(5)

What must be done when error has crept into the church and found a firm footing, perhaps even a legitimate place, in it? All Evangelicals, of course, agree that in such a case the church must be reformed. They all subscribe, at least in principle, to the well known dictum: ecclesia reformata reformaoda. But how should this reformation be effected? At this point Evangelicals go different ways.

(a) The reply of the separatists among them is: reformation by separation. One could call this the surgical conception of reformation. The classic example of this view is the position of the 16th century Anabaptists, who believed that the church of their day was a “fallen” church and that “restitution,” i.e., a return to the pattern of the N.T. Church, was the only solution.19 Although few present-day Evangelicals would go the whole way with the Anabaptists, yet many of them tend to believe that the church has “fallen,” when doctrinal error is allowed to have a place in it or perhaps even to dominate it, and that it is the duty of the true believer to form a new church, which is both doctrinally and spiritually pure. Usually this whole position is deeply marred by two serious defects. (1) No serious attempt is made to reform the “fallen” church. It is simply abandoned. (2) Behind it all is an unscriptural perfectionism, which looks for the “pure” church.21 For all these reasons believe separatism to be a dead end. It is not only unscriptural, but also impractical, for there is no end to the separations. It is just like a repeating factor.

(b) The second way of reformation could be called the medical conception. Here the believer refuses to leave his church, because he believes “that the situation is never so hopeless that, by reformation accord ing to the Word of God, it cannot be changed for the better.”22 This believer differs from the separatist in two important ways. First, he maintains, at least in theory, that the church can be and should be reformed. Secondly, he wants to do this by spiritual means only and tries to avoid all open conflicts. Among those who hold this view two groups can be distinguished. (a) Those who hold what I would call the Baxterian position. I choose this term, because I believe that Richard Baxter is a typical example of the view held by most Puritans of the 16th and 17th centuries. In his book “The Nonconformity of Richard Baxter,” lrvonwy Morgan writes: “In following out their strategy there were four main ways by which the Puritans sought to propagate their ideas for Church reform. They were by preaching, by writing, by the use of exercises, and by the use of conferences, which were themselves modifications of the exercises.”23 A similar view was held in the 19th century by such a man as Bishop J. C. Byle, who wrote: “We ought not lightly to forsake the Church of England. No! so long as her Articles and Formularies remain unaltered, unrepealed, and unchanged, so long we ought not to forsake her.”24 It is still shared by many Evangelicals of our day, especially in the Church of England (cf. John W. Stott over against M. Lloyd Jones at the opening meeting of the National Assembly of Evangelicals in London, in Oct. 1966).—Personally I have a deep respect for all those who hold this view and…act accordingly! Yet I cannot share it. Firstly, it does not take sufficiently into account the fact that by staying in the corrupted church “to the bitter end” one shares in the responsibility for what is going on in it. In his use of the Body-of-Christ metaphor Paul has made it abundantly clear that the church is an organism in which the one is co-responsible for the other, and the single member for the whole body (cf. I Cor. 12, but also II Cor. 6:14–16). Can we accept such a responsibility even for heretics who deny the fundamentals of the faith and who nevertheless are protected by the church. yes, who at times are even given prominent places? Is there no limit? Secondly, this position almost of necessity leads to endless accommodations and compromises (cf. the recent example in the New Zealand Presbyterian Church on the issue of the bodily resurrection of the Lord). Thirdly, is it really enough to denounce error, heresy, laxity, etc., by preaching and writing only? Is it not our duty to fight against it in the councils and courts of the church, thus compelling the church to make its official position clear? (2) The second group under this heading of medical reformation is that of those who hold the so-called “ecclesiola in ecclesia” view. Here the primary aim is not so much to change the whole church, but to form a church within a church, which will form a nucleus of true believers inside the general church.25 Unfortunately space does not permit me to discuss this “solution.” I may refer to the article of Dr. M. Lloyd Jones, who gives many examples and also shows convincingly that this “solution” is impossible.

Before proceeding to the third position I would like to make two remarks. First, those who, in defense of their own staying in a corrupted church, appeal to the fathers of the 16th or 17th century, should realize that in many respects our present-day situation is altogether different from theirs! When a Thomas Cartwright or a Richard Baxter stayed in the Church of his day, he stayed in a church that was doctrinally pure. His main concern was not about doctrine, but about polity and practice. None of these fathers would have allowed or tolerated within the church men who deny most of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, nor would he have stayed in such a church. A simple appeal to their attitude in an altogether different situation is therefore too superficial and facile. Secondly, even the position of Bishop Ryle is becoming very hard in our days. In nearly all church unions the old confessions are replaced by new statements of faith, which are so vague that they can hardly serve as a starting point for reformation. In addition, in most cases they do not have a binding character. All this means, in my humble opinion, that this second way of reformation is factually becoming an impossibility.

