The question in the title is prompted by a statement of the Editor in The Banner of October 8 that “Loyalty to the Reformed tradition does not justify withdrawal from a denomination; it forbids it.” This statement appears in an editorial sharply condemning the action of four conservative organizations in the Southern Presbyterian Church, who, seeing the apparently inevitable movement of their denomination toward a union with bigger and more liberal Northern Presbyterian Church, are planning a course of encouraging churches to dissociate themselves from the impending union and be “a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.”
Taking his cue from secular news media and from the liberal Christian Century, the editor of The Banner denounces this action as “schism” and “secession,” and he blames the conservative organizations for this sin against the unity of Christ’s church. He cites John Calvin as condemning all such for “disturbing the peace of the Church,” and he appeals to Dr. L. Nelson Bell’s opposition to the movement because Bell considers it “premature and unwise.” The Banner editor sounds a note of warning to any in our own denomination who might show sympathy for this development in the Southern church.
To evaluate in detail the situation of our Southern Presbyterian brothers and the steps which many of them are taking in an effort to meet it would demand a much closer acquaintance with their situation and actions than we who are so remote from them can have. But even a casual acquaintance with some of them and with the developments in their church, and attending meetings of the National Presbyterian and Reformed Fellowship (a wider group than those involved in the Southern Presbyterian movement) makes it evident to me and to others how hastily and unfairly The Banner editor has judged and condemned them.
Quite apart from the evaluation of the development among the Southern Presbyterians, the flat statement of the principle, “Loyalty to the Reformed tradition does not justify withdrawal from a denomination; it forbids it,” should not be permitted to pass unchallenged.
What Does the Bible Say? – In the first place we need to observe that “loyalty to the Reformed tradition,” if it is to be in any sense genuine and not mere blind traditionalism, is loyalty to the plain teachings of the Word of God. And the Word of God teaches us that while we must always “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” with all true believers in Christ (Eph. 4:3ff.), we must also separate ourselves from fellowship with unbelievers.
The classic formulation of this command to separate from unbelievers is found in II Corinthians 6:14–7:2, a passage so clear that it is usually studiously ignored by the doctrinaire promoters of indiscriminate church unity! “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as Cod said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore . . . Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
This is only one of several New Testament passages that clearly teach the same principle. George W. Knight of Covenant Theological Seminary in a little folder entitled “An Open Letter to Thoughtful Christians about Separation from Unbelief” has called attention to a number of them. (Obtainab1n from The Presbyterian Guardian, 7401 Old York Road. Phila., Pa. 19126.) He points out how the Apostle Paul in Ephesus, after he had preached for some time in the synagogue and had begun to meet with public rejection and opposition to the gospel on the part of some, did not wait until he and other believers were thrown out; but, taking the initiative, he “departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus” (Acts 19:8, 9).
The Apostle John too commanded such separation: “If anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (II John 10, 11).
Again in Romans 16:17 Christians are urged to “turn away” from those who lead men to stumble by their false doctrine.
Our Lord in His fervent prayer for the unity of His people (John 17:11, 20) prayed for a unity in His truth that would distinguish and separate them from the world in which they would continue to live and in which they must speak for Him (vss. 14–18). The very words of the petition, “Sanctify them in the truth,” demand such separation.
What Was Calvin’s View? – John Calvin, whose warnings against strife between believers are sometimes cited to defend an indiscriminate church unity, had this to say about why we must separate from the corrupted church: “. . . if anyone recognizes the present congregations—contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine—as churches (in full communion of which a Christian man must stand—even to the point of agreeing in doctrine), he will gravely err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys is in their hands; but the keys have an indissoluble bond with the Word, which has been destroyed from among them.” “Finally, instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Consequently, by this reckoning either they are no churches or no mark will remain to distinguish the lawful congregations of believers from the assemblies of the Turks.”
Further, Calvin went on to point out that the sound elements that remained in the Roman Catholic church (including the presence of Christian men like Dr. Bell1 ) did not change the judgment that must be made regarding it. “To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people . . . and to the extent that some marks of the church remain . . . But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church” (Institutes IV, II, 10–12).
