Being that I have lived in the West my whole life, I have heard and myself have expressed, “Not in my church” or “That is a Classis-East problem.” That attitude was a cop-out that allowed me to keep on sleeping. That attitude and excuse pacified my conscience just well enough that it would leave me alone (at least until the next minister, professor, or perma-president of the theological school committee would break from the orthodoxy of our Reformed faith). And when heresy was preached by a minister in “my church,” using this same attitude, one would simply say, “Glad he is not my minister,” and move on his merry way. The congregation continued to sleep, content that the danger lay somewhere off in the distance, and ignored the heresy (that we recognized embarrassingly less than we should have) in between snores.

“Not in my church” is a phrase we would expect to hear from the pews of the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC), and this has been a weak but oft-repeated defense of the sleepy parishioner to stave off the rude and unwanted questions of the troublemaker brother. However, “not in my church” is not only being said in our mother church, but it has all too frequently become the defense of those who have left us after God drew us from the fowler’s snare.

This makes me pause. It strikes me that there is something here that goes deeper than spiritual sleepiness. Something that does not smell like a mere defensive mechanism, something that seems as though there is indeed more behind the mask than is evident. Those who left the Protestant Reformed Churches with us lost almost everything. They lost their names, their comforts, their friends, and their families. This phrase then is not merely the defense of a sleeping man; rather, this rebuttal is now said with all the alertness of a warrior fresh from the field of battle.

Those who say, “I do not hear that heresy in my church” or “My minister does not say that” speak now from the pews of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church or the United Reformed Churches or even from back in the Protestant Reformed Churches. They had once left a denomination because she tolerated and promoted the lies of meritorious good works that earned God’s fellowship and one’s degree in heaven, available grace, conditional communion with the Father, and repentance as the means unto forgiveness. They left a denomination that defends the false teachers who preach such abominable heresies (even on the grounds of a man’s “sterling” reputation) and that refuses to exercise discipline on even one word of false doctrine but comes down harshly and swiftly on those who would dare preach the truth and call the denomination to repentance. They left that false doctrine; they said that they saw the lie for what it is, and they left the PRC for the sake of the next generation and for the health of their own starved souls. They had left the lie, only shockingly to return to it in a different and, in most cases, a more blatant version of it.

For all the doctrinal departure that the Protestant Reformed denomination has had in recent decades, it is not because she had a flawed foundation. The three forms of unity are not to blame for the PRC’s shameful fall. No, the PRC’s errors are well documented in her own synodical Acts and minutes of classes, and those errors have been brought to light on the pages of this publication. The denomination had the truth, and she left it. Now, there could possibly be someone who ignorantly believes his or her local church still holds to only the old paths of the PRC, but if one has left the PRC because of the PRC’s false doctrine, that same one cannot return to the PRC and try to hide behind the “not-in-my-church” excuse again. Nor can it be so for one who now willingly joins himself or herself to the United Reformed Churches, a denomination whose history claims the three points of common grace as her doctrine; or joins the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which has a covenant of works written right into its foundational confession¹—a heretical covenant that makes Christ the plan B and makes God fail to accomplish what he supposedly set forth to do in Adam.

How does such a one, having seen the Protestant Reformed doctrine for what it is, return to it? Why would anyone turn to churches that are mandated by their creeds to preach false doctrine? And how can anyone now say, “Not in my church”? This can only be done if one has thrown out the doctrine of corporate responsibility.

Corporate responsibility is that biblical teaching of Romans 12:4–5, 1 Corinthians 12:12–27, and Belgic Confession 28 that God saves his people as one body, a holy congregation; that there is no salvation apart from it; that we are members one of another; and, therefore, we share a relationship with one another and a responsibility to one another.

Here the deserters object, “But I can belong to the invisible church regardless of what my visible church affiliation might be.” Or they will say, “It does not matter what my church believes; my heart is not in it. I do not hear false doctrine in the preaching; and even if I did, I do not believe it, and my church does not say that I have to believe it.” Scripture, however, disagrees with this mindset and rebukes anyone who would harbor it. In 1 Corinthians 10:16–21, we read concerning the apostle’s warning to the church that it is impossible to be members in the false church and not to partake in her sins. The apostle uses an analogy that the church knows well; he uses the Lord’s supper.

16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19. What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

Therefore, being members in churches that hold to false doctrine, those members become partakers in that false doctrine, entertain the lie, and have fellowship with devils.

And scripture speaks of corporate responsibility in the Old Testament in the object lesson of Achan. Scripture sets forth that the sins of the members are the sins of the whole body: “But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan…of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel” (Josh. 7:1, emphasis added). And in verse 11 Jehovah said to Joshua, “Israel hath sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.” All of the members of the congregation were accounted as partakers in the sin of one of the congregation’s members. How much more then is the member a partaker in the sins of his or her denomination.

The deadly reality of scoffing at corporate responsibility is found in few places clearer than in the history of the ten tribes of Israel. When the ten tribes of Israel saw that Rehoboam would not give them what they had asked for, and the cost had become too great, they rejected the line of David and so rejected Jesus Christ himself (1 Kings 12:16). Did that mean all the Jews head for head of the ten tribes believed what their leaders had decided? No, of course not. The Levites moved to Judah and Jerusalem (2 Chron. 11:14), and we know of the godly man Naboth. But what would be the end of this apostate church? And what was God’s word to the Israelites? Israel, upon forsaking God’s anointed, immediately apostatized. Jeroboam would set up the golden calves and throw a feast, so that the Israelites would not go up to the temple in Jerusalem to worship. God sent his condemnation against Israel through a prophet; and though the altar was split, the ashes poured out, and though Jeroboam’s arm would be dried up, yet Jeroboam would not turn from his evil ways. And then we read in 1 Kings 13:34, “And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth” (emphasis added). Israel never would put this sin away, and that was God’s judgment against the apostate church. God gave the Israelites over to their sin: “And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin” (14:16). If the Israelites had said, “We do not believe that in our tribe” or “That is just Jeroboam’s sin,” would that have saved them from God’s judgment of the nation? No.

