Ian Clary, Jacob Reaume and Donatism

 

I don't know Ian Clary personally, nor am I familiar with his ministry.  I have heard his name come up in recent months because of his efforts to defend - and call for - Christian compliance.  By “Christian compliance” I am referring to the attitude and response of the Church toward covid restrictions and related state regulations.     

Until the other day I saw no reason to respond.   But that was before he publicly accused Jacob Reaume of Donatism.    

First some context.  

Ian Clary had shared an article titled, The Anti-Vax Crusaders.  The article was mostly about Henry Hildebrandt and the Church of God in Aylmer.  When he posted the article Clary added these words:

“Sadly, this story isn't surprising. What has surprised me over the past year or so is that a number of Christian leaders in Canada that I know quite well have found common cause with this guy. Politics trumps orthodoxy it seems.” 

Then in a comment Clary wrote,

"Aaron Rock and Jacob Reaume conducted worship protest services" and "had this man [ie. Henry Hildebrandt] involved."  

Of course that statement is patently false.  Henry was no more involved in those worship protest services than he was involved in our worship service (at Faith Presbyterian Church) when he visited us in the spring.  He was there - because our doors were open - but that was the extent of his participation.  

But here's what happened next. When Clary was gently corrected he went on the attack.  Inexplicably and without any context or explanation he responded to the correction by writing,

“I’d be most happy if Jacob did indeed repent of his heresy.”  

When asked for clarification he answered,

“...sorry I got confused there.  I thought we were talking about Jacob’s Donatism.” 

When he was again asked for some kind of explanation he appeared to lash out with frustration.  To a member of Trinity Bible Chapel he complained,

“I’ve seen enough of the garbage come out of your church to not buy in, even for the sake of polite argument.  You ARE Donatists with all of your ‘castrated gelding’ BS.  Until you guys stop the divisiveness and make genuine strides to repair the disgusting schism you’ve sown, you won’t get any semblance of a respectful response from me. I have zero respect for you…” 

He then made reference to what had been said about Ezekiel 34 and added,

“This, ladies and gentlemen, is called straining at a gnat.”  “The reason,” he wrote, “people took umbrage with his regrettable statements is because they thought he was unnecessarily causing division in Christ’s body and needlessly attacking fellow pastors… Looking at the people he keeps company with further solidifies it.” 

When given evidence demonstrating Reaume has nothing to do with the Gelding Coalition his response was, “cheerio.”

Before I get to the accusation itself I want to make an observation regarding Clary’s online conduct. 

It was childish.

I find it ironic that he spoke of polite argument on one hand and disgusting schism sown on the other while demonstrating a complete inability to respond politely or reasonably to correction.  Instead of retracting and apologizing he went on the attack.  Instead of modeling that posture of gracious humility (he and so many others have been calling for) he behaved like an angry child.  

I make the observation because I have found something similar in many of my own interactions with advocates for compliance.  They express indignation and disappointment with those of us who have been calling on them to repent because they see us as causing trouble.  We are - in effect - troublers of Israel.  We are on the ‘attack’, we are ‘divisive’, we are ‘angry’.  What they are responding to is the content of what we have written.  The simple fact that we have called compliance sin is seen as divisive, unhealthy and angry.  But it is almost invariably the other side that lashes out in ungodly displays of frustration and anger.  I have repeatedly been at the receiving end of angry outbursts and name calling from the compliant.  The irony in this is that we are known as the trouble makers and they as the gentle moderates.  

Second, the accusation.  

The Donatists were a heretical sect, so the public suggestion that Jacob Reaume is a Donatist isn’t to be taken lightly.  

Who were the Donatists? 

In short they were a sect that took serious issue with any Christian - and bishops/pastors in particular - who they believed had somehow denied Christ during times of persecution.  But they didn’t merely take issue with the compromised.  Rather, they insisted that ordinations and sacraments (or ordinances) performed by compromised bishops were not valid.  This meant, for example, that baptisms administered by these men didn’t count.  Similarly, ordinations performed by them also didn’t count.  Further, those who remained in communion with lapsed bishops were also considered compromised and “their sacraments and ordinations” also “no longer valid (The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 by Justo Gonzalez).”  Whether these bishops repented of their compromise or not didn’t matter because their betrayal of Christ was essentially seen as unforgivable.  

