REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON APOSTASY AND ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION
The Rev. Stephen Smallman presented the following report:
INTRODUCTION
-Statement of the charge and background
-Statements in current RPC,ES documents
BACKGROUND STUDIES
1. Scripture
2. The Early Church
3. The Reformation Churches
4. The Westminster Confession
5. The Reformed Presbyterian Church
6. American Presbyterianism of the Nineteenth Century
7. The Presbyterian Separatist Movement
CONCLUSIONS
1. With regard to Apostasy
2. With regard to Ecclesiastical Separation
3. With regard to remnants of true church in corrupt
4. With regard to relationships with those from whom we have
separated
RECOMMENDATIONS
Fathers and Brethren:
The following is a report prepared by a committee appointed
during the 156th Synod, meeting at Grand Rapids, Michigan on June 16-22,1978.
The motion which brought this committee into existence stated "that Synod
erect a Study Committee on Apostasy as it relates to Ecclesiastical
Separation."
Some attention first of all should be given to the context
of the motion. Synod was asked to sustain a ruling of the Judicial Commission
relative to the action of the local session of an RPCES church. The church had
decided to enter a cooperative evangelistic venture with another local church
belonging to a denomination known for its liberal theological leadership. (cf.
Minutes of 156th Synod, pp. 158-162) The ruling was based on several
assumptions which after preliminary investigation by the committee were shown
to be in need of careful discussion. For instance the ruling stated that
cooperation with the church was justified "because our denomination has
not officially or explicitly declared" that church (denomination) "to
be an apostate body." The statement appeared to assume that our
denomination makes such declarations. We could not find that making such
declarations had been the practice of our denomination. The issue of apostasy
has· been very much discussed by leaders in our church (as will be shown) but
that is a different matter than one ecclesiastical body declaring, either
"officially or explicitly" (to use the wording of the Judicial
Committee) another ecclesiastical body to be apostate. Finally the committee
was puzzled about the instruction that in the proper circumstance local
cooperation among churches was permissible "until the general synod should
declare that it deems a Presbyterian body professing to adhere to our
Confessional standards to be apostate." Does this mean our Synod should
publish an index of apostate churches as a guide to local sessions?
The point here is not to criticize the report of the
Judicial Commission but to use that report to illustrate the fact that the
thinking of the Commission and then the entire Synod rests upon assumptions
which can and should be examined. We are convinced there i o also a need to
restudy and reapply any principles involved to the current ecclesiastical
situation. Our very existence as a Protestant and Reformed church, and as a
denomination called the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod is
rooted in a willingness to examine our ecclesiastical practices in the light of
the Scriptures and reform ourselves accordingly, even at the greatest cost.
This has to be a continuing process and in defining its task the committee felt
that Synod, by its motion, was calling for such a study.
An additional impetus for the study came in the form of a
communication from the California Presbytery to the 157th General Synod (cf.
Minutes of the 157th Synod, pp. 111-115). The presbytery overtured the Synod to
"consider the attached paper as a commentary" on the Synod report on
"Guidelines for Ecclesiastical Separation" (153rd General Synod). The
paper, which was referred to our committee, consisted of a series of rhetorical
questions asking for a study of the separation that was integral of the
traditions of both branches of our church. Questions were "posed" to
the Scripture and John Calvin. Calvin's answers were given through quotations limited
to Chapter 1 of Book N of the Institutes. The committee did not feel it
necessary to respond in specific detail to the paper, but has tried to answer
the questions raised in a general way throughout this report.
The study will begin with a review of statements about
apostasy and separation in Reformed Presbyterian standards and other current
documents. We need to bear in mind the fact that when speaking of the position
of our denomination we are speaking of an entity that has existed since 1965. The
numbering of our Synods reflects our Reformed Presbyterian heritage but our
governmental standards reflect our Evangelical/Bible Presbyterian heritage
which was shaped by our heritage in the Presbyterian Church, USA before 1936.
Each one of these roots will be examined for insights they can provide on the
matter of apostasy and separation. But at this point it cannot be said that the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod has a carefully articulated position
on ecclesiastical separation other than the occasional statements found in our
current standards. It is for this reason that the committee felt it was
necessary to go to some length in setting forth Biblical and historical data
before drawing its conclusions and subsequent recommendations.
In the preparation of this report several matters seemed to
be of particular importance to the committee and this has affected the specific
material selected for study. First of all was the need to define
"apostasy." The classic use of renouncing even the name of Christ
seemed to be at odds with the several uses it had come to take on in our own
denominational history. Secondly was the matter of the appropriateness of
ecclesiastical separation in circumstances less severe than clearcut or total
apostasy. Thirdly was the need to explain the presence of the true in the midst
of apostasy; in particular the dilemma of recognizing the validity of the
sacraments or ordination of any body "deemed apostate." Finally, the
practical matter of the extent of ecclesiastical cooperation possible needed to
be realistically and sensitively examined in reference to the current
situation.
This is a study for consideration by members of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod but the committee hopes to be of service
to the wider Body of Christ. The doctrine of the visible Church has been the
object of a great deal of study in our own generation. From the
"mainline" church such study has been due to a desire to further the
ecumenical movement. On the other hand studies among separated Evangelicals
have focused on issues of truth and faithfulness to Scripture and the historic
creeds, even if it made separation necessary. (cf. ''The Nature of the Church
and Its Ecumenical Calling" Report to the 1967 Reformed Ecumenical Synod.)
Our own church has stood in the latter tradition. Recent studies among
Evangelicals have concentrated almost exclusively on the charismatic aspects of
the visible church (what Howard Snyder calls the· community model instead of
the confessional model: ch. 2, The Community o/the King). These have been most
constructive, but with the renewed interest in the vitality of the Body, the
matter of the purity of Christ's bride has tended to be overlooked, ignored, or
even scorned as irrelevant. Furthermore, among Presbyterians there has been a
loss of the historic conviction of the unity of the whole church and a retreat
to congregationalism as an alternative to confronting error in the larger
church. This is not an anacronistic issue. In every age of the church the
tension between the twin foci of unity and truth has existed. That tension
continues today and the committee hopes this study will contribute in a
positive way to the discussion of the building of a church which is truly
Biblical.
Finally we ask that readers appreciate the limited scope of
this report. We are dealing with matters concerning false doctrine. We
recognize the need to bear in mind that dealing with false practice and
disobedience in life are as crucial to the life of our church as dealing with
false teaching. It is certainly possible to describe as "apostate"
those whose lives deny their Lord. We further recognize that a study in the
unity of the church is as important as studying separation. However, what
follows is our attempt to speak to the particular issue assigned to us by the
Synod.
The word "apostasy" is used only twice in our
Standards. It is used in F.O.G. Chapter IV, par. 9 with reference to "...particular churches free from apostasy," and in the Directory of Worship,
Chapter XVIII, 1, "Every true and faithful follower of our Lord ought to
take a definite stand against the apostasy of the day...".
Beyond our Standards, we find reference to apostasy in such a document as the
1965 Plan of Union between the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Synod, and
the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Synod Minutes, 1965, p. 13). Under
Resolutions on Christian Life and Testimony, this document refers to "...widespread apostasy and unbelief in church organizations today...".
Also, the proposed (but not adopted) 1975 Plan of Union for the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod,
under paragraph 2 of the Section on the Testimony of the Churches, states
that "...the spread of apostasy brings division", and that
"The apostasy that casts off authority of God's Word of commandment
revealed in Scripture is at the last more destructive than guilty
sensuality."
