分離的原則與指引
作者: Sinclair Ferguson 譯者: Maria Marta
我佇立在一位親愛、溫和、仁慈、慷慨的聖徒的墓旁，環視周圍的吊唁者。我發覺有一組人缺席較早之前的教會崇拜聚會，對此我感到困惑不解。
隨後我想起 ------我的朋友曾經屬於一間實踐「二度分離」（second-degree
separation）的教會（譯註：二度分離是指不僅要與在神學上或道德上作出妥協的人分離，而且也必須與那些和妥協者仍在一起的人分離）。這組人是他以前的朝聖同伴。 他們知道我們相信並傳講福音; 但我們沒有實行他們所做的層次分離（the levels of separation）。分離對他們來說是忠心的表達。 但對我來說，分離使得剩下的人都彌漫在一股悲傷的氣氛之中。
新約聖經背景
新約聖經的確包含「分離」的教導。幾個世紀以來，一些最偉大的思想家一直費盡心思去解決如何應用分離的教導---- 奧古斯丁處理多納圖主義者（Donatists）；加爾文對付激進的重洗派（Anabaptist）（從加爾文著作可畏的標題也看出他對分離的教導：《簡要指示：所有善良忠心的人武裝起來，抵抗重洗教派的錯誤》）（Brief Instruction
for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the Common Sect of the
Anabaptists）。
新約書信提到各種類型的分離，總是承認我們-----甚至教會-----仍然既是義人又是罪人(simul justus et peccator)。教會的分別出來(成聖)不是得榮耀 (譯註：得榮耀是救恩的最後階段)。在基督回歸之前，世上只有朝聖者的教會，沒有完美的教會。
因此我們面臨的挑戰相當明顯。制造分離的人是他們自己的罪人。 因此，問什麽時候分離，為什麽分離，怎樣分離這些問題至關重要。 新約告訴我們相關原則; 新約沒有提供給我們單一的簡單句-------能減輕我們要全面思考，和將聖經明智地應用於每一個獨特處境的工作量。聖經的教導有時只能用並列復合句來表達（譯註：並列復合句就是指並列句中的兩個分句中又內含從句，或者說就是含有複合句的並列句）。在本文有限的篇幅中，我們只能思考聖經關於分離教導的幾個方面。
分離的原則
以下幾項聖經原則應當支配我們思考：
首先，教會要與世界脫離。我們依靠的原則不是「我怎樣才能避免與世界接觸，好叫我脫離這個世界？」 而是「我如何能生活在世上而又免受它的影響? 並在實際生活中將其不良影響暴露出來？」 ( 弗五11) 作為世上的光，我們在黑暗中發光；作為世上的鹽，只有當我們存於鹽中，才能得以保存。這裏的脫離是指我們不應與不信者同負一軛 (林後六14)。我們決不能為了互動而妥協我們的獨特性。(這裏也是一句復合句，因為沒有在婚姻中「同負一軛」的基督徒不應以此為借口拋棄配偶；參看林前七12。)
在這個背景下，保羅的教導非常清楚，但可能足以令人吃驚，因而需要讀第二遍：「我以前寫信告訴你們，不可與淫亂的人來往。這話當然不是指這世上行淫亂的、貪心的、勒索的，或拜偶像的人；如果是這樣，你們就非脫離這世界不可。」 (林前五9-10；《聖經新譯本》，加上黑體強調 )。
基督徒不是逃避世界的人，而是在世上见证基督的人。我们蒙呼召要与世界脱离。
第二，要將假教師從教會分離出來，我們拒絕給予假教師勢力範圍。約翰貳書7-11節勸告信徒小心提防任何教導關於基督的錯誤觀點的人。我們必須將他們與任何援助和支持分隔。約翰清楚知道，根據定義，巡回傳教師必須受到熱情歡迎和盛情款待，以推動他們的「事工」。我們再次注意到這裏有趣的平衡，約翰對丟特腓所作的假分離提出警告：「不接待弟兄，有人願意接待他也禁止，並且將接待弟兄的人趕出教會。」 ( 約叁9-10) 這裏的分離涉及保存教會，但不是我們從教會分離出去，或我們支配教會。
第三，要將受沾汙或威脅摧毀教會的人從教會分離出來。信徒當中那些明顯的罪必須由持續不斷的努力來對付，從而達到悔改的果效（太十八15-18）。我們首先要做的是個人勸告; 若失敗了，就帶一兩個人同去勸告; 若失敗了，就由教會勸告。只有當這三個階段都遭遇頑固抵抗時，教會成員才能被視為「外邦人和稅吏」。
只有在出現令會眾蒙羞的明目張膽、公開的罪時，以上這些步驟才可歸為一個 (如林前五1-5)。即便如此，行動的目標總是為了恢復(林前五5；加六1)。手術截肢的目的是拯救而非毀滅。我們再次發現一個復合句：當需要施行重大的屬靈外科手術時，必須保護病人免受絕望的感染 (林後五11) 。