(c) The third way of reformation can be called the medico-surgical method. It tries to combine the good elements in both (a) and (b). It agrees with ( b ) that our primary task is to reform the church from within. It goes beyond (b) in its belief that aU means have to be used, not only those of the Baxterian tradition, but also those of fighting heresy in the church councils and courts, both locally and supra-locally. It further agrees with (b) that one should not easily leave one’s church, but it goes beyond (b) in its conViction that, when the church or denomination by its decisions and actions has demonstrated its refusal to reject heresy, the time has come to leave. In other words, it agrees with (a) that separation is a genuine possibility, but it rejects all separatism, for it can see separation only as an ultimum remedium. It will separate only, when the separation is forced upon it by the unrepentant attitude of the church or denomination. The final and full responsibility therefore will always rest with the church or denomination, which refuses to be reformed according to the Word of God.—Personally I believe that this approach to and method of reformation is most in conformity with the N.T. It takes the N.T. doctrine of the church seriously, both as to its unity and purity. Of course, (b) does this too, but the difference is that in the long run (b) always is inclined to let unity prevail over truth, while (c) lets truth prevail, if and when a choice has to be made. In my opinion this is fully in accordance with the teaching of the N.T.

(6)

So far we have dealt with the matter from the purely theological angle. But what about the practical side? Is it, for instance, possible to say something about the question, when and under which circumstances separation is necessary? We believe the answer is Yes. Naturally, it can be stated in general terms only. In the reality of life the matter can only be decided in the concrete situation. This is the important element of truth in the so-called situation ethics. Yet we do believe that it is possible to mention some situations. (a) The church itself in its official doctrinal statements opposes the Gospel and refuses to repeal its errors. This was the situation which faced the Reformers in the 16th century. (b) The church compels the believer to believe or to do things, which are clearly contrary to the Word of Cod. One may think here of the mass and the practice of indulgences in the 16th century. Of course, in the concrete situation it may not always be easy to determine the weight of the issue. When does one come to the limit? In certain cases the issue may focus on a point that in itself is not very important, but that in the situation is as the last straw that breaks the camel’s back. There is even a good chance that the “camels” differ of opinion among each other! (c) The church no longer gives the freedom to believe or to do what is clearly demanded by the Word of God. One may think here of the prohibition to possess or read the Bible or to attend Protestant services in the 16th century. (d) The church in its official capacity (the Bishop or the Assembly or, on the local level, the Session) refuses to deal with notorious heretics, in spite of protests or charges.

I have the impression that (a), (b) and (c) do not often occur in today’s Protestant Churches. As to (a), most denominations, officially, still have their original creeds and confessions (although they are hardly ever enforced any longer). Even the more recent statements of faith are fairly pure in their positive affirmations (the real harm usually is in the omissions!). As to (b) and (c), there is generally a considerable amount of liberty. This holds true for the liberal, but also for the evangelical. The real issue of our day is found in (d) and we must immediately add that exactly at this point the Evangelicals disagree among each other as to which course of action must be taken (cf. again the Scott-Lloyd Jones clash). Many Evangelicals do not regard this point a sufficiently serious reason for separation. One cannot help asking: Why is this so? Personally I believe that the answer to this question is: Because they have never taken the first step towards reformation, viz., that of outspoken and vigorous protest against unscriptural doctrines and practices in the church. Too often Evangelicals are content with the freedom that is left to them personally. Admittedly, this is very important and one cannot be grateful enough for it. But are we really doing our God-given duty within this liberty? Do we really preach the FULL counsel of God, or are we omitting certain aspects which might annoy or hurt or alienate people? Do we really administer the sacraments “as instituted by Christ” (Belgic Conf.)? Do we administer baptism only to those who are entitled to it or do we conform to the unscriptural practice of more or less indiscriminate baptism? Do we really keep the Lord’s Table holy by barring unrepentant sinners from it? And what about discipline? Do we really exercise it on the local and the supra-local level, for example, by protesting against error and heresy which are often found in official church literature (church papers, Sunday school material, etc.) and in books produced by office-bearers in the church? John Calvin once wrote to Margaret of Navarre: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward, if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent, without giving any sound.”26 As Evangelicals we should realize that silence means co-responsibility for what is going on in our church. I am afraid that in this respect Evangelicals are guilty before God27 and that the first act towards reformation must be one of confessing this guilt (cf. Ezra 9:6; Neh. 1:5, 6; Dan. 9:7, 8. —Note that in all cases the plural is used: our, we, us). We should further realize that those who have always been silent have no right whatever to separate from their church. In their case such an act would mean a refusal to obey the first and primary commandment for every church member: to love and care for his church. Only those who have seriously tried to bring the church to reformation, but who have found that the church not only refuses to come to reformation, but rather continues to protect error and heresy, affecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith, have the right AND the duty to separate from their church.

