The Doctrine of Non-Fellowship: Primary & Secondary Separation

[Deleted member 13126]

If possible, I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on these two articles from Dr. Peter Masters. This question was indeed posed in a very brief thread nearly ten years ago, so I hope it’s alright if I brought this topic to everyone’s attention once more in the interest of the edification of the saints.

[1]

Biblical Separation | Doctrine of Separation - Metropolitan Tabernacle

Biblical Separation | The Doctrine of Separation from denominational heresy and apostasy is no longer widely followed by evangelicals | Dr Peter Masters writes about Biblical Separation on the Sword & Trowel magazine | Metropolitan Tabernacle

www.metropolitantabernacle.org

[2]

Secondary Separation | When to Stand Apart - Metropolitan Tabernacle

Why is Secondary Separation such an important issue? | Do they know when to stand apart from false teachers? | Obeying God's call for Secondary Separation keeps us from a thousand snares and heartaches.

www.metropolitantabernacle.org

I would also be interested in learning if there are any books dedicated to this topic, or what this doctrine and it’s practical implications may have looked like throughout history if anyone historians or theologians are numbered among us.

Lastly, I have recently come to wrestle with the validating the scope of these doctrines. There are many of us who may oppose this doctrine of separation altogether, while others may approve of ecclesiastical separation and yet reject personal separation (in one’s personal or family life as an example). So any insight here would be welcome also.

 

[py3ak]

Although people often bristle at the term, partly due to the behavior of those who have championed the practice under this label, the reality is that everyone practices it at some point. If we have any boundaries at all, at some point someone will transgress them unacceptably.

Even without reference to religious views, one frequently meets with exhortations to stay away from toxic people. Social media have blocking and muting functions for a reason.

In ecclesiastical history, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Great Ejection, Nonconformity overall, the formation of an Associate Presbytery, the Disruption, the Afscheiding, and so forth have been applications of separation from one side or another. In the United States, the existence of the PRCA and the URCNA, the OPC and the BPC, all bear witness to the fact that sometimes ecclesiastical fellowship becomes intolerable or impossible. My denomination, the RCUS, got to keep the historic name, only because in the fever of a nondoctrinal ecumenism, when the bulk of the denomination joined with the Evangelical denomination to form the Evangelical & Reformed Church in 1934, the new group wasn't interested in hanging on to the old name. In 2017 the ICRC suspended the membership of the RCN.

In other words, I think it's part of Christian maturity to recognize that abuses notwithstanding, or the handling of these things in an unnecessarily angry or divisive manner, does not take away the plain fact that giving Christian fellowship and support to those who teach falsehood, cause divisions, or behave scandalously is contrary to reiterated apostolic commands. Ecclesiastical separation often functions as church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised.

 

[jwright82]

If possible, I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on these two articles from Dr. Peter Masters. This question was indeed posed in a very brief thread nearly ten years ago, so I hope it’s alright if I brought this topic to everyone’s attention once more in the interest of the edification of the saints.

[1]

Biblical Separation | Doctrine of Separation - Metropolitan Tabernacle

Biblical Separation | The Doctrine of Separation from denominational heresy and apostasy is no longer widely followed by evangelicals | Dr Peter Masters writes about Biblical Separation on the Sword & Trowel magazine | Metropolitan Tabernacle

www.metropolitantabernacle.org

[2]

Secondary Separation | When to Stand Apart - Metropolitan Tabernacle

Why is Secondary Separation such an important issue? | Do they know when to stand apart from false teachers? | Obeying God's call for Secondary Separation keeps us from a thousand snares and heartaches.

www.metropolitantabernacle.org

I would also be interested in learning if there are any books dedicated to this topic, or what this doctrine and it’s practical implications may have looked like throughout history if anyone historians or theologians are numbered among us.

Lastly, I have recently come to wrestle with the validating the scope of these doctrines. There are many of us who may oppose this doctrine of separation altogether, while others may approve of ecclesiastical separation and yet reject personal separation (in one’s personal or family life as an example). So any insight here would be welcome also.