The Principles of our Church Order – Our own Church Order, embodying this biblical and therefore Reformed view of the church states as a fundamental principle that “Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of the consistories being original, that of major assemblies being delegated” (Article 27a). Their decisions “shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order” (Article 29). Within this framework “The classis has the same authority over the consistory as the synod has over the c1assis” (Article 27b).
Notice that as long as the various assemblies operate according to the Word of God and the Church Order their authority is to be recognized. As soon, however, as they begin to ignore that condition, they destroy the basis of their authority and forfeit the right to expect the churches or their members to follow them. “When denominational assemblies pursue policies that conflict with God’s Word, the churches and their members “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Such refusal to comply is not the sin of schism, it is simple obedience to Christ. This is the Reformed tradition!
A Real Crisis – At a recent meeting, a Presbyterian pastor told of how an avowed atheist, a sodomite, and two doctors of the Jewish religion had been sent to a mission as new missionaries on their field. The newspapers have been full of the reports of how Presbyterian church money is being devoted to the legal defense of Angela Davis, the avowed Communist, and to the Black Panthers. Many more such incidents could be cited. In the face of such practices, not as exceptional incidents, but as revealing settled policy, can anyone properly blame our Southern Presbyterian brethren, who see their denominational assembly at the point of putting them under the yoke of such leadership, for saying that, instead of meekly going along with the betrayal of everything the gospel demands, they propose to remain “a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.”
Instead of deploring this development we ought to be humbly thankful to God for it and encourage in every way our Christian brothers who are trying to take positive steps to maintain a faithful testimony to the gospel. If others want to compromise the Word of God by following unfaithful church organizations they will have to give account to God for that. If in our churches we ever run into this kind of crisis may God give us many who, like our Presbyterian brethren and our own Reformed forefathers will stand up for Christ and His Word.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church in Dutton, Michigan.
Taking his cue from secular news media and from the liberal Christian Century, the editor of The Banner denounces this action as “schism” and “secession,” and he blames the conservative organizations for this sin against the unity of Christ’s church. He cites John Calvin as condemning all such for “disturbing the peace of the Church,” and he appeals to Dr. L. Nelson Bell’s opposition to the movement because Bell considers it “premature and unwise.” The Banner editor sounds a note of warning to any in our own denomination who might show sympathy for this development in the Southern church.
To evaluate in detail the situation of our Southern Presbyterian brothers and the steps which many of them are taking in an effort to meet it would demand a much closer acquaintance with their situation and actions than we who are so remote from them can have. But even a casual acquaintance with some of them and with the developments in their church, and attending meetings of the National Presbyterian and Reformed Fellowship (a wider group than those involved in the Southern Presbyterian movement) makes it evident to me and to others how hastily and unfairly The Banner editor has judged and condemned them.
Quite apart from the evaluation of the development among the Southern Presbyterians, the flat statement of the principle, “Loyalty to the Reformed tradition does not justify withdrawal from a denomination; it forbids it,” should not be permitted to pass unchallenged.
What Does the Bible Say? – In the first place we need to observe that “loyalty to the Reformed tradition,” if it is to be in any sense genuine and not mere blind traditionalism, is loyalty to the plain teachings of the Word of God. And the Word of God teaches us that while we must always “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” with all true believers in Christ (Eph. 4:3ff.), we must also separate ourselves from fellowship with unbelievers.
The classic formulation of this command to separate from unbelievers is found in II Corinthians 6:14–7:2, a passage so clear that it is usually studiously ignored by the doctrinaire promoters of indiscriminate church unity! “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as Cod said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore . . . Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
This is only one of several New Testament passages that clearly teach the same principle. George W. Knight of Covenant Theological Seminary in a little folder entitled “An Open Letter to Thoughtful Christians about Separation from Unbelief” has called attention to a number of them. (Obtainab1n from The Presbyterian Guardian, 7401 Old York Road. Phila., Pa. 19126.) He points out how the Apostle Paul in Ephesus, after he had preached for some time in the synagogue and had begun to meet with public rejection and opposition to the gospel on the part of some, did not wait until he and other believers were thrown out; but, taking the initiative, he “departed from them, and separated the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus” (Acts 19:8, 9).
