The Apostatizing Church and the Fatal Flaw Fallacy

There are two types of institutions that call themselves churches: true churches and false churches. The PRC further distinguishes those churches that are not yet false churches but are in the process of becoming a false church – they are called “apostatizing” churches. Usually this is because they have “fatally compromised” the true doctrine. Is this a proper distinction? Should we consider apostatizing churches to be in a third category between true and false? We have made clear that they are not false churches, but are they true churches in the same way that we are true churches?

I see a wide range of opinions about this topic in the PRC, and in fact my own opinions have changed drastically in the past 10 years. These differing opinions were displayed in the recent public discussions about those who have left the PRC to join other conservative churches. And we ourselves have now been labeled as “apostatizing” by some of our former members.

As members of the PRC, we are well aware of the doctrinal problems in other churches (Common Grace, Federal Vision, Conditional Covenant, Well-Meant Offer, Credobaptism…), and how damaging their implications are. But the question remains: if we cannot agree with them about these important doctrines, then how should we treat those churches?

Belgic Confession Article 29

The Belgic Confession is a good place to start as it addresses the issue directly. Only two types of churches are discussed, those that are truly churches and those sects that call themselves churches but are not – in other words, churches that are true vs false (in the sense of real vs fake.)

This is how we must distinguish the true church:

The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.

This is fairly straightforward, but there is one question that needs to be addressed: what is meant by “pure?” Many assume that it means freedom from error, which leads to the following reasoning: Since no church is free from error, there are varying degrees of pureness; and since purity defines a true church, there must be varying degrees of trueness.

But the Confession knows nothing of a grey area between true and false – they are treated as absolutes. If there was a sliding scale from true to false, the Confession would have surely addressed it with terms like “more true”, “less true”, or “apostatizing” since the very purpose of the article is to help us distinguish the true church.

Also, if “pure” means absence of error, that leaves us with a lot of unanswered questions about “pure doctrine”: If theologians disagree with each other, how do we determine which interpretation is correct? Is there a standard? Will all true churches agree on the same creeds as their doctrinal standard? What about questions that are not discussed in the creeds? What if there are different interpretations of the creed itself? Which errors are big enough to be called “not pure”?

With no further guidance, we are left with each individual dissecting a church’s systematic theology in search of errors – only the brightest theological minds might be able to determine the true church from the false. This thinking may sound familiar because this is where many in our circles have actually ended up. Think of all the ink that has been spilled arguing about confusing points of doctrine to determine who is really the true church.

But the Confession does not mean to say that “pure doctrine” is purely inerrant, rather it is doctrine that is purely “of the gospel” (derived from only the gospel). We are not called to dissect their doctrine for errors, we are called to note the source of their doctrine. Likewise, the administration of the sacraments must be purely “as instituted by Christ,” no more, no less. The question must not be whether errors are made and how egregious they are, the question must only be whether all things are based upon Sola Scriptura. As the confession itself tells us:

…if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church.

Rev. James Laning restates the idea this way:

“If a church confesses that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the church, and shows that she makes that confession genuinely by striving to manage all things according to what the Head of the church has said, that church is a true church of Christ.” (Marks by which Christ’s church is known,” Rev. James Laning, The Standard Bearer 2-15-24)”

That statement is an excellent summary of the Confession because, by using the word “striving,” it clears up the big point of confusion. If a church does the three activities of a church and strives to do them all according to Christ’s word alone, that is a real, true church.

Revelation 2 and 3

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation are instructive for dealing with our failures and those of other churches. There was a wide range of faithfulness in those churches – they were struggling with doctrinal error, failure to discipline sinners, allowing evil wolves to have power and influence, lack of zeal, etc. But every single one of these churches had the candlestick of Christ, every one of them was called a “church” by Jesus, none of them were called apostate or apostatizing churches. Even the one that Christ threatened to spew out of his mouth and the one that Christ called “dead” were real, true churches, not something less. In fact, Christ himself sent a letter to not only point out their faults, but also to encourage them to hold fast and strengthen that which remains. Would we write such a letter to churches that had similar problems, or would we just relegate them to the “apostatizing” group? Would Christ have wanted the church of Ephesus to help the churches of Laodicea and Sardis, or treat them as unworthy?