Though these few usages provide a relatively slim data base
for a definition of the term "apostasy," they can be regarded as
truly representative of the mind of our Synod, since they are all derived from
documents approved in one way or the other by our Synod. It is true that the
last quoted document was not finally adopted by the requisite 2/3 majority; it
was, nevertheless, approved by 57% of the Synod and the references to apostasy
were never called into question in the Synod debate (Minutes of Synod, 1975,
pages 110-141).
Appropriate consideration should be given to related
terminology in the context of these documents. In the context of the Form of
Government, for instance, are references to churches "not deemed
heretical", Chapter II, par. 2, and 10, 0, and 10, p. The Book of
Discipline uses the same or similar phrases in Chapter II, par. 5 and Chapter
VII, pars. 9, 10, and 13. In this same vein, the FOG contains a reference to
"...a church... not in an unsound denomination," Chapter II, par.
10, p. These concepts stand alongside "apostasy" as related and
mutually illuminating ideas.
One other phrase from our Standards seems helpful in defining
this word. In Chapter I, par. I, we find a reference to "...denial of
basic principles of the Gospel." Terms like "apostasy,"
"heresy," and "unsound" are extreme and should be reserved
for extreme cases, but are not too extreme to apply to "denial of basic
principles of the Gospel." That such denial not only exists, but actually
dominates many churches and denominations today is too well documented a fact
to require argument at this point. Our Standards seem to recognize apostasy not
only in an absolute sense but in the relative sense of a developing condition.
From this same first paragraph of the F. O.G. it may be argued that a church is
not to be regarded as apostate Simply because it is infected with denial. By
this definition, most if not all churches would be apostate. The full sentence
including the above quotation reads, "Any organization for worship in
which the Gospel if faithfully preached and faithfully shown forth in
sacraments or ordinances, and in which denial of the basic principles of the
Gospel, whether in word or in deed, is faithfully disciplined, may be regarded
as a branch of the Universal Church." The terms "apostasy,"
"heresy," "unsound" should be reserved for organizations in
which this disciplinary process is subverted and effective control has passed
into the hands of those who themselves are guilty of "denial of the basic
principles of the Gospel."
In summary, "apostasy" may be defined from its
usage in our Standards and other current documents. There are two elements in
this definition:
(1) Undisciplined denial of basic principles of the Gospel.
(2) Control of a church or denomination by those guilty of
such denial, so that discipline of their denial cannot be exercised, or at
least is not exercised.
Biblical Studies
The God of Scripture is a God of truth. This teaching is set
over against the theme of false teaching and false teachers throughout the
Scripture. While it would be pleasant to be able to dwell exclusively on the
positive aspects of the Gospel, that cannot be done if one is to consider the
whole counsel of God (Jude 3ff). What follows are brief studies in particular
areas of concern and then a focus on what the committee felt was the heart of
the issue-the question of the Biblical teaching about discipline.
APOSTASY
The Greek words from which "apostate" and
"apostasy" are derived are apostasia, apostates, and aphistemi.
They do not occur frequently in the New Testament. Apostasia is used but
twice in the New Testament: in Acts 21 :21, where Paul is accused of teaching
Jews to "turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children or live according to our customs"; and in II Thessalonians 2:3
where "the rebellion" is predicted, and the appearance of the man of
lawlessness. In the New Testament no one is called an "apostate".
However, other words may indicate that such a condition has occurred; e.g. parapipto
(used only in Hebrews 6:6) and arneomai (as used in Matthew 10:33; 1
Timothy 5:8; II Peter 2:1; I John 2:22ff; Jude 4).
Twice aphistemi has a direct bearing on our study: in
I Timothy 4:1 Paul predicted that some will "abandon the faith in later
times;" and in Hebrews 3:12 the writer warns against "a sinful,
unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God." In the former
case, the act consists of follosing devilish teachings such as forbidding to
marry or to eat certain foods; in the latter case, it was a case of
disobedience repeated many times during the desert wandering. As to LXX usage,
Hatch and Redpath lists 41 Hebrew words translated by aphistemi. A study
of those examples as well as the New Testament usages leads to the following
conclusions: (1) apostasy is abandonment of a belief or practice once publicly
held to, (2) a variety of acts may be called "apostate," (3) the term
"apostasy" should be applied to public detectable acts only, and
individuals and churches should be able to use the word in the Biblical sense,
and to apply it to those who commit such acts.
FALSE TEACHERS AND FALSE TEACHING
False teaching is not tolerated in the Bible because of the
affront which it is to God and evil results it will bring upon the
congregation. Hence, warnings against it are always accompanied with a threat
of judgment, and a warning of what false teaching will cause the people to do.
False teaching takes different forms: it may be a call to follow other gods, or
the teaching of another gospel, or the view that the resurrection has already
taken place. False teaching is always dangerous because it works like leaven;
it always affects people adversely, and cannot be cured except by drastic
action. Conversely, sound doctrine does not work like leaven, and it is furthered
by clear teaching, godly living, and consistent discipline.
Because these things are so, false teachers must be dealt
with by extreme measures. They are to be "cut off,"
"stoned" and an anathema is placed on them. In Deut. 13:12ff false
teaching and apostasy are closely linked: the false prophet's message, "let
us go after other gods," must be met with the death penalty. The penalty
must be carried out against a member of one's own family, or against a town
which has been infected with the error. The purpose is: "Then all Israel
will hear and be afraid" (v. 11a). It should be noted that this is one of
the prime reasons for discipline, the effect false teaching will have on the
people of God (v. 11). The Scriptures consistently stress this, for no one is
immune to its effects. Frequently the Lord insists that if the people
themselves do not cut off the offender, He Himself will do so.
At the same time it should be noted that the punishment for
false teaching is no more severe than that for any other overt transgression of
the commandments, even those dealing with ceremonies (cf. Gen. 17:14; Ex.
12:15; 19; 31:14; Lev. 7:20ff; 17:9, 10).
HERESY AND HERETICS
This group includes hairesis, hairetikos, hairetizo,
and haireomai. These words mean "choose," "pick,"
"choices," (both good and bad), "schools,"
"factions," "dissensions," "opinions," "ways
of thinking," These words became technical terms, usually, but not always,
with negative connotations.
Our group is brought into sharper focus by Titus 3:10 where
hairetikon (NN-"a divisive person") is to be warned and then
rejected; by Galatians 5:20 where hairesis (NN-"factions") are
among the works of the flesh and "those who live like this will not
inherit the kingdom of God;" by I Corinthians 11:19 where hairesis
(NN -"differences") seems to be classed with schismata, and
both are set over against oi dokimoi (NIV -"those who 'have God's
approval'"). Clearly, "heresies" and "heretics" have
no place in the church. However, our group of words is so little used in the
New Testament that a word-study per se is not very productive.
The New Testament mentions Diotrephes (III John 9ff) who may
have been a heretics, or an incipient heretic, who in any case comes under
John's authority. John determined to confront him (publicly? privately?)
regarding malicious gossip. Diotraphes was also guilty of imposing his will on
the saints so as to require them to refuse to receive traveling (?) brethren
and, if they did, of excommunicating them. Clearly Diotrephes was not teaching
false doctrine, but he needed discipline. Marshall writes (NICNT, p. 91):
"It is not Christian to refrain from exercising legitimate authority where
there is need to do so; the modern church is perhaps too chary in exercising
brotherly admonition and even discipline when it is required."
