. We need to stop start with scripture. Let scripture set the agenda. One of the great temptations when discerning division in the church is to begin with our denomination or our tradition or our favorite historical figure. I think sometimes we instinctively ask, what did Luther do? What did Wesley do? Or what does my denomination teach? But Christians don't begin with Luther. We don't begin with Wesley. We don't begin with Rome. We begin with God. Because the question isn't whether history agrees with us, the question is whether Christ does. So what does the Bible actually say about division?

Scripture On Unity Without Compromise

SPEAKER_00 11:27

The answer, it may surprise you because the Bible never treats division as something that is inherently good, nor does it teach that unity always is the highest good. Instead, Scripture holds, I think, two things together that we often pull apart. And I think the first thing is that God passionately desires the unity of his people. I think that goes without being said. The second is God never asks his people to purchase unity at the expense of truth. Now listen, those two things must remain together. The moment you sacrifice one for the other, you drift away from the heart of God. The first division in the Bible, friends, isn't denominational, it's relational. Cain murders Abel. Sin separates brother from brother. Not long after, humanity gathers together at Babel. Ironically, they are united, but united in rebellion. Think about that. They had unity, they spoke one language, they worked toward one purpose, they had remarkable cooperation, and yet God judged it. Why? Simply put, because unity by itself is not holiness. People can unite around rebellion just as easily as they can unite around righteousness. That's an important lesson for the church today. Sometimes we speak as though unity is automatically a sign of good God's blessing. It isn't. A church can be perfectly united in false teaching. A denomination can be completely unified while drifting from biblical truth. The Tower of Babel reminds us that unity divorced from obedience is not a virtue. Then consider Abraham and Lot. Eventually they separate, not because they hate one another, but because the situation required it. The separation, it was peaceful, sorrowful, and practical. Not every separation in Scripture is born from hostility. Later, the kingdom of Israel itself is divided. The division is not celebrated, it is a judgment on the people's sin. The prophets spent centuries calling God's people back, not merely to institutional unity, but to covenant faithfulness. That distinction, it matters. God wasn't calling Israel back simply so the nation uh would look unified. He was calling them back to himself. Now let's think about Elijah. He stood on Mount Carmel believing he was the only faithful prophet of the Lord. The text says that he said, I alone am a prophet of the Lord. He confronted the religious establishment. He challenged the king, he challenged false worship, he stood almost alone. But notice something Elijah didn't seek isolation. Guys, I don't think Elijah woke up one morning and decided, man, I really like to stand against everyone. Faithfulness put him there. Jeremiah is another example. He loved Judah. He wept for Jerusalem. He wasn't looking for controversy. He longed for repentance. There is a lesson here for us, friends. Faithful people don't usually enjoy conflict. They endure it because obedience sometimes demands it. That is that's very different from um people whom who seem to enjoy fighting. One of the signs of spiritual maturity is that you don't delight in division, even when you believe it has become necessary. So now we come to Jesus.

