Biblical Separation not Narrow and Sectarian
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor 6:14-18).
These precious words are of wide application to the people of God, but it is clear that, among other things, they are teaching Christians not to engage in public worship on an equal footing with unbelievers. Unbelievers are welcome to attend Christian public worship in a private capacity but they are not invited to take a leading part in it, nor to introduce into it their own elements of worship. “Unbelievers” are people who do not put their trust in Christ alone for salvation. They may call themselves Christians, but if they make up some false gospel – for example, mixing their own righteousness with that of Christ – and then put their trust in the idol that they have created, they are not “believers” in the biblical sense.
The teaching of Christ shows that the professing Christian Church may contain a considerable number of people who appear to be believers but in fact are not, and will be exposed as unbelievers at the Day of Judgement. The Christian Church takes people as they appear to be, but if it becomes evident that they are unbelievers, then their Christian privileges should be removed. Where the Church is unfaithful in doing this, it creates a difficulty for the people of God because they find themselves unequally yoked with those who manifestly do not share their faith in Christ. If this situation continues and worsens, then believers eventually have to separate from that corrupt branch of the Church, according to the words of Scripture that we have quoted above.
The stage at which this separation becomes necessary is a matter of judgement, and can be a point of disagreement among Christians. When believers are obliged to separate, they do so, not out of a “sectarian” spirit, but out of love and obedience to Christ; for the safety of their own souls; and also for the well-being of the souls of unbelievers, because the best thing for unbelievers is that there should be a sharp boundary between the Church and the world so that they can less easily deceive themselves with vain hopes.
In the history of Scotland, the Reformers separated from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century because it was obvious that the Church of Rome was entirely dominated by unbelievers. In the same way, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland separated from the old Free Church in 1893 because that body was plainly on a fatal course of apostasy from the gospel. More recently, however, we have heard of a congregation in the Free Church of Scotland which is moving in the opposite direction and which participates in an annual “shared worship” scheme with various local congregations, including the Roman Catholics. The Free Church “provides the worship” for one service, with the Roman Catholics attending, and then the Roman Catholics provide a mass at which the Free Church people are invited to attend.
The website of the Free Church congregation condemns as “narrow” and
“sectarian” those who do not share their “ecumenical spirit”. We think that those involved in this step should be asking themselves why they are disobeying that part of the Bible that we quoted above, why they are abusing Christians with the unpleasant name of “sectarian”, and whether they really believe that salvation is by faith alone and that those who teach any other gospel are “accursed” (Gal 1:8-9). DWBS
Assisted Suicide
In September last year we commented on Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill which is currently being scrutinised by a House of Lords committee. Providentially, time constraints will make it impossible for the Bill to pass through all the legislative procedures before the May General Election; so there is a merciful delay in the process.
However, in Scotland the spectre of assisted suicide once again raises its head in the Holyrood Parliament. The Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill was introduced in November 2013 by the late Margo Macdonald MSP. Now it is being carried forward by the Green MSP, Patrick Harvie. The Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee spent several days in January and February this year gathering evidence from professionals on both sides of the debate, and it will report back to Parliament shortly. In 2010 a similar Bill by Margo Macdonald was substantially defeated but supporters are determined to have this Bill enacted. They are giving the clear impression that the majority of the Scottish public support them and this cannot but influence MSPs.
The current position in Scotland is that it is not illegal to attempt suicide, but to aid someone to do so could lead to prosecution. In England and Wales, in the wake of the Debbie Purdy case, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued guidance (although crucially the law has not changed) that those who assist a family member or friend to end their lives at the notorious Dignitas suicide clinic in Switzerland will not face prosecution. No such guidance or guarantee was given by the Scottish Crown Office. The new Scottish Bill seeks to change this by making “it lawful, in certain circumstances, to assist another to commit suicide”. The “circumstances” focus on those whose lives are considered intolerable because of an incurable degenerative disease or terminal illness. It is argued that adequate safeguards will be set in place, but tragically there is no reference to God’s holy law and His rights over all His creatures, especially in His commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13).
Strong representations have been made to the Health Committee by the hospice and palliative-care sector. Recently-retired palliative-care consultant Dr Stephen Hutchison, from the Highland Hospice, argued that “incremental extension, known colloquially as the slippery slope,” would inevitably be
replicated in Scotland, as it has been in other countries where there are supposed safeguards. He told the Committee that countries such as Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, and the state of Oregon have safeguards in place in their assisted-dying legislation, but they do not prevent abuse, as the rules are relaxed or disregarded. He added there should be “no doubt whatsoever” that, if assisted suicide is legalised, it “would lead inevitably to euthanasia in future”. He said, “To argue otherwise is dangerously naive”. He continued: “In my professional life I can testify to thousands of people who, when given time, attention and high-quality professional palliative care, were deeply grateful for that care because it made all the difference”.
Dr Hutchison is also concerned about the abuse of the elderly. He told the Committee: “In the UK, elder abuse affects over half a million people, with the perpetrators commonly being friends or family. In the face of chronic illness and dependence, and the prospect of expensive care eroding the family’s inheritance, the availability of assisted suicide could create further risk to the frail and elderly and expose them to unhealthy societal and internal pressures.” Representing the other end of the age spectrum, at the Committee, was Dr Pat Carragher of the Children’s Hospice Association Scotland. He has “profound concerns” that parents may apply for legal attorney, and use this power to end their child’s life. He adds, “They could decide that what was in the best interests of their child would be assisted suicide”.
The pro-life organisation, Care Not Killing, said that, from their investigations, it would appear that the majority of the medical profession continue to be against assisted suicide, believing that a doctor’s role is to “focus on good, compassionate care and not to open their profession up to the deliberate ending of patients’ lives”. Yet 11 medical experts wrote last year to The Herald newspaper, supporting the Bill. One signatory, an Edinburgh professor, argued, “I think it is part of one’s doctoring responsibility to help someone at the end of life”. Comments such as these are sinister; so there is much need to pray that the Lord would overrule, in these deliberations, to stop Scotland legalising this murderous practice.
A palliative care nurse, quoted in Evangelical Times, reminds us of the solemn spiritual realities at death. She praises dedicated care facilities: “Palliative care . . . makes an immense difference to people and their families at a time of great suffering, but . . . these things do not remove the sting of dying . . . neither of course does a massive overdose of barbiturates”. She continued, “Death is the consequence of a sinful, fallen world . . . there is only one way to truly salve the agony of death and dying . . . not the empty promise of avoiding the pain and sorrows of dying by taking matters into one’s own hands”. She went on: “Christians believe that the gospel is the
surest cure for the fear of death and of dying. It is the best palliative care that there is and, if we are to treat people with the compassion and dignity that they long for, we must make the most of every opportunity to communicate it to them before they find themselves at life’s end.”
The Apostle states, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement” (Heb 9:27). Death cannot be avoided, and then, solemnly, there is eternal death for those who die without Christ. How good for those whose trust is in the Saviour of sinners! For them Paul says, “O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?” (1 Cor 15:55). KHM
PS. Since the above was written, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled, unanimously, that the law against assisted suicide infringes Canadians’ rights. The decision will permit doctors to help patients kill themselves who have severe and incurable medical conditions, not necessarily terminal. The Government has been allowed a year to change the present law, which makes it illegal to counsel, aid or abet a suicide, with a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. Failure to make a change will mean that the current law will be struck down. This is one in a series of dangerous changes to Canadian law. KDM