Axioms of “Secondary” Separation

Introduction¹

The genius of biblical fundamentalism is its unwavering commitment to truth (doctrinal purity) and holiness (moral purity). The fundamentalist’s commitment to these is demonstrated in his willingness to separate from any who violate the Bible’s teaching on doctrine or practice. Yet, the vital role of separation in maintaining biblical Christianity is endangered by both disobedience and confusion. The following axioms are offered primarily as an antidote to the latter. The purpose is to assist what I perceive to be many (myself included) who sometimes get lost in the morass of personalities, anecdotes, etc. that sometimes attend discussions of so-called “secondary” separation (i.e., separation from disobedient believers).

Axiom #1: Separation From Disobedient Christians Is Commanded.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 clearly requires separation from disobedient believers. Dr. Bruce Compton has have thoroughly refuted the two-fold narrow interpretation of this passage by non-separatists that: 1) the passage applies to a single offense [willful unemployment] and, 2) the passage applies only in a local church context.²

Both exegesis and logic demand a broader application on both counts. With regard to offenses that demand separation, verses 6 and 14 indicate that these would include disobedience to any apostolic directive. Logically, this must be the case as well. It is unreasonable to believe the sin of laziness requires separation but other sins do not. As for the context of separation, verse 14 demands that we separate from “anyone” who violates apostolic commands. Further, there is an inter-church component even in local church discipline, i.e., discipline administered in one local church is to be honored by other local churches. This also relates to the oft-cited issue of unity. Preservation of unity includes a requirement to be united against disobedience. When a ministry refuses to separate from clear disobedience, that ministry has violated the principle of unity by refusing to stand with those who are upholding the Truth.

Axiom #2: Separation Assumes an Existing Relationship.

A relationship can be either chosen or imposed. Chosen relationships between individuals or churches always have the potential for separation. An imposed relationship is when an individual or ministry is foisted upon others. For instance, neither I nor my church have any relationship to Promise Keepers, but if they come to my town and attempt to recruit or otherwise influence my congregation, they have imposed a relationship that requires a pastoral response to protect the flock. While an educational institution may have to deal with “hypothetical separation” for illustrative and pedagogical purposes, separation from a disobedient believer with whom I have no relationship is technically impossible.

Limiting separation to relationships, whether chosen or imposed, would have at least two benefits: 1) It would limit the times that leaders would be compelled to engage in public denunciation. 2) It would reduce the number of publications devoted to denunciation.

Axiom #3: Separation Is a Response to Disobedience to Clear Scriptural Precepts or Principles.

Separation is a serious matter that must be undertaken only when there is clear violation of God’s requirements. For instance, the final step of church discipline can only be pursued when there is the testimony of two or three witnesses (See Matthew 18:16; cf. Deuteronomy 19:15-21; 1 Timothy 5:19). While we are required to be discerning and therefore must make judgments (1 Corinthians 2:15; Philippians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:21), our conclusions about others must be based on fact, and no measure of speculation. We are forbidden to judge the motives of another (1 Corinthians 4:3-5) and we’re commanded, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). God will judge us for things for which we are not authorized to judge each other, simply because we do not have all the information, and, of course, He does. He can judge us for our affections, motives, intentions, etc. Our judgment is limited to the extent of our knowledge.

Before I separate from a believer, I must be certain that he has sinned. To separate over, for instance, musical style, one must be prepared to say that a brother has sinned in his choice of music. It is not enough to say that music is objective in the mind of God, one must be sure that the brother has violated God’s standard.

Axiom #4: Separation Requires Biblical Due Process.

When a believer sins, the Bible gives clear instructions for pursuing reconciliation and restoration (Matthew 5:23-24; 18:15-18; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:15). Loving confrontation and a call to repentance are required for those with whom we’ve chosen a relationship. For imposed relationships, it may not be practically possible to confront the individual or ministry. Nevertheless, the requirement to make a factual judgment still obtains.

Axiom #5: Ecclesiastical Cooperation Is Optional.

The local church is autonomous and makes its own judgments about what is in the best interest of advancing the cause of Christ within and through that assembly. Cooperation among churches is desirable but wholly voluntary.

Axiom #6: Not All Ecclesiastical Non-cooperation Is Separation.

Separation and non-cooperation are often confused. While all separation requires non-cooperation, not all non-cooperation is separation. One may choose to not pursue cooperation for any number of practical, pastoral, and prudential reasons that fall short of sin and separation. When leaders fail to make this distinction clear, it leaves our people with an unnecessary “us vs. them” mentality, because they come to believe that our reason for non-cooperation is always separation. We should be careful to ensure that our people understand that our non-cooperation is not necessarily a repudiation of a particular ministry. We can do this in a number of ways, one of which is to, from time to time, publicly say something positive about those with whom we disagree.

Axiom #7: Non-cooperation Requires Biblical Due Process.

We have the responsibility to demonstrate love and grace to those with whom we disagree. “Love always protects” (1 Corinthians 13:7). Grace communicates in an edifying manner (Ephesians 4:29). This means, among other things, that we will protect the reputations of those with whom we differ by not casting aspersions on them or their ministries, and seeking to speak well of them whenever possible.

Conclusion

Agreement on a list of basic, biblical, and public principles (or “axioms”) of separation would benefit the advance of fundamentalism in a number of ways:

1. It will help leaders to identify when separation is warranted.
2. It will help our people to clearly see that we do not condemn all those with whom we disagree, and thereby lend credibility when we are forced to separate.
3. It will give comfort to those in our circles of fellowship, who will know the standard by which they’ll be judged, and that at all times they will be treated biblically and lovingly.
4. It will encourage some who have been discouraged by an inconsistent application of separation to remain in the fundamental fold.
5. It may encourage some who’ve remained outside fundamentalism to join the fight.
6. I believe that a consensus on an agreed list of principles of “secondary” separation, whether this list or some other, is needed to strengthen the fundamental cause. I welcome the comments of like-minded separatists to help develop such a consensus.