Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

December 4, 1995. Letter from Chris Coldwell to Reg Barrow

Letter from Chris Coldwell to Reg Barrow 12/07/95

Subject: re Separatism (originally regular mail)

Reg Barrow

4710-37A Ave.

Edmonton, AB Canada T6L-3T5

Dear Reg:

I'm writing this letter because I was concerned to see you come out in favor of separatism in the piece on psalmody you recently sent me.1 I think you know FPCR's take on this as you've hopefully studied Richard Bacon's Visible Church in connection with Kevin Reed's Extraordinary Times. As FPCR has faced several issues in regard to the "separation" question, we've logged some time so to speak studying the issue. I'm concerned you've rejected the historic Presbyterian position, and disappointed that you've done so publicly with such poor argumentation, especially since you had access to Visible Church, not to mention the actual writings of Rutherfurd, Durham, etc. Please don't be offended if I speak frankly. I'm not angry, but am very sad to see this.

You write: "Can you attend worship services which practice the idolatry of 'hymn' signing [sic] and be free of sin yourself. My answer would be no!"2 Well, the right short answer is yes. I find a couple of things defective in your defense of this position.

Your application of Bradford (Hurt of Hearing Mass) and Calvin (from Eire's War Against the Idols) to support your claim goes beyond what those divines would have said to the issue of hymn singing. Their call for fleeing the idolatry of the Mass is tied explicitly to the doctrines it denies and necessarily to the status of the RC church as an apostate church. For you to claim them as supporting your conclusion is overlaying a construction on their theology and writings that is not there. They did not claim that one must separate from a true church in every case of idolatry, using idolatry in the broad sense of every violation of the second commandment.3 If I'm wrong here, I would appreciate your citing the passages of their writings that do this.

More importantly, your conclusion is opposite of the divines of the time of the writing of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and many of the writings that would lay further the backbone of our Presbyterian theology. This I think would be clear from the citations in Bacon's Visible Church. James Walker summarizes the 17th Century Divines' position: "Such differences as do not make communion in a Church and in its Ordinances sinful, cannot be a ground of separation." 4 Gilbert Rule says: "Our Presbyterian principle is that a Christian should part with what is dearest to him in the world to redeem the peace and unity of the Church; yea that nothing can warrant or excuse it [separating] but the necessity of shunning sin."5 Alexander Shields, one of the three Cameronian field-preachers says the same: "Such differences as do not make communion in a Church and its ordinances sinful cannot be a ground of separation."6 I highly recommend reading Chapter 4 of Walker's book on "The Doctrine of the Visible Church," as well as Macpherson's Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology (in Anthology 5).

The separatist position as summarized by Walker is: . . . "that every member of the Church is to hold himself responsible for the corruptions that exist in it, for the defections or shortcomings of its office-bearers, for its failures in the exercise of discipline, even if he does what is competent to him in his place. . .".7 The Scots divines of this time actively opposed the notion that the sins of the Church are accountable to members and officers by virtue of the fact of their membership. Even if they were faithfully crying down the corruptions, separatists maintained that it was sinful to remain in a corrupt Church. Thomas Boston summed up the position by saying, "I perceived their separation ultimately to resolve into that unwarrantable principle, viz that joining in communion with the Church, in the ordinances of God is an approbation of the corruptions in her; The very same from which all the rest of the separations do spring, some carrying that principle further than others, in different degrees."8

You say "To attend such services without at least publicly protesting (and then bringing formal charges against the public officers who promote and maintain this sin) involves one in the breach of both the second and ninth commandments..." Scripture sets no time limits in stone for every situation we will met with that needs reforming. Matthew 18 is a framework, not a "1-2-3 you've got charges filed against you." A family protesting the singing of hymns may faithfully protest for years by not singing hymns without going to the point of filing charges. (I assume the nonsinging of hymns meets the definition of a public protest. It usually gets the attention of the officers fairly quickly). One needs to look at the specific situation to decide if formal charges are going to be needed. And there are other ways of bringing the subject up to presbytery. And in any case, once presbytery decides the issue in favor of singing hymns, the family has done all they could do (the historic Presbyterian position) and is not free to separate (the separatist view). They do not partake of the sin of the hymn-singers merely by being there.9 If the church then decides to try and force them to sing hymns (which I've heard of churches trying to do) then they should seek as orderly a change of membership to another body as they can, because then they are being pressured to sin.

I suggest strongly that you not circulate your present opinion further than you have. I don't think you've thought your position out very thoroughly, certainly not thoroughly enough to go into print and hazard other people to fall into error. Your citations of support from Eire and Bradford are out of context and you need to deal with the obvious rejection of Westminster Presbyterianism, Rutherfurd, Durham, etc. As per the Cameronians, if their covenants deny this biblical teaching against separatism, then we are not to receive it, no matter how much of their blood was shed in standing for the pure worship of God. And if a corrupting church departs from reformation once attained, and separation was an option, we would see approved examples of this in OT Judah when they fell away after the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.

It is interesting to me that those churches that departed from the purity of the Second Reformation, particularly in this country, embraced the doctrine of toleration advocated by the Independents and rejected by the Presbyterians, while those who separated to try and hold on to those reforms adopted the separatist views of the Independents equally condemned by the Westminster Presbyterians. Let us resolve to not depart to either the right-hand or the left-hand errors of the Independents.

In summary the following points are clear, which must be dealt with on this topic of separation: 1. Our divines like Rutherfurd, Durham, etc. maintain that every violation of the second commandment or RPW does not necessitate nor mandate separation. 2. They maintain that one does not partake of other men's sins if one is maintaining one's own integrity of belief and has done or is doing all that he can according to his place and station. 3. Separation is not necessary nor lawful to a member unless he is being forced to sin. 4. We cannot bind ourselves to covenants that violate the above truths and that change the "biblical rules" of separation. At the point Covenanters changed the measuring rule of separation to the same as the congregational separatists, they were wrong.

Respectfully,

Chris Coldwell

[Footnotes]

1 "Psalm Singing In Scripture & History," Christian Reconstruction Today, Issue #18-19 July-Oct. 1991, Revised Nov. 1995.

2 Ibid, p. 4.

3 "We shall not deny but that whatsoever is practiced in the Worship of God, or set up as an Ordinance without God's warrant in his Word, may be comprehended under Idolatry, taking idolatry in a large sense, but that everything set up or practiced in the Worship of God or in Ordinances is such idolatry as is ground sufficient to separate from a Church wherein it is practiced as no true Church, is a conceit in itself without warrant of the Word, nay directly contrary to the allowed practice of God's People in the Word, both in Old and New Testament." James Wood, A Little Stone Pretended to be out of the Mountain, Tried and found to be a Counterfeit. or an Examination and Refutation of Mr. Lockyer's Lecture, Preached at Edinburgh, Anno 1651. Concerning the Matter of the Visible Church. (Edinburgh, Andro Andrews: 1654), p. 341, 342. Rutherfurd makes similar distinctions.

4 The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 1560-1750. (Edinburgh, John Knox Press: 1982), 113.

5 Ibid, p. 113.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., p. 109.

8 Ibid, p. 111.

9 Durham doesn't discuss worship corruptions in any detail in Concerning Scandal, but in one of the worst cases of corruption postulated (admitting scandalous persons to the Lord's Table) Durham maintains that those protesting this have done all they can do when lawful means are exhausted and that separation is not lawful. See Concerning Scandal. This was the common case put forward by separatists and commonly answered in the Scots' replies to them.