Notice that Christ’s letters to the seven churches are not written to individuals within the churches, but to the churches themselves. We seem to think it is fine to condemn a church as “apostatizing” as long as we also point out that believers exist in such churches, and we care about them. Christ teaches us by example to help and care for the struggling church itself, not to abandon it as a lost cause.

Fatal Flaw Fallacy

The “fatal flaw fallacy” is the belief that if a church persistently takes a doctrinal position which contradicts the gospel in some way, we can assume it has begun the process of abandoning the Christian faith (apostatizing). This belief is based on the assumption that true churches will always have sound systematic theology – it is not enough to be dedicated to scripture itself but their interpretation of it must be free from major error.

This is wrong for at least two reasons:

1. Unsound doctrine may be due to either a misunderstanding or a rejection of scripture. Misunderstanding scripture is not even a sin, much less an indication of apostasy. An error due to misunderstanding is not “false doctrine.” (See Doctrinal Exclusionism.) And misunderstanding can persist even after someone has been exposed to a better interpretation.
2. There is no extra-scriptural doctrinal standard that has general authority over all churches. Scripture only gives that kind of authority to itself.  If we assume that our interpretation of scripture has this general authority because it arises logically from scripture itself, then we are saying that our logic and reason is infallible. (Our approved interpretations certainly do have authority, but only in the sphere of our own denomination.)

Not only must we be tolerant of those who misunderstand some doctrines, but we must acknowledge that sometimes we may be the ones who misunderstand. Our doctrine will not be perfect in this life.

One of the arguments that have caused us to subscribe to the fatal flaw fallacy is this: “The implications of certain faulty doctrines make it impossible to worship the true Christ of scripture.” But those with unsound doctrine often do not believe the implications of their doctrine. If we judge a church by the implications of its doctrine, we may be judging them for rejecting truths that they actually believe whole-heartedly. Perhaps we correctly point out that their doctrine is incompatible with Eph 2:8, but they disagree and continue to teach the error along with the truth of Eph 2:8 – they do not see the contradiction, or only acknowledge an apparent contradiction. We may not condemn them for denying the truth of Eph 2:8. If they sincerely believe that their doctrine is scriptural, we may not accuse them of anything but logical inconsistencies – a logical flaw does not mean your faith is compromised, only that your logic is compromised. All those who trust in God’s infallible word can and do serve the same Christ, even with imperfect and contradictory doctrines. The only fatal compromise of doctrine is the rejection of God’s word itself as the perfect source of truth.

We have also been warned (properly) about the “no creed but Christ” trend in modern churches, and it is indeed a serious mistake to avoid creeds and systematic theology. But we can continue to be zealous about our doctrines while at the same time acknowledging that they cannot be used as a measuring stick for faith.

Perhaps you have heard this kind of reasoning: Church X has good, reformed confessions but only pays lip service to them because they also believe, say, the well-meant offer. But you probably have not heard that reasoning in the opposite direction: Church X believes in the well-meant offer, but only pays lip service to it because they deny it in their reformed confessions. In other words, we assume that error always trumps the truth, never the other way around. If we are going to judge a church by the implications of their doctrine, then we need to do it both ways.

Another illustration we have been taught is that doctrinal error is like cancer, or leaven, that relentlessly corrupts more and more. That illustration is scriptural, but it only applies to sinful (willful) error, not to misunderstanding. Sin leads to sin, but misunderstanding is not sin. One does not abandon the Christian faith because of a failed attempt to understand a teaching of scripture, one abandons the Christian faith by purposely rejecting God and his word.

