Studies & Actions
of the General Assembly of
The Presbyterian Church in America
APOSTASY AND ECCLESIASTICAL SEPARATION
[14th General Assembly (1986), 14-85, III, Item 3, page 187.]
INTRODUCTION
The Fourteenth General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America
adopted the following action directing the Stated Clerk to prepare a paper
on the distinctive positions of the Presbyterian Church in America, using
both the study paper of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical
Synod, on "Apostasy and Separation", and the position papers adopted by
the Presbyterian Church in America:
Overture 5, from Delmarva Presbytery [M14GA, 14-4, B, p. 44]
"Whereas, the Presbyterian Church in America, and before it the
Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, have conscientiously
adhered to the Protestant principle of ecclesiastical separation when
all other efforts to attain purity of the Church have failed, and
Whereas, the RPC,ES did a careful study of the matter and reported
that study to the 158th General Synod (cf. Acts of Synod, pp. 75ff), and
Whereas, much has been written about the PCA history and convictions
in the matter of ecclesiastical separation, and
Whereas, many who are entering the ministry of the PCA evidence
little understanding or appreciation of this part of our heritage, and
Whereas, the issue of ecclesiastical separation needs to be presented
to the larger Church;
Therefore be it resolved that the Fourteenth General Assembly direct
the Stated Clerk to prepare for publication a document explaining the
convictions and history of the PCA and the RPC,ES. The document shall
be revised under the supervision of the Stated Clerk to include history
pertinent to the formation of the PCA and a reflection of PCA governmental
standards rather than those of the RPC,ES.
This document shall not represent an "official" position of the PCA but
shall be available as information. Upon completion of the revision, the
Committee on Christian Education and Publications shall publish the study
when funds are available and make it available for sale." (Overture 5,
14-4, B, p. 44)
In accord with this directive, the first part of this paper is taken from
the study paper of the RPC,ES on Apostasy and Separation (See Documents
of Synod, p. 45, p. 65. and p. 75). The second part includes those position
papers of the PCA, which give the grounds of its separate existence, and
how it views its work. In addition, specific references are made to positions
of the PCA has taken on various matters.
I. BACKGROUND STUDIES
A. Scripture
1. 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.
a. 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; I 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 following 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 usage 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.
b. 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 family, or against a town which has been infected with the error.
The purpose is: "Then all Israel will hear and be afraid" (v. I la). 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).
c. 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 focus by
Titus 3:10 where hairetikon (NIV -- "a divisive person") is to be warned
and then rejected; by Galatians 5:20 where hairesis (NIV -- "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 (NIV
-- "differences") seems to be classed with schismata, and both are set
over against of 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 (11 John
9ff) who may have been a heretic, or an incipient heretic, who in any
case comes under John's authority. John determined to confront him (publicly?
privately?) regarding malicious gossip. Diotrephes 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. 1 Kings 18:18).
2 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 3 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 the 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
godless (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).
Other 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.
d. 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 (1 Peter 1:16). This holiness
is not the product of sinful striving; it is the 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 (1 Thess. 4:7; 2 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 congregating), and
the nation was to deal strictly with covenant breakers from within.
(1)
Old Testament Covenant Breakers
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 the rest of the 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."
(2) 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
(3)
What Happened 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 1 Cor.
10:6-10)
B. 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 Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; 2 Cor.
13:1; 1 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" (Matt. 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"
(1 Cor. 11:31).
C. Purpose of the Command to Discipline (and Subsequent
Value When Obeyed)
--It is an act of obedience - 2 Cor. 2:9; 7:12
--It
should be done out of reverence for God - 2 Cor. 7:1
--It makes offender
ashamed - 2 Thess. 3:14
--It restores the offender - 1 Cor. 5.5, 6; 1
Tim. 1:20
--Others will fear to sin - 1 Tim. 5:20
--You will not lose
what you have worked for - 2 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 thought 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; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor.
11-13; Ephesians 5:3; Philippians 3:2; 2 Thess. 3:6; 14; 1 Tim. 1:18;
4:1-6; 5:20; 2 Tim. 2:16ff; 3:lff; Titus 3:9ff; 2 Peter 2:lff; 3:3; 2
John 17; 3 John 9; Jude 3, 22ff; Revelation 18:4.
D. 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 that the New Testament has no one technical word of 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 sternness
and public rebuke later on, and finally the step of isolation, separation.
(4) While church leaders are involved in the more public process 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.
II.
THE EARLY CHURCH
Apostasy and Ecclesiastical Separation in the Early Church
In the formative year 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 numbers to apostatize
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 contain
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 sacrilegious separation
and heretic by your sacrilegious doctrine." (Cf. Calvin citation of Augustine
in Institutes, Book IV, 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 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 mane
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 of 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. Article
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)
III. THE REFORMATION CHURCHES
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 not a light matter
for the Protestants regarding schism as gravely as did the Romanists (Calvin
twice identifies as apostate 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 reluctant 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."
Is this chapter, while reaffirming the importance of unity in the true
church, he is clear that that bets 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.
IV. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION
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 churchgovernment 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 produce 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. 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 ground. 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.
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus
Christ: not can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be 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
Anti-Christ." 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. 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 preventative 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 censures. 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 word "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.
V. THE REFORMED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
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 [then. 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. But 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 defense 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.
VI. AMERICAN
PRESBYTERIANISM OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
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 apostatized 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 ground 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 re-ordained but be received only on the basis of a doctrinal examination.
The Synod supported this recommendation.
VII. THE NORTHERN PRESBYTERIAN
SEPARATIST MOVEMENT
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 thee 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 1934, 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
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 articles 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 taken then 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 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 day the first synod was organized on the above basis. In the
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 than 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
it 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:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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 spiritual 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.
d. The mid-fifties witness 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".)
e. 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)
f. 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)
g. 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 reluctance 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 the assumption that apostasy was the only legitimate
basis for separation. We have concluded that there are discernible 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 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 coexist. This may be true of the world,
but not of the church, purchased by the blood 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 (IV, 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;p 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.
PART II PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA
Having cited
this full statement of the RPCES, we need to be reminded of the exact
standing of the RPCES papers have in the PCA. The plan for the "Joining
and Receiving of the PCA and the RPCES" states: "In receiving these denominations'
(RPCES), the Presbyterian Church in America recognizes ... their historical
documents as valuable and significant material which will be used in the
perfecting of the Church." These documents do not automatically become
the adopted positions of the PCA, but are to be used by the PCA in perfecting
her own development. What this combining of various position papers from
each of the Churches is one of the best means for the PCA to move toward
a perfecting of herself as envisioned by the Joining and Receiving paper.
In contrast to what has been said of the RPCES papers, all of the papers
cited below from the PCA are position statements of this Church.
On December
4, 1973, the body that was to become known as the Presbyterian Church
in America convened its first General Assembly, and formed itself into
a new Presbyterian Church. This group came out of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States (Southern Presbyterian Church). Its first act as
an Assembly was to adopt the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as
originally adopted by the first American General Assembly in 1789, with
two minor amendments.
As a new Church, this Assembly, following the example
of her mother Church, (the PCUS) addressed a Message to all Churches of
Jesus Christ throughout the world. Seeing herself as the true continuation
of that mother Church, she based her letter upon that of the mother Church.
In this Message, the reason for separation is set forth, and the purpose
of her being.
NOTE: The full text is printed on pp. 7ff. |