I generally like Stott a lot but think he is wrong on this. The problem is that Stott views the revisionists as people who eventually can be re-converted to Christianity by "witness." The fact is that they are non-Christian parasites living off the Body of Christ. Not only do they compromise the Gospel, but they suck the energy and money out of Christians. How can you witness for Christ if you spend all your time having to defend against heresy in your "own" church?
You have two options with a parasite: you kill it or starve it to death. At this point you cannot get them out so you have to starve them to death. Which means cutting off all support to the structures that feed them, whether financial, moral or membership.
If people remain inside, they can preach all they want but no one will pay attention, they will simply be tolerated so long as they continue to support the structure.
All the orthodox Christians pulling out of ECUSA and the other corrupted denominations will cause the structure to collapse, wither and die.
" The problem is that Stott views the revisionists as people who eventually can be re-converted to Christianity by "witness."
You know, there's really very little "new" when it comes to heresy and heretics...or in how to deal with them.
"By "Contentions", he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?
How then does he elsewhere say, "If God peradventure will give them repentance" (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself"? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, "being condemned of himself"? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned. +John Chrysostomos, Homily 6 on Titus
You're both absolutely "spot on" in your comments - unfortunately it is nearly impossible to reason with people who are so spiritually & theologically bereft. I've come to the conclusion that the folks who remain in the ECUSA can be likened to the alcoholic or drug addict...you can offer them all the help & sound advice that will free them from their bondage, but it's to no avail unless & until they hit rock bottom & decide to help themselves.