The book from Zondervan Academics: Counter Point Series "The Spectrum of Evangelicalism" deals with this issue in part. Its good, I have it.
As far as the issue itself, have made it through half of the articles you posted (half of each), goes its not simple In my humble opinion like any other ethical decision. It involves too many cogs (conscience, personal psychological makeup, ecclesiology, etc.) to have a simple answer.
I'm often, not always, suspicious of simplistic answers to complex ethical issues. I take a qualified view of separation.
For simplicity sake I'm going to make these distinctions as basic as possible, they are more complex potentially but not less complex.
1. To be a Christian you must must confess faith in the gospel. This separates Christians from non-Christians. So Christians from every other religious POV. That does not mean for me social separation, I work with a very sweet Muslim girl and for social/professional reasons I try my hardest to get along with her (which isn't hard given how nice she is). Plus they (unbelievers) are human beings as well.
2. Protestant from Catholic/Eastern Orthodox. Are there Catholic/Eastern Orthodox members who are Christians? Yes, will the theology of those churches give you the gospel? No but we can agree on enough to get along, even morally speaking. Although any formal agreement between Protestants and Catholic/Eastern Orthodox is going to be watered-down nonsense in my opinion. So we separate there.
3. Separation between Protestants. Obviously we seperate between conservative and liberal Protestants. I would prefer to separate between confessional and non-confessional Protestants.
4. Separation between confessional Protestants. Obviously we should separate between Lutherans/Reformed/Baptists/Anglican/whatever confessional denominations and respect and debate those differences. So I see no problem with denominations and/or individual members participating in groups like The Aliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Gospel Coalition, etc. as a matter of conscience. A group like NAPARC is an intra-confessional Reformed organization for Presbyterian/Reformed denominations.
I didn't make much of a distinction between individuals/denominations in my scheme but I think the basic scheme works for both just in different ways according to conscience of course.

 

[jwright82]

Although people often bristle at the term, partly due to the behavior of those who have championed the practice under this label, the reality is that everyone practices it at some point. If we have any boundaries at all, at some point someone will transgress them unacceptably.

Even without reference to religious views, one frequently meets with exhortations to stay away from toxic people. Social media have blocking and muting functions for a reason.

In ecclesiastical history, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Great Ejection, Nonconformity overall, the formation of an Associate Presbytery, the Disruption, the Afscheiding, and so forth have been applications of separation from one side or another. In the United States, the existence of the PRCA and the URCNA, the OPC and the BPC, all bear witness to the fact that sometimes ecclesiastical fellowship becomes intolerable or impossible. My denomination, the RCUS, got to keep the historic name, only because in the fever of a nondoctrinal ecumenism, when the bulk of the denomination joined with the Evangelical denomination to form the Evangelical & Reformed Church in 1934, the new group wasn't interested in hanging on to the old name. In 2017 the ICRC suspended the membership of the RCN.

In other words, I think it's part of Christian maturity to recognize that abuses notwithstanding, or the handling of these things in an unnecessarily angry or divisive manner, does not take away the plain fact that giving Christian fellowship and support to those who teach falsehood, cause divisions, or behave scandalously is contrary to reiterated apostolic commands. Ecclesiastical separation often functions as church discipline for the ecclesiastically disenfranchised.

Nice response! I agree with everything! Might I add an individual perspective on it, agreeing of course with everything you've said on a denominational level, for the average pew sitter.
If someone goes to a Presbyterian church in the west and decide they no longer believe that infant baptism is biblical should they stay and try to "reform" the church they're in or go down the street to some other church that believes and practices what they do? In my opinion for decency sake go to the other church as quietly as possible. If you're part of a Reformed Baptist church and the leadership trys to introduce infant baptism to be more "biblical" should you stay and fight for your churches identity? Yes. Similar situations but different contexts involving different answers.

 

[RamistThomist]

If someone goes to a Presbyterian church in the west and decide they no longer believe that infant baptism is biblical should they stay and try to "reform" the church they're in or go down the street to some other church that believes and practices what they do? In my opinion for decency sake go to the other church as quietly as possible.

For all practical purposes they should leave instead of try to reform the church on baptism. The elders of the church have taken vows to uphold the church's teaching on baptism.

 

[jwright82]

For all practical purposes they should leave instead of try to reform the church on baptism. The elders of the church have taken vows to uphold the church's teaching on baptism.

Completely agree. Its not like they don't have other options down the street.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

For all practical purposes they should leave instead of try to reform the church on baptism. The elders of the church have taken vows to uphold the church's teaching on baptism.

Completely agree. Its not like they don't have other options down the street.

I've considered that a person certainly could do as you've both said, but wonder by what basis we would be able to enjoy such pragmatism with a clear conscience? I've often wondered why folks have not gone and witnessed to false churches (or former churches) and their church members where they know they can be found (rather than going door to door in neighborhoods). Can this model not be found in the Holy Scriptures? (ref. Acts 19:8)

Food for thought.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've considered that a person certainly could do as you've both said, but wonder by what basis we would be able to enjoy such pragmatism with a clear conscience? I've often wondered why folks have not gone and witnessed to false churches (or former churches) and their church members where they know they can be found (rather than going door to door in neighborhoods). Can this model not be found in the Holy Scriptures? (ref. Acts 19:8)

Food for thought.

It's not really a matter of pragmatism. If the issue is baptism, then realize that you, a layman, aren't going to change the church elders' views on baptism. Since they've taken vows on the matter, working towards that end for them is rather disingenuous.

As to going to false churches, are you suggesting that someone infiltrate a false church and work from the inside?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

It's not really a matter of pragmatism. If the issue is baptism, then realize that you, a layman, aren't going to change the church elders' views on baptism. Since they've taken vows on the matter, working towards that end for them is rather disingenuous.

As to going to false churches, are you suggesting that someone infiltrate a false church and work from the inside?

1. Regarding being 'a layman'.

Are we not a royal priesthood of believers? I don't understand why pleading with a person would be discouraged based on that person's station.

2. Regarding unchanging views of the person being pled with.

This may well be true, yet it still might be used as a testimony against them for the Lord's glory. Or it may yet sow a seed that another will reap (should the Lord water it), bringing that person to conviction and repentance. Ideally, reproof would always produce conviction. When it doesn't, however, it must necessarily produce condemnation, for God's Word won't return void.

So then this notion that we may as well not bother because we suspect they won't change their minds seems eminently pragmatic, if I've understood what pragmatism means rightly (in this sense, dealing with man's methods, that which we think will be effective or ineffective and taking action accordingly, rather than letting God's Word dictate our methods, etc.).

3. Regarding disingenuousness.

Can you help me understand how a person who wishes to help someone understand some biblical truth that they may not be thinking rightly about in the person's estimation would render that person's efforts 'disingenous' simply by virtue of the party in error having taken vows?

4. Regarding false churches and my suggestion.

I'm suggesting we ought to proclaim truth to those in error (in accordance with God's Word), whether it be in a parking lot, pew, etc. There are many avowed athiests, Papists, cultists, etc., we ought to try and reach for the Lord and His glory. It seems a bit silly to defer to social norms, etc., if there are eternal rewards (or consequences) at stake.

P.S.

In order to advance the conversation a bit, though, rather than merely reply to what you've written, I would like to ask what Acts 19:8-10 might look like today? Surely there must be something for us in that passage to imitate the Apostle Paul in.

 

[RamistThomist]

1. Regarding being 'a layman'.

Are we not a royal priesthood of believers? I don't understand why pleading with a person would be discouraged based on that person's station.

2. Regarding unchanging views of the person being pled with.

This may well be true, yet it still might be used as a testimony against them for the Lord's glory. Or it may yet sow a seed that another will reap (should the Lord water it), bringing that person to conviction and repentance. Ideally, reproof would always produce conviction. When it doesn't, however, it must necessarily produce condemnation, for God's Word won't return void.

So then this notion that we may as well not bother because we suspect they won't change their minds seems eminently pragmatic, if I've understood what pragmatism means rightly (in this sense, dealing with man's methods, that which we think will be effective or ineffective and taking action accordingly, rather than letting God's Word dictate our methods, etc.).

3. Regarding disingenuousness.

Can you help me understand how a person who wishes to help someone understand some biblical truth that they may not be thinking rightly about in the person's estimation would render that person's efforts 'disingenous' simply by virtue of the party in error having taken vows?

4. Regarding false churches and my suggestion.

I'm suggesting we ought to proclaim truth to those in error (in accordance with God's Word), whether it be in a parking lot, pew, etc. There are many avowed athiests, Papists, cultists, etc., we ought to try and reach for the Lord and His glory. It seems a bit silly to defer to social norms, etc., if there are eternal rewards (or consequences) at stake.

P.S.

In order to advance the conversation a bit, though, rather than merely reply to what you've written, I would like to ask what Acts 19:8-10 might look like today? Surely there must be something for us in that passage to imitate the Apostle Paul in.

