Second of Two Parts
What is the real nature of the church? One of the basic ideas in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is that of the people of God. In their great struggle for the rediscovery and restoration of the true nature of the church, Luther and the other Reformers strongly emphasized this idea. The church is not primarily the organization (still less, the buildings); it is “the holy believers and the lambs that hear their Shepherd’s voice” (Smalkald Articles, Part III, xii). The church is essentially a spiritual reality: “A holy congregation of true Christian believers, expecting all their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by his blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit” (Belgic Confession, Art. 27).
This does not mean that the church is only invisible. The Augsburg Confession clearly states: “The Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered” (Art. 7). The Belgic Confession, like many other Reformation confessions, speaks of the notae (marks) by which the true church is known. The church, though in essence spiritual and therefore hidden, is also visible in the offices and their administrations. There is no contrast between the two. The one church is hidden and visible at the same time. Unfortunately, in evangelical circles the two have time and again been divorced. To many the church is the invisible church. The visible church is thought almost a necessary evil, at best the external hull.
What does the New Testament say about the unity of the church? Two aspects are found alongside each other throughout the whole New Testament. On the one hand, there is the given, existing unity, founded upon and realized in Jesus Christ (John 10:16; 17:20, 21). On the other hand, there is the constant call to realize this unity in the actual life of the church (Eph. 4:3, 13). These two aspects are not contradictory; they belong together and complement each other. Because believers are one in Christ, being members of the one body, they must always strive to manifest this unity in the world. A call to unity is necessary, because the manifestation of the unity is constantly threatened. There is the danger of unnecessary schism. There is danger of heresy. The New Testament emphasizes heresy in particular, because the unity in Christ is no indifferent, colorless unity but always a unity in the truth.
This comes clearly to the fore in John 17: the unity in Christ is immediately linked up with “keeping the word,” that Jesus received from the Father and transmitted to his disciples. H. Berkhof rightly says:
The New Testament is not interested in unity “as such.” Unity can be of all sorts: it can be purely human, even Satanic. All depends on the centre around which it is being formed.… The unity of the Church consists in the fact that together we conform to the apostles’ witness about Jesus Christ, as this has been transmitted to us in the New Testament [Gods ene kerk en onze vele kerken, p. 19].
Does this mean that divergent views can never be allowed to coexist in the one church? I do not think so. There is place for a variety of views, just as we see a wide variety of approaches and expressions in the New Testament itself. Yet there are definite limits. When the truth of the apostolic witness is rejected in its central affirmations, the New Testament itself speaks the “anathema” (Gal. 1:8, 9) or uses the term “antichrist” (1 John 2:18; cf. 4:1 ff.).
All this means, of course, that there is an enormous tension in references in the New Testament to the unity of the church. The relation between unity and truth can become so full of tension that a rupture is unavoidable. In the New Testament itself, this rupture means the expulsion of the heretics. The New Testament does not know the situation of a church in which error has obtained an official place. Yet it speaks to our situation, for it makes it abundantly clear that not all unity is naturally scriptural and that not all separateness is sinful. Everything depends on the answers to the questions: Is it a unity in the truth? Is it a separateness for the sake of the clear testimony of the Word of God?
At this point many will agree with the report of the Anglican evangelicals:
Hateful as schism is, we are not prepared out of hand to condemn all past divisions in the Church as wholly sinful. In our judgment, for instance, the subsequent history of the Roman Catholic Church has vindicated the action of the fathers of our Reformation in separating themselves from it, as it became clear that the Church of Rome was unwilling to be thoroughly reformed. If it be said that schism is always evil, it may be answered that unfaithfulness to the truth of God is yet more evil and that men, if they are faced by two evils, must humbly and courageously choose that which seems to them the less [The Fulness of Christ, p. 9].
Even the World Council of Churches admits that separation may be necessary in certain circumstances, for the final Report of Lund declared: “We are all agreed that ‘tragic’ is not too strong a word to express the effect of these divisions; that they sometimes become necessary is a sign of the presence of sin in the world” (Lukas Vischer, A Documentary History of the Faith and Order Movement: 1927–1963, p. 97).
An Ultimate Recourse
What must be done when error has crept into the church and found a firm footing, perhaps even an official place? All evangelicals, of course, agree that in such a case the church must be reformed. They all subscribe, at least in principle, to the well-known dictum: ecclesia reformata reformanda. But how should this reformation be accomplished? At this point evangelicals go different ways.
1. Separatists call for reformation by separation. One could call this the surgical conception of reformation. The classic example is the position of the sixteenth-century Anabaptists, who believed that the church of their day was a “fallen” church and that a “restitution” (i.e., a return to the pattern of the New Testament church) was the only solution. Although few present-day evangelicals would go the whole way with the Anabaptists, many tend to believe that the church has “fallen” when doctrinal error is allowed to have a place in it or perhaps even to dominate it, and that it is the duty of the true believer to form a new church that is doctrinally and spiritually pure. Usually this whole position is deeply marred by two serious defects. First, no serious attempt is made to reform the “fallen” church. It is simply abandoned. And second, behind it all is an unscriptural perfectionism that looks for the “pure” church. This type of separatism is a dead end. It is not only unscriptural; it is also impractical, for there is no end to separation.