So the charge - made by a professor of church history - that Jacob Reaume is a Donatist is grossly unfair. 

I will admit that there are similarities.  Under this recent period of persecution there have been confessors, like Reaume, who have bravely stood firm for Christ and there have been “traditores”: “those who had handed over or betrayed (see Gonzalez).”  Some will say that I am the one who is being unfair; but I know of many instances where pastors have actually been betrayed to the authorities by church members or colleagues.  There are, of course, many who have not informed on their brethren, but their betrayal has taken another form.  Instead of publicly or quietly standing with them and praying for them, these pastors have publicly attacked and maligned them.  They aren’t “traditores” in the strict sense of the word, but neither are they confessors.  And so there is a clear division in the Church, whether Baptist, Presbyterian, continental Reformed otherwise between the compliant and the non-compliant. 

But there are also some significant differences.  Jacob Reaume (and other confessors) have never even hinted that the sacraments/ordinances performed by compromised pastors do not count.  Furthermore, the attitude of the 'confessing church' toward the rest of the body is one of pleading and entreating.  Ironically, the problem had by those on the other side of this debate is that we use words like repentance. 

We are calling them to repentance!  This is not the way of Donatists.  We are eager to see these men repentant and restored.  We are eager for reconciliation. 

I know some of the modern day 'confessors' well.  They are constrained by the love of the Saviour - and their posture is like that of the prodigal's father eagerly watching for any sign that their brethren are on their way back.  They long to take them in their arms and rejoice together in the forgiveness of sins.  They long to see these men put the crown back on the head of Jesus.  Unlike the Donatists they long to see pastors, elders and congregations repentant and restored.  The tragic irony here is that the churches that have chosen to abide by state regulations have typically responded with indignation and irritation at the bare suggestion that repentance is needed.  They don’t believe they have sinned.  So we are at an impasse. 

But don’t believe for a moment the lie of those who would tell you this smacks of Donatism or that perhaps Jacob and friends are Donatists.  That is rubbish, and Ian Clary (at least) knows it.  

Third, schism, Ezekiel 34 and straining at gnats. 

a. When I hear charges of schism made against those who have been calling for noncompliance I can’t help but think of Elijah’s words to Ahab: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers’ house…”  The current schism in the Church was not caused by those who have held the line but those who have compromised. 

There are men who have gone on saying and doing what the Church has said and done for centuries.  The schism that has resulted is not to be blamed on them but those who since March 2020 have been saying and doing something new and different because the state told them so.  With clear conscience we can say to colleagues in the ministry who have complied, "we have not troubled Israel; but thou."

b. During the second lockdown Jacob Reaume preached on Ezekiel 34.  Though he didn’t name names, many pastors heard themselves in that sermon.  And they took “umbrage” with the fact that they were, by implication, being numbered alongside the faithless shepherds who left the sheep to wander and become meat to the beats of the field (34:5-6).”  I believe they were angry precisely because the sermon hit its mark.  Bear in mind that Reaume was not talking about some ethereal connection as if so many of these pastors were simply a bit negligent in their pulpit ministries or less than faithful in their pastoral visitation.  Their people were almost literally driven away (34:4). They were locked out of the church, refused access to the house of God, and in some cases not even allowed in person access to their pastors. In a time of fear and despair the sheep were left to care for themselves.  So the sermon was exactly what was needed.

c. But is all this fuss about churches gathering just straining at gnats?  I found that suggestion probably the most incredible.  There are plenty of scholarly debates that come very close to a straining at gnats and particularly when those debates happen against the backdrop of a lukewarm Church.  There are big issues and little issues, major points and fine points.  But if there was ever a camel that the Church swallowed it would be the closure of churches and the suspension of in-person of worship.   

In a recent sermon I said the following:

“I want to briefly remind you of some principles once held by our forefathers, and once even held by this generation of Christians that we will have to cling to in the days ahead.

