WAS E J POOLE CONNOR A SEPARATIST?
by David FountainFROM SWORD & TROWEL 2000 No 2
Has the FIEC changed its stance in relation to churches in largely liberal
denominations, and would the founder, E J Poole-Connor, have approved of this? Is any such
change of stance biblical?
It is quite clear that the new movement called ‘Essentially Evangelical’ (endorsed by
the FIEC) seeks to bring about fellowship between those who have stayed outside the mainline
denominations (eg: BEC constituent churches) and churches within the mixed denominations that
claim to be evangelical.
Jonathan Stephen, in his booklet Bible Churches Together, maintains
that the stance of the FIEC has never changed. It is undeniable, however, that Poole-Connor
believed that churches should leave the denominations before they could associate
with the FIEC. The booklet, Keeping the Faith by T H Bendor-Samuel (presenting the
basis of the FIEC), makes this position very plain:
‘Many men . . . were strongly opposed to liberalism but they saw no need to leave
their denominations. "In it to win it" was the policy of the majority. To call for separation from
those who denied the faith was disturbing. People were accustomed to inclusivism. It was most
unlikely that the fellowship that was based upon separation and uncompromising
evangelicalism would be widely welcome’ (p 20).
‘The record of a meeting of the members in these early days shows that . . . the need
for separation from apostasy was fully recognised’ (p 21).
‘ . . . if a church order is followed that leads to toleration of false doctrine and a
denial of the Gospel, we are justified in refusing to make one with those that follow it’
(p 48).
Mr Bendor-Samuel’s booklet also refers (on page 46) to the fact that though the
FIEC would not join the ICCC (the International Council of Christian Churches which practised
second-degree separation), Mr Poole-Connor ‘so strongly supported the ICCC that he maintained
his personal membership of a committee that it set up in this country to further its aims.’
This point is very relevant because Jonathan Stephen asserts that Mr Poole-Connor
‘had no time for second . . . degree separation as applied to the association of churches’ (p 26). He
further says with reference to second-degree separation, ‘Such thinking would have been
anathema . . . to Poole-Connor’ (p 35).
The very opposite is proved by the fact that Mr Poole-Connor not only worked with
the national branch of the ICCC in the UK, but he also served on the governing council of the
international body. I know this for a fact but, since this plainly contradicts what Jonathan Stephen
twice asserts, I decided to get confirmation, and recently spoke to Dr B R Oatley Willis of Toronto,
who held office with the ICCC years ago.
He confirmed both that Poole-Connor had been a council member and that the
organisation held to second-degree separation. ‘That was our position’, he confidently asserted. He
added that he did not think that Poole-Connor could possibly agree with the idea of the FIEC being
associated with churches that were still within mixed denominations. It is very surprising that
Jonathan Stephen should so confidently assert something that is so obviously wrong about Poole-
Connor’s views. However, I realise that it is a long time since he died.
I notice from page 30 of Bible Churches Together that the BEC is now
theoretically able to welcome into affiliation evangelical churches within mixed denominations.
Both the BEC and the FIEC have every right to change their stance, of course, but to assert that the
stance of the FIEC has ‘never changed’ appears to me to be quite wrong. On the back page of this
booklet the question is put - ‘Has not the FIEC shifted its stance in the ecumenical debate?’ I
would say decidedly, ‘Yes!’
In 2 Corinthians 6.14-15, Paul says, ‘Do not be unequally yoked
together with unbelievers, for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness and what accord
has Christ with Belial?’
The Corinthians were not saying in words that there was accord
between Christ and Belial, but they were saying it by their actions. It is not words
alone that matter, but deeds.
Galatians 2 is a vital part of Scripture in this matter. When Peter would
not eat with the Gentiles he was effectively saying something very serious. Paul deduces from his
actions that he was really saying, ‘Christ died in vain.’ Paul is very strong here. Peter would not
have dreamed of saying that Christ died in vain, but his actions were saying it.
Poole-Connor said something similar in his Apostasy of English
Nonconformity (p 73) -
‘Co-operation with those who hold advanced liberal views tends largely to condone
them, for every evangelical so acting is saying, in effect, "Modernist
theology is not as bad as it is painted, for see, I tolerate it." ’
Dr Lloyd-Jones once addressed a Bible League meeting and made the point that
when evangelicals worked side by side with those whom they knew did not take the evangelical
view of Scripture doctrine, they were quite unconsciously not treating Scripture as the final
authority. They said, in effect, that Christian love and fellowship was more important than right
views about the Scriptures (Poole-Connor - Contender for the Faith, pp 188 & 189).
Lloyd-Jones also spoke about guilt by association with regard to those who had
fellowship with men in mixed denominations. He was making an important point when he said, as I
clearly remember, concerning men who were in the mixed denominations: ‘They offer you their
right hand but to whom are they giving their left hand?’
If a man offers fellowship to an apostate and also to me, he is making fellowship
meaningless. Suppose a man or woman treated someone else in precisely the same way as the one
to whom they were married, they would be ruining the relationship. Marriage is unique, so is
Christian fellowship. I don’t want the fellowship offered me by a man who offers precisely the
same thing to a minister of Satan.
If a person is able to sit down at the Lord’s Table with the worker of iniquity, I am
not prepared to reduce Christian fellowship to something meaningless by sitting down at the Lord’s
Table with him. He is walking in a disorderly fashion by fellowshipping with the ungodly. He is
saying, in effect, ‘You can deny the faith and still be a child of God.’ According to 2
Thessalonians 3.14-15, disorderly brethren should be separated from. It is quite clear.
