“We recommend that Synod appoint a study committee to define the biblical bounds of ecclesiastical separation and to formulate guidelines for specific application for the sake of the purity of the church and report back to the 153rd General Synod.”

1680, The Queensferry Paper, probably by Donald Cargill with Henry Hall (led to the Sanquhar Declaration by Richard Cameron, June 1680), throwing off the authority of both the state church and the Stewart kings:

“We shall go about this work in time to come with. . . more careful inspection into the conversation and holiness of those men that shall be chosen and ordained. Separation cannot be attributed to us. . .We are not separating from the communion of the Church and setting up new ordinances and a new ministry, but cleaving to the same ministers, and following the same ordinances, when others have slidden back to new ways and have a new authority superadded.”

(G. P. Hutchinson, pp. 32-33; John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, p. 140-141)

1721, First Society Meeting of the R.P. Church organized in America.

“They kept themselves distinct from the other worshipping societies which they found formed or forming in the land in which they were come to sojourn, as judging them no way disposed to enter into the full spirit of the covenanted reformation.” (Reformation Principles Exhibited, 1871 ed., historical sec., p. 113)

1743, Alexander Craighead’s renewal of the Solemn League and Covenant, Octorara, Pennsylvania:

“We look upon it as our Duty to separate ourselves from the corrupt Constitutions of both Church and State, and not to touch, taste, nor handle these Abominations, lest by partaking with them in their Sins, we be made Partakers with them in their Plagues.” (Hutchinson, note, p. 42)

1806, Reformation Principles Exhibited: Being the Declaration and Testimony of the R.P.C.N.A.:

“When [in] any church. . .  the administration is corrupt, and at­tempts at its reformation have proved ineffectual, it is the duty of Christians to separate from it,”  XXI:5.

1905, 82nd General Synod, R.P.C.N.A.:

“The plea of union with the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., was opposed on the ground that the U.S.A. Church was becoming more and more contaminated with modernistic teachings.” (Robert Waldo Chesnut, A Historical Sketch of the R.P.C. General Synod, p. 34)

1931, 108th General Synod, R.P.C.N.A.., on the modernist controversy:

"What is the remedy? Come out from among them and be separate. . . Conversation from one side to the other is impossible. . . Ultimately there are only two classes, the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares. . . .Our duty is to continue the struggle, and. . . .they who are faithful to the end shall be saved.” (Minutes, p. 173)

1.   We hold that it is a Christian’s duty to separate himself from all cooperation in religious activities with those who deny the full authority and dependability of the Word of God, and that no consideration of expediency could ever warrant such cooperation.

2.   As concerns cooperation with those who, while themselves believing in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, continue in membership in denominations which include known unbelievers, and fail to see clearly and to observe fully the scriptural injunction to separate themselves from such organizations, we hold that this is a sphere of expediency, that is, one in which no man’s conscience may be bound by other men; however, we as a Synod feel that great harm is done in many cases by such cooperation, and hence that it is unwise to enter upon or continue in them without careful consideration.

3.   Regarding such individuals as are described in paragraph one, we should seek by every possible means to win them to Christ; regarding such individuals as are described in paragraph two we urge that they be dealt with in a spirit of brotherly love, seeking by every proper means to win them to the scriptural position of separation rather than to drive them from us, and yet not violating our conscience.

Be it further resolved that we counsel our ministry and membership that there is widespread apostasy and unbelief in church organizations today, and that we are not to be partakers with unbelievers in their religious activities

Be it finally resolved that whenever we have connections with believers who maintain associations with liberal church organizations, that we exercise great care and take every precaution to preserve an uncompromising stand with the Lord and His infallible Word, yet all the while dealing with others in grace and love.

Occasionally circumstances demand that “separation-from” be practiced in the ecclesiastical, ethical, and/or personal areas of life. This study is limited to the ecclesiastical area and to the application of this study to our 20th century.

While the word “separation” is biblical, the phrases “the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation,” “the separatist church,” and “the pure church” are historical and pragmatic applications of the word.

The motivating principle behind biblical separation is submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Separation, therefore, is a positive action, a commitment of all that we are to Jesus Christ. Separation may consequently include a prohibition of relationships with organizations or people, but only when such prohibition is necessary in order to continue in submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

This submission to Jesus Christ must be practiced by the church which aggressively attempts to be a pure church. Such a church will seek to do whatever is necessary to glorify Christ and consequently will attempt to win over before separating from anything or anyone opposing this commitment. Furthermore, this attempt will be simultaneously practiced on the denominational, the local church, and the individual membership levels.

