|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Hyper-separatism: a backward glanceThe second article of three by Jonathan Stephen, Brian Edwards and John Rosser looking at a serious hindrance to evangelical unity (Part II)A sectarian spirit is nothing new within nonconformity. For example, The Minutes of The First Independent Church at Bedford 1656-17661 (John Bunyan's church) reveal that members were not permitted to hear the preaching of even a godly Church of England minister. Attendance at the local Moravian assembly became an excommunicable offence, while the transfer of members to strict Presbyterian churches, or even to Baptist churches, where immersion was a stipulation of membership,2 was generally refused. The major reason for the multiplication of denominational groups was the insistence of almost total agreement at every point. Despairing of this continual fragmentation at the church level, evangelicals eventually sought to express their essential spiritual unity in para-church movements and associations. In this country, over the last 120 years or so, three men in particular have been used by God to challenge this scenario. C. H. Spurgeon, E. J. Poole-Connor and Martyn Lloyd-Jones each believed that wider Christian unity should be expressed first and foremost between churches. Furthermore, for this to be achieved, churches had to be prepared to express fellowship solely on the basis of essential gospel truth. Secondary differences should not be allowed to keep apart churches which clearly demonstrated a submission to the authority of Scripture. Separatist credentialsThe separatist credentials of these three men were exemplary. Each of them deliberately abandoned his mixed denomination. They vehemently opposed any appearance or pretence of fellowship with non-evangelical churches. To varying extents, they saw that denominationalism itself was misconceived. When a church grouping is born purely of convictions on secondary issues, time has proved that these issues frequently come to assume primary significance. But, in any case, the very existence of even the soundest denomination tends to create a barrier to unity with Bible churches beyond its bounds. Hardly anyone imagines for one moment that any of these godly visionaries was even remotely ecumenically compromised! What may need demonstrating, however, is that they were also graciously enabled to avoid the opposite trap of hyper-separatism. When a recent booklet3 sought to show their commitment to the visible expression of unity between all truly evangelical churches, this provoked a most violent reaction from a widely-distributed Christian magazine.4 Yet it is not difficult to illustrate the marked difference in attitude and practice between these heroes of the faith and some today who would claim to be their true successors. Spurgeon and the BUEven after Spurgeon left the Baptist Union in 1887, he maintained personal, fraternal links with a number of the strongly evangelical ministers and churches that remained in - provided the context was clearly non-denominational. How graciously he wrote to Dr. Culross, the President of the BU, who had done so little to support him during the whole 'Down-Grade' controversy, 'Do I need to say that, with you, and such brethren as Dr. McLaren, Mr. Aldis and Dr. Angus, I have no sort of disagreement, except that you stay in the Union and I am out of it? We shall, according to our light, labour for the same cause. We are all Christians and Baptists, and can find many ways of co-operation...I wish I could have worked with you in this particular way; but as I cannot, we are not therefore deprived of a thousand other ways of fellowship...I am in fellowship with you - Union or no Union.'5 A few months later, in an address to his Pastor's College Evangelical Association, Spurgeon declared: 'Denominational divisions sink in the presence of the truth of God.'6 No insistence on believers' baptism or even a Reformed doctrinal position would be permitted to cloud that simple vision. Spurgeon & the CoEBut how did he regard evangelicals within the Church of England? Quite simply, he could not comprehend how they stayed, strongly and repeatedly challenging them to come out. Nevertheless, his spirit was ever charitable: 'I can never forget the many gracious and faithful men who remain in this Church, nor can I cease to pray for them. Towards these brothers, as earnest adherents and promulgators of evangelical truth, I sincerely cherish the warmest love... May the Providence of God and the power of His Spirit render the way to the visible fellowship of believers more plain.'7 The far more 'discriminating' James Wells, minister at Surrey Tabernacle, certainly thought he had plenty of reasons for referring to the nearby Metropolitan Tabernacle as 'that mixture-shop over the way'!8 This love and respect for firmly evangelical Anglicans was reciprocated. Spurgeon's close friend Robert Shindler, who probably coined the term 'Down-Grade', actually wrote the initial articles on the debate in The Sword and Trowel. 9 Broad sympathiesIn 1922, E. J. Poole-Connor was used by God to establish what eventually became the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. In so doing, he saw himself very much as fulfilling something of Spurgeon's vision for evangelical church unity. The articles in the recent Sword and Trowel referred to above (see note 4) contend that Poole-Connor was, in effect, a hyper-separatist and that FIEC is no longer faithful in this respect to its founder's vision. Neither of these charges is true. It is a fact that the ever-gracious and gentle Poole-Connor had strong links with the fundamentalist International Council of Christian Churches. How-ever, that was not because he was particularly enamoured of their hyper-separatist position, but rather because, as his close friend Theodore Bendor-Samuel explained in his semi-official history of the Fellowship, he 'so strongly supported (their) defence of the faith'.10 In fact, he fully accepted the FIEC Council's decision not to join ICCC because of the 'belligerent spirit of the ICCC's meetings and publications'.11 In reality, Poole-Connor urged FIEC churches to express fellowship locally with other truly evangelical churches whatever their affiliation. He certainly had no principled objection to a godly minister from a mixed denomination sometimes being asked to preach. He claimed: 'To have the occasional ministry of a denominational brother only emphasises the broad sympathies of the church'.12 Denominational men addressing FIEC gatherings is by no means the recent innovation some have suggested! 'Vitally and visibly one'As early as 1925, there was a 'strongly felt feeling' within FIEC that clearly evangelical ministers of denominational churches 'belonged to us and should be recognised'.13 As Bendor-Samuel goes on to summarise: 'The FIEC has never been isolationist. We have always sought fellowship with our evangelical brethren locally. At our united gatherings we have often welcomed speakers from outside our own ranks... Second degree separation has never been our policy.'14 Poole-Connor's often repeated prayer was that all those whom the Lord had accepted should be 'vitally and visibly one'. But how should this be achieved? He would have most emphatically agreed with the following prescription published by FIEC in 1965 - just three years after Poole-Connor's death: 'A first step is the willingness to recognise that disunity among evangelicals cannot be reconciled with New Testament teaching, and that division on grounds other than of essential doctrine is schism. Apostasy from the faith, and disorderly conduct which dishonours the Lord, are the only valid reasons for separation. The prime reason for seeking fuller evangelical unity is the recognition that our Lord desires it of us and the New Testament pattern and injunctions require it.'15 FIEC todayFIEC today remains true to its original calling. It is a growing association of churches, all of which have committed themselves to remaining separate from false ecumenical ties. It is not many years since the Fellowship's Basis of Faith was strengthened by making this commitment explicit; here it is freely acknowledged that 'True fellowship between churches exists only where they are faithful to the gospel.' An Ecumenical Statement, approved by an Assembly of the churches in 1996, spells out what has always been believed and practised in this regard, from the inception of FIEC. Nevertheless, FIEC continues to resist pressure to be pushed in the direction of hyper-separatism, a by-path which, history teaches, leads to sectarianism and ultimately, to isolation. We prefer to travel a road that we believe to be far more clearly marked in Scripture, and the evidence surely indicates that men like Spurgeon and Poole-Connor passed this way as well. Jonathan Stephen, Brian Edwards and John RosserNext month, the writers will focus on the views and practice of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and relate the debate to the new network, Essentially Evangelical. References © Evangelicals Now - December 2000 |
|