It is important to keep Marshall's remarks in mind. The one
causing division is not the one who institutes discipline, but the one who
teaches and acts contrary to sound doctrine (cf. I Kings 18:18).
II John 7ff speaks of "deceivers" with whom the
recipients of John's letter must break fellowship: "do not take him into
your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked
work." Here we have an advance over III John. The coming of deceivers was
predicted by Jesus (Matthew 24:5, 23ff), by Paul (Acts 20:28ff). They are now
present in John's day. They do not "confess Jesus Christ as coming in the
flesh." The participle is present indicating continuous action: He came in
the flesh and is still in the flesh. To reject that truth is to be
anti-Christ, and John is not loath to pass such a judgment. Even so, to say
such a terrible thing about another human being is consistent with walking in
love; it is in fact "keeping the commandments." (v. 6)
The presence of deceivers called for self-examination by
believers because adopting their false teaching would mean great loss (v. 8).
"Progressing beyond" the doctrine which Christ brought (or, the
doctrine concerning Christ) is indication that one is god-less. (v. 9) Such a
one should be rejected (perhaps a traveling preacher) and not even given a
welcome. To do so would entail complicity in his evil deeds. (v. 11)
Often discipline of false teachers was called for in order
to protect believers from their error (Acts 20:28ff). Here it should be pointed
out the "fellowship" with false teachers entails "fellowship"
in their evil deeds.
DISCIPLINE
Introduction
The discussion as to whether a given church or denomination
is apostate or heretical is simply too abstract. It is evident that
"separation" cannot be studied and expounded in isolation from the
rest of Scripture. Actually, "separation" is part of a process of discipline.
Discipline, however, is a function of the church. The church is the
creation of God who is holy and intends His church to be holy. There is and can
be no holiness in a sinful world apart from the grace of Calvary and the
power of the resurrection. Hence, much of the following study focuses on
discipline as the holy God outlines it for His people.
From the beginning, God's purposes for His people has been
holy living. His call to Abraham was "...be blameless" (Gen. 17:1).
To Israel it was "Therefore be holy, because I am holy" (Lev. 11:4-5),
a command repeated in the New Testament (I Peter 1:16). This holiness is not
the product of sinful striving; it is a gift of grace and the human effort which
produces holiness is an ability which comes from the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, the holiness God requires is the fruit of the
Spirit. There is a series of divine activities which see to it that we are
holy. We have been chosen for holiness (Eph. 1:4). Jesus died to make us holy
(Eph. 5:27); we are called to holiness (I Thess. 4:7; II Tim. 1:9); God
disciplines us for holiness (Heb. 12:10).
But holiness is also a human activity, and it is here that
discipline becomes a vital concern. Self-discipline is required for that
obedience which produces holiness, and corporate discipline is required if the
individual is to receive the support and admonition of the community. One does
not become holy on a desert island but only within the church where members
warn, rebuke, expel, one another as occasion demands (I Thess. 5:14; Rom.
15:14; I Tim. 5:20; II Tim. 4:2; I Cor. 5:13).
Holiness is also maintained by vigilance regarding outside
influences. Paul not only warned the Ephesians against men who would arise
"from your own number and distort the truth..." (Acts 20:30), he
was also compelled to call for vigilance because "savage wolves will come
in among you" (v. 29). The danger was real, and the figure Paul chose was
not that of a puppy dog, but of a marauding animal bent on destruction.
Clearly, the holiness of the Ephesians could not be taken for granted.
The dual warning noted above, regarding wolves outside and
false teachers within, was given to Israel at the time of Sinaitic covenant.
Discipline is imbedded in Biblical revelation from start to finish. Israel was
not to make a covenant with any other nation (although there was provision that
individual members of other nations might join the covenant and congregation),
and the nation was to deal strictly with covenant breakers from within.
Old Testament Covenant Breakers
A. Purpose of the Command to Discipline (and Subsequent
Value When Obeyed)
- It upholds God's righteousness-Lev. 19:2
- It keeps the congregation pure-Deut. 17:12; 29:28
- It makes the offender an example to rest of people-Deut.
19:16-21; 21:18
Although the punishment was severe in the Old Testament
theocracy, it was never hasty or vengeful. The rights of the accused were
strictly enforced, and cities of refuge were designated to provide for
protection against vengeance.
A wide variety of sins was to be judged: sins against God
(blasphemy, idolatry, etc.), and sins against the neighbor (kidnapping,
dishonoring parents, etc.). Also, the death penalty was to be carried out for
offenses against the ceremonial law (worshipping while unclean), and against
the civil law (showing contempt for a judge). We are reminded of James 2:10,
"Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty
of breaking all of it."
B. Agents of Discipline
- Congregation (represented by elders, priests) acting as
God's agents
- Individuals, sometimes when congregation did not,
sometimes when individuals were witnesses
- God, acting either initially or when congregation did
not-Num. 11:1, 4ff; 12:1ff; 14:37; 16:1ff
C. What Happens If Discipline Is Not Exercised
-God will take over-Lev. 20:4ff; 26:1ff; Deut. 27:9ff; 28:15ff
-The undisciplined will become root bearing poisonous fruit
and wormwood-Deut. 29:18
The Old Testament records show that Israel did not
discipline. But God did, and the record is terrible indeed. (Heb. 3:16-19 and I
Cor. 10:6-10)
New Testament Discipline
When we come to the New Testament, there are a few
principles which should guide our study. There is no longer corporal discipline:
elders do not stone, whip, or use any other method of physical punishment. Nor
is the church called upon to exercise the ban on sinful nations.
Yet it would be a mistake to infer from this that discipline
is less important in the New Testament. God is still righteous; sin is still
detestable; sinners must be reclaimed both by evangelism and discipline; the
wrath of God will still come upon the ungodly.
Moreover, the Old Testament procedure for discipline
prevails in the New Testament (e.g. Deut. 17:6 and 19:15 are quoted in Matthew
18:16; John 8:17; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Jesus reinforces the
restitution called for in Lev. 5:14ff as an essential part of the trespass
offering, when He told His disciples, "First go and be reconciled to your
brother, then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:24).
In Hebrews there is an a fortiori argument which we
must not ignore: "If the message spoken by angels was binding, and every
violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if
we ignore..." (2:2); also, "How much more severely do you think a-
man deserves to be punished..." (10:29). To which we should add,
"But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment" (I
Cor. 11:31).
A. Purpose of the Command to Discipline (and Subsequent
Value When Obeyed)
- It is an act of obedience-II Cor. 2:9; 7:12
- It should be done out of reverence for God-II Cor. 7:1
- It makes offender ashamed-II Thess. 3:14
- It restores the offender-I Cor. 5:5,6; I Tim. 1 :20
- Others will fear to sin-I Tim. 5:20
- You will not lose what you have worked for-II John 8
Consider particularly the impact of Matthew 18:17 - "If
he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to
listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax
collector." This verse should be read in relation to Leviticus 19:17 and
Luke 17:3. The Leviticus context is one of love to neighbor (v. 18): to love
another is to rebuke him. Also, there is a certain self-interest in rebuke
"so you will not share in his guilt." The point is that sin acts like
yeast and quickly defiles the whole congregation. Therefore out of a sense of
love for the offender, and of concern for one's self and the community-call
sin, sin. On the other hand, when one knows of a sin and does not rebuke the
offender, the former shares in the latter's guilt. We have a similar though in
II John 11: "Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." In
legal parlance, one becomes an accessory after the fact when he fails to follow
the procedures of discipline.
