A Plea for a New Reformation

We Evangelicals spend a lot of time and energy praying for Revival, and rightly so.  But I have become convinced that we need something even more basic: a new Reformation. (I’ve written a whole book on the need!) In saying that, I am simply asking for a return to the best of our history and our Evangelical heritage. Evangelicalism in its classic form is simply the original Reformation of the Sixteenth Century as it was mediated to the present through the Puritan movement of the Seventeenth Century and the First Great Awakening of the Eighteenth.  This plea is aimed at Fundamentalists and their Evangelical heirs.

My own theological position would be described as basically Reformed.  I am a moderate (decidedly non-hyper) Calvinist.  But nothing in this essay requires an understanding that is not classically Evangelical.  I will argue here for no denominational distinctives whatever.  The Reformation we seek is not of Calvinists or Arminians, nor of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, or Independents; it is for the Evangelicals, the Bible believers who want to be faithful in preaching the biblical Gospel, in all those groups. 

There are many reforms needed by the Evangelical movement as a whole.  It would be easy to come up with a new set of ninety-five theses that would apply equally to Evangelicals of any sub-grouping and which would simply involve a return to positions that would have been non-controversial among Evangelicals of any stripe only one generation ago.  But there is one serious reform that is desperately needed and which splits this target group right down the middle.  It is critical because without it, no other reform could be brought to full fruition.  It is a return to what Francis Schaeffer called “the practice of the purity of the visible church.”^[1] To understand the significance of that phrase we have to begin with some history.

FUNDAMENTALISM AND BEYOND

By the 1920s and 30s, most of the mainline denominations in the United States had been infiltrated by theological liberalism to the point of serious compromise.  Pastors, seminary professors, and missionaries speaking in the name of their churches could deny the inspiration and full truthfulness and reliability of the Bible, the virgin birth and full deity of Christ, the necessity of vicarious substitutionary atonement in His blood, or a literal personal second coming, and either they or people who had no problem with them were in such control of the denominational hierarchy that discipline was not possible.  A movement arose to contest this situation: Fundamentalism, so known for its adherence to the five “fundamentals” of the faith. They were the inspiration and authority of the Bible; the deity of Christ; the historicity of the New-Testament miracles, especially the virgin birth and the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ; the necessity of vicarious subsitutionary atonement in Jesus’ blood; and a literal and personal future second coming of Christ.  You were a Fundamentalist if you believed that these five doctrines were true in themselves and that they were essential to the Christian faith.  People who did not believe them were not true Christians.

The Fundamentalists’ first idea was to reclaim the denominations for the Gospel and the historic Christian faith.  But by the time they recognized the problem and got organized, the deck was already stacked against them.  A pivotal moment was the defrocking of Fundamentalist leader J. Gresham Machen by the Northern Presbyterians in 1936.  Rather than exercising discipline, the conservatives found themselves subject to discipline for the crime of insisting on faithfulness to the Scriptures and the historic creeds.  Machen did not leave; he was thrown out, and so had no choice but to start the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). After that point many Fundamentalists came to the conclusion that the old denominational structures were not salvageable, and they left them to either become independents or start smaller denominations like the OPC that would be faithful to Scripture.

This exodus precipitated a crisis within the Fundamentalist movement itself.  Not all the original Fundamentalists felt called upon to leave and join the “Come-Outers.”  Some convinced themselves that the situation was not so dire or felt called to stay in and continue trying to witness to the truth where they were rather than abandoning the old denominations completely.  Each of these groups naturally felt betrayed by the other. And that division unfortunately led to another one among the Come-Outers themselves. 