When The Gospel Itself Divides

SPEAKER_00 15:57

And here we encounter something that we often forget. I think it surprises people. Jesus prayed for unity. In John 17, he prayed that they may all be one. That prayer should echo in the ears of every Christian. Unity matters deeply to our Lord, but Jesus also said something else. In Matthew 10, he declared this Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. What on earth could he have meant by that? Well, friends, Jesus is not promoting violence. He's teaching that truth divides. The gospel itself creates a crisis. Some believe, others reject. Sometimes that division happens even within families. Christ did not come seeking unnecessary conflict, but he knew that allegiance to him would inevitably expose the human heart. That means Christians should never pursue division for its own sake. Yet we also should not be surprised when faithfulness creates division. Those are very different things. Now, perhaps one of my favorite examples, it comes to us from Galatians chapter 2. Peter, fearing certain Jewish believers, withdrew from eating with Gentile Christians. Paul publicly confronted him. Can you imagine that scene for a second? Two apostles, both loved Jesus, both filled with the Holy Spirit, by the way, both preaching the gospel, and yet one had to rebuke the other publicly. Well, why? Well, because the truth of the gospel was at stake. Notice what Paul did not say. He didn't say, well, unity is more important than confronting error. Neither did he immediately abandon Peter, by the way. Instead, he confronted him with the goal of restoration. That is a profoundly biblical pattern, correction first, restoration if possible, separation only if necessary. And friends, how often do we reverse that? We separate before we speak, we leave before we pray, we assume motives before we ask questions. The church has become far too quick to divide and far too slow to reconcile. Now, as you continue reading the New Testament, though, I think something becomes pretty obvious. The apostles constantly fight for unity. Paul pleads with the Corinth uh Corinthian to stop dividing around personalities. I follow Paul, is what some would say, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas. Does that sound familiar? We still divide over personalities today. We divide over celebrity pastors, we divide over movements, we divide over preferences. Paul reminds them in Corinthians that Christ is not divided. Yet in the same letter, Paul repe he repeatedly commands the church to reject false teaching. Fight for unity, guard the truth. Both. Always both. Never one without the other. See, this is where I think every generation gets in trouble. Some generations become so afraid of division that they refuse to confront error. Everything becomes let's let's get along. Doctrine becomes negotiable, holiness becomes optional, truth becomes secondary, but other generations make the opposite mistake. They become so eager to defend truth that they they begin dividing over everything. Every different disagreement becomes a reason to split, every preference becomes a test of orthodoxy, every secondary issue becomes a heel to die on. And I gotta say, friends, neither posture reflects the heart of Christ. Unity without truth becomes compromise, truth without love becomes cruelty. The Christian life is lived in the same uh in that same tension, in in between those two realities, and that tension, it's bloody uncomfortable. Perhaps that's why this podcast exists. So before we even get to Luther, before we get to Wesley or the Global Methodist Church or the SSPX, we we need to ask ourselves a deeply personal question. Am I the kind of Christian who fights to preserve unity? Or am I looking for reasons to separate? And on the other hand, am I so committed to institutional peace that I would ignore clear biblical teaching or truth just to avoid conflict? Those questions are not theoretical. They're questions every pastor, every deacon, every elder, every bishop, every church member, and every denomination should ask. Because history shows us something sobering. Sometimes the greatest threat to the church comes from those who refuse reform. Sometimes it comes from those who abandon unity too quickly. Now, wisdom, wisdom is learning to discern the difference.

Church History And Humble Lessons

SPEAKER_00 22:38

Now, with biblical foundation laid, we can turn to history now. Because the church has wrestled with these questions for 2,000 years. Some divisions preserved the gospel, some divisions fractured the witness of Christ's church, some are still debated today. So let's walk through church history, not to find heroes who always got it right, but to learn from brothers and sisters who wrestled with the same difficult questions we face today. And perhaps nowhere is more fascinating than in the lives of Martin Luther, John Wesley, and other modern movements that continue to wrestle with the cost of conscience. Now that we've let scripture establish the framework, though, let's turn to church history. And before I begin, let me say something that I think every student of church history eventually learns. Church history is wonderfully encouraging and incredibly humbling. The longer I study it, the less interested I become in simplistic answers. When I was younger, and I think this is probably everyone, I wanted heroes and villains. I wanted the good guys wearing the white hats and the bad guys wearing the black hats, but history rarely works that way. History is full of faithful men who made mistakes. It's full of deeply flawed people whom God still used mightily. It's full of institutions that began in revival and drifted over time. It's full of reformers who loved the church enough to confront her. And it's also full of people can who convinced themselves they were reformers when they were simply rebellious. That should humble every one of us. That should humble every one of us. Because if we're honest, every generation assumes if we had lived during the Reformation, uh we would have stood with Luther. Or if we lived during the apostles' days, we would have stood with Paul. Or if we had lived during Wesley's ministry, certainly, certainly, we would have recognized God doing great things. And I still think maybe, but maybe not. Remember, remember many of the people who opposed Luther believed they were defending the church. Many people who opposed Wesley believed they were protecting order. History often looks much clearer in the rear view mirror than it does through the windshield. And that's why we must approach these conversations with humility. So long before the Protestant Reformation, the visible church experienced one of its greatest fractures. In 1054, what we now call the Great Schism formerly divided Eastern and Western Christianity. The Eastern churches and the Western Church had been drifting apart for centuries. Language, culture, politics, theology, questions about the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Eventually, communion was broken. Now, here's something I want everyone to know and notice about history, though. Neither side woke up one morning hoping to divide the church. Both believe they were preserving the true faith. And that's sobering because sincere people can disagree deeply, and sincerity alone is never proof that I'm right or that you're right. But let's turn now. We come to Martin Luther. Luther did not begin by trying to start a new denomination. I want to nip that in the butt. That's a myth. He wasn't trying to invent Lutheranism. He wanted reform. He wanted listen, when he posted the 95 thesis, he was inviting debate. He wanted the church to return to biblical teaching concerning repentance, grace, indulgences, and the authority of scripture. He hoped Rome would listen. He hoped reform would come. Instead, conflict escalated. Eventually, Luther was excommunicated. But the movement continued. The Protestant Reformation was born. Now here's the question. Did Luther divide the church? Or did the church divide itself by refusing reform? That's not an easy question. Historians still debate it, but it's exactly the kind of question we're wrestling with today. Sometimes separation happens because reform is rejected. Sometimes separation happens because patience runs out. Sometimes both things are true. Now I want to come to a man who has shaped my own theological tradition more than anyone else besides the apostles. John Wesley. Here's something many Methodists forget. Wesley never intended to leave the Church of England. Never, never. He loved the Anglican church. He defended her. He served her. He remained an Anglican priest until his last breath. He wasn't trying to build a rival church. He wanted revival. He wanted people to know Jesus Christ. He wanted holiness to spread throughout the land. He preached in fields because churches closed their pulpits to him. He organized societies. He formed class meetings and band meetings. He encouraged accountability. But through it all, his desire was renewal, not rupture. I think that's incredibly important because it reveals Wesley's heart. His first instinct wasn't separation, it was reform. It was patience. It was prayer. It was faithfulness in ministry. And then something happened. We all know it as the American Revolution.

Wesley And Extraordinary Circumstances

SPEAKER_00 29:44

When the colonies became independent, many Anglican clergy returned to England. Suddenly, thousands of believers in America had little to no access to ordained ministers who would administer the sacraments. Communities were starving spiritually, and Wesley knew. People needed baptism, people needed holy communion. The church's ordinary structure had broken down. Wesley found himself asking a question. Can extraordinary circumstance justify extraordinary action? Eventually he concluded that they could. He ordained Thomas Coke for ministry in America, even though many believed he lacked the ecclesiastical authority to do so. That decision remains controversial in some Anglican circles to this day. But notice Wesley's reasoning. He believed necessity required action. Does that sound familiar? That's remarkably similar. Not identical, but similar to the argument that the SSPX makes today. The SSPX says there is a crisis, Pope. And Wesley said in his day, there is a crisis. The critical question though becomes Was there really a crisis? And who gets to decide that? Those are difficult, difficult, bloody difficult questions. Now let me speak personally. Many of you listening know that I serve a Global Methodist Church. Some of you remained in the United Methodist tradition, some of you didn't, some of you belong to entirely different traditions, and I understand that sometimes the emotions are still a little raw, families are still divided, were divided, friendships were strained, churches wrestled for years. This wasn't simply about budgets, it wasn't simply about property, although the church that I was at as a young adult pastor uh it was, but for for many faithful believers, it was about scripture, about authority, about holiness, about the gospel. And here's what I want to say. I don't rejoice over the division. I grieve it. I wish things had gone differently. I wish the church had found a way to remain together while remaining faithful to the historic Christian faith. I truly do. Because division always leaves scars. It always leaves scars. I have friends who stayed, I have friends who left, I have friends on both sides whom I deeply love. This wasn't a football game where one team won and another lost. It was a family that fractured. And listen, families don't celebrate fractures, they mourn them. I think that's a posture we've largely lost in modern Christianity. We announce new denominations as though we're launching a product. We celebrate separation before we we've ever mourned them. I don't think that's the heart of Christ. If we ever leave, it ought to be with tears, not triumph. Now, I do think there is an important distinction between movements like the Global Methodist Church or the uh Anglican Church of North America and the SSPS. Uh the Global Methodist Church, friends, did not claim to remain under the authority of the United Methodist Church after separating, nor did the Anglican Church in North America uh say that they were staying under the Episcopal Church. They formed new ecclesial bodies with their own recognized governance. The SSPX is much different. The society continues to recognize the office of the Pope, it continues to profess the loyalty to the See of Peter, and yet it argues that extraordinary circumstances permit actions that ordinarily would require papal approval. And that creates a unique tension within the Roman Catholic theology. Whether you agree with Rome or you or with the SSPX, you have to admit the situation is much more complicated than many headlines suggest. This simply isn't a disagreement over personalities, it's a disagreement over authority. Who ultimately determines when extraordinary measures become necessary? And that's the real issue,

Institutional Idolatry Versus Self Rule

SPEAKER_00 34:54

friends. Now, here's where I want to press on all of us, though, because this conversation is no longer about Rome or Luther, Wesley, the GMC. It's about our hearts, our own hearts. One of the greatest temptations in the church is institutional idolatry. We began believing our denomination can never drift, our tradition can never err, our leaders can never become mistaken, history history destroys that illusion. Every major tradition has needed reform. Every single one of them. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, none of us are immune. But here's the danger on the other side. The answer to institutional idultery is not individual idoltery. Sometimes we begin trusting ourselves more than we trust the wisdom of the historic church. Every disagreement becomes a reason to leave. Every conflict becomes proof that we're the faithful remnant. That is just as damaging. It's just as dangerous. There is pride in refusing reform. There is pride also in refusing to submit. Wisdom is learning the difference, and that is far harder than social media would have us believe. So after everything that we've talked about, the Bible, church history, the reformers, John Wesley, the Global Methodist Church, the SSPX, where does that leave us? What should ordinary Christians actually do when they find themselves wrestling with these questions? Because eventually every believer has uh they has to they they have to decide where conscious, truth, unity, and obedience meet. And that's where I want to spend the final portion of this episode. Not merely talking about history, but talking about our hearts before Christ. We looked at scripture and church history and the SSPX and Luther and Wesley, the Global Methodist Church, but eventually history stops being something we study and it becomes something we live. Because every generation eventually has its own crisis. Every generation eventually faces a moment when believers must ask difficult questions. What does faithfulness require? What a when should I stay? When should I speak? When should I submit? When should I resist? And perhaps the hardest question of all, how do I know my heart isn't deceiving me? Because that's really what the conversation has been about from the very beginning. Not Rome, not Methodism, not Anglicanism. It's been about our hearts, friends. One of the things I've noticed over the years is that Christians often drift toward two extremes. The first extreme says this: never separate. Maintain unity at all cost. Keep the institution together, avoid conflict, don't make waves. If that means softening doctrine, then you soften doctrine. If that means you avoid hard conversations, avoid them. If that means redefining sin, well, perhaps maybe we simply call that progress. Brothers and sisters, that isn't biblical unity. That is institutional peace. There is a difference. Biblical unity is unity in Christ, unity in truth, unity in the gospel, unity in the faith once delivered to the saints. The New Testament never asks us to sacrifice truth in order to preserve organizational harmony. Never. Not once. Paul repeatedly commands the church to guard sound doctrine. Jude tells believers to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jesus himself warns the churches in Revelation against tolerating false teaching. So there is a danger in refusing to separate when separation has become necessary. History bears witness to that reality, friends. But there is another danger. And honestly, I think this is the one that is growing in our generation. It says this separate whenever you're uncomfortable. If someone disagrees with you, leave. You don't like the music? Leave. The pastor offended you, leave. The church made a decision you wouldn't have made, leave. We've become consumers instead of covenant people. We shop for churches the way we shop for restaurants. And we don't if we don't like what's being served, we simply drive somewhere else. That's not the New Testament either. The church is not a product, friends. The church is the body of Christ. Bodies don't amputate healthy limbs because they're inconvenient. Sometimes, listen, sometimes I wonder how many denominational slits throughout history had less to do with defending orthodoxy and more to do with defending pride. That's an uncomfortable question. I know. I know it is. But it's one worth asking. So can I offer something pastoral?