In the Luke passage Jesus stresses the continuing character
of this discipline-a man might sin against you seven times in a day. As the
offense persists, Jesus says, so should the rebuke, and so should the forgiveness.
In Matthew 18, Jesus is talking about scandals, or causes
for sin. It is a terrible thing to cause someone else to sin (v. 6). It is a
perilous matter when we allow any of our bodily parts to cause us to sin (v. 8,
9). In this context, He speaks of rebuking a brother who sins against you. We
are probably to understand the sin here as a scandal, something which might be
a cause to sin.
The following passages should be consulted for aspects of
discipline: Romans 16:17; I Cor. 5; II Cor. 11-13; Ephesians 5:3; Philippians
3:2; II Thess. 3:6; 14; I Tim. 1:18; 4:1-6; 5:20; II Tim. 2; 16f[; 3:1ff; Titus
3:9ff; II Peter 2:1ff; 3:3; II John 17ff; III John 9; Jude 3, 22ff; Revelation
18:4.
B. Summary
1. We cannot avoid the conclusion that discipline is important.
The references are many. They are found throughout Jesus' teaching and in
almost every epistle; the churches to whom the instructions come are scattered
over the whole world known at that time. It is evident that no church, no area,
is exempt from the responsibility of continuing vigilance against the inroads
of false teaching and false practice.
2. This injunction to so widely scattered churches was of
course necessitated by the equally widespread opposition to the Gospel in the
forms of false teaching, sexual abuse, idleness, etc. In this connection we
should note the awareness of Satan's activity in most of the churches on the
part of all writers of epistles.
3. It is clear the the New Testament has no one technical
word for the practice of discipline which is parallel to the Old Testament
"cut off." On the other hand, the richness of the vocabulary points
to the manifold character of discipline. It entails constant vigilance,
continual reminder, a hatred and even fear of any sin and its consequences, the
importance of gentleness and of private admonition in the early stages, the
necessity for sterness and public rebuke later on, and finally the step of
isolation, separation.
4. While church leaders are involved in the more public
processes of discipline, it is evident that there must be total congregational
commitment to the principle. The congregation must support and implement
discipline at each level once the offense has reached the state where it must
be known.
Apostasy and Ecclesiastical Separation in the Early Church
In the formative years of the church the question of
apostasy was a pressing one. It was not uncommon for those who professed the
Christian faith and were baptized into it to turn away and so return to their
pagan religion or to Judaism. This apostasy was at first considered
unforgivable and those guilty of such sin were not readmitted to the church. By
the third century the severity of the persecutions caused large number to
apostasize who then begged for readmittance and forgiveness for their lapse.
The issue of whether or not to restore these "lapsi" became a cause
of division within the church.
For purposes of this study it should be noted that:
(1) Apostasy was considered to be the action of an
individual who totally renounced the faith and would no longer even be called a
Christian.
(2) At that early date, apostasy was not difficult to
discern in that one's confession about Christ was the essential focus of the
persecutions.
With the gradual establishment of the church, apostasy was
not discussed as much as the issue of heresy. Few desired to leave the church
or renounce the name of Christ, but there was the difficult matter of deviant
teaching among those who continued to call themselves Christian. In one sense
apostasy was seen to differ from heresy only in that it was heresy carried to
its ultimate deviance. In another sense apostasy could be said to be
qualitatively different in that it meant consciously renouncing the name of
Christ. Those guilty of heresy frequently formed new groups, but they would
continue to claim the name Christian, which would not be true of those who were
apostate.
Related to the issue of heresy was that of schism. The
former involved doctrinal error and the latter ecclesiastical separation or
dissent. Augustine said, "...you are a schismatic by your sacreligious
separation and a heretic by your sacreligious doctrine." (cf. Calvin's
citation of Augustine in Institutes. Book N, Ch. II, Sec. 5).
In practice, however, the two terms were used almost synonymously.
Thus the division of the Eastern and Western churches beginning in 1052 is
thought of as a schism, but both sides regard the other as heretics. With the
coming of the Middle Ages and the preoccupation with ecclesiastical rather than
doctrinal questions it could be observed that the most objectionable heresy was
schism. This would help to explain why the apologetic of the Reformers in
ecclesiastical issues constantly dealt with the question of whether or not they
were schismatic. The Reformers, however, were eager to return to matters of
doctrine rather than organizational unity as the basis for any discussion of
schism. (Cf. De Ecclesia by John Hus; On the Babylonian Captivity of
the Church by Martin Luther)
For purposes of this study it should be noted that:
(1) Up to this point in the history of the church apostasy
continued to be used exclusively of individuals who totally renounced even the
name of Christ.
(2) Heresy became the term used for those who claim to be
Christian but teach false doctrine. A contemporary Catholic scholar, Karl
Rahner, has raised the issue of whether or not in the Christian milieu of today
it is possible or likely that anyone would be truly apostate ("On
Heresy"). But even in terms of the classic understanding of the word, it
seems entirely conceivable that a person (or a church) could become heretical
to such a degree that it is for all practical purposes apostate.
(Cf. Articles on "Apostasy" and "Heresy"
in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings,
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958; New Catholic Encyclopedia. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1967)
Apostasy and Ecclesiastical Separation in the Reformation
Era
During the Reformation one of the most vital areas of
discussion was the nature of the visible church. The place of Scripture and the
doctrines of salvation were reasserted, but they had been well established in
antiquity. In ecclesiology, however, a new situation presented itself for
solution. The body which could claim historical and perhaps even organizational
continuity with the Apostolic church had not departed substantially from the
faith it professed; at least so argued the Reformers. It became a question of
who could call whom a heretic-who was the true church. This was no light matter
for the Protestants regarded schism as gravely as did the Romanists (Calvin
twice identifies as apostates those who leave the church for insufficient
reasons [Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 1, Sec. 5, 10]).
The Protestant argumentation began from Scripture and soon
revolved around what were called the "marks" of a true church.
"He has moreover set off by plainer marks the knowledge of his very body
to us, knowing how necessary it is to our salvation." (Institutes,
Book IV, Ch. 1, Sec. 8) There was some variation as to just what these marks
were, but it was agreed by all that the two principle "marks" were
"the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments
administered according to Christ's institution." (Institutes, Book
IV, Ch. 1, Sec. 9) Luther in 1539 listed four others, but because his
ecclesiology focused essentially on the invisible church he was relunctant to
add the traditional third mark of the church, that of discipline. The Reformed
churches were more concerned with defining the visible church and therefore insisted
that discipline must accompany the first two marks so that the church could
remain true. Calvin never listed this third mark because he felt it belonged to
the proper administration of the church, not its essence, but he did insist on
its importance. Constant reference to the three marks are found in the Reformed
creeds of the sixteenth century as the basis for distinguishing the true and false
church.
"We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly
to discern from the Word of God which is the true church, since all sects which
are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. [Then the three
marks are listed.] As for the false church, she ascribes more power and
authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not
submit herself to the yoke of Christ... These two churches are easily known
and distinguished from each other." (Belgic Confession [1561], Article
XXIX)
The issue of the nature of the true church as discussed
during the Reformation has great significance for enlightening current
discussions of this same issue. Many of the larger ecclesiastical bodies can
claim historical and organizational continuity with the churches that came from
the Reformation but they have departed from the faith they once professed.
