Biblical separation: when is it time to leave?

[Jordan]

Hi Jenny,

I agree. I don't think the Dean of Sydney managed to prove from Scripture that we must avoid all bishops just to get away from the false ones. His argument was simply, 'We must avoid false teachers, false teachers will be at Lambeth, therefore we must avoid Lambeth.'

Following on from that, 'Separation is a matter of obedience to Scripture, therefore avoiding Lambeth is a matter of obedience, therefore those evangelicals who go to Lambeth are disobeying God.'

I'm thankful for his zeal, and glad that he's tackling this important issue of separation - which is in fact a matter of obedience, rightly applied - but I feel that his view could create a big problem of unity among evangelicals at a time when we need unity the most.

I'll leave you with a slab of Calvin:

'They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches?' (Institutes, 4.1.14)

[Jordan]

Hi Jenny,

I agree. I don't think the Dean of Sydney managed to prove from Scripture that we must avoid all bishops just to get away from the false ones. His argument was simply, 'We must avoid false teachers, false teachers will be at Lambeth, therefore we must avoid Lambeth.'

Following on from that, 'Separation is a matter of obedience to Scripture, therefore avoiding Lambeth is a matter of obedience, therefore those evangelicals who go to Lambeth are disobeying God.'

I'm thankful for his zeal, and glad that he's tackling this important issue of separation - which is in fact a matter of obedience, rightly applied - but I feel that his words may cause a big problem of unity among evangelicals at a time when we need unity the most.

I'll leave you with a slab of Calvin:

'They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors, but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits, and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the Gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order: If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel (Gal. 1:6), and yet among them the same apostle found churches?' (Institutes, 4.1.14)

[Matt Williams]

Just for the sake of clarity, Jordan - Philip Jensen (who gave the sermon being discussed) is the Dean of Sydney (the vicar of the Cathedral, as it were), not the Archbishop. The Archbishop is his brother Peter, who was previously principal of Moore College.

[Jereth]

I think a lot hangs on what actually goes on at Lambeth (which is, to me at least, a rather big mystery).

If it's like a big Galactic Senate meeting (you know, like in the prequel episodes of Star Wars), where the 800 bishops sit around a massive amphitheatre and debate loudly with each other, before retreating to their separate hotel rooms each evening, then I don't see the harm in orthodox bishops attending.

What concerned me however is reading a statement (either from Peter Akinola, or Peter Jensen -- I can't remember now) explaining that at Lambeth the bishops will all be sharing in Holy Communion, and table fellowship, and that sort of thing. If that is the case, then I think there will be a real problem of integrity and godliness for orthodox bishops. How can a self-respecting Christian take communion alongside people who have strayed as far as America has? That would seem to be a charade at best, or an embracing of their sin at worst.

Perhaps there is a middle road that can be taken? Could the orthodox bishops go to Lambeth and take part in the meetings and discussions, while abstaining from Holy Communion, table fellowship, and (of course) the All-In Group Photo? That would show a measure of "good faith" in regards to working towards a positive outcome, while remaining obedient to Scripture and keeping separate from rampant sin.

Jereth

[Jordan]

Thanks Matt, I've edited my post accordingly.

[Hannah]

This article from today's age is an interesting discussion of a problem of church discipline in the Australian Presbyterian church....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/state-presbyterian-assembly-rights-the-national-wrongs/2008/05/11/1210444242985.html

[Tim Patrick]

Hannah Craven wrote:

This article from today's age is an interesting discussion of a problem of church discipline in the Australian Presbyterian church....

This is a great statement:

- Love, as every parent knows, does not preclude discipline.

I've heard it suggested - and I think there's a good measure of truth to it - that much of the current global Anglican crisis is the result of our Church's failure to exercise necessary discipline. What discipline has been brought to bear for the breakaway actions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church in Canada... ? None really. It might be good to start a discussion about the need for appropriate church discipline.

I also think it's great that Barney raised the issues of identity and integrity too:

- But if words have meaning, they should not call themselves Presbyterian.

We need to ask what it means to be Anglican? This is the question behind this website.