We read later of the only hope for salvation that the saints in Israel had during the time of Hezekiah, and it would not be found in the apostate church of Israel. God would call the people of the nation of Israel to repent, to humble themselves, and to come to Jerusalem, to where the temple was, to where the altar was, to where the sacrificial lamb was. Though some, by God’s grace, would repent and leave the ten tribes, God hardened the heart of Israel, so that the people laughed the princes of Judah to scorn and mocked them. And in the end God destroyed and scattered the nation, so that it would nevermore be a nation but become absorbed into the world to wait with the Gentiles for the preaching of Christ.

This applies to the church in our current day. There is no salvation found in the doctrines of man; there is no hope in the lies or in the kingdoms of man. The only hope we have is the hope of free, unconditional, complete salvation in Christ alone, apart from any work of man. The impotent god of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who desires that all men repent but is powerless to accomplish his desires, is not God at all. And those who join themselves to such churches can expect no other end than the end the ten tribes of Israel met. Our word to those who have left us, to those still in the PRC, and to those in any church that holds to the lie is the same as the angel’s word in Revelation 18:4: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”

Now, specifically to address those who have left the Reformed Protestant Churches and claim that they do not hear heresy in the church they now attend but even claim to hear the gospel week by week, I do not claim to know their hearts and why they really left, so we judge instead their statements, their words. They try to claim a unity with us in Christ, while acknowledging the glaring contradiction between the doctrine of their new church and the Reformed Protestant Churches. I think no one expresses this more plainly than the late, Christian Reformed professor, Theodore Plantinga, in his book Contending for the Faith, when he writes,

It is important to note that the basis for the unity that is then achieved is not a common set of opinions or views on doctrinal matters. Indeed, when Christians seek one another out, there may be considerable difference between them with regard to doctrine. What holds such Christians together and makes it possible for them to feel one is that Christ has claimed them all for His own. The ultimate bond of unity is oneness in relation to Christ. Naturally, this is not to say that confessional unity cannot serve to strengthen Christian fellowship. The point is simply that Christ’s claim on the believer takes priority. That’s why fellowship is possible between Christians with markedly different convictions.²

Though this statement appears to lay hold of election into Christ as the basis of unity for believers, which is absolutely true, Dr. Plantinga makes one fatal assumption, one that contradicts the teaching of Amos 3:3: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” Dr. Plantinga starts with man’s confession; and when two men’s confessions differ, he attempts to reach back into election to claim that both men belong to Christ, and so they can walk together despite “markedly different convictions.”

John, however, instructs the church to take a different approach. John starts with election, with Christ, and with the doctrine of Christ: “The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth…For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever” (2 John 1–2). This is the basis for our unity, love, and fellowship: that we abide in one truth, and that truth abides in us. So then, what does the apostle say to do when one comes to us who does not confess that same truth, one who has “markedly different convictions” from the truth? John’s answer is in verses 9–11:

9. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11. For he that biddeth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds.

And this principle is repeated again by Paul in Galatians 1:6–9:

6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The truth is not up for grabs, as though everyone can have his own truth. There is one truth, one doctrine, and one gospel. What Dr. Plantinga fails to see is that those whose confessions essentially differ really do believe in different Christs. If they cannot agree on which Christ is the real one, how can they claim to have unity in Christ? The Christ of Dr. Plantinga’s Christian Reformed Church has a common grace for everyone, so I suppose he thinks this means that he can have unity with everyone. But the Christ of the scriptures and the Reformed creeds with particular sovereign grace for God’s elect alone is a very different Christ. Many will say to Christ, “Lord, Lord,” but there is only one Christ and not many.

What is also sadly discarded when one has disdained corporate responsibility in the church is the communion of saints. Since Christ, as our head, suffered and died to take away all the sins of his people, we are forever indebted to Christ. Lord’s Day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism states,

First, that all and every one who believes, being members of Christ, are, in common, partakers of Him and of all His riches and gifts; secondly, that every one must know it to be his duty, readily and cheerfully to employ his gifts, for the advantage and salvation of other members. (Confessions and Church Order, 104)

This duty to one another is an extension of the debt we owe to Christ, our head, and it is an inevitable fruit of the Spirit in us. That love-debt that we owe to our head, we owe to Christ’s body as well, for he is in us and we are in him. What a wonderful picture the Catechism paints: the members of the whole church readily and cheerfully employing their gifts for the advantage and salvation of one another, laying down one’s life for the good of the body, building up one another and being built up. And when we sin, we have brothers and sisters who love us enough to admonish us and show us our sin. The communion of the saints gives us purpose beyond our own wants and pursuits; it broadens our perspective to include others; it gives us opportunities to praise and give thanks to God in our care for others. But this is lost too because as one rejects corporate responsibility, at that very same time he embraces independentism. This is because “not in my church” also means, “That is your problem.” It means, “I think I can keep myself safe from the perceived danger by my own strength,” while at the same time making it clear that “I do not intend to use any of my strength to help you.”

Now, this does not apply only to those who have left us, but corporate responsibility is something we must all remember. It means that we must care about what is happening in our denomination; it means that we must be ready to encourage, teach, and admonish each other; to talk about the problems; to help in the schools; to help carry the weight. And we must do all of this not to earn anything but because salvation has already been purchased for us. We do these things not to get into the body but exactly because we have already been made members of the body, with Jesus Christ as our head.