Those who left were known as Separatists.  They saw themselves as practicing a biblical principle:  “’Come ye out from among them and be ye separate,’ saith the Lord, ‘and touch not the unclean thing’” (2 Cor. 6:17); thus, they would not be “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14).  But how would they now relate to their fellow Fundamentalists who were (in their eyes) so compromised as to stay behind where they were essentially giving aid and comfort to the Enemy?  Would they still recognize them as fellow Christians with whom they could have fellowship, even though they differed on strategy?  No, said some.  We must not only separate from unbelievers, but also from those who are not as separated from them as we are!  Thus arose the new doctrine known as “Secondary Separation” or “Second-Degree Separation.”  And so the Fundamentalists who had come out tragically found themselves split over how to practice the very act of splitting.

The Fundamentalists who had stayed behind in the liberal churches were derided as “Neo-Evangelicals.”  The word “Fundamentalist” eventually came to be applied only to the hardline Secondary Separatists, who kept it as a badge of honor, while the Primary Separatists and the Non-Separatists dropped the insulting prefix and became known to subsequent church history simply as “Evangelicals.”  Thus all faithful Evangelicals are (in the original sense) Fundamentalists, but not all Fundamentalists (original sense) are Evangelicals, and no Fundamentalists (modern sense) are.  This inability of the original Fundamentalists to find unity even around the Gospel itself is still making life complicated for their descendants today.  The negativity, dogmatism, judgmentalism, narrowness, and legalism of the original Secondary Separationists has unfortunately given Separatism of any kind a bad name. Anyone who stood for theological integrity in the church got tarred with the same Fundamentalist brush.  And that situation is hindering us from pursuing theological integrity in our churches and other institutions in the present.

THE RIGHT KIND OF SEPARATION?

Francis Schaeffer in the zeal of his hot-blooded youth had cast his lot with the Secondary Separationists.  He later came to believe that this had been a mistake.^[2]  But rather than abandoning biblical separation altogether as many ex-Fundamentalist Evangelicals did, he returned to primary separation and tried to reform it in line with Paul’s exhortation to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).  In so doing he wanted to replace the negative idea of separation with a positive principle: the practice of the purity of the visible church.^[3]   In this I think he showed great wisdom.  He sensed that the primary issue is not separation as such (that is only one possible strategy for dealing with the real issue), but the nature of the church itself.  What is it supposed to be?  At what point does it become so compromised or corrupted that Christians of good faith can no longer be a part of it without compromising their own testimony?  Is a church that cannot or will not practice discipline really still a church?  Is theological integrity optional?

  These are questions, it seems to me, that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have not adequately faced.  We have the scandal on the one hand of people flitting from congregation to congregation based on personalities or programs, and on the other of people squirming even as they continue attending and tithing to churches that promote homosexuality and goddess worship and who cannot bring themselves to recognize apostasy when it smacks them in the face.  We are hardly acting out of biblical principle in either case.

The New Testament does not give us a lot of obvious guidance in such matters because in most of the First Century there were hardly any situations where a believer had to decide between two rival congregations (much less denominations) in the same town.  There are some hints though that can give us some help toward formulating the principles we need.  Paul writes to Timothy so that he will “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).  The church is defined by its relationship to truth; it has a non-negotiable obligation not only to proclaim but to uphold and defend the truth.  If it cannot or will not do that, how is it still the pillar and support of the truth?  How is it still the church? 

Then Paul tells Titus that elders should be able to refute those who contradict sound doctrine because they “must be silenced” (Titus 1:9-11).  We are not talking about freedom of speech here, but about official spokesmen of the church who need to be upholding the truth on which it stands.  Permitting them to continue undermining it instead is not presented as a viable option.  Finally, toward the end of the century, John deals in his second epistle with the problem of traveling evangelists who were not “walking in truth” (v. 4).  We are not to receive them into our houses or even give them a greeting (v. 10).  John does not mean we should be rude to liberals; he is talking about extending the greeting or welcome of the congregation that would accept these people as brethren in Christ.  For a Christian or a church to treat one who denies the full deity and humanity of Christ (the issue addressed in 1 John) as a genuine fellow Christian and legitimate church worker is to “participate in his evil deeds” (v. 11).  And for Paul, those who deny the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone are accursed (Gal. 1:8).