當需要采取強硬行動時，應當由像耶穌的人來執行，此人特征是謙遜溫柔(林後十1；加六1)。
指引
新約聖經也為我們提供了進一步的重要指示和資格條件：
首先，分離是最後手段，而非首要行動。事實上，分離的欲望使我們失去，而非獲得教會領袖的資格。在這個意義上，領袖必須「與人無爭」 (提前三3)，因為分離主義者的欲望所具有的沖突與紛爭精神的特征，證實是屬肉體工作的結果，而非聖靈所結的果子(加五20)。
其次，對那些信心「軟弱」的人而言，分離是不適當的回應。要相信真基督徒必須遵守猶太聖日，這種信仰與福音背道而馳，在應用時通常會對教會和世界性的傳福音工作產生毀滅性的影響。然而，這種失敗並非由分離引起。 保羅勸勉信心強的人接納信心軟弱的人（羅十四1至十五7），而非只是容忍他們。 還要注意，這裏「軟弱的人」是那些認為自己「良心堅強」的人。那些以真信心行事，但又得不到信心的充分教導的人，或站穩或跌倒，都和基督，我們的主人有關，而非和我們有關。 然而，所有這些都不是說，任由信心軟弱者處於他們的軟弱狀態是牧者的責任。
最後，新約聖經提供了適用於各種情況的智慧原則，而非一份詳盡，列舉每種情況都有自己授權的行動的清單。 例如，保羅在任何地方都没有勸告基督徒要離開教會。在這種背景下，哥林多後書六章16-18節的呼籲是指基督教教會本身要脫離于世界，而不是信徒從教會分離出來。
那麽，基督徒什麽時候，在什麽地方從「教會」分離出來？
脫離教會
總有一天基督會移去教會的燈台(啟二5)。但問題不是脫離真正但不完美的教會，這是一種分裂行為。相反，它是(宗教改革)與假教會分離的原則 (即使在其教派裏仍有一些真教會，正如加爾文那著名的，在《基督教要義》4.2.12所指出的那樣)。
那么，问题是我们如何知道什么时候一间自我宣稱(是教會)的教會是假教会？这里我们當然可以以加尔文的回答作明智的起点。
首先，當上帝的聖言不再被完整傳講，一間自我宣稱的教會就是一間假教會。 當然，對加爾文來說，上帝聖言的職事從每日講台的證道一直伸展到主日學課堂、星期天下午兒童教理問答課程、星期三祈禱會、星期四下午會議 ，以及星期五聚會 ------牧師裝備聚會和（如果需要的話）相互批評。
當基督的聖禮不再被正確執行，一間自我宣稱的教會也是一間假教會。 （加爾文再加上教會紀律-------如果有需要的話，甚至可以用他自己的身體阻擋假教會成員接近主的餐桌。）
顯然，這兩個元素（聖道和聖禮）都包含第三個元素 ------教會紀律 -----固有存在。 加爾文不僅僅思想到正統的證道，使用正確的方式施行洗禮和聖餐。 而且他還主張進一步推進，讓上帝的聖言進入到指揮整個教會及其成員生活的層面。個人能傳講聖經的團體並不是新約聖經所理解的教會。聖道的無誤傳講和聖禮的正確施行必須與會眾的交流有關，而非單單與正式統計數據有關。
在這裏，正如改革宗教會的清晰描述，個人可以處理相同的問題，應用相同的原則，但以不同的速度得出結論，被不一致的思考所證實，並且當他們尋求根據上帝的聖言解釋祂的護理時，他們確實以不同的理由作回應。我們將聖經完美地運用於我們自己的處境的能力有限。我們將聖經運用於他人的處境的能力往往更有限。假如我們無法掌握這一原則，我們就會發現自己慢慢地進入有限和具有限制性的上帝子民的交通裏。
這裏，也許是所有並列複合句中最難理解的一句。正是在這種背景下，加爾文敦促公開脫離，盡管他與那些尚未這樣做的隱藏信徒保持著聯系。
盡管分離的原則已被濫用，但它仍然是符合聖經的原則。 有一個符合聖經的分離，適用於個人、團契、教會層面。逾越這一原則，我們就會破壞教會的合一。若在這裏失敗，無論個人抑或團契，我們都會變得像沒有中樞神經系統的水母，不是逆潮流而上，而只是隨波逐流，最終將被拋到岸上，直到另一次漲潮，將我們淹沒在海水之中。
本文原刊於Tabletalk雜誌。
Principles
and Guidelines for Separation
FROM
Sinclair Ferguson
I
stood at the graveside of a dear, gentle, gracious, and generous saint and
looked around at the mourners. I was puzzled by the presence of a group of
people who had been absent from the earlier church service.