Apostatizing Churches

We in the PRC started using this term for churches that had fatal flaws but were not yet fully apostate. Calling a church apostatizing instead of apostate is not much of an upgrade – it is like saying someone is not a murderer, they are only in the process of committing murder.

The term apostatizing implies that we know a church will apostatize at some point in the future. Churches do apostatize and will do so more as we near the end of time, but we do not know which churches God will turn away from their sin and which ones he will allow to fall away. Neither scripture nor the confessions ever label a church as apostatizing. If a church becomes apostatizing simply by failing in some way, then all churches are apostatizing to some degree, including ourselves. The term becomes arbitrary, useless, and misleading. A true church with deep problems could be described as “under attack” or “struggling” or even in an “existential struggle,” but we cannot know if it is apostatizing until it happens. If it has truly made the decision to abandon the Christian faith, then it is already apostate.

It is very convenient to use the term apostatizing church as a “grey area” – we do not need to treat those churches as equals, but we cannot be accused of calling them false churches. But then we fail to treat true churches as true, and false churches as false. Churches who strive to manage all things according to God’s word must not be treated as anything less than true churches. Churches that make it plain that they base their decisions and teachings not on Sola Scriptura, but on science or social pressures or decrees of men, should be boldly condemned as false churches – they are not striving to manage all things according to the pure word of God. It is not always easy to apply the simple teaching of the Belgic Confession, but we need to decide whether to treat other churches as true or false. Those are the only two choices.

Calling other true churches apostatizing also hinders our doctrinal and spiritual growth. If we consider ourselves an elite denomination, we can admonish them, but they cannot admonish us, we can teach them, but they cannot teach us. We need to be taught and admonished too.

Perhaps apostatizing is a useful term when describing a church in hindsight after it has become apostate, but as a label for a true church it is a stumbling block. Implied in that label is this: This is a church – the bride of Christ! Christ is present there, yet we should avoid it. Christ is working his wondrous work of grace there, yet its demise is inevitable. This church is seeking to manage all things according to the Word of God, but we should tell the faithful to abandon it. Perhaps the original purpose behind the label “apostatizing church” was a good one – we did not want to label as apostate that which was not yet apostate. But we have to face the fact that a church that is not apostate is a true church of Christ, like we are, with all that that implies.

Conclusion

We are warriors in the fight for reformed truths such as sovereign grace, and that is a good thing to fight for, but that battle is not always fought against those who want to reduce Christ and exalt man. The fight has often been against sincere believers who, for example, want to do justice to scripture passages that use conditional grammar. These are not enemies. We must strive with them, but not against them – as iron sharpens iron. We need to remember the example of Herman Hoeksema who, throughout the tumultuous and destructive doctrinal struggle with Klaas Schilder, continued to call him his friend and considered him a brother in Christ.

When it comes to church governance, we may not unite ourselves to churches who we believe to have serious doctrinal error. But, unlike church governance, a loving relationship does not require a shared systematic theology (even though we must strive together toward that). We do not need to compromise our own doctrine to have fellowship with other churches. We can agree to disagree on some doctrines, and still help each other, learn from each other, work together in limited ways, and encourage each other. Romans 14 warns against letting differing opinions become a barrier to fellowship.

I do not think the PRC is characterized by a lack of love for the church universal, as we are sometimes accused of. But some of us, myself included, have put wrong limitations on who should receive that love. In the PRC we are constantly taught to distinguish between truth and error, but not often taught to distinguish the reason for error. Is it due to misunderstanding God’s word or rejecting God’s word? That is the distinction that matters when deciding who is a friend and who is an enemy.

It is good to have a high opinion of our own denomination, but that is different than thinking we are fundamentally different from other true churches. We fail to some degree in the same ways as the churches of Revelation, and churches around us today. If they are apostatizing, so are we. It would be a tragic mistake to alienate other true Churches of Jesus Christ, especially those that are struggling.