(7)

There are, of course, many more problems involved in the issue of separation. Some important questions are, for example: May one force the issue and work towards separation? May one leave one’s church only when one is convinced that it is a “false” church? May one call others to join in the separation, once one is convinced that this is the right thing to do? What must one do after separation? All these are important questions, but within the scope of this paper it is impossible to deal with them. Our only aim was to pose the question of separation itself. Is it ever allowed and, if so, when and under which circumstances? In this paper we have given our own personal view and have fried to show that it is based on the N.T. teaching about the nature of the church and its unity.

What remains to be done now is a brief consideration of some of the main arguments often used against the position defended in this paper. We shall state them in bare outline only, adding a few comments where necessary. (1) In the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24–30) Jesus clearly tells us that it is not our task to weed out the tares. The judgement is God’s and he will perform it at his appointed time through his angels.—This argument has a very old pedigree. It was already used against the schismatics by Cyprian and Augustine and afterwards repeated. for instance by Calvin. Although we do not deny that this parable has a message for us in our church life too, as an argument against all separation it is obviously untenable. The Lord himself has made it very clear that he was not speaking about the church, but about the development of the Kingdom in the world! In v. 38 we read: “The field is the world.” (2) Separation is contrary to the example of patience shown by Christ and his apostles. They never avoided the services in the corrupt Temple or in the synagogue. —This argument fails to take into account the special place of Christ and his apostles in the history of salvation. It was only after cross and resurrection that the great separation from the jewish Church could take place. Furthermore, although there is indeed much patience in our Lord’s attitude to his own people, we should never forget how severely he rebuked its leaders and in this way forced the issue, eventually leading to his own crucifixion, when he. The remnant. died for the sins of the world. (3) A very common argument is that separation means that the possibility of affecting others for good is forfeited. Many want to “stay in” in order to infiltrate and influence the whole church in an evangelical direction: “in it to win it!”—However praiseworthy the motive behind this argument may be, it seems to be based upon an altogether wrong conception of the church. According to the N.T. the church is the Body of Christ and not a conglomeration of believers and unbelievers, who share the name “Christian.” The idea that the church is a mission field or “good place to fish in” is altogether foreign to the N.T. Moreover, we should remember Samuel’s words to Saul: “To obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams” (I Sam. 15:23). Our first task is never to trust in human expediency, but we should always be faithful to Christ, who wants us to speak boldly of him and his Gospel and to reject all error, irrespective of the consequences. He himself has said: “if anyone serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be; if any one serves me. the Father will honour him” (John 12:26; cf. I Sam. 2:30). Finally, “we have evidence before our very eyes that our staying amongst such people does not seem to be converting them to Our view but rather a lowering of the spiritual temperature of those who arc staying amongst them and an increasing tendency to doctrinal accommodation and compromise.”28 If some one wants to use the revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries as contrary evidence, I can only say: God’s goodness, in spite of human unfaithfulness, may never be used as an excuse for such unfaithfulness. In addition, all revivals, unaccompanied by thorough reformation of the church itself. have always been short-lived. After one generation, or even sooner, the old situation prevailed again.29 (4) One separation always leads to another.-Unfortunately the history of the church and especially of the Protestant Churches, shows that this is too true. Yet the argument is not decisive. As M. Lloyd Jones has pointed out, it is really a R. C. argument. It is also a “foolish argument. Who ever claimed that we are in a position to legislate fol’ the Church in perpetuity? We are only responsible for the Church in our own day and generation. Of course, you may have to go on doing this. We pray that you do not have to; but in any case the question for us is. what we are doing, how we are facing our position, and the challenge of our present position? What our grandchildren may do is not our responsibility; but we are responsible for what is happening now.”30 (5) Separation is always a matter of pride, intolerance and personal aggressiveness. As a general statement this is obviously not true. It would condemn ALL separation off-hand, including the Reformation of the 16th century. Yet it is a good reminder for all Evangelicals to heed themselves against such a spirit. The N. T. itself warns us against it (I Cor. 1:12f.; Phil. 1:155f.; II John 10). Orthodoxy must never become a cloak for personal or communal pride. But at the same time we must guard against the spirit of unscriptural tolerance and broad-mindedness. lest we obscure the clarity and blunt the sharpness of the Gospel. Pride can also work the other way. as john Owen pointed out with regard to the evangelical churches of his day, when he wrote: “Pride, self-interest, love of honour, reputation, and dominion, with the influence of civil or political intrigues and considerations,…are the true cause of that defect of evangelical unity that is at this day amongst them.” It is also good to listen to some other words, which he wrote in the very same connection: “If we shall cast away this evangelical union among the disciples and churches of Christ. “If we shall break up the bounds and limits fixed unto it, and set up in its place a compliance with, or an agreement in, the commands and appointments of men, making their observations the rule and measure of our ecclesiastical concord—it cannot be but that innumerable and endless divisions will ensue thereon. If we will not be contented with the union that Christ hath appointed, it is certain that we shall have none in this world.”31