Those who consider separation are once again labelled schismatic. But in fact
is the true church determined solely by organization? Is it schismatic to have
a body that does not manifest the marks?
Special attention should be given to the careful
presentation of John Calvin in chapters one and two of Book IV of his Institutes.
These chapters represent the mature reflections of this reformer. Chapter 1 is
titled "The True Church with which as Mother of all the Godly we must keep
Unity." This chapter is a strong affirmation of the importance of the
church, which he does not hesitate to call our mother as God is our Father. As
noted above he twice refers to those who are indifferent to the unity of the
church as apostates (the only time he speaks of apostasy in this discussion of
the church). In this chapter he explains the importance of the marks and the
necessity of staying within the church if they are present regardless of the
"quality of the members." (Thus he disagrees with the Anabaptist view
that the purity of the church is based on the sanctification of its members
rather than the truth of its confession.) Chapter 2 is entitled "A
Comparison of the False and the True Church." In this chapter, while
reaffirming the importance of unity in the true church, he is clear that that
begs the question of what happens when the church is no longer true. "But,
as soon as falsehood breaks into the citadel of religion and the sum of
necessary doctrine is overturned and the use of the sacraments is destroyed,
surely the death of the church follows... If the foundation of the church is
the teaching of the prophets and apostles, which bids believers entrust their
salvation to Christ alone-then take away that teaching, and how will the
building continue to stand? Therefore, the church must tumble down when that
sum of religion dies which alone can sustain it. Again, if the true church is
the pillar and foundation of truth (I Tim. 3:15), it is certain that no church
can exist where lying and falsehood have gained sway." (Institutes,
Book IV, Ch. 11, Sec. 1) In the discussion of separation that follows, Calvin
carefully shows that when the marks have disappeared the charge of schism
cannot be made since it is no longer a church in any Biblical sense of that word.
Section 10 has the title "Why we must separate from the corrupted
church." In the concluding sections Calvin acknowledges that
"vestiges" of the true, particularly baptism, remain and he ends the
discussion with this remarkable paragraph:
"In them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel
overthrown, piety scattered, the worship of God nearly wiped out. In them,
briefly, everything is so confused that there we see the face of Babylon rather
than that of the Holy City of God. To sum up, I call them churches to the
extent that the Lord wonderfully preserves in them a remnant of his people,
however woefully dispersed and scattered, and to the extent that some marks of
the church remain-especially those marks whose effectiveness neither the
devil's wiles nor human depravity can destroy. 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, Book IV, Ch.
II, Sec. 12)
It is interesting to note that the question of apostasy is
not raised as a necessary prerequisite to legitimate separation. There can be
little question that Calvin, in common with other Reformers, considered the
Roman See to represent "nothing but horrid apostasy" and the pope the
Antichrist (Institutes, Book IV, Ch. VII, Sec. 24, 25). But the more
easily identified "marks" were the actual criteria used in discussing
separation. In the context of the contemporary issue it should at least raise
the question of whether apostasy must be claimed or proved before separation
can be justified to lay claim to faithfulness to our Reformed heritage.
Westminster Confession of Faith
"Whereas, amongst the infinite blessings of Almighty
God upon this nation, none is nor can be more dear unto us than the purity of
our religion;...". So begins the document which formally established the
Westminster Assembly of Divines on June 12, 1643. It was concern for the
"purity of our religion" which lay at the foundation of our
Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This purity could not be
maintained without protest against impurity. This same document specifies
further that the Westminster Assembly was convened in protest against "...that present church-government by archbishops, their chancellors,
commissars, deans..." etc. because such a "hierarchy is evil, and
justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, a great impediment to
reformation and growth of religion...". In undertaking their work the
members of the Assembly were "...resolved... that such a government be
settled in the church as may be most agreeable to God's holy Word, and most apt
to procure and preserve the peace of the church...".
Separation from an established church was a significant part
of the historic matrix in which the Westminster Confession of Faith was
conceived. In the minds of its authors, the WCF was part of a protest against a
church which had become intolerably corrupt. The entire document is influenced
by this fact, and parts of three chapters may be seen as having direct bearing
on the related issues of apostasy and ecclesiastical separation.
CHAPTER XX.2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath
left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing
contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to
believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to
betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an
absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason
also.
King Charles I of England, like so many other monarchs of
his day, had been trying to force his subjects to yield to his will in
"matters of faith or worship." The Westminster Divines were
representative of those who were in revolt against Charles and against the
church which he championed. To yield would have been to betray "true
liberty of conscience;" yes, it would even "destroy liberty of conscience,
and reason also." The WCF and the entire Reformation, for that matter,
were a protest against a concerted effort to bind men's consciences contrary to
Scripture. For the Westminster Divines, separation was not only justified, it
was required in order to maintain integrity of conscience before God.
CHAPTER XXV. 4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes
more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members
thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is
taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more
or less purely in them.
5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to
mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of
Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church
on earth to worship God according to His will.
These paragraphs are concerned with the purity of the
church. They recognize the impossibility of an absolutely pure church, and give
no support to those who would separate from a church on trivial grounds. At the
same time, it is noted that some churches "...have so degenerated as to
become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." Surely such a
state of degeneracy within a church is grounds for separation. Though they do
not formally declare it, we may assume that the Westminster Divines had judged
that the Church of Charles I as well as the church of Rome was just such a
degenerate body, and that this was the reason for their writing a new confession
and establishing a new church.
6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus
Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense by head thereof.
This is severe enough in itself, but represents a revision
by deletion from the original version. The original version adds, concerning
the pope, "but is that Anti-Christ, that man of sin, and son of perdition,
that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called
God." It is important to note that the authors of the WCF were willing to
make such a judgment of the Roman Catholic Church and its head. Though the word
"apostate" is not invoked here or elsewhere in the WCF, surely the
language used is equivalent, implying that the Roman Catholic Church is a
"synagogue of Satan" and stating specifically that the pope is
"that AntiChrist." On the basis of such judgments, these men and
those whom they represented separated from the established church.
CHAPTER XXIX. 2. In this sacrament [the mass] Christ is not
offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of
sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that one offering up of
himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a spiritual oblation of
all possible praise unto God for the same, so that the Popish sacrifice of the
mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ's one only
sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect.
6. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance
of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly
called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is
repugnant, not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason;
overthroweth the nature of the· sacrament; and hath been, and is the cause of
manifold superstitions, yea of gross idolatries.
Here are concrete examples of the "doctrines and
commandments of men" referred to in general terms in WCF XX, par. 2. Such
error was "most abominably injurious" and "repugnant" both
to scripture and "even to common sense." There must be a protest
against such dangerous teaching and practice, and the authors of the WCF
willingly made this protest both in these words which they wrote and in the
ecclesiastical separation which they made between themselves and the Roman
Catholic Church.
Chapter XXX might also be added to the three sections cited
above. Its treatment of Church Censures may be seen as a preventive measure
against the abuses noted above as well as against other evils which might
invade the church. Separation may itself be seen as an act of church censure.
It is one part of the body of Christ declaring that another part is guilty of
grievous sin.