Then
I remembered—my friend had once belonged to a church that practiced
“second-degree separation.” These were his former fellow pilgrims. They knew we
believed and preached the gospel; but we did not practice the levels of
separation they did. For them, separation from our worship was an expression of
faithfulness. For me, it left only a taste of sadness.
NEW
TESTAMENT CONTEXT
The
New Testament does contain teaching on “separation.” Over the centuries, some
of the greatest minds have wrestled with how to apply it—Augustine in dealing
with the Donatists, Calvin in dealing with radical Anabaptists (in his
dauntingly titled Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against
the Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists).
The
New Testament letters refer to various kinds of separation, always in the
recognition that we—and indeed the church—remain simul justus et peccator (at
the same time just and sinner). The setting apart of the church
(sanctification) is not glorification. Until Christ’s return, there is only a
pilgrim church here on the earth, not a perfected one.
The
challenges are therefore fairly obvious. Those who effect separation are
themselves sinners. So the questions of when, why, and how to separate are of
cardinal importance. The New Testament gives us principles; it does not provide
us with a single, simple sentence that relieves us of the task of thinking
through and wisely applying the Scriptures to each unique situation. Biblical
teaching can sometimes be expressed only in compound-complex sentences. In the
limited space of this article, we can reflect on only a few aspects of its
teaching on separation.
PRINCIPLES
OF SEPARATION
Here,
then, are several biblical principles that should govern our thinking:
First,
there is a separation of the church within the world. The principle by which we
live is not “how can I avoid contact with the world so as to be separate from
it?” Rather, it is “how can I live in the world yet be free from its influence
and by my life actually expose its contagion?” (Eph. 5:11). As the light of the
world, we shine in its darkness; as the salt of the earth, we preserve only if
we are present in it. Separation here means that we are not to be unequally
yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). We must never compromise our
distinctiveness for the sake of mutual activity. (Yet there is also a complex
sentence here, for a Christian “unequally yoked” in marriage should not throw o” that yoke under
this pretext; see 1 Corinthians 7:12.)
Paul’s
teaching in this context is crystal clear, yet perhaps sufficiently surprising
to require a second reading: “I wrote to you not to associate with sexually
immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the
greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the
world” (1 Cor. 5:9-10, emphasis added).
Christians
are not world-avoiders but world witnesses. We are called to be separate within
the world.
Second,
there is a separation out of the church of false teachers, denying them spheres
of influence. Second John 7-11 counsels believers to beware of anyone who
teaches a false view of Christ. We are to separate them from any assistance and
support. John has in view itinerant teachers who by definition needed welcome
and hospitality to further their “ministry.” Notice, again, that this is
balanced intriguingly by John’s warning against the false separation exercised
by Diotrephes, who “refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who
want to and puts them out of the church” (3 John 9-10). Separation here
involves the preservation of the church, but not our separation from it or our
domination over it.
Third,
there is a separation from the church of those who pollute or threaten to
destroy it. Evident sin in the believer must be met by ongoing efforts to
effect repentance (Matt. 18:15-18). Personal admonition is first; if that
fails, admonition in the presence of one or two others; if that fails,
admonition by the church. And only when there is obstinate resistance
throughout these three stages is a member to be regarded as “a Gentile and a
tax collector.”
Only
where there is flagrant, public sin that brings public shame on the
congregation are these steps collapsed into one (as apparently in 1 Cor. 5:1-5).
Even then, the goal of the actions is always restoration (1 Cor. 5:5; Gal.
6:1). The purpose of surgical amputation is to save, not to destroy. Again, we
find a complex statement: when major spiritual surgery is necessary, the
patient must be protected from the infection of despair (2 Cor. 2:5-11). When
tough action is required, it is to be done by men who are Jesus-like,
characterized by meekness and gentleness (2 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 6:1).
GUIDELINES
The
New Testament also provides us with some important further directives and
qualifications:
First,
separation is a last resort, not a first action. Indeed, an appetite for
separating disqualifies rather than qualifies us from leadership in the church.
Leaders are “not quarrelsome” in this sense (1 Tim. 3:3), for the spirit of
strife and dissension that characterizes a separatist appetite turns out to be
a work of the flesh, not a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:20).
Second,
separation is an inappropriate response toward those whose faith is “weak.” To
believe that true Christians must observe Jewish holy days is contrary to the
gospel. To apply this generally would have devastating effects on both the
church and world evangelism. Yet, this kind of failure is not a reason for
separation. Paul counsels the “strong” to welcome the weak (Rom. 14:1-15:7),
not simply tolerate them. Notice, too, that the “weak” here are those who think
of themselves as having a “strong conscience.” Those who act in a genuine but
inadequately instructed faith stand or fall to Christ as Master, not to us.
Yet, none of this implies that it is pastorally responsible to leave the weak
in their weakened condition.
Finally,
the New Testament provides wisdom principles to apply to varied circumstances,
not an exhaustive list of situations that each has its own mandated action. For
example, Paul nowhere counsels Christians to leave a church. Second Corinthians
6:16-18, often appealed to in this context, refers to the Christian church
separating itself from the world, not to believers separating themselves from a
church.
Is
there, then, a place and a time for Christians to separate “the church” from
themselves?
CHURCH
SEPARATION
There
may come a time when Christ removes a church’s lampstand (Rev. 2:5). Then the
issue is not that of separation from the true but imperfect church, which would
be an act of schism. It is, rather, the (Reformation) principle of the
separation from the false church (even if there are true churches within its
communion, as Calvin famously noted in Institutes 4.2.12).
The
question, then, is how do we know when a professing church is a false church?
Here we can surely take Calvin’s answer as a wise starting place.
First,
a professing church is a false church when the Word of God in all its fullness
can no longer be ministered. Of course, for Calvin, the ministry of the Word
stretched all the way from the daily sermons from pulpit, to the lecture room,
to the Sunday afternoon catechism class for children, to the Wednesday day of
prayer, to the Thursday afternoon meetings of the consistory, and to the Friday
congregations—the gatherings for the pastors’ edification and (if need be)
mutual criticism.
A
professing church is also a false church when the sacraments of Christ can no
longer be rightly administered. (Calvin coupled with this the discipline of the
church—even barring access to the Lord’s Table with his own body if needed.)
Clearly,
these two elements (Word and sacraments) have a third element—church
discipline—inherently present. Calvin was not thinking merely of orthodox
preaching and using the right forms for baptism and the Supper. He envisaged
the Word of God advancing out of the pulpit and into the ordering of the life
of the whole church and its members. A community in which an individual can
preach the Bible is not what the New Testament understands as a church. Word
and sacrament rightly administered have to do with congregational dynamics, not
simply formal statistics.
Here,
as the story of the Reformed church makes clear, individuals may deal with the
same issue, apply the same principles, yet reach conclusions at different
speeds, be convinced by different considerations, and indeed have different
reasons for their responses as they seek to interpret God’s providences in the
light of His Word. Our ability to perfectly bring Scripture to bear on our own
situation is limited. Our ability to bring Scripture to bear on others’
situations is often even more limited. If we lose our grip on that principle,
we will find ourselves slowly moving into a very limited and limiting
fellowship of God’s people.
Here,
perhaps, is the most difficult compound-complex sentence of all. It was in this
kind of context that Calvin urged open separation, even while he maintained
contact with closet believers who had not yet done so.
The
principle of separation has been abused, but it remains a biblical principle.
There is a biblical separation that applies at the personal, the fellowship,
and the ecclesiastical level. Overstep here and we do damage to the unity of
the church. But fail here and as individuals and fellowships we will become
like jellyfish with no central nervous system. Instead of swimming against the
tide, we will simply float with it and eventually be thrown onto the shore,
there to remain until another tide sweeps us out to sea.
This
post was originally published in Tabletalk magazine.