2. The second view of reformation could be called the medical conception. Here the believer refuses to leave his church, for he believes that the situation is never so hopeless that it cannot be improved. This believer differs from the separatist in two important ways. First, he maintains, at least in theory, that the church can be and should be reformed. Secondly, he wants to do this by spiritual means only and tries to avoid all conflict. Bishop J. C. Ryle wrote: “We ought not lightly to forsake the Church of England. No! So long as her Articles and Formularies remain unaltered, unrepealed, and unchanged, so long we ought not to forsake her” (Five English Reformers, p. 36).
Personally, I have a deep respect for all those who hold this view—and act accordingly! Yet I cannot share it. First, it does not take due account of the fact that by staying in the corrupted church to the bitter end one shares in the responsibility for what is going on in it. In his use of the Body-of-Christ metaphor, Paul made it abundantly clear that the church is an organism in which one member is co-responsible for another, and the single member for the whole body (1 Cor. 12; 2 Cor.6:14–16). Can we accept such a responsibility even for heretics who deny the fundamentals of the faith and who nevertheless are protected by the church—yes, who at times are even given prominent places?
Second, this position almost of necessity leads to endless accommodations and compromises. A recent example occurred in the New Zealand Presbyterian Church on the issue of the bodily resurrection of the Lord.
Third, is it really enough to denounce error, heresy, and laxity by preaching and writing only? Is it not also our duty to fight against it in the councils and courts of the church, thereby compelling the church to make its official position clear? The church-within-a-church “solution” has shown itself to be impossible.
3. The third way of reformation can be called the medico-surgical method. It tries to combine the good elements in both the former views. It agrees with the second that our primary task is to reform the church from within. But it goes beyond it by holding that all means have to be used, not only those of the Baxterian tradition (preaching, writing, and prayer) but also those of fighting heresy in the church councils and courts, both locally and supralocally. It further agrees that one should not easily leave one’s church; but it goes beyond this in its conviction that, when the church or denomination by its decisions and actions has shown its refusal to reject heresy, the time has come to leave. In other words, it agrees that separation is forced upon it by the unrepentant attitude of the church or denomination. The final and full responsibility, therefore, will always rest with the church or denomination that refuses to be reformed according to the Word of God. Personally, I believe that this approach to reformation is most in conformity with the New Testament.
When Do We Separate?
So far we have dealt with the matter from the purely theological angle. But what about the practical side? Is it possible to say something about the circumstances that necessitate separation? I think so. Naturally, we can talk in general terms only. Particular matters can be decided only in a concrete situation. This is the important element of truth in the so-called situation ethics. Yet it is possible to mention some situations in which separation is justified:
1. The church itself in its official doctrinal statements may oppose the Gospel and refuse to repeal its errors. This was the situation that faced the Reformers in the sixteenth century.
2. The church may compel the believer to believe or to do things that are clearly contrary to the Word of God. An example here is found in the Roman mass and in the practice of indulgences in the sixteenth century. Of course, in the concrete situation it may not always be easy to determine the weight of the issue. And sometimes the issue may focus on a point that in itself is not very important. But it may be serious in the situation as the straw that breaks the camel’s back. There is even a good chance that the “camels” will differ in opinion among themselves.
3. The church may no longer give freedom to believe or to do what is clearly demanded by the Word of God. One may think here of the prohibition against possessing or reading the Bible or attending Protestant services in the sixteenth century.
4. The church in its official capacity (the bishop or the assembly, perhaps, or, on the local level, the session) may refuse to deal with notorious heretics, in spite of protests or charges.
I have the impression that the first three of these situations do not often occur in today’s Protestant churches. Most denominations, officially, still have their original creeds and confessions, and even the more recent statements of faith are fairly pure in their positive affirmations—the real harm is usually in the omissions. There is also generally a considerable amount of liberty in the churches both for the liberal and for the evangelical. The real issue of our day is found in the fourth situation, the case in which a church refuses to deal with heresy. At this point, however, evangelicals disagree among themselves about which course of action to take.
Many evangelicals do not regard this point a sufficiently serious reason for separation, perhaps because they have never taken the first step toward reformation. They have never been outspoken and vigorous in their protest against unscriptural doctrines and practices in the church. Too many are content with the freedom that is left to them personally. Admittedly, this freedom is very important, and one cannot be grateful enough for it. But are we really doing our duty within this liberty? Do we really preach the full counsel of God? Or are we omitting certain aspects that might annoy or alienate people? Do we administer baptism only to those who are entitled to it, or do we conform to the unscriptural practice of more or less indiscriminate baptism? Do we really keep the Lord’s Table holy by barring unrepentant sinners from it? And what about discipline? Do we really exercise it on the local and the supralocal level? Do we protest against error and heresy, particularly when they appear—as they often do—in official church literature (church papers, Sunday school material, and so on) and in books by office-bearers in the church?
John Calvin once wrote to Margaret of Navarre: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward, if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent, without giving any sound” (W. Nijenhuis, Calvinus Oecumenicus, p. 255). As evangelicals we should realize that silence means co-responsibility for what is going on in our church. I am afraid that in this respect evangelicals are guilty before God and that the first act toward reformation must be confession of guilt. Those who have always been silent have no right whatever to separate from their church. Only those who have seriously tried to bring the church to reformation, and have found that the church not only refuses to reform but continues to protect error and heresy in fundamental areas of the Christian faith—only these persons have the right and the duty to separate.