SUMMARY To seventeenth-century England and Scotland, the WCF
held out a clear alternative to the superstitions and corruptions of Medieval
Roman Catholicism. Our age needs an equally clear alternative. To offer this
alternative it will at times be necessary for ministers and congregations to
separate from ecclesiastical alliances which compromise the Word of God.
It is important also to note the key role of conscience in
this matter. Four times the words "conscience is used in Chapter XX, par.
2, of the WCF. It is the conscience that must be convinced that a church has
declined so far that separation is the only suitable recourse. While we must
stand firmly for what our own conscience may dictate, we must, at the same
time, be patient with one whose conscience may not agree with ours.
The Issue of Separation Among Scottish Presbyterians
The Covenanters and other groups in Scotland in their
devotion to the Scriptural ideal of a pure church carefully stated reasons for
breaking ties with unfaithful groups and organizing new ecclesiastical bodies.
(An important Source of this information is A History of the Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church by Ray A. King, published by the Board of Christian
Education of the ARP Church, Charlotte, NC, 1966.) Though their problems
differed from those of the twentieth century, we today can learn wisdom from
their documents. The earliest official pronouncements of the Covenanters are
printed in Testimony-Bearing Exemplified (paisley, 1791, reprinted in
New York, 1834).
Sections I and II note the difference "between a church
in her infancy, and growing up into reformation, and an adult church, which
hath arrived at a higher pitch of reformation: in the former many things may be
tolerated, which may not in the latter."
This contrasts with the view that a church can tolerate much
more serious defections from the faith in its maturity than it did at its
organization.
Section IV can be seen to be pertinent to our predicament in
1936. It reads in part, "We distinguish between a reformed church enjoying
her privileges and judicatories and a reformed church denuded of [them]. In the
former people are to address themselves unto the church judicatories and not
withdraw from their ministers, especially for ordinary scandals, without making
prior application to these. Bu! in the latter when ministers are really scandalous,
though not juridically declared so, and duly censurable according to the word
of God and their own church's constitutions... people may do what is competent
to them... by withdrawing from such ministers even without the presbyterial
sentence."
Still more strictly the document says, "We can join
with none whose sin we may be interpreted to homologate... or which might be
so looked upon as... a badge of our compliance with them, or sign of
approbation of their sin, directly, or indirectly. For in our joining in
worship or church communion, we must advert to what it may be interpreted...
in our own or others' consciences... for to that we must also have special
respect, lest we offend and stumble others... We can join with none from whom
a church duly constituted... would enjoin us to withdraw."
Then finally in Section V the document says, "We judge
we have sufficient ground to withdraw, not only from these who are actively and
actually of the foresaid compliances... but also from such ministers who take
the defence and patrociny of these courses, who palliate and plaster them, and
strengthen the hands and harden the hearts of these that are engaged in
them."
There is ample evidence that the Reformed Presbyterian
Church continued to affirm its willingness to separate for principle. In the
Reformation Principles Exhibited, of 1806, Ch. XXI:5 is stated: ''When [in] any
church... the administration is corrupt, and attempts at its reformation have
proved ineffectual, it is the duty of Christians to separate from it."
(cf. The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod,
by George P. Hutchinson, chapters 2 and 3.) Thus in the Plan of Union with the
Evangelical Presbyterian Church in 1965 there was no hesitation on the part of
the Reformed Presbyterians in agreeing to the statement about apostasy cited
earlier.
The Issue of Apostasy in the Presbyterian Church in the
Nineteenth Century
A very significant situation developed in the Presbyterian
Church in the nineteenth century. (This is presented in detail as part of an
unpublished doctoral dissertation by Dr. David Jones of Covenant Seminary
entitled The Doctrine of the Church in American Presbyterian Theology in
the Mid-Nineteenth Century.) In 1835 the General Assembly was asked by the
Presbytery of Baltimore to rule on the status of the Roman Catholic Church. The
ruling was as follows:
It is the deliberate and decided judgment of this Assembly,
that the Roman Catholic Church has essentially apostasized from the religion of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot be recognized as a
Christian Church.
The declaration of the apostasy of that church led logically
to a consideration of the validity of its ordinances, particularly baptism. In
1845 the matter came up in the General Assembly of the Old School. (The
division of the Presbyterian Church into Old and New School led to slightly
different handling of the issue by the two bodies although the results were the
same.) By a vote of 173 to 8 the assembly rejected the validity of Roman
Catholic baptism on the grounds that it could no longer be called Christian
baptism since the Roman Catholic body was not a true church. "Though once
a branch of the visible Church, [she] has long since become utterly corrupt,
and hopelessly apostate." (Statement of the General Assembly of 1845)
One of the eight dissenting votes was that of Charles Hodge
of Princeton. Hodge spoke to the matter in The Princeton Review of 1845
(an article reprinted in his volume, Church Polity, 1878). Hodge argued
that the General Assembly had gone beyond the position of the Reformers and the
Confession of Faith. "The question of whether the church of Rome is a true
church, may be affirmed or denied according to the sense attached to those
terms." By this he meant that the Reformers on the one hand could identify
the Roman system to be anti-Christ and apostate and on the other hand by
looking at their profession of the Triune God and the presence of true
believers could call Rome a church in the sense that apostate Israel was still
under the covenant. Thus the issue for Hodge was not whether Rome could be
called a true church, but a pure church. "All the definitions
given in our books, tell us what a pure church is. And when Protestants deny
the church of Rome to be a church, they deny that she comes within their definition
of a pure church, though they admit her to be a corrupt and apostate
church" (Church Polity). Hodge's view was not universally accepted
among Presbyterians. James H. Thornwell, reflecting the direction the Southern
Presbyterians would take, supported the General Assembly. In later years the
General Assembly position was dropped.
It should be noted that the practice of our denomination
(both as presently constituted and in its Bible Presbyterian tradition) has
been to accept the baptisms and ordinations of the Roman Catholic and UPUSA
churches as valid in spite of the fact that both could be considered to have
been "declared apostate" by our denomination at one time or another.
In its report to the twenty-third General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian
Church, the Judicial Commission recommended that a former Roman Catholic priest
not be reordained but be received only on the basis of a doctrinal examination.
The Synod supported this recommendation.
The Separatist Movement in Presbyterianism, 1922-1979
The roots of the Presbyterian separatist movement stretch
back into the controversy with liberalism of the early twenties. It came to a
crisis point when Harry Emerson Fosdick preached his now famous and aggravating
sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?", boldly upholding
Modernistic doctrine. The Philadelphia Presbytery overtured the next General
Assembly to direct the Presbytery of New York to bring the preaching of the
Presbyterian Church, where Baptist Fosdick was supplying the pulpit, into line
with the system of doctrine of the Confession. The overture passed the 1923
Assembly by only a 439-359 majority, showing the strength of the liberals with
those who argued toleration for the sake of peace.
Early in 1924 the minority, with many other ministers,
issued the Auburn Affirmation (eventually signed by 1274 ministers) to
"safeguard the unity and liberty" of the Church. The five themes
reaffirmed by the 1923 Assembly-Biblical inspiration, the incarnation, the
atonement, the resurrection, and Christ's supernatural power-were stated to be
facts but the Assembly's descriptions of them were said to be
"theories," which only some of the Affirmationists chose to accept.
Biblical inerrancy was specifically mentioned as being unacceptable.