By layman I mean you aren't an officer in the other church. Do you plan to just go to the church and argue from the pews or do you plan to actually join what you consider to be a false church with the hope of infiltrating it?

Paul was a teacher of Israel. If you think the same applies to you, then go to a Presbyterian church and argue with the pastor from the pulpit. That's why I don't think the situations are parallel.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

By layman I mean you aren't an officer in the other church. Do you plan to just go to the church and argue from the pews or do you plan to actually join what you consider to be a false church with the hope of infiltrating it?

Paul was a teacher of Israel. If you think the same applies to you, then go to a Presbyterian church and argue with the pastor from the pulpit. That's why I don't think the situations are parallel.

1. In your view, is there anything we can do for those in sin and error other than pray for them in those instances? Or is there any context in which reproof, rebuke or exhortation in accordance with God's Word would be appropriate between believers who do not attend the same local church?

2. Assuming you're right, and those situations aren't parallel, what can we glean or imitate from Paul in Acts 19:8-10? I'm asking because [1] these things were preserved for our learning (Romans 15:4) and [2] Paul in multiple passages encourages us to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 4:16, 1 Corinthians 11:1, etc.).

P.S. Do you have any scriptural basis for what you've shared in this thread so far? If so I'd be thankful if you'd help educate me. Thanks.

 

[RamistThomist]

1. In your view, is there anything we can do for those in sin and error other than pray for them in those instances? Or is there any context in which reproof, rebuke or exhortation in accordance with God's Word would be appropriate between believers who do not attend the same local church?

2. Assuming you're right, and those situations aren't parallel, what can we glean or imitate from Paul in Acts 19:8-10? I'm asking because [1] these things were preserved for our learning (Romans 15:4) and [2] Paul in multiple passages encourages us to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 4:16, 1 Corinthians 11:1, etc.).

P.S. Do you have any scriptural basis for what you've shared in this thread so far? If so I'd be thankful if you'd help educate me. Thanks.

I'm not saying don't argue with people who disagree with you. I thought you meant going to someone's church and causing a scene. That kind of stuff will get you a police escort out of some churches.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I'm not saying don't argue with people who disagree with you. I thought you meant going to someone's church and causing a scene. That kind of stuff will get you a police escort out of some churches.

To my mind, this seems like a very poor argument and a patently unbiblical one. There's a reason that Foxe's Book of Martyrs used to accompany every Bible in its heyday: obeying God often conflicts with obeying men. (ref. 2 Timothy 2:12).

Anyway, I'd encourage you to consider these things! While we've sort of gotten off on a tangent, I hope it's been edifying.

 

[RamistThomist]

To my mind, this seems like a very poor argument and a patently unbiblical one. There's a reason that Foxe's Book of Martyrs used to accompany every Bible in its heyday: obeying God often conflicts with obeying men. (ref. 2 Timothy 2:12).

Anyway, I'd encourage you to consider these things! While we've sort of gotten off on a tangent, I hope it's been edifying.

Do you go to other churches and cause a scene when the pastor is preaching?

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Do you go to other churches and cause a scene when the pastor is preaching?

I'd like to answer your question directly first:

No, I do not.

However, I don't think reaching out to folks, whether it be privately, street preaching, etc., is biblically unwarranted. Nor do I think that going to other religious gatherings to proclaim the truth of God's Word is biblically unprecedented (ref. Acts 19:8-10) or without merit. Not even at the risk of 'causing a scene'.

Second, I'd like to say that I was trying to keep things biblical and keep the conversation on track, but a lot of my questions have been passed by in your replies. I did try to number them and keep them organized. Is it really going to bless either of us to continue going in circles? If you think it will, feel free to send me a chat message, but we've gotten quite far from the original intent of the thread.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'd like to answer your question directly first:

No, but I don't think reaching out to folks, whether it be privately, street preaching, etc., is biblically unwarranted. Nor do I think that going to other churches is biblically unprecedented (ref. Acts 19:8-10) or without merit, no, not even at the risk of 'causing a scene'.

Second, I'd like to say that I was trying to keep things biblical and keep the conversation on track, but a lot of my questions have been passed by in your replies. I did try to number them and keep them organized. Is it really going to bless either of us to continue going in circles? If you think it will, feel free to send me a chat message, but we've gotten quite far from the original intent of the thread.