(8)

We are, of course, aware of the fact that many Evangelicals disagree with the view propounded in this paper. We do admit that the matter is very complicated and that there is no direct commandment or prohibition in Scripture. It is therefore possible to disagree and take different paths. But all of us should know what we are doing and we should have a scriptural basis for our positions and actions. It is not enough to follow traditional patterns or to be guided by the simple fact of the historical situation. We must study the whole matter in the light of the total message of the Bible. The real crux of the matter seems to lie in our defective views of the true nature of the church and its unity. At times I wonder whether as Evangelicals we have not ignored such a study and are simply living by traditional concepts.

As a final remark I point to the fact that ultimately the matter lies before each one’s personal conscience. This is not a plea for subjectivism and individualism. Rather, it is the recognition of the fact that there is no clear statement on the matter in Scripture. This does not mean that the Christian conscience becomes the final court of appeal, apart from Scripture. Every Christian must always test his conscience by Scripture in its totality, and in this way he will never be left completely in the dark. J. I. Packer in a very instructive article on “The Puritan Conscience” describes the attitude of the Puritan fathers in 1662, the year of the Great Ejection, when some 1800 ministers gave up their places rather than take the prescribed oaths. Their attitude was “the supreme illustration of the Puritan conscience in action. Two ruling axioms of Puritan casuistry were (a) that no known truth must be compromised or denied in practice and (b) that no avoidable sin must be committed, however great the good to which such compromise and sin might lead. Expediency is no warrant for unprincipled action; the end does not justify the means.”32

19. Cf. F. H. Littell, The Anabaptists View of the Church, 1952, esp. 46ff. and 79ff. See also D. P. Kingdom, The Anaboptists, in Approaches to Reformation 01 the Church, Puritan Papers, 1965, 14ff.

20. Some go very far, such as The Apostolic Church and the various Pentecostal groups.

21. Cf. Robert Baillie’s description of the 17th century Separatists in England. “They began to teach that the Church behoved to consist of no other members but such as were, not in profession and aim alone, hut also visibly and really holy and elect, and therefore that new churches behoved to be gathered, and that all the old anywhere extant behoved to be separated from as mixed and corrupted societies.” Quoted from C. D. Henderson, Church and Ministry, 1951, 99.

22. D.P. Kingdom, op. cit., 22.

23. Op. cit., 1946, 247ff.

24. C . J. C Ryle, Five English Reformers, 1965, 36.

25. Cf. M. Lloyd Jones, Ecclesiola in Ecclesia, in Approaches to Reformation of the Church, 58.

26. W. Nijenhuis, Calvirnus Oecumenicus, 1959, 255.

27. Cf. W. Stanford Reid, Evangelical Defeat by Default, in Christianity Today. Vol. VI, No.7.

28. M. Lloyd-Jones, Ecclesiola, 71.

29. Cf. J Edwin Orr, The Light of the Nations, 1965, esp. 15, 278.

30. Op. cit., 71. Cf. also D. C. Fountain, in his biography of E. J. Poole-Connor, 1968, 12: “There was a universal orthodoxy among Non-conformists and the great awakening of ’59 reached hitherto unprecedented by proportions because the Word of God was soundly taught by so many. The soundness of the large Dissenting Denominations that had been in existence for two hundred years after separating from the Church of England gives a direct lie to the often repeated notion that a pure Church can never be achieved, and that no sooner than you form one it loses its orthodoxy.”

31. Diversity in Unity, 79.

32. Faith and It Good Conscience, Puritan Papers, 1962, 30.