Tim

[Justin Denholm]

The question of discipline is really important, isn't it? To me, it seems relatively clear what should happen in terms of a response to the TEC from the Anglican Church - correction followed by rebuke (which is where we are currently up to) followed by sanction followed by exclusion if the TEC do not repent and return to orthodoxy. The problem is that this pathway can only be followed by a person or group who has control of the whole thing. If you were the Abp of C then you could perhaps steer the ship in this way, but for the rest of us it seems that we have little control over what kind of response the TEC's actions receive.

I think that GAFCON should actually be seen as an attempt to 'steer the ship' - to send a strong message to both the TEC and the Abp of C that the Anglican Church views their teaching and actions as dangerously out of line. The question of 'when we should leave' is an important one, but I for one would like us to have a rock-solid go at trying to steer the ship before we jump off....

[Jereth]

Hmmm, it seems that Hannah's long URL has caused every post to extend off the visible page to the right. I've  noticed this happen before with a long URL that I cut and pasted into a post.

Is there any way to rectify this Cat?

<edit>
I've just realised you can press the left and right cursor arrows to scroll back and forth so you can read the messages properly.

[Jereth]

JustinD wrote:

The problem is that this pathway can only be followed by a person or group who has control of the whole thing.

Now that raises an interesting point. A couple weeks ago we explained the whole GAFCON situation to our homegroup, in order to raise awareness of what is happening in the wider church and to clarify for people why our Vicar is heading off to this mysterious conference.

Several people said "Why doesn't the ABC just crack down on the heretical provinces?" To which I had to reply that the ABC is not the Pope, and the Anglican Church isn't the Catholic church. The ABC is just a symbolic, ceremonial kind of leader -- like the Queen of England -- because each Anglican province is autonomous and self-governing, Canterbury doesn't really have the power or authority to "crack down" the way the Pope could if a section of the Catholic church lost the plot.

So really it seems that in Anglicanism there is no real "person or group who has control of the whole thing". It appears to be just a voluntary association of churches who can work together if they want to, but equally, ignore each other's views if they want to. Even if Rowan Williams chose to thunder down divine judgment on North America, they could probably just give him the proverbial finger and continue on their merry way, it seems.

Which raises another question: how big a deal is a "tear in the fabric" of the Communion? If the fabric is extremely loose to begin with, what difference does a "tear" make? In Australia we'll soon have a situation where Barbara Darling and Kay Goldsworthy will be Bishops, yet if they visit Sydney Diocese they'll be considered Deacons. Clearly, the concept of "Anglican unity" (in the ecclesiastical, institutional sense) is something of a pipe dream isn't it? And perhaps it always has been so, only by sheer coincidence everyone used to agree on most things, giving the illusion of a "Catholic"-style unity.

Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

Part of the problem is that we all get tarred with the same brush. One of the reasons that the Global South is upset with the north American Anglican Churches is because outsiders tend to think all Anglicans stand for pretty much the same thing. So, if the Anglican Churches in the US and Canada endorse same-sex union for example, the muslims in Africa think that's what the African Anglicans believe in too.

In a place where there's still a priority on and respect for 'holiness' (ie. not so much the West), being seen to belong to a church that blesses something that a society generally understands to be 'unholy' brings shame and discredit to the church.

Now, of course the Anglican Church shouldn't shape it's beliefs just so that they're especially palatable to muslims - that would require us to corrupt our understanding of Jesus - but you can see how the sins of some places affect the missional capacity of others when churches are in association.

[Justin Denholm]

Jereth wrote:

JustinD wrote:

The problem is that this pathway can only be followed by a person or group who has control of the whole thing.

Several people said "Why doesn't the ABC just crack down on the heretical provinces?" To which I had to reply that the ABC is not the Pope, and the Anglican Church isn't the Catholic church. The ABC is just a symbolic, ceremonial kind of leader -- like the Queen of England -- because each Anglican province is autonomous and self-governing, Canterbury doesn't really have the power or authority to "crack down" the way the Pope could if a section of the Catholic church lost the plot.

Jereth

Jereth,

You're right, of course, but in this particular situation it is the ABC who has the power to offer invitations to Lambeth or not. He is currently the only individual who could have made the final decision about whether to invite the TEC bishops to Lambeth (or to invite them only as observers), and so 'sanction' them in that way.

The "instruments of unity" become very important in the situation that you describe, not just because they are the forum in which the church can come together, but also because they are one of the very few means by which erring members can be sanctioned or excluded.

Justin

[Andrew Bowles]

Jereth wrote:

Which raises another question: how big a deal is a "tear in the fabric" of the Communion? If the fabric is extremely loose to begin with, what difference does a "tear" make? In Australia we'll soon have a situation where Barbara Darling and Kay Goldsworthy will be Bishops, yet if they visit Sydney Diocese they'll be considered Deacons. Clearly, the concept of "Anglican unity" (in the ecclesiastical, institutional sense) is something of a pipe dream isn't it? And perhaps it always has been so, only by sheer coincidence everyone used to agree on most things, giving the illusion of a "Catholic"-style unity.

Jereth

A tear in the fabric of the communion is a big deal because the unity of the church, in its visible manifestation throughout the world, is a witness to the reality of the gospel - Jesus brings together in unity and love those who are united in him. So the split in the Anglican church makes it appear that we are not the church of Christ, just a religious group with its own internal dissensions and petty squabbles that the world can mock and ignore. The weakest part of our claim in the Protestant tradition to have recovered the true gospel is that we have not been able to maintain unity, instead splitting into thousands of smaller groups. So it doesn't matter how tight the fabric is institutionally, a tear is still a significant loss.

Andrew

[Jereth]

 Justin:
Good point; however I suppose one has to question precisely what is the nature of an "instrument of unity" in a denomination that is only loosely held together through "mutual affection"! If decisions of the ABC (and Lambeth for that matter) aren't legally binding on Anglican provinces, but are just symbolic acts of mutual affection, how much meaning do they really have? Doesn't this just strengthen my previous observation that the Anglican church lacks any real authority/disciplinary/conformity device a la Catholicism? And if that's the case isn't "unity" just something that happens by happy coincidence rather than having any real substance?

Previously I was of the opinion that the ABC should step up to the plate and crack down on the pro-homosexual churches, and that his failure to do so was a failure of leadership. After reflecting on the fact that his headship is just symbolic and not "Papal", I've changed my mind somewhat.

Andrew Bowles wrote:

A tear in the fabric of the communion is a big deal because the unity of the church, in its visible manifestation throughout the world, is a witness to the reality of the gospel - Jesus brings together in unity and love those who are united in him. So the split in the Anglican church makes it appear that we are not the church of Christ, just a religious group with its own internal dissensions and petty squabbles that the world can mock and ignore. The weakest part of our claim in the Protestant tradition to have recovered the true gospel is that we have not been able to maintain unity, instead splitting into thousands of smaller groups. So it doesn't matter how tight the fabric is institutionally, a tear is still a significant loss.

I hear what you're saying mate -- how we look to the world is vitally important, and visible disunity is a bad witness. However, like I said above to Justin, I'm wondering what is the point of "unity" (or "communion") that isn't really unity (or communion). Are a bunch of young people sharing a house out of convenience the same as a married couple and their kids (i.e. a real family) living together? Isn't it more important -- strategically and spiritually -- to forge a genuine unity with Anglicans and non-Anglicans (be they Baptists, or Presbyterians, etc.) who are worshipping God in the truths of his Word?

As you can see I'm still thinking through all this.

[Andrew Stagg]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

Jesus brings together in unity and love those who are united in him.
Andrew

EPH 2 19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

I completely agree - unity is really important. But the key point about unity is that it is Unity in Christ. Jesus is the cornerstone of unity. So might this unity look like?

JOHN15 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.      
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.  //   9As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love.

JOHN 17 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[ them by the truth; your word is truth.

To remain in Unity with Christ we need to obey his commands, by following the truth – as show to us in his word. Sadly unity is often promoted simply as 'unity' - without the second part – 'unity in Christ'. Compass recently did a feature on the Uniting Church. The evangelicals in the uniting church subscribed to ‘unity at all costs’ direction. I was struck by one large evangelical uniting church that was hamstrung on a core gospel issue – because it clashed with the lifestyle of two church members. And so this gospel issue was sidelined because – in their words – 'unity was everything'.

