On ‘Separation’

Down through the years the issue of leaving the church, of “splitting the church,” of “separating from apostasy,” has been a live one, and it is still very alive today.

It should be remembered that Martin Luther never intended to leave the corrupt ecclesiastical organization of which he was a part. This step was later forced upon him. The Wesleys had no intention of starting a new church; it was only after Anglicanism had rejected them and a large following was clamoring for a church that Methodism came into being.

We are now confronted in America with a theological liberalism that seems willing to embrace almost any heresy, while at the same time the message of the church is often so attenuated that it has neither meaning nor power. In response there is much discussion about the necessity or desirability of “pulling out” of an existing church to form a fellowship where there is no compromise of the Christ-centered Gospel.

At the beginning let me say that conditions vary so much that a course of action that would be right for one person could well not be God’s will for another. Our decision to stay or to separate should follow very definite prayer for God’s leading, with the request that we be kept from allowing personalities and prejudice to dictate our decision. There seem to be two indisputable causes for separation. If those who control the church to which I belong should demand that I not teach, preach, or witness according to the plain teachings of Scripture, then I would have no choice but to renounce such leadership and seek an environment in which I could continue to witness.

In the second place, should my church, by official action of its governing body, renounce the Christian faith in favor of some syncretistic religion that denies the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God’s Son together with his atoning death and actual resurrection, I would be forced to renounce and denounce such apostasy.

But in the question of separation there are many gray areas where, if we are not careful, we may let personalities, prejudices, defeats, and extraneous activities become determinative factors while we fail to look at the basic issue that should determine our decision.

For one thing, the “doctrine of separation” can lead people to abandon the opportunity for witness where it is most greatly needed. The Bible teaches that we should be separated from sin, but not from the sinner. Surely we should not remove ourselves from the scene where we are needed most.

When we become aware of a departure from the faith on the part of a church or its leaders, it is easy to assume a self-righteous attitude, wrap around ourselves the robes of personal piety, and give up, rather than to stand up for the truth.

Several years ago a couple came to see me who were members of a different denomination from my own. Both were teaching classes of teen-agers in Sunday school. They were finding that the official literature of their church was filled with attacks on the veracity of the Scriptures and that it fostered social activism in a way little removed from the Communist line. They wanted to substitute well-known evangelical literature in their classes, but their pastor was apprehensive lest he find himself under fire from his superiors. I suggested that they take their pastor to visit the district superintendent and show him samples of the literature they wished to use, together with some of their own denominational literature. This they did and as a result were given the permission they sought.

How easy it would have been for them to give up in disgust and leave those teen-agers without spiritual guidance! The example of the husband in this case was particularly effective, because he had been a popular and successful athletic coach.

It is highly distressing that perhaps the greatest field for Christian witnessing today is within the Church because of the ignorance of the Bible on the part of the members. Our church-related colleges and seminaries have continued to send out a host of people who only too often have at best a foggy notion of the message of the Gospel. Social concerns have occupied the primary efforts of many church leaders. As a result, in both pulpit and pew there is abysmal ignorance and a hunger for spiritual food.

Confronted with this situation many feel like giving up in despair, or going to some other church where the Gospel is proclaimed.

Had I children who were being spiritually starved—or poisoned—by the teaching, preaching, and programs of my local church, I would try my best to remedy the situation; and if this proved impossible, I would take these children elsewhere.

But at the adult level, my own reaction would be to stay in and witness with love and conviction, praying that the Holy Spirit will use this witness to help those who need to be changed.

There is a temptation against which we must guard: frustration because of failure to gain our own way in the church courts—that is, defeat in these courts on positions that we are convinced are right. We need to remember that our risen Lord commissioned his disciples to witness for him. He did not say that our witness would always be effective. In fact, we are not responsible for the effectiveness of our witness (unless, on the negative side, we violate Christian principles in what we say or do), for the fruit of an effective witness is produced by the Holy Spirit and not by us or any ecclesiastical organization.

I happen to belong to a denomination in which many positions that I have felt to be right have been overruled and defeated again and again. This makes some of my friends very unhappy, and some have looked for another church in which their views might predominate. I too would enjoy such a fellowship, but, win or lose, I feel it my duty to stand by, acting perhaps as the “bur under the saddle” or the “catfish in the well,” and hoping and praying that my own witness for what I feel to be the truth will, by God’s grace, be effective in the hearts of some.

Another cause of unhappy ecclesiastical divisions is the feeling on the part of evangelicals that they are discriminated against. Many of these true Christians are an “oppressed minority” within their own communions. Pastorates are denied them and membership on important boards is closed to them, all because they are outspoken in their evangelical beliefs. After a while this does something to one’s spirit, and it can lead to separation. But if this discrimination is accepted with meekness, and a loving spirit is exhibited rather than anger or sullenness, it may well be that God will use this for his own glory.

In general, the history of the separatist movement is a dismal one. Because of personality differences or genuine convictions, there is a tendency to continue bickering and attacks on those from whom the separation has been made. I do not say that separation is always wrong, but if the separatists are led by the Spirit they will exhibit Christian grace and love, even toward those with whom they strongly disagree.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.