A Unity Within
Jonathan Stephen’s booklet presents A Plea for True Ecumenism in
opposition to what is clearly a false ecumenism, but the recipe has at its roots the very same false
interpretation of John 17 where it is insisted that Christ had in mind visible church
unity. To assert that, ‘visible unity is not the icing on the cake, it is what keeps the cake from
falling apart’ (p 47), is staggering.
Turning to this matter positively, may I express what I believe is true ecumenism. A
great passage of Scripture on Christian unity is Ephesians 4.1-16. Certainly Paul refers
to apostles and prophets, but in practical terms he had in mind the unity of the Christians at
Ephesus. True ecumenism is not building a pyramid of churches aiming at visible unity, but it is
achieved when Christians within a local congregation exhibit true love one for the other.
Many pastors, church officers and church members believe that what is desperately
needed today is true biblical unity within a local congregation. Let me quote from a book I wrote
thirty years ago called The Mayflower Pilgrims and their Pastor:
‘We hear a great deal about church unity in these days. It is the great issue. Have we forgotten that when the unity of the people of God is spoken of in
Scripture it is generally related to the local congregation? What is more costly in human and
spiritual terms than to live in peace and harmony in the company of people drawn from all sections
of the community? What is more impressive in a world that is growing harder and more selfish all
the time than a group of people who only have in common spiritual interests, yet who love and care
for one another?
‘What is needed in these days is not larger ecclesiastical units but local
congregations that practise what they preach. Truly, the pilgrims were the salt of the earth, and their
principles were a light that has powerfully influenced what has become the greatest nation in the
history of mankind’ (pp 64 & 65).
The pilgrims suffered a lot of criticism in those days because they were Separatists.
They could well have been described in the way some like them are described in these days, as
having a ‘ghetto mentality’. They had no vision for an outward, visible unity but an astonishing
vision for the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. They went to the New World primarily to
spread the Gospel and their church principles.
John Robinson, the pilgrim pastor, had such a vision that he believed that there
would be a mighty harvest: ‘Religion is not always sown and reaped in one age.’ He believed that,
‘Within less than 100 years’ there would be ‘a very plenteous harvest’. How mightily that little
congregation was used! What faith they had!
Something must be said about the unity they had within their ranks. This must be
emphasised because this is the one thing that is lacking in these days. A pastor once said to me,
‘You have three kinds of churches in these days - churches that have had trouble, churches that are
having trouble, and churches that are going to have trouble.’ We lack role models.
The Separatist congregation at Leyden from which the Mayflower Pilgrims went is,
to my knowledge, unequalled in recorded church history. It was said of them by Governor
Bradford, looking back, that while they were in Leyden they enjoyed ‘much sweet and delightful
society and spiritual comfort together in the ways of God’. He went on to say:
‘If at any time any difference did arise, or offences break out, they were ever so met
with and nipped in the head betimes, or otherwise so well composed as still love, peace and
communion was continued or else the church purged of those that were incurable and incorrigible
when, after much patience used, no other means would serve; which seldom comes to pass’ (pp 25
& 26).
The Leyden church was severely criticised and Bradford again comments -
‘I know not but it may be spoken to the honour of God that such was the true piety
and humble zeal and fervent love of those people towards God and His ways and the single-
heartedness and sincere affection one towards another, that they came as near the primitive pattern
of the first churches as any other rank of these later times have done.
‘And that which was a crown to them, they lived together in love and peace all their
days without any considerable difference or any disturbance that grew thereby but such as was
easily healed in love and so they continued until, with mutual consent, they removed to New
England’ (pp 27 & 28).
Pastor John Robinson was outraged at the criticism levelled at his congregation and
makes similar remarks:
‘I told you that if ever I saw the beauty of Zion and the glory of the Lord filling the
Tabernacle it hath been in the manifestation of the diverse graces of God in the church in that
heavenly harmony and comely order wherein, by the grace of God, we are set and walk’ (p 28).
He goes on in the same vein, giving a description of the beautiful character of the
brethren. An impartial witness bore the same testimony. Edward Winslow from Droitwich met
them in 1617 and was so impressed he decided to cast in his lot with them. A great deal more could
be said, but space forbids.
What a desperate need there is for congregations where there is true internal biblical
unity! This is what is needed. Where is it? It does exist, thankfully, among pastors here and there
up and down the country about whom we often know very little because their hearts are in their
work. They do not suffer from ‘establishmentitis’. They find their fulfilment in working in the
place where God has appointed them. Alas, a lot of their time is spent protecting their flock from
the viruses that are everywhere. They are more concerned about the health of their flock than their
personal reputation. They look for the day when they will give an account to God for the flock in
their care.
EDITOR’S NOTE
Throughout the world there are thousands of sound independent churches not
linked with any association or organisation. ‘Unaffiliated’ churches undoubtedly account for
most of independency. As pastor of such a church, this writer would nevertheless never
criticise other independents who find value in associations of churches, provided that these
maintain their separation from apostate denominations.
Whether independent churches are affiliated to associations of churches or not,
mutual love and spiritual fellowship is easily achieved by them, not least through the
multiplicity of conferences, fraternals and other meetings that exist. Indeed, it has been
observed that membership of an association often leads to a church’s contacts being confined
to that particular group.
Whatever value the Lord’s people may place on associations, an uncomfortable
historical fact should always be borne in mind. The vast majority of denominations and
associations of churches that have existed have eventually deteriorated to the point where
they became tools of Satan rather than channels of blessing. There is much to be watchful
over.
See also article by Peter Masters "Has the FIEC Changed its Stance?"
|