First, there is the great commandment.  And it isn’t love your neighbour.  It’s love God.   That great commandment is a summary of the first four commandments and those first four commandments though they can be applied broadly to touch every aspect of life touch immediately upon the worship of the Church.  All 4 of them.  The greatest change that takes place when a man is born again is his attitude toward God.  All that are born again love the Lord Jesus.  He becomes pre-eminent. He is seen to be lovely and glorious.  He consumes the Christian.  He is everything - absolutely everything!   And that new Christian is eager to find out how to express love to Jesus.  Like a man eager to show affection to His bride, so the believer wants to know "what does my Redeemer want?" And very quickly he finds out, its obedience.  Obedience to the law. And everyone familiar with the Ten Commandments understands the division.  The first table, the first 4 commands, has to do with our obligations to God.  That is first. And all 4, again, have to do with worship.  Who we worship, how we worship, the manner of our worship and the when of worship.  

Second, there is the commandment that is like it - the second great commandment.  But now what is our great interest when it comes to our neighbour? 

His soul.  That he be reconciled to God and give Him glory. 

We aren’t in the business of fixing social ills and handing out medicine.  We don’t spend our lives to save lives.  We are soul winners.  But our aim even in this is first for God - that Jesus would receive the reward of His suffering, that the nations would be glad, that they would praise Him, that they would give Him glory!

And what is the primary means by which they are saved?  Our confession [the WCF] says that outside of the visible church there is no ordinary way of salvation.  It is here that they sit under living preaching, here that they taste the powers of the age to come, and here that they are confronted with the reality of God and fall on their faces. 

And so you tell me who devised this plan to close the churches?  Who devised this plan to limit attendance, to make attendance at the house of God a matter of first come first served?  Who would devise such a plan that would remove people from God’s house, that would send not just babes and small children away from Jesus but whole households and communities?!   I tell you this came from the pit of hell.

And if - as I believe - it was part of God’s judgment upon a rebellious and lukewarm Church, we added this [sin] to them all that we hearkened to man more than to God.  As if were a little thing that we were already proud and self indulgent and worldly and lukewarm we added this sin to them all:  a sin which surely made the angels blush with embarrassment."

So, no, this is not a gnat.  If our fight against abortion is not a straining of gnats and if our stand regarding definitions of marriage is not a straining of gnats neither is worship.  

As I said to our congregation, “if they can’t have our babies, and they can’t have marriage, never let them have worship.  Let them take your goods and kindred, let them have your homes and property, but never ever give them the worship that belongs to God.  He has called you to gather on the first day of the week for preaching, for singing songs of praise, for prayer, for fellowship.  What God has joined let no man put asunder!”

For many of us this isn’t merely a matter of conviction and duty but a matter also (and perhaps especially) of the heart.  We are like Peter and John standing before the council confessing that we cannot but speak.  We cannot but gather, we cannot but worship, we cannot but sing His praises.   We are resolved that “we will not turn his house into a wilderness, we will not hand his vineyard over to the foxes, we will not allow man to touch the apple of His eye.”   We will part with hands and feet and even tongue rather than surrender the church of Jesus Christ to the State. 

-----------

* Edit, February 10 2022: Accuracy matters to me. So when Ian wrote on Twitter "And your article is historically bad, fwiw" I thought a response was warranted. A couple observations. I was a little confused at first by "fwiw". I thought it over and then looked it up. Apparently it means "for what its worth." I also found this: "Interestingly, FWIW can also be used to inject a snarky, empathetic, or even dismissive tone in your sentence. These tones mostly come from context, but as a general rule, any use of “FWIW” that can be replaced with “FYI” has a snarky tone."  He could have done this more politely, but Ian Clary has demonstrated more than once that what he does not expect from himself what he expects from others.   Second, if the article is historically inaccurate would it not serve the Church to show me where and how?  I expect he was referring to Donatism.   I am not a history professor so I would ordinarily be quite happy to accept the expertise of a man like Clary.  The problem is twofold.  First, I was just going on what I read in Justo Gonzalez' History of the Church.  I explained Donatism as he did.  So either Gonzalez is wrong or Clary is wrong.  Second, I don't have confidence in a man that publicly attacks a godly brother with ad hominem insults.