The use of the terms “separation,” “the pure church,” etc., are often construed ,as majoring in the negative. It is further seen as inevitably developing a callousness which will fail to perceive the beautiful consequences of submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This criticism may be valid regarding “separation” in some of our church’s tradition. Without taking time to prove this criticism true or false, it must be affirmed that only an improper motivation— something less than true submission to the Lordship of Christ—produces a “majoring in the negative.” It must also be recognized that, when a church does find it necessary to “separate-from” an existing church in order to continue in true submission, the charge of “majoring in the negative” is untrue, even though many accept that interpretation of the circumstances.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, is a church which has “separated-from” existing churches. This is true in both of its branches. It is a church, however, which has declared itself to be committed to submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, a church seeking to be a pure church, regardless of the degree of success it had in avoiding the pitfall of less than biblical motivation.

There is yet another danger threatening the church as it attempts to be pure. It is the danger of accepting an “escape-clause” psychology toward the problems which come from trying to keep both unity and purity in the church. This psychology is a fatalistic admission that purity cannot be developed over a long period of time, at least not on a denomination level. If this premise is accepted, ‘separation-from” becomes the standard operating procedure for maintaining a pure church rather than the biblical oversight by elders. Such oversight properly administers discipline at each step and on each level. This strength to aggressively attempt to maintain a pure church lies in the ruling eldership. This ministry is given to the church by delegation from Christ. Through it the church will simultaneously grow in size and will preserve spiritual unity. The elders will also lead the church into “separation-from” when it has exhausted its ministry and still finds itself unable to maintain purity. Such leadership is the consistent consequence of shepherding and oversight.

The demonstration of submission to the Lordship of Christ as the motivating principle behind biblical separation must be given. Also, the demonstration of who stands accountable to responsibly lead in such action must be given. (Only a few key passages have been listed).

Colossians 1: 17-18
Ephesians 1:11-12

1 Peter 2:9-10

Ephesians 1:22-23

Romans 16:17-18

Colossians 1:28
Hebrews 13:17

 

2 John 10-11

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1—Paul, quoting Isaiah 52, demands that they must come out from among them and be separate. He argues that, because they are the temple of God, He will “. . .  live with them, and walk among them, and. . .will be their God. . ."

Paul thus declares that only the church attempting to live with the consequences of the Lordship of Christ can anticipate the full blessings involved in being the temple of God.

—  from an existing union; or,

—  continued separation between non-united parties.

“union”

—a church or an ecclesiastical organization which is actually doing the work of a church or which could exercise some degree of official jurisdiction over the RPCES church or member.

—an organization or function in which the RPCES church’s or member’s testimony to the clarity of the message of Jesus in the scriptures is subjected to being strengthened or made less clear by the other participants in the union.

“organic union” 

 

This term is used to indicate the merger of two organizations (and therefore two organisms) into a new organization. This new organization will include all the people, programs, assets and liabilities, etc., of the original two organizations.

Unless otherwise noted, the term “church” will be used to refer only to local congregations.

Since no RPCES church can enter an “organic union” without involvement of presbytery and/or General Synod, the term “organization” is used to mean any organization other than a particular church or a denomination unless specifically indicated otherwise by the illustration.

1.   The Lordship of Christ over the church provides boundaries.
Ephesians 4:4-5
Cf. Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25-1,2,3 and Form of Government, Chapter I

Deductions:

The church should be striving to provide the whole counsel of God, the sacraments, and discipline for each member of the body. It may not enter any union which reduces its commitment to these provisions.

The church cannot enter into union with any organization that denies Jesus Christ His headship over the church and each member of it.

The church cannot unite with unbelievers.

Example:

An RPCES church may be the only church in the community which is not a member of the local council of churches. However, that particular local council of churches is committed to developing in the community an ecumenical church in which Jesus Christ will only be presented as a good man, not as God in the flesh. Although it may be ridiculed for its stand, the RPCES church may not become part of that local council of churches.

Example:

Because of the financial drain of maintaining two plants relatively close to each other, an RPCES church might be asked to become part of an evangelical UPUSA church. The UPUSA church is (vis. the “Confession of ‘67” and the entire “Book of Confessions”), in effect, a non-confessional church. That is not compatible with the biblical foundation upon which the RPCES stands. Therefore this merger cannot even be proposed to presbytery for consideration.

2.   The doctrine of sanctification produces boundaries.
Some key verses of Scripture are:

Matthew 6:33, 1 Peter 2:11-12,2 Corinthians 6:14-18. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 13, 1, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism No. 35 teach that Christians “. . . are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”

Deductions:

The church cannot enter into union with an organization which would have any authority, design, or practice which would erode or replace the commitment of the church actively to prosecute this doctrine.

