Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

January 31, 1996. Richard Bacon to members of Presbytery. Information regarding Separatism.

January 31, 1996

Fathers and Brethren,

The enclosed papers are for your careful consideration in light of our upcoming presbytery in April. In keeping with the best and brightest stars of our Presbyterian heritage, I think it is important that we learn to acknowledge and recognize the scriptural and useful distinction our forebears made between corrupt churches and apostate churches. A neglect of that important distinction leads inexorably to the twin evils of unwarranted separation and individualistic autonomy. I know it is the desire of all within our presbytery to avoid such extremes.

First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett has been compelled by God's providence to examine the Scripture doctrine of separation several times since January 1985 at which time the church was involved in a major split. This is not a new subject to us. We do not mean to imply that we are incapable of being taught on the subject -- I would hope that by God's grace that is never the case for any of us -- but I do wish to present the presbytery with our background on the subject.

Our first acquaintance with the idea that church members become partakers of other men's sins by virtue of their presence with them in worship came during debate at a congregational meeting of the [then] North Dallas Presbyterian Church in October 1984. It was the contention of a certain faction (roughly 40% of the total membership) of the church membership at that time that because scandal (public sin) had arisen and become known it was necessary for the church to separate from the PCA. This was in spite of the fact that a judicial commission had been erected within the PCA and was even then dealing with the scandal. The officer was deposed and suspended for a definite period from the sacraments. Yet the separatist faction insisted, despite the teaching of SC #91 and LC #161, that the sin of the administrator of the sacrament causes the sacrament to become tainted even for those who receive it by faith.

A second attempted disruption by Separatist and Independent thinking came in the spring of 1990 with the publication of Kevin Reed's A Testimony Against Prominent Errors of our Times and his An Open Letter to Professing Presbyterians." In the pamphlet and letter, which Mr. Reed sent to the membership of First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, he claimed (p. 14): "Church officers approving images have been found at Town North Presbyterian Church, Casa Linda Presbyterian church (now New Covenant Presbyterian Church), and First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, to name a few." We (session of FPCR) confronted Mr. Reed with this misrepresentation -- there has never been an image of any kind approved at FPCR -- and he privately conceded his willingness to withdraw the charge. It might be noted that LC #108 requires, "according to each one's place and calling, removing it [i.e. false worship], and all monuments of idolatry." Yet at no time did Mr. Reed bring charges of "approving images" against any officer of FPCR in a court of the church in which such charges would carry a burden of proof.

Mr. Reed made the charge that "PCA churches, throughout the country, dispense the cup and bread without properly guarding the table from the ignorant and ungodly," (p. 17). Of course, that is a serious charge if true; but our Presbyterian forebears have consistently rejected this as an argument for separation.

Reed concluded, "We must distinguish between true and false churches, just as we must recognize a difference between true and false brethren..." Yet what Reed refused or neglected to do was to recognize that within the definition of a true church there may be churches that are more or less corrupt in their worship and doctrine. Thus WCF XXV:4, "This catholick church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and publick worship performed more or less purely in them."

It has ever been the position of the giants of the first and second reformations that we have a duty to reject apostate churches (i.e. 'synagogues of Satan'), reform corrupt churches according to our places and stations (hence the slogan "semper reformanda"), and to join ourselves to the most reformed church we can find within the category of true churches. We must say with Thomas Smyth, "All churches which are imperfect ought to be improved; such as are corrupt, reformed; while such as are false, ought to be subverted, and their foundations laid again" (Eccl. Cat., sect vi., Q. 39).

Though two other unrelated occasions required the session of FPCR to examine again the argument of separatists, the most recent was the situation in which FPCR actually believed itself compelled to separate from the PCA. We did not on that occasion separate from the PCA for the reasons offered by separatists; nor did we withdraw to unsupervised independence.

First we made extensive use of more modest means of appeal. We did not make ourselves collectively or any one of us individually "the final court of appeal" in the matter, but placed our modest requests before those whom the Lord had placed over us in the church. We did not run to schism, but were compelled to separate to avoid sinning. Note, we did not separate from sinners -- for that will happen only when we die -- but we refused to sin though called upon by the PCA to do so.

Second, and as importantly, we separated in an orderly way and were dismissed from the PCA to the RPC. We did not assume full and final ecclesiastical prerogative to ourselves, but sought counsel from others and when our continued membership in the PCA required us to sin we immediately joined ourselves to a like-minded body in which biblical accountability and oversight could be maintained. It was our understanding at the time that we were joining with other churches which had repudiated independence and congregationalism. [sentences deleted-Presbytery matter].

Finally, I want us all to understand that Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie, James Wood, et al. are not our final standard -- God's Word alone is sufficient for all faith and practice (doctrine and commandments). Having said that, I also think it is important that we not attempt to use these men's words to support positions or actions of which they would not approve. For example, John Girardeau made comparisons between Romanists and Quakers on the one hand and those who "import musical instruments" into worship on the other (Instrumental Music in Public Worship, p.12). Girardeau faithfully protested (p.208) the innovation. Yet he did not, on account of the widespread use of musical instruments, separate himself from a true, though imperfect and perhaps even corrupt, church. We must beware of attempting to make such men say more or less than they actually said -- and we must be careful to judge their words by their deeds.

It is in that spirit that the enclosed papers by Rutherford and Wood are submitted for your kind consideration. Might I also suggest "The Doctrine of the Visible Church" in Walker's Scottish Theology; "Church Unity -- The Sin of Schism" by MacPherson in The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology; and the entirety of part iv of James Durham's A Treatise Concerning Scandal."

Cordially in Christ

Richard Bacon

Pastor

First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett