Separation from an Unsound Church viewed in the Light of Scripture
In last number we referred our readers to the testimony of the Old Testament on the subject of separation from an unsound Church, and quoted a series of events from that part of the Word of God that shed light upon this subject. We adduced in succession the call of Abraham the case of Lot and Sodom, the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, Achan in the camp, and Israel’s separate position as a nation and church, as historical facts that give directions to all who desire to follow the Lord fully in His truth and cause.
II.—Special passages in the Old Testament
Let us observe, secondly, special passages in the Old Testament that point out the path of duty in this matter.
(1)
The first passage to which we direct attention is 2 Chron. xix. 2—“And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” These words were addressed to Jehoshaphat after he returned from Ramoth-gilead. He had joined affinity with Ahab, and had gone out with him against the Syrians. The Syrians were the enemies of both Israel and Judah, yet the Lord was displeased with Jehoshaphat king of Judah for assisting Ahab king of Israel, even when he was arrayed against the common enemy. Ahab was a wicked king, the patron of idolatrous worship, and the persecutor of the true prophets of God. It was not meet, therefore, that the good Jehoshaphat should, on any account, have fellowship with him, and therefore he incurred the righteous anger of the Lord by what he did. Strange to say, Jehoshaphat did not leave his religion behind him even when he went out as Ahab’s helper, and yet this did not take away his guilt. We find that Jehoshaphat was not satisfied with Ahab’s 400 prophets, and asked if there was any other prophet of the Lord to be found. Ahab said, “There is yet one man, by whom we may enquire of the Lord; but I hate him, for he never prophesied good unto me but always evil; the same is Micaiah the son of Imla.” And Jehoshaphat, entering a mild protest against Ahab’s angry words said, “Let not the king say so.” Micaiah was brought, and again prophesied evil. Ahab bitterly rejected the prophet’s testimony. Jehoshaphat heard it in silence, and went up with Ahab to battle. Ahab was killed, and Jehoshaphat returned to find by the mouth of another prophet that he had incurred even a greater judgment, the anger of the Lord. The words of Jehu embody a principle which runs through the Word of God, that it is not the duty of those who fear the Lord to help those who hate Him, but rather to maintain a consistent testimony against them. Of course, due care must be taken to act upon this principle in a Scriptural way. Ahab not merely lacked the root principle of true religion, but was an open enemy to God. We may not be called upon to separate from men whose doctrine, life, and conversation are consistent with the Gospel, though they do not appear in our private judgment to have much or any spiritual life in them. But when men publicly rise up against fundamental truths of the Word of God they show themselves enemies to the Lord and subverters of His cause, and we are, therefore, bound to have no fellowship with them. When religious bodies protect and honour men of this stamp and adopt their views, in spite of appeals and protests to the contrary, it is our duty to separate from these bodies in order to maintain the truth.
(2)
Another passage is to be found in Psalm 26: 4-5. “I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.” Now, we are not to understand by this that the psalmist would not come into contact with vain persons in any circumstances whatsoever. He must needs then have gone out of the world. But the passage plainly points out that he would not associate with such persons and make them his companions, counsellers, and brethren. The following illustration has been sometimes used wherewith to make the Free Presbyterian cause appear ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of men. A house is attacked by robbers, and the children instead of abiding by their aged and helpless parents make for the door and leave them to the mercy of the intruders. How unchristian and unfaithful a course this is! The illustration entirely misses the mark. What would one think of children who remained in the house, received the robbers as brethren, gave them everything in it, allowed them to usurp the parental place of authority, and submitted to see their parents thrust into a corner, there to live or die, at the mercy of those robbers? That is the exact state of the case with those who remain in the Free Church. But would it not have been a nobler part for the children to have left the house and taken the parents with them rather than to have placed the whole family in the hands of robbers? Who are the real parents in the case? Just those who adhere to the original standards of the Free Church. The Free Presbyterians, therefore, whatever their sins and shortcomings, acted the more faithful and Christian part in not leaving the people to the mercy of men who were robbing the Church of its best treasures, yea, of its very life, but rather left the house with its temporal belongings and took their parents with them in order to save the family from death. The psalmist, under the teaching of the Holy Ghost, would not sit with men and call them brethren, whom he regarded not merely in their private but in their public and ecclesiastical capacity as evil doers, robbers of the Church of God.
Other passages from the Old Testament might be quoted, but these will suffice. They show that it is a highly Scriptural duty for the true Church to maintain a position in the world separate from those who are opposed to the cause of God.
Objections
(1)
It may be objected to what has been stated on this subject that in Old Testament times we have such cases as Joseph in Pharaoh’s house, Obadiah in Ahab’s, and Daniel and the other Jews princes in Babylon. Let it be observed, however, that these eminent men occupied civil not ecclesiastical offices in their several stations, so that their religion was not compromised thereby. Besides, their recorded deeds prove that they were faithful to the Lord in a more than ordinary measure, notwithstanding the temptations of the environment.
(2)
An objection may be also raised from the fact that Israel was bound even in backsliding times to worship where the ark of the Lord rested. But where does the ark rest now under the new dispensation? Certainly, not in one fixed locality, but wherever the truth as it is in Jesus is maintained and declared in its purity. The confinement to a fixed locality for divine worship was evidently a part of the bondage of the former dispensation. It was very specially felt to be so in periods of declensions, for in the time of Eli’s wicked sons, we are told that the people abhorred the sacrifice. There was then a disposition among the pious in Israel to refrain from coming to Shiloh, a disposition that did not spring from sin but from holiness, and it was only the peculiar divine arrangements for that dispensation that would have prevented an entire renunciation of the place of sacrifice.
(3)
The last objection we shall now consider is that sometimes drawn from the words: “I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord.” — (Zeph. 3:12). The words “in the midst of thee,” are emphasised by objectors as if in any body, however corrupt, the Lord promises to leave “an afflicted and poor people,” and that, therefore, it is our duty to remain in such bodies. Now, we are not prepared to say, but the Lord, in His mysterious providence, may leave some of His people even in such a corrupt body as the Church of Rome, but would any reasonable person on that account join that body, or were our Reformers wrong in leaving it because Martin Boos and a few good people remained in it? Far from it. But the passage before us is not applicable to such cases as these. It contains a promise to Judah which represents the true Church, that it is not merely the Lord’s providential but His gracious purpose to leave in the midst thereof a people who shall trust in His name. No body that does not bear the marks of the true Church can consistently lay claim to this promise. The Lord may leave particular so-called Churches, that have departed from the faith, wholly destitute, so that it is vain for men to make use of this promise to defend their own unfaithfulness in staying in corrupt bodies such as the Free Church.