I had to get this question answered first. I already gave something like an answer to your other questions: by all means we should dispute with those whom we deem in error. I never said otherwise. But the way you framed the discussion seemed like we should be going to other churches and debating the pastors.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I had to get this question answered first. I already gave something like an answer to your other questions: by all means we should dispute with those whom we deem in error. I never said otherwise. But the way you framed the discussion seemed like we should be going to other churches and debating the pastors.

^ Emphasis mine.

To be clear, I'm saying there would be nothing wrong with doing that in accordance with God's Word. I get the sense from our conversation that you think there would be something wrong with that. I'm merely trying to encourage you to reconcile what might be your position (if I've articulated it correctly, with hearts being unknowable and all) with the Holy Scriptures.

P.S. I've got seven outstanding questions numbered further up in this thread. If you'd like to take a swag at any of them, I've got my Bible open and am ready to learn.

 

[Ben Zartman]

If you're visiting, or join yourself to, a church with a wrong confession, it makes no sense to do so with the intent to change them. If the once-sound church of which you are a member wants to drift away from sound doctrine, it is your duty to resist the drift, and to entreat the elders as fathers. If the church eventually abandons its confessional moorings and apostatizes, it may be your duty to leave, but by then you'll have made clear where you stand.
I disagree vehemently and sometimes loudly (when appropriate), with many things done at my church. But we are a confessional church, and so I can insist on the LBCF being adhered to--nay, it is my duty to do so--and I have a voice, however ignored, in what is right to do and what is not. I took vows to work for the peace and purity of that assembly, and I take those seriously. Not separating frivolously, but not joining in wickedness not strengthening wicked hands therein.

 

[jwright82]

I've considered that a person certainly could do as you've both said, but wonder by what basis we would be able to enjoy such pragmatism with a clear conscience? I've often wondered why folks have not gone and witnessed to false churches (or former churches) and their church members where they know they can be found (rather than going door to door in neighborhoods). Can this model not be found in the Holy Scriptures? (ref. Acts 19:8)

Food for thought.

Great point, the whole pragmatism thing is inevitable in a free society. So the question, practically speaking, comes down to what ethically and in good social order one should do? I'm not sure what example you're referring to so I'll pick the Baptist in a Presbyterian one. Should a member try to change their otherwise orthodox church on a matter like baptism with other options down the street? Well I suppose there's nothing wrong with going to the leadership with their concerns but remembering they probably won't win, unless God works (which he can, I'm not ruling that out).
But at what point is it "preaching the truth" or just obnoxious and disturbing the peace (probably worst case scenario trespassing after they ask someone to leave and they refuse, to "preach the truth").
I'd say social media might work or a Bible study but now that person has to live with potentially splitting a church to ruin. Or just go down the street to a different church and bypass the trouble.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Great point, the whole pragmatism thing is inevitable in a free society. So the question, practically speaking, comes down to what ethically and in good social order one should do? I'm not sure what example you're referring to so I'll pick the Baptist in a Presbyterian one. Should a member try to change their otherwise orthodox church on a matter like baptism with other options down the street? Well I suppose there's nothing wrong with going to the leadership with their concerns but remembering they probably won't win, unless God works (which he can, I'm not ruling that out).

We're agreed up to this point.

But at what point is it "preaching the truth" or just obnoxious and disturbing the peace (probably worst case scenario trespassing after they ask someone to leave and they refuse, to "preach the truth").
I'd say social media might work or a Bible study but now that person has to live with potentially splitting a church to ruin. Or just go down the street to a different church and bypass the trouble.

When I think about where I might draw the line and it would certainly be different from where someone else might. But I think biblical Christianity is a lot more radical than many of us are willing to live out (including myself, to my shame). When I think about Acts 5:27-29 where Peter says that we ought to obey God rather than men, I think about how many apostles and disciples were arrested, beaten, burned and boiled in oil to the glory of God.

In comparison, it seems in our day we're hardly willing to step out of line or speak out of turn. I wonder if we are more like Lot than Abraham as believers these days, pitching our tents in the green plains outside of Sodom. Or if we've forgotten what we're protesting as Protestants at times. Would anyone among us be willing to interrupt a Catholic Mass to preach the gospel? Or would anyone meet them with a sign and a tract on the nearest sidewalk after service? I hope I haven't unsettled anyone with my thoughts on the matter, but they do weigh heavy on me at times.