A Pastoral Process Before You Leave

SPEAKER_00 41:11

If you're listening today and you're wrestling with your own church, don't leave quickly. Pray first. Search the scriptures. Talk to your pastors. Seek counsel. Examine your own heart. Ask difficult questions if you must. Have I understood or misunderstood? Have I assumed motives? Have I become bitter? Have I confused preference with doctrine? Have I um truly exhausted every faithful avenue of reform? Because here's something I believe in deeply. The first instinct of a Christian should never be division. Our first instinct should always be reconciliation. Jesus tells us that. Paul tells us that. The apostles modeled that. Correction first, repentance if possible, restoration whenever it can be achieved, and separation only. Only when faithfulness leaves no other option. I think we've reversed that in order. And we're suffering. We're bloody suffering because of it. This is one of the reasons I appreciate John Wesley so much. Wesley wasn't perfect, and I wouldn't say he was, I don't think Wesley would say he was perfect. Far from it. But his posture teaches us something, I think. He loved the church enough to stay. He loved the church enough to challenge her. He loved the church enough to suffer for her. And only when extraordinary circumstances convinced him that people were being depraved of the ordinary means of grace did he act in an extraordinary way. Whether every decision he made was right isn't really the point. The point is his heart, his instinct was always renewal, not revolution. And I wonder if we've lost that. We've become very good at criticizing the church. We've come we've become very good at exposing her flaws, very good at pointing out hypocrisy. But are we equally committed to praying for her, serving her, loving her, suffering for her? Because Christ certainly was. He didn't die for a perfect bride. He died to make her perfect. Can I remind us of something? The church doesn't belong to the Pope. The church doesn't belong to bishops, deacons, conferences, pastors, denominations. The church belongs to Jesus Christ. He purchased her with his precious blood. And that changes everything. It means my loyalty, listen, and it means the same for you, whatever denomination you are. It means my loyalty can never stop at Methodism or Anglicanism or Rome or any movement that bears human labels. Every denomination is temporary. The kingdom is eternal. Every conference will one day end. Every bishop will one day die. Every pastor will one day stand before Christ, including me, including me. And that's where this conversation suddenly it suddenly becomes very personal. One day, every one of us will stand before Jesus. Pastors, deacons, bishops, popes, slave people, church members, every one of us. And I don't believe He's going to ask us how many people attended your church? Ooh, ooh, how many successful, how successful was your denomination? Ooh, how how many arguments did you win on Facebook? I don't think God's gonna ask those questions. I think he's gonna ask much deeper ones. Things like, Were you faithful? Did you love my truth? Did you love my people? Did you shepherd those I entrusted to you? Did you contend for the gospel without losing your love? Did you seek peace without sacrificing holiness? Were you humble enough to repent when you were wrong? Were you courageous enough to stand when everyone else sat down? Were you willing to suffer rather than compromise? Those are the questions that matter. Faithfulness, not popularity, is the measure of a Christian life.

Allegiance To Christ Above All

SPEAKER_00 46:31

So, where do I land on the SSPS? Honestly, I'll be honest with you. My purpose today hasn't been to tell Roman Catholics whether Rome was right or the society was right. That's for Catholics to wrestle with within their own ecclesial framework. My burden has been something much larger, if you haven't caught it. This story reminds every Christian that question of authority. The question of authority, conscience, unity, truth never disappear. They simply take different forms and different traditions. The name may change, the circumstance may change, but the question remains the same. When does faithfulness require extraordinary action? And perhaps an even harder question. Who gets to decide that? Those questions should make all of us slow down. They should make us pray. They should make us search the scriptures. They should make us distrust our own pride. Because sometimes the loudest voice in our lives isn't the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it's our own ego. And that is bloody dangerous, friends. I want to leave you with this though. I don't know what history will ultimately say about the SSPX. History has a way of revealing things that controversy often obscures. But I do know this. Every one of us should pray that we never become more or so committed to an institution that we would follow it into error, nor so committed to our own judgment that we would mistake pride for conviction. May God give us the humility to submit when submission is faithful. May God give us the courage to stand when standing is necessary. And may He give us the wisdom to know the difference. Because our deepest allegiance is not to Rome. It is not to Canterbury. It is not to the global Methodist Church. It is not to any earthly communion. Our deepest allegiance is to Jesus Christ. He is the head of the church. He is the Good Shepherd. He is the one who walks among the lampstands. He is the one who purchased his bride with his own blood. And one day every division will end, every denomination will disappear, every banner except Christ will be laid low. Around the throne, there will not be Roman Catholics and Methodists. There will not be Anglicans and Baptists. There will simply be the redeemed worshiping the Lamb who was slain. Until that day, may we contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. May we seek the unity of Christ's Church wherever faithfulness permits. May we love truth enough to stand. May we love the church enough to grieve whenever she fractures. And may we never confuse winning an ecclesial battle with being faithful to Jesus Christ. Oh, grace and peace, friends. This has been another episode on Uncomfortable Grace where truth and mercy collide. And until next time, love Christ. Love his church. Stand on his word and never stop pursuing holiness. And perhaps the best of all, friends, is Christ is with us. Amen.