What must we conclude from these passages?  The church has an absolute, binding, non-negotiable mandate to proclaim, uphold, and defend the truth of Scripture and the message of the Gospel.  Individuals who undermine and even oppose that mandate are subject to discipline.  They must be refuted, recalled to the truth if possible (2 Tim. 2:24-26), and silenced (in the church) if they prove unrepentant.  Those who persist in denying sound doctrine are not to be treated as Christian brothers.  These tasks are hard, but they must be done—done with gentleness and love and without rancor, but done. And we must reckon with the fact that a congregation or denomination that refuses to do them cannot claim to be a valid instantiation of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.  It cannot claim the loyalty of God’s faithful people.  In other words, Primary Separation when necessary is the approach that best reflects the teaching of Scripture.  What then are the practical implications of this realization for our current situation?

THE INTEGRITY OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH

As Schaeffer put it, “The church as an organization is not first; Christ is first.  Therefore, once Christ is no longer King and Lord in a church, then that church cannot have our loyalty.”^[4]  So there comes a point at which “It may be necessary for true Christians to leave the visible organization with which they have been associated.  But note well: If we must leave our church, it should always be with tears—not with drums playing and flags flying.”^[5] Thus Schaeffer tried to follow what was right in the original Fundamentalist movement without repeating its mistakes.  Perhaps modern Evangelicalism is hindered in speaking with integrity because it is so bent on avoiding the mistakes that it has forgotten what was right.^[6]

Schaeffer called this principle “the practice of the purity of the visible church.”  He chose the word purity because he rightly saw this discipline as part of the church’s keeping herself faithful to her Bridegroom as the Bride of Christ.  It is a very good word in that sense, but part of me wishes he had not used it.  It is possible to misread it as a counsel of perfection.  The church is never going to be “pure” or perfect until Christ comes back.  It is always going to have tares among the wheat.  It is not some minor disagreement or squabble that should cause us to invoke this principle and consider leaving. It is disloyalty to the authority of Christ in Scripture and denial of the Gospel of grace that should not be tolerated and which therefore requires a parting of the ways when every attempt at reform has failed.  In that sense, a better word would be integrity. We will never have perfection or purity in any absolute sense, but we should demand integrity of any congregation or denomination we support.  

Until we are ready to practice the principle of the integrity of the visible church and pay the price for doing so, we will not see the lasting Reformation that we so desperately need.  This is something that our Fundamentalist and Evangelical heirs were never able to agree on.  Let us agree on it now, that Christ may be Head over all things to His church in a way He has not been in our experience before.

Rev. Donald T. Williams, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Toccoa Falls College in the hills of NE Georgia.  Ordained in the Evangelical Free Church of America, he has spent several summers doing theological education by extension work in East Africa and India for Church Planting International.  He is the author of numerous articles and thirteen books, including The Young Christian’s Survival Guide: Common Questions Young Christians are Asked about God, the Bible, and the Christian Faith Answered (Christian Publishing House, 2019) and Ninety-Five Theses for a New Reformation: A Road Map for Post-Evangelical Christianity (Semper Reformanda Publications, 2021).

[1] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church before the Watching World (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity, 1971), pp. 61, 74f.; cf. The Great Evangelical Disaster (Westchester, Il.: Crossway Books, 1984), pp. 85f, 126.

[2] See Colin Duriez, Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), chp. 5, for an excellent treatment of Schaeffer’s crisis and change of mind.  Duriez is the most insightful biography of Schaeffer we have.

[3] See The Church before the Watching World, op. cit., pp. 61, 74f and. The Great Evangelical Disaster, op. cit., pp. 85f, 126.

[4] Schaeffer, The Church before the Watching World, p. 75.

[5] Ibid., p. 74.

[6] See Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: a Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 2000) for an excellent treatment of the history of the transition from Fundamentalism to Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, and of the consequences of our failure to observe the principle of integrity.