   =============================================================

Andrew Bowles wrote:

the split in the Anglican church makes it appear that we are not the church of Christ, just a religious group with its own internal dissensions and petty squabbles that the world can mock and ignore.
Andrew

Andrew - I  think this is the very crux of the matter. This is exactly what the Anglican church in Australia and Britain and Canada looks like today. 150 years of liberal scholarship has brought the church to the point where it is a disorganised rabble with some churches that believe in anything that the god-of-the-age thinks is cool, plenty of churches that manipulate and ignore scripture - churches that crap on about issues that excite the intellectual elite and bore the socks of the average man in the street. In other words churches that "the world can mock and ignore".

The question is as evangelicals what are we going to do about it. In Melbourne we are blessed with a number of large evangelical churches. Outside of Sydney this situation is unique.  Yet for the last twenty years our large evangelical churches have sat on their hands and said nothing as the situation in Melbourne has slowly deteriorated. Meanwhile the liberal wing of the church has not been so silent. They have been outspoken and active in promoting their agendas. They have been active in synod. And we have done nothing. If you doubt this ask yourself how many evangelical churches were willing to actively voice opposition to the recent 'gradualist abortion' report published by the diocese. Some churches were vocal in their opposition to this unscriptural report - but the vast majority said nothing. They were absent. No one was at home.

The situation in Canada is significant. It is similar to the situation in Australia, only things have progressed further. It shows us what things will look like here in the future if we choose to do nothing now. With the vast majority of the bishops of Australia being strongly liberal surely it is only a matter of time before one of the more radical ones pushes to follow the Canadian path.

The tragedy is that with decades of unchallenged liberalism it is probably far too late to reform the Anglican Church of Australia. I remember clearly how when the previous primate Peter Carnley denied the biblical interpretation of the resurrection in “the Bulletin”.

The question is - how can we stay in fellowship with such people. The biblical answer appears to be that we can’t.

“2 JOHN - 7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”

The liberal church has run ahead of the Gospel, adding new requirements that violate scripture and are anything but the teaching of Christ. We are not to associate with this work.

1COR 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.  12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Accurate teaching on sexual morality amongst Christians is really important. And so too is being aware about what is going on around us - and being prepared to say something about. All to often we are told by liberals not to 'judge other people'. Verse 12 puts that in perspective.

2 COR 6  14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[b]? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[c]
 17"Therefore come out from them
      and be separate, says the Lord.
   Touch no unclean thing,
      and I will receive you."[d]
 18"I will be a Father to you,
      and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."[e]

2 COR 11  4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. // 13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

GAL 1   6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

This bit is really hard - what its saying - and what we kinda already know - is that some of the people we may be called disassociate from may be really nice people. They may appear to us as an angle of light, they may be kind and compassionate. I guess the other thing here is that these people will be teachers they will be in a position where they can influence others. The won't be ordinary parishoners who are 'still figuring it out'.

            ==================================================

So yes biblically unity is important – and biblical unity is based in Christ, and his teachings. And sadly I can’t see how we are allowed to have anything to do with a 'unity' that is not based on these things.

[Tim Patrick]

G'day Andrew,

Thanks for the post. Lots of good and clear things from the Scriptures that we must take most seriously. Thank you.

However, I do just want to flag that it's not really true when you say

Yet for the last twenty years our large evangelical churches have sat on their hands and said nothing as the situation in Melbourne has slowly deteriorated.

Lots of good stuff has been going on in the Diocese over the last twenty years and we want to make sure we honour those who have gone before us with the same passions as ours. We might not see the extent of their labours because we're now keen to look to the next horizon, but some very faithful people have dedicated a tremendous amount of hard slog to this Diocese and God has been gracious enough to bless their service with a great deal of healthy fruit. From what I've heard, things have been significantly worse in the past generation. I've seen lots of positive change even in the last decade.

By all means, let's strive for a better future, but let's not forget those who have put us in the position to be able to do so.