The Apostle John too commanded such separation: “If anyone cometh unto you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works” (II John 10, 11).
Again in Romans 16:17 Christians are urged to “turn away” from those who lead men to stumble by their false doctrine.
Our Lord in His fervent prayer for the unity of His people (John 17:11, 20) prayed for a unity in His truth that would distinguish and separate them from the world in which they would continue to live and in which they must speak for Him (vss. 14–18). The very words of the petition, “Sanctify them in the truth,” demand such separation.
What Was Calvin’s View? – John Calvin, whose warnings against strife between believers are sometimes cited to defend an indiscriminate church unity, had this to say about why we must separate from the corrupted church: “. . . if anyone recognizes the present congregations—contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and ungodly doctrine—as churches (in full communion of which a Christian man must stand—even to the point of agreeing in doctrine), he will gravely err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys is in their hands; but the keys have an indissoluble bond with the Word, which has been destroyed from among them.” “Finally, instead of the ministry of the Word, they have schools of ungodliness and a sink of all kinds of errors. Consequently, by this reckoning either they are no churches or no mark will remain to distinguish the lawful congregations of believers from the assemblies of the Turks.”
Further, Calvin went on to point out that the sound elements that remained in the Roman Catholic church (including the presence of Christian men like Dr. Bell1 ) did not change the judgment that must be made regarding it. “To sum up, I call them churches to the extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people . . . and to the extent that some marks of the church remain . . . But on the other hand, because in them those marks have been erased to which we should pay particular regard in this discourse, I say that every one of their congregations and their whole body lack the lawful form of the church” (Institutes IV, II, 10–12).
The Principles of our Church Order – Our own Church Order, embodying this biblical and therefore Reformed view of the church states as a fundamental principle that “Each assembly exercises, in keeping with its own character and domain, the ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the church by Christ; the authority of the consistories being original, that of major assemblies being delegated” (Article 27a). Their decisions “shall be considered settled and binding, unless it is proved that they conflict with the Word of God or the Church Order” (Article 29). Within this framework “The classis has the same authority over the consistory as the synod has over the c1assis” (Article 27b).
Notice that as long as the various assemblies operate according to the Word of God and the Church Order their authority is to be recognized. As soon, however, as they begin to ignore that condition, they destroy the basis of their authority and forfeit the right to expect the churches or their members to follow them. “When denominational assemblies pursue policies that conflict with God’s Word, the churches and their members “must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Such refusal to comply is not the sin of schism, it is simple obedience to Christ. This is the Reformed tradition!
A Real Crisis – At a recent meeting, a Presbyterian pastor told of how an avowed atheist, a sodomite, and two doctors of the Jewish religion had been sent to a mission as new missionaries on their field. The newspapers have been full of the reports of how Presbyterian church money is being devoted to the legal defense of Angela Davis, the avowed Communist, and to the Black Panthers. Many more such incidents could be cited. In the face of such practices, not as exceptional incidents, but as revealing settled policy, can anyone properly blame our Southern Presbyterian brethren, who see their denominational assembly at the point of putting them under the yoke of such leadership, for saying that, instead of meekly going along with the betrayal of everything the gospel demands, they propose to remain “a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.”
Instead of deploring this development we ought to be humbly thankful to God for it and encourage in every way our Christian brothers who are trying to take positive steps to maintain a faithful testimony to the gospel. If others want to compromise the Word of God by following unfaithful church organizations they will have to give account to God for that. If in our churches we ever run into this kind of crisis may God give us many who, like our Presbyterian brethren and our own Reformed forefathers will stand up for Christ and His Word.
Peter De Jong is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church in Dutton, Michigan.