Example:

An RPCES church may be located where the sociological-moral conflict generated by statewide pressures to legalize casino gambling is raging. The church MUST take its stand—publicly (cf. New Jersey, 1974). A local social activist-led front may be proposed to defeat the referendum at the polls. The proposal is only for a temporarily united front to fight the gambling issue. However, various facets of the “front” also advocate such things as premarital sex. If the proposal involves the RPCES church so that at least for the length of time agreed upon to fight the issue, it agrees (actually or even tacitly) not to speak out on positions of the other members with which it disagrees, the church may not enter the union. It may, of course, endorse this one particular stand of the union. To become united, however, is to open the way to destroy the Holy Spirit’s work of sanctification.

3.   The ordination vows of the elder’s office provide boundaries.

The Form of Government prescribes that the questions of ordination which each elder vows are, in fact, the expression of his conscience. All of them must be understood to be interrelated, so that it is impossible to hold reservations about one without distorting the commitment of one’s conscience to the others. Among them, Question No. 6 stands out as the most cogent expression of moral commitment directly related to the need to practice ecclesiastical separation.

Question No. 6: Do you promise to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the Gospel and the purity and peace of the Church; whatever persecution or opposition may arise unto you on that account? (Form of Government, Chapter V,3)

Deductions:

The church cannot enter into union with any organization whose purposes or practices will dilute the Headship of Christ over each individual of the church and thus force the elders, wittingly or not, to violate their ordination vows.

4. The responsibility inherent in the office of elder/bishop provides boundaries.

Some of the texts which detail the major responsibilities of the bishop/elder (excluding preaching and teaching per se for the pastor-teacher are:

Acts 20:28

I Timothy 3:2

I Timothy 3:5

Hebrews 13:7

Deductions:

The church cannot have union with organizations which would have the authority or design to replace the elders’ responsibility for the flock with anything less than their full accountability demanded by the Word of God. This replacement could be by deletion, dilution, or substitution. This accountability includes nurturing, disciplining, and guarding the flock. The principle used to delineate the boundary of separation applied here is the natural parallel of the axiom enunciated for the General Synod relative to its power: “. . . but the Synod shall not delegate any of its general powers beyond its own recall so as to cease to be fully responsible for the spiritual life of should therefore be pointed out that elders may delegate much of their work and the authority to do that work, but may not delegate their responsibility for its calibre and consequence. Putting it in this context, no union is possible which, in effect, delegates the ruling elders’ responsibility to give an account for the flock (to God) to an organization, if by such delegation, proper responsibility of an accountability for the spiritual welfare for the flock is endangered.

Example:

An RPCES church may be asked to be an equal participant in a community-wide evangelistic campaign. The evangelist is clearly evangelical. Although he is not a Calvinist, he is not known as an anti-Calvinist in his preaching. The plans are to enroll every church in the community, regardless of the doctrinal position taken by that church in its formal doctrinal statements or its practical expression of them, as an equal participant in the campaign. The training of the personal workers will be done by the evangelist’s staff, although the selection of those to be trained and the supervision of their work as personal workers will be done by a cross section subcommittee of the pastors of the involved churches. The converts will be directed to the church of their choice on the presumption that, if they are truly born again and if the church of their choice does not preach the Gospel, the Holy Spirit will motivate them to locate a different church. An RPCES church may not become an equal participant in this campaign for any one or combination of the following reasons:

(a)     in subscribing to a common platform, the elders might be diminishing or even possibly forfeiting their ultimate responsibility to be accountable to God to guard the flock and to be an example to the flock because of a formal relationship that condones those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh (cf. 2 John 10-1 1);

(b)    in permitting the spiritual supervision of church members, the elders might be improperly delegating at least a tangible degree of their responsibility to be accountable to God to shepherd the flock by allowing a coalition of men, among whom some may believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, to oversee the work of their members in the spiritual work of personal witnessing for Christ (cf. Hebrews 13:17);

(c)     in not fulfilling the spiritual responsibility for nurturing the new converts, the elders might be seriously curtailing their responsibility to guard the sheep from wolves by supporting a pro­gram which proposed sending new-born babes in Christ into churches that deny that Jesus is God in the flesh (cf. Acts 20:28 and Acts 20:30).

5. The implications government by a plurality of elders (called sessions and presbyteries) provides boundaries.

1 Timothy 5:17

Deductions:

Example:    The General Synod of the RPCES has adopted a resolution on racial issues. It is not advisable for an RPCES church to join an organization which rejects the truth of that resolution.

If any resolution has been appealed to the General Synod as an appeal court, and has been upheld by that court, it is most strongly inadvisable for the RPCES church to join such an organization.