Hyper-separatism (or contracting the circle)

The first article in a three-part look at a serious hindrance to evangelical unity . . .

Earlier this year, a booklet was issued with the title Bible Churches Together - A Plea for True Ecumenism(1). It had three related aims: to clarify the position of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches with regard to the ecumenical movement, to provide some background information about the new network called Essentially Evangelical and to urge greater co-operation between all churches that were genuinely submissive to the authority of the Bible.

Predictably, the booklet met with a storm of protest from a magazine that represents one constituency within British evangelicalism(2). It claimed that, 'the old clarity and rugged determination to maintain biblical separation (within FIEC) is now being undermined by ministers who have turned away from the founding principles' and 'historical revisionism' is being employed to disguise the process.

We are not concerned to correct the crucial misrepresentations of Bible Churches Together that appear in the magazine articles - it is our hope people will read the booklet for themselves before making up their minds. What we are concerned about is that many will not question the pedigree of the hyper-separatist attitudes expressed in the attacks, and will assume them to be part of an older, 'sounder' evangelicalism, when in fact they owe more to the peculiarities of early 20th century fundamentalism (3).

What is hyper-separatism?

It is seen wherever the vital biblical teaching to separate from error is interpreted and emphasised in such a way that the equally vital instruction about the expression of unity between God's people cannot be sufficiently honoured. If hyper-separatism had been the prevailing approach in New Testament days, it is difficult to imagine which churches would have been speaking to each other!

In every aspect of the Christian life we walk a narrow path. Those who believe in uniting with just anyone stray off one side, while the hyper-separatist strays off the other. Whether it is worse to 'church' the unsaved or to 'un-church' our brothers and sisters in Christ, who would care to say? Any Bible-centred church should, at the very least, acknowledge all others that are truly like-minded and avoid spiritual fellowship with those that have no claim to be evangelical.

But what should be our attitude towards the many churches that cannot be so clearly defined? There are those where the centrality of Scripture is undoubted but which hold different convictions on significant issues. Then there are many others where the gospel is still proclaimed but the authority of the Bible is being subtly undermined by an excess of human wisdom or religious subjectivism.

Fellowship by formula

The hyper-separatist mindset has a no-tolerance (or low-tolerance) policy towards churches in both these very different categories. The reason is that its defensive instincts tend to think of inter-church fellowship as operating rather like a drawbridge, which is either up or down. It believes that fellowship should be either whole-hearted or non-existent. For the hyper-separatist any suggestion of shades of fellowship conveys the impression of woolly-thinking and compromise. The measure of agreement required at every point therefore has to be extremely high.

The main instrument by which hyper-separatism maintains itself is both blunt and simple. Any evangelical church or minister belonging to a denomination which contains apostate churches is guilty by association and must be shunned. This is generally known as 'second-degree separation'. The ruling is frequently extended to require the severing of links with evangelical churches that associate with evangelical churches within mixed denominations. This is termed 'third-degree separation'. Further 'degrees of separation' are not un-known! But how can such a crude and mechanistic 'fellowship by formula' approach to the Bible's comprehensive teaching on unity and separation possibly provide a reliable, let alone sufficient, guide? The circle of fellowship is very small and constantly contracting.

The only criterion

We believe that the only criterion that ought to determine fellowship between churches should be the extent to which the Bible is seen to be central to their worship, life and mission. On this basis, evangelical churches may choose from a variety of possible responses to one another, ranging from mere acknowledgement, to the closest co-operation. Discretion needs to be exercised in every individual situation.

The fundamental biblical principle that requires the Lord's people not to associate with apostasy and error must not be reduced to the mere question of denominational affiliation. After all, it had to be understood and applied long before any of our present-day groupings existed! The three writers of this article are all 'separatists' in the historical sense, by conviction not accident. Two of us deliberately came out of mixed denominational settings. We would not return. We each believe that the biblical doctrine of separation requires us to stand apart from apostasy in this way. However, we are forced to concede that many who hold the same high view of biblical authority do not draw precisely the same application of its teaching at this point.

Shibboleth

There are Anglican ministers, for example, who openly denounce the theological liberalism and toleration of evil within the Church of England and who consistently put gospel before denominational loyalty. Many have little expectation of the denomination's recovery. They are not 'in it to win it' and some are even indifferent to its fate. Nevertheless, they do not see why their churches should leave the Established Church simply because others, with whom they have no tangible association, have de-parted from the evangelicalism of its founding Articles.

We do not support or commend their conclusions, but that is no reason to deny them fellowship, any more than we should deny fellowship to Bible-centred churches which come to what we consider to be wrong conclusions regarding baptism, church government, or the Lord's return! To treat a nominal, and often reluctant, affiliation as the shibboleth which reveals those who are false to the gospel is grossly to exaggerate its importance. There is certainly nothing to be gained by paying undue attention to a fragile link which, hopefully, may well not survive as an apparently unstoppable downgrade gathers momentum.

Next month, we shall be looking at such renowned separatists as C. H. Spurgeon, E.J. Poole-Connor & D.M. Lloyd-Jones to see how hyper-separatism goes beyond what they taught and practised.

Jonathan Stephen, Brian Edwards, John Rosser

Notes:

1. By Jonathan Stephen and available from FIEC, 3 Church Road, Croydon, Surrey CR0 1SG.
2. Sword & Trowel, 2000, No.2.
3. Compare the comments of Iain Murray in Evangelicalism Divided, Banner of Truth Trust, p.17.