I digress - I didn‘t really post this thread to soapbox, I was actually hoping to solicit some alternative yet biblical perspectives on the doctrine of separation.

May the Lord help us all to be zealous for His glory.

 

[RamistThomist]

To be clear, I'm saying there would be nothing wrong with doing that in accordance with God's Word. I get the sense from our conversation that you think there would be something wrong with that.

If a militant credo baptist came to my church with the view of causing dissension on baptism, and he refused to abide correction and basic decorum, yes, I would have a problem. He would be removed if it were scandalous and disruptive behavior.

Likewise, I would have no problem with a credobaptist church doing the same if someone kept causing dissension there.

 

[RamistThomist]

We're agreed up to this point.



When I think about where I might draw the line and it would certainly be different from where someone else might. But I think biblical Christianity is a lot more radical than many of us are willing to live out (including myself, to my shame). When I think about Acts 5:27-29 where Peter says that we ought to obey God rather than men, I think about how many apostles and disciples were arrested, beaten, burned and boiled in oil to the glory of God.

In comparison, it seems in our day we're hardly willing to step out of line or speak out of turn. I wonder if we are more like Lot than Abraham as believers these days, pitching our tents in the green plains outside of Sodom. Or if we've forgotten what we're protesting as Protestants at times. Would anyone among us be willing to interrupt a Catholic Mass to preach the gospel? Or would anyone meet them with a sign and a tract on the nearest sidewalk after service? I hope I haven't unsettled anyone with my thoughts on the matter, but they do weigh heavy on me at times.

I digress - I didn‘t really post this thread to soapbox, I was actually hoping to solicit some alternative yet biblical perspectives on the doctrine of separation.

May the Lord help us all to be zealous for His glory.

This looks a lot like a motte-and-bailey fallacy. Being obnoxious at another church who differs with me on baptism is not the same as the Pharisees putting the apostles in jail over preaching Christ. If you think it is and that we are not radical enough in our society, then you have your work cut out for you tomorrow.

As to your seven questions, I've more or less answered them provided the answers don't involve being obnoxious on someone else's property.

 

[jwright82]

To my mind, this seems like a very poor argument and a patently unbiblical one. There's a reason that Foxe's Book of Martyrs used to accompany every Bible in its heyday: obeying

We're agreed up to this point.



When I think about where I might draw the line and it would certainly be different from where someone else might. But I think biblical Christianity is a lot more radical than many of us are willing to live out (including myself, to my shame). When I think about Acts 5:27-29 where Peter says that we ought to obey God rather than men, I think about how many apostles and disciples were arrested, beaten, burned and boiled in oil to the glory of God.

In comparison, it seems in our day we're hardly willing to step out of line or speak out of turn. I wonder if we are more like Lot than Abraham as believers these days, pitching our tents in the green plains outside of Sodom. May the Lord help us.

Wow great response, I'm glad we agree on some points. A lot here. I tend to think comparing our situation with apostles ought to be done at least by saying up front its metaphorical. I see your point and respect it but in the west we're not boiled or burned at the stake. Again I agree with you that if my choice is ultimately to honor God or man, its God.
Freedom is a double edged sword, you can do many things to stop a church and try to change it without causing a scene and getting arrested. You could start a blog or vlog or whatever and maybe that would work, God willing. Inviting members to a Bible study to teach them the truth, but you may be responsible for ruining an otherwise great church or you might change the church (not saying you shouldn't do that but do it knowing the possible consequences).
But the real question is, what is the ethical thing to do as a laymen in such a situation? To take a risk that God might act, or getting run off to another church with all that baggage, or worse potentially ruining a church that probably does some good for the community? All the while that person as a laymen could go down the street to a church that teaches the truth.
I'm not saying you shouldn't preach the truth and despite what I said starting a blog, vlog, and/or Bible study in good, peaceful, and orderly fashion is a preferred practical step to go by. But before someone causes a scene, go to another church they have the option.

 

[VictorBravo]

I'll just throw out a couple other verses for observation:

16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. (Matt. 10:16 NKJ)

And Paul’s similar admonition:

32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, (1 Cor. 10:32 NKJ)

Barging into someone else's gathering to disrupt it is not particularly wise, not edifying, and serves to draw focus on one's own activity rather than glorify God.

Jehu's "come see my zeal for the Lord" comes to mind, too.