Tim

[Jordan]

A few thoughts:

I think the bible's theology of mission is 'big' enough to cope with issues of church discipline: the need to put out of fellowship - or to deny a place as part of the visible church, those who persist in denying cardinal Christian truths (Matt 18). Doubtless, any such erring party gives a terrible witness to the watching world, but even so, a genuine witness can be salvaged and maintained when discipline is upheld by the rest of the body. In fact, discipline is an important part of the church's witness to the world, because it sends a clear message that God is holy, and that salvation must be sought and found according to His Word. It also shows that God's love and compassion must be understood biblically; not according to worldly agendas.  

I wouldn't suggest for a moment that discipline or separation is the most desirable form of witness! But on the other hand, refusing to exercise appropriate discipline for fear that it will compromise mission is, in the end, counterproductive.

Jordan

[Jereth]

Thanks Jordan.

Let's not forget too that discipline is healthy not only for the church's witness, but also for the church itself. Under OT law wickedness was punished so that the people would be deterred from acting likewise (Deut 13:6-11). In the NT, Paul commands the Corinthians to remove the wicked person so that yeast does not spread through the whole church (1 Cor 5).

In discussions about church politics often pastoral considerations are left behind. We should be reminded that whenever unrepentant sin or false teaching is tolerated by the church, the average Joe (and Joanne) in the pew get the message that sin/error isn't such a big deal, and thus their conscience is dulled, increasing their susceptibility to temptation. The souls of God's people are thus imperilled (James 1:14, 15). The church must visibly and publicly maintain a high standard of doctrine and behaviour, both for the benefit of those outside (1 Peter 2:11-12; Titus 2:7-10) and those inside (1 Cor 5) -- as well as to honour God who is holy (as Jordan has pointed out).

Let's not be naive about the diastrous pastoral effect that sanctioning (for instance) abortion or extra-marital sex has on our people. Scripture makes it clear that church leaders will be held to account for the holiness (or otherwise) of their flock. Nor let us be naive about the deceitfulness of sin, which will use any excuse, weakness or open door to wreak havoc on people. I think some Western Anglican leaders need to be reminded that their job is not a game.

Jereth

[Justin Denholm]

Some of you will have been at Peter Adam's talk last night that related to a number of issues we have been discussing here.  I was really struck by his conviction about staying within a church/denomination and working for its renewal. I'm sure I'm not doing his viewpoint justice here, but it seemed to me that he (along the lines of Luther) argued that the visible church should be treated as the church of God. Each denomination is an expression of the Church universal, and as such, in damaging it we risk exposing ourselves to God's judgement. This is perhaps a conceptual shift that I am still digesting, but I wonder if the implication of this approach is that regardless of how we might choose to arrange ourselves, we remain associated in a broader sense with anyone who calls themselves "Christian". This of course does not mean that we necessarily agree with them at every point; in fact, it places on us a greater responsibility to warn of the danger in which some are placing themselves.

Perhaps, for all our talk of 'realignment' and 'schism' it is actually not possible for anyone to break away without doing violence to God's church. Perhaps the best that anyone can do is to work and pray for renewal and reform for themselves and those around them in the best way they can, which for most of us would seem to be within the denominations and structures with which we are familiar.

[Jordan]

Hi Justin,

I think Peter would include discipline and separation (where necessary according to Scripture) under the heading of 'treating the visible church as the church of God'. For example, he showed how Scripture teaches that we ought to avoid professing Christians who are in hardened opposition to the truth, or who are involved in, and not repenting of, the sorts of sins described in 1 Corinthians 5. He also made it clear that bishops have a responsibility for discipline in the church, and you'll probably remember the general examples he gave. So his position was not that we should loosely associate ourselves with everyone who calls themselves Christian (if I'm understanding your expression rightly). In any case, have a read of Matt 18:15-20, Rom 16:17-19, 1 Cor 5:1-13, Gal 1:8-9, 2 Tim 3:1-9, 2 Jn 9-11; Scripture is quite clear in its basic guidelines.

I think he was saying that we ourselves are not obliged to leave simply because of someone else's sin. We are justified in staying in and trying to reform the church until we are kicked out.

In addition to what Peter said, I would add that sometimes it is necessary to leave if staying would necessarily involve us in sin. For example, in one of his sermons Calvin said that it was necessary to leave the Roman Catholic Church because one could not attend the mass without committing idolatry (he used Ps 16:4 and 1 Cor 10:14-22).

What do you think?

Jordan