Biblical separation: when is it time to leave?

[Jordan]

Hi again,

To put one thing more strongly than I did before: I actually think that we are more than 'justified' in staying until we are kicked out, or until staying would personally involve us in sin; I think we actually ought to stay, because unless a church's official doctrine and practice is apostate and there is no reasonable hope of repentance, that church (or denomination) remains a true church, and I don't believe it is right to forsake it.

I have been greatly helped by reading Calvin on this subject. I would highly recommend Institutes book 4 chapters 1 and 2. They deal with these exact issues, and in a very wise way I think.

Have a read and see what you think.

Jordan  

[Justin Denholm]

Jordan,

I agree. The more I think about this issue, the more I believe that we have a very strong prima facie call to remain within the church, working and praying for its renewal.

The association with people who call themselves 'Christian' doesn't mean that we have to accept everyone's beliefs and practices as valid expressions of Christian faith, or even that we have to conclude that everyone has a genuine relationship with God. What is means, though, is that we have a responsibility to encourage, exhort, teach, discipline and generally engage with them in the same way we would people in our own local churches. When other people claim to be Christians, for whatever reason, they invite other Christians to be in fellowship with them - as we see in the NT, this fellowship is not all hugging and sharing but calls for some hard discipline at times.  Presumably, our prime responsibility is to those with whom we are most close (geographically, denominationally etc), and efforts to reform these groups are perhaps most likely to succeed. Our responsibility for the wider church is real, though, and can't be ignored, eben if it calls for us to interact with people who are very different from us.

The other question I have had is about whether trying to establish a more 'pure' church would be more effective in terms of ministry and evangelism. This is certainly an implicit assertion coming from some of the GAFCON people, I feel. When it comes to missional effectiveness, though, I think that we have to accept that the world is never going to see a clear distinction between Christians. My workmates don't care if I'm a 'Global South' or 'True Reformed Bible Anglican', and if they see a contrast between what I believe and what an American church does, I'm still going to have to explain the differences to them.

Staying within the church is a tough option. It means ensuring that we are strong in our own faith and supportive of other faithful people around us. It also means being willing to be a part of the structures of the existing church and be ready to participate with them for the long haul. Are we ready to settle ourselves in for the next 50 years of ministry?

[Tim Patrick]

Jordan Hitchcock wrote:

I have been greatly helped by reading Calvin on this subject. I would highly recommend Institutes book 4 chapters 1 and 2. They deal with these exact issues, and in a very wise way I think.

Hi Jordan,

Thanks for pointing us to this. I think it's well worth our while reading the wise words of those faithful believers who have previously considered some of the questions we're now facing.

On that note, can I recommend two booklets by J.I. Packer in the Latimer Studies serires that my good wife directed me towards. No 1 - 'The Evangelical Anglican Identity Problem; An Analysis', 1978 and No 10 - 'A Kind of Noah's Ark? The Anglican Commitment to Comprehensiveness', 1981 (on line at http://www.latimertrust.org/download/ls10_hyper.htm).

I found the second of these particularly helpful as Packer engages with issues such as: how can I work within a church that embraces error? am I guilty by association? what is the merit of belonging to an episcopal church? what is an Anglican? what is an Anglican evangelical? etc.

And Packer is particularly relevant at the present time seeing that his church has found itself right in the middle of today's crisis. Some might argue that people in his position ought just leave the denomination, but after reading these booklets I have an even stronger conviction that there is good reason for orthodox evangelicals to remain within the Anglican Church - even if it means they sadly can no longer accept the oversight of their local bishop.

Have a read and let me know what you think.

Tim

[Jereth]

I've also started reading through Calvin's institutes book 4 as Jordan suggested. (Institutes was the best 21st birthday present ever!!) Very challenging stuff! Especially trying to hold chapters 1 and 2 together, with their complementary messages of holding unity and schisming from a fallen Church. I hope to discuss it more in coming weeks.

Tim Patrick wrote:

And Packer is particularly relevant at the present time seeing that his church has found itself right in the middle of today's crisis. Some might argue that people in his position ought just leave the denomination, but after reading these booklets I have an even stronger conviction that there is good reason for orthodox evangelicals to remain within the Anglican Church - even if it means they sadly can no longer accept the oversight of their local bishop.

Hey Tim,

What about the argument made by some (especially those within the Anglican Church of Canada) that by abandoning his local bishop, Packer has effectively abandoned Anglicanism (as we know it) ?

Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

What about the argument made by some (especially those within the Anglican Church of Canada) that by abandoning his local bishop, Packer has effectively abandoned Anglicanism (as we know it) ?

I presume Packer would say that it's the bishop of New Westminister who has 'walked apart' from the Anglican Church and that Packer (and others) have sought oversight from the Southern Cone precisely because they want to stay within the Communion.

I think the 'Anglican Realignment' vidoes that you can access via the masg links page make a strong arguement in favour of this assessment.

[Gordon Cheng]

Jordan Hitchcock wrote:

Hi everyone,

I'm wanting to start a discussion on the topic of separation, meaning the biblical teaching on avoiding fellowship with professing Christians who deny cardinal Christian truths by their teaching or lifestyle. It's obviously a live issue at the moment with GAFCON and all that's been going on in the US and Canada. But from my observation, we don't talk about this much in Melbourne. I hear quite a bit about the need to 'engage' and 'dialogue' with those who have denied central tenets of the faith, but virtually nothing about separating from them as a matter of biblical principle.

It's a highly topical question, Jordan.

I don't know why the language of engagement and dialogue is applied within a denomination, to people who have decided to walk away from the Bible, but almost never to unbelievers who've begun to show an interest in the gospel.

There's a problem there.