The "toleration group" in successive assemblies
increasingly supported the liberals and together, in 1929, they voted for the
reorganization of Princeton Seminary along liberal lines. This led directly to
the establishment of Westminster Seminary as an independent school. In 193:4,
following the 1933 formation of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign
Missions as an outlet for the support of sound Presbyterian missionaries, the
assembly in effect mandated that Presbyteries put to trial and expel the new
Board's members. The so-called ''Mandate of 1934" stated "A church
member or an individual church that will not give to promote the officially
authorized missionary program of the Presbyterian Church is in exactly the same
position with reference to the Constitution of the Church as a church or an
individual church that would refuse to take part in the celebration of the
Lord's Supper or any of the prescribed ordinances of the denomination as set
forth in Chapter VII of the Form of Government." (cf. The Presbyterian
Conflict, Edwin H. Rian, p. 152ff, 309ff.) Dr. J. Gresham Machen insisted
that this established a policy of "exclusion from the ministry of all who
will not support the propaganda of the Modernist boards and agencies." (Presbyterian
Guardian, May 4, 1936) The action of the 1934 General Assembly was seized
upon by Dr. Machen and others of the growing separation movement as
illustrating clearly the apostasy of the Presbyterian Church in the USA. In a
lengthy tract published in the Christian Beacon of 1937 and later issued
as "The Case for Compromise," lawyer H. McAllister Griffiths argued
that if the General Assembly of 1936 upheld the judicial appeals of the
"Mandate of 1934," then clearly the church as a whole was apostate.
The church had placed its authority above the Word of God. Referring to this
issue Machen himself wrote in the Guardian article noted above that
"A church that places the word of man above the Word of God and that
dethrones Jesus Christ is an apostate church. It is the duty of all true
Christians to separate from such a church." Machen's reasoning about the
charge of schism was essentially the same as that of Calvin and the Reformers;
"Here, then, is the principle of the thing-it is schism to leave a church
if that church is true to the Bible, but it is not schism if that church is not
true to the Bible, In the latter case, far from its being schism to separate
from the church in question, it is schism to remain in it, since to remain in it
means to disobey the Word of God and to separate oneself from the true Church
of Jesus Christ." (Presbyterian Guardian, April 20, 1936)
It was out of this crucible that the Presbyterian Church of
America was founded in 1936, not as a new church, but to carry on the
"spiritual succession" of the Presbyterian Church, USA.
Unfortunately, the move to separate was easier to take than
the establishment of a new identity. And in the years that followed,
"apostasy" and "separation" were integral to the struggles of
the new church. What follows are brief references to some of the discussions
(cf. The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church Evangelical Synod,
by George Hutchinson).
1) On June 4, 1937 a small group of men separated from the
PCA and met in Philadelphia to draw up "Articles of Association" for
the formation of a new Presbyterian church. They stated the reasons for their
new association as follows:
For the sake of fellowship in the principles for which we
stand, and as a testimony to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and because of
the official apostasy of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and because of the
departure of the Presbyterian Church of America from the historic position of
American Presbyterianism, we... do associate ourselves together in the Bible
Presbyterian Synod." (Hutchinson, p. 247)
The next the first synod was organized on the above basis.
In subsequent years the Bible Presbyterian Church frequently issued calls to
separation from the Presbyterian Church, USA, because of its apostasy.
2) In August 1944 two ministers of the BPC published a new
paper called the "Clarion" to advance a very strong separatist
position. It was presented as believing "not only in separation from
infidels, but also in separation from disorderly brethren who, while personally
sound in their views, insist on remaining in organizational fellowship with
modernists." The answer of Carl McIntire, editor of the Christian
Beacon, is interesting. ''There are many godly people still in the apostate
denominations, ignorant, leaderless, confused, heartbroken, whom we must reach.
We must not separate further from them that God's Word requires, or place
unnecessary barriers between them and us... we must beware of these influences
which may arise in our midst which would pull us to an extreme position and
hinder our testimony... I am convinced that if the view held by Dr. Dillard
("Clarion") shall prevail... the BPC will wrap its own 'extreme
separation' robes about jt and lie down to its internal nightmares." (Hutchinson,
p. 257)
3) The Synod of 1945 tried to resolve the dilemma through
the adoption of the Harvey Cedars Resolutions. There were two resolutions; the
first dealt with personal separation and the second with ecclesiastical
separation. The second reads as follows:
1. We hold that it is a Christian's duty to separate himself
from all cooperation in religious activities with those who deny the full
authority and dependability of the Word of God, and that no consideration of
expediency could ever warrant such cooperation.
2. As concerns cooperation with those who, while themselves
believing in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, continue in
membership in denominations which include known unbelievers, and fail to see
clearly and to observe fully the scriptural injunction to separate themselves
from such organizations, we hold that this is a sphere of expediency, that is,
one in which no man's conscience may be bound by other men; however, we as a
Synod feel that great harm is done in many cases by such cooperation, and hence
that it is unwise to enter upon or continue in them without careful
consideration.
3. Regarding such individuals as are described in paragraph
one, we should seek by every possible means to win them to Christ; regarding
such individuals as are described in paragraph two we urge that they be dealt
with in a spirit of brotherly love, seeking by every proper means to win them
to the scriptural position of separation rather than to drive them from us, and
yet not violating our conscience.
It should be noted that the same Synod fully endorsed
membership in the American Council of Christian Churches which at that time
provided associate memberships for individuals still in denominations of the
Federal Council of Christian Churches.
4) The mid-fifties witnessed the development of further
controversy, this time growing out of the increasingly restrictive separation
of the American Council of Christian Churches and the International Council of
Christian Churches. The president of these councils, Carl McIntire, was accused
of "alienating more and more persons and groups" and of making
"even the very word 'separation' a stench in the American Council
world." (Hutchinson, p. 288) The majority of the 1955 St. Louis synod
voted to withdraw from the two councils. By the end of the next year the church
was split in two, with approximately 40% following McIntire's lead. The
continuing BPC, Inc., officially declared at its Columbus Synod, ''While we
affirm and maintain unyielding loyalty to the doctrine of the priority of the
visible Church, we repudiate' that extreme separation which ignores our
responsibility to demonstrate the love of God toward our Christian brethren as
the distinguishing mark of our discipleship." (Hutchinson, p. 293) This stance
was not to be interpreted as repudiating the importance of separation from
unbelief and apostasy, but only concerned procedures. Dr. Francis Schaeffer, a
member of the Bible Presbyterian Church from the outset, would later say, ''We
took the right stand but in the wrong way." (cf. The Church Before a
Watching World, especially his essay, "Adultery and Apostasy-the Bride
and Bridegroom Theme".)
5) The Plan of Union, approved by the Evangelical
Presbyterian Church and Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod, in 1964,
spoke to the issue of separation with these words: "We counsel our
ministry and membership that there is widespread apostasy and unbelief in
church organizations today, and that we are not to be partakers with
unbelievers in their religious activities." As for "believers who
maintain associations with liberal church organizations" it was resolved
"that we exercise great care and take every precaution to preserve an
uncompromising stand with the Lord and His infallible Word, yet all the while
dealing with others in grace and love." (Hutchinson, p. 382)
6) The Synod of 1974 approved the appointment of a study
committee "to define the biblical bounds of ecclesiastical separation and
to formulate guidelines for specific application for the sake of the purity of
the church." A lengthy report was received and adopted in 1976. It was
declared that 'The motivating principle behind biblical separation is
submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ... The church which aggressively
attempts to be a pure church... will attempt to win over before separating
from anything or anyone opposing this commitment." In writing on
"Defining the Bounds of Ecclesiastical Separation for the Local
Church" guidelines are given stressing the responsibility of the elders of
the local church adequately to assess the past, present, and probably future
ecclesiastical purity of the body with which the union (or assumedly
cooperation) is contemplated. The report then affirms the need of "a
judgment about the kind and degree of influences at work in the contemporary
situation which apparently are leading the organization to its probable
future;" and the need of arriving at "a reasonable prognostication
concerning the continuing commitment of the organization to the doctrine of the
purity of the church." The accent here is not one of automatic prohibition
when union or cooperation with another body on the local church level is being
considered but one of emphasizing the need of the session carefully assessing
where the body presently stands and where it seems to be going. (Minutes of
154th Synod, p. 144ff.)
7) The concept of judging the appropriateness of cooperation
at the level where it will take place, it was argued by the Southern Presbytery
at the 1978 Synod, is incorporated in the Form of Government, IV, 9, e:
"Particular churches shall not be prevented from participation in such
activities as local Bible conferences, evangelistic programs, or
interdenominational associations of particular churches free from apostasy."
The Judicial Commission's recommendation that the Presbytery's position be
sustained quoted the Plan of Union as quoted above in (5). Synod sustained the
recommendation and recognized the right of the Lookout Mountain RPCES to hold a
joint Summer Bible School with the local PCUS church.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) With reference to Apostasy-
Biblical and historical studies do not seem to provide some
final definition of apostasy. We conclude that such a definition is not
required. Its use has not been and need not be limited to some sort of final,
total, and irrevocable repudiation of everything Biblical and Christian. If
such were the case, the term could rightly be used only of Satan or the Harlot
of Revelation 17-18. Our studies suggest that apostasy can be described as a process
of moving away as well as a condition or state of denial of the faith once
believed in. For this reason, trying to define an "apostate church"
has proved to be our most difficult task. What is the line to be crossed before
that label pertains? How blatant must the denial of Christ and His Word be? We
did not want to abandon use of the word but we also felt great relunctance to
call another church apostate even though we might agree that under the judgment
of God He might so label a church in our day as He did Israel. However. we did
not feel it at all inappropriate for the Church today to discuss the issue or
to help Christians desiring to be faithful to Christ to recognize that such
faithfulness must at times include "earnestly contending for the faith"
(Jude 3) and pronouncing the "anathema" when a false gospel is
preached (Gal. 1:6-9). In our thinking. the weight of the matter before us did
not fall on the issue of apostasy but of separation.
(2) With reference to Separation-
The committee did not conclude that ecclesiastical apostasy
and ecclesiastical separation were identical issues. Much of the need to
"prove" apostasy seems to have come from an assumption that apostasy
was the only legitimate basis for separation. We have concluded that there are
discernable circumstances which not only justify but mandate separation from an
ecclesiastical body. As explained above, the Reformers identified three
"marks of the church" whose presence meant that a church was true and
therefore separation would be schism but whose absence made separation a
necessity if the true church was to continue. We believe the thinking of the
Reformers and their creeds on this issue needs to be restudied and newly
appreciated for our own age. In particular. our study has focused on the
question of discipline. In the light of the importance of the ability of a body
to discipline itself in accordance with Scripture. a practical criterion for
considering separation as most honoring to Christ is the point at which
discipline for aberrant doctrine or life can or will no longer be administered.
We recognize that such a criterion has many possible interpretations. We also
recognize that separation when done is a painful process. but we nevertheless
feel the issue of discipline. particularly in the area of false teaching.
cannot be overlooked in this discussion. We cannot find any basis for
tolerating that which denies Christ. In particular we are dismayed by
contemporary statements about a "pluralistic" church. The context of
such a term is the assumption that since false teaching. including even denial
of the deity of Christ. cannot be disciplined then we should have a church in
which the true and the false conexist. This may be true of the world. but not
of the church purchased by the blook of Jesus Christ.
(3) With Reference to the Remnants of the True-
We rejoice that in many instances remnants of true orthodoxy
can be found even where denial of basic Christian doctrine seems to prevail.
This is true in the case of many believing individuals and particular
congregations. It is also the case with regard to such ordinances of the church
as baptism or ordination. It was the practice of the Reformers. reaffirmed by
the Confession of Faith and followed by our denomination in its various branches.
to not rebaptize or reordain those coming from denominations at least
professing the historic Faith. We see no reason to change this practice.
(4) With Reference to Cooperation with Those Who Have Not
Separated-
A corollary issue to that of separation is the stance that
those who have separated from "unsound" (to use the language of the
FOG) churches or denominations are to take toward those true brethren in Christ
who have not. Prudence must be exercised in two directions. On the one hand we
must avoid an unnecessary aloofness that can lead to a false pride and even
further separations over less and less crucial issues. On the other hand we
should avoid fellowship on an ecclesiastical level that will lead to
participation with or tacit approval of those who undermine the Faith in
doctrine or life. Specific instances in applying this are so varied that the
Form of Government (N, 9, e) has wisely urged that each instance be handled by
the judicatory involved when questions of propriety arise. It must also be
noted that unless there is latitude to interpret the phrase "free from
apostasy," there could not be fellowship with anyone, including ourselves.
With reference to the matter which gave rise to this report,
we agree with the Judicial Commission and the Synod that the local church
involved had a right under our Form of Government to decide for itself to
cooperate with another local church. We do not agree with the reasoning that
such cooperation was necessarily proper because the denomination to which the
church belonged had not been officially declared "apostate". As noted
above (1) whether or not a church is apostate is a judgment we do not feel is
necessary to make even though we can defend the Scripturalness or our
separation from that body. We would agree with those who point out that a local
church cannot be considered totally apart from its parent body, but we
nevertheless conclude that we must recognize that a de facto situation exists
in which local congregations or ministers true to the faith continue to
participate in denominations whose leadership and direction give every evidence
of apostasy. In many instances our own judgment might be that the time has long
past to separate for the honor of Christ; nevertheless we believe that we must
not be closed to extending encouragement to these brethren. Particular
encouragement should be given to those who are open to consider the importance
of working for the purity of the visible church.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) That Synod adopt this report and its conclusions as
expressing the mind of our church on the issue of apostasy and ecclesiastical
separation and send it to Presbyteries and Sessions for study.
(2) That the Form of Government not be changed with regard
to its references to apostasy and separation. Further clarification should be
sought through application at local levels, not through amendment to the FOG.
(3) That this report serve as Synod's response to the
overture of the California Presbytery (Overture I, 157th Synod). We do not
think the sense of the paper it submitted is representative of the wisdom of
Synod in the matter of ecclesiastical separation.
(4) That members of Synod pray for continued awakening to
the importance of the purity of the church throughout the Christian community;
and that in particular we offer appropriate encouragement to those of our
brethren in the UPC,USA and the PCUS who are working for that purity, even to
the point of considering separation as a Biblical response to the continuing
evidence of apostasy.
(5) That this committee be dismissed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Alexander
Clark Breeding
John Sanderson
John M. L. Young
Stephen Smallman, Chairman
(Gordon Clark served on the committee but was unavailable
for comment on the Conclusions and Recommendations.)
No comments:
Post a Comment