Secondary Separation: Should Christian Brethren Ever Separate?

The footnote in the 1599 Geneva Bible works for me.

“Fourthly, he saith, that idle and lazy persons ought not to be relieved of the Church, nay, that they are not to be suffered.”

It fits the context of the passage.

Hello, Mike,

Thanks for the thorough explanation of what I have found to be the most typical way of approaching 2 Thess 3:6-15. You have set forth that position very clearly. I’d like to interact with that position a bit, if I may, as I view the passage somewhat differently, and it is so often used as a key passage in the realm of ecclesiastical separation.

Unless I’m missing something, I agree with your entire first paragraph as you’ve written it (though not with all of the implications you are drawing from it), with one slight exception which I’m not dogmatic about (I believe 3:13 is an injunction not to be weary in doing what is right in terms of moving forward with disciplining the disorderly, not in terms of benevolence). I believe you are reading the Thessalonian situation correctly, and I believe that all through the process of discipline, the offender is to be treated as a believer/brother (Matt 18:15; 2 Thess 3:15).

We start to differ in our reading when we consider the gravity of the sin being addressed. I do not deny that the sin discussed in 1 Cor 5 may be considered more “heinous” than the sin in 2 Thess 3. This brings up a question which is both theological and practical: For what sins ought a professing believer be disciplined from the church? I contend that any teaching or practice inconsistent with the gospel of Christ and its attendant teachings (which is another way of saying “the tradition you received from us,” 2 Thess 3:6) is grounds for discipline. Notice the lack of specificity in Matt 18:15. In Paul’s letters, he is not afraid to name specific sins for which discipline is necessary. In 1 Cor 5:9, it is porneia​, but notice how Paul builds from this core in 5:9, through 5:10 and 5:11, to a culminating list in 6:9-10 (each list contains all the sins in previous lists, i.e., 5:10 contains 5:9, 5:11 contains 5:10, 6:9-10 contains 5:10). Presumably, everything in 6:9-10 would be grounds for church discipline, then, including being covetous, or a reviler — hardly the sort of things we’d consider “heinous.”

How about the question of how serious the sin of 2 Thess 3 is? We don’t need to reach into 1 Tim 5 in order to establish this.

First, consider the seriousness of Paul’s tone. He is not mincing words as he opens this section with “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The verb of command and the appeal to divine authority show that he means business here.

Second, consider how Paul characterizes the infraction. It is contrary to the apostolic tradition (3:6), which is a serious matter. As you note, it seems they were taking advantage of the patronage of others in the church (reflected, I’d say, in the language of 3:8, 12) when they should have been working for their own living; this might arguably be categorized with the “greedy” of 1 Cor. 6:10 (pleonekths is “one who desires to have more than is due,” BDAG 824). In addition, they were being “meddlers” (“busybodies”) (3:11), which sounds fairly innocuous, but was very often condemned in strong terms in the standard moral instruction of the day (on this, see Jeannine K. Brown, “Just a Busybody? A Look at the Greco-Roman Topos of Meddling for Defining allotriepiskopos in 1 Peter 4:15,” JBL 125:3 (2006)).

Third, consider that they had been called out regarding this problem before in 1 Thessalonians 4:9-12. The problem had not been handled, and Paul is addressing it more strongly in 2 Thessalonians.

Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, consider the language Paul uses to indicate how the Thessalonians should respond to the disorderly should they not cease their disorderly living. As you note, the expression “do not associate” in 3:14 is precisely the same as the action commanded toward the sexually immoral man in 1 Corinthians 5:9, 11, and those are the only times that expression is used in the NT. The burden of proof would seem to lie on one who wishes to make the disassociation something different in 2 Thess 3 than it very clearly is in 1 Cor 5.

(An expanded defense of this point may be found at http://cbumgardner.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/the-seriousness-of-the-o…)

And that brings us to the “brother” terminology in 2 Thess 3:15. For this phrase—“admonish him as a brother”—is the single, key point of the passage that leads people to the typical interpretation. As you noted, it provides a tension with what seems to be a fairly straightforward church discipline passage. You call it “the overriding problem,” and indeed it is. If 3:15 were not in the passage, I suspect that it would be straightforwardly understood as a typical church discipline scenario, no questions asked.

But the typical interpretation has its problems as well. You have already noted the challenge in reconciling the parallel usage of “do not associate” in 1 Cor 5 and 2 Thess 3. As well, are we really to think that Paul means for the Thessalonians to put the offenders under some sort of disciplinary probation, some sort of partial ostracization, a secondary level of church membership? Does Scripture know anything of this sort of treatment outside of this passage, if indeed this passage teaches it? As well, what if this “discipline that falls short of excommunication,” this “withholding of normal fellowship from him in an effort to bring him to repentance” does not succeed? Is the offender to be kept in limbo indefinitely?

So, “as a brother” (3:15) provides the crux of the challenge. I suggest a way forward that differs from the typical interpretation. It is not an entirely novel reading of the passage, although it is a minority view.

Typically, Paul is seen as providing a progression of actions in 3:14-15: (1) take public note of the disorderly; (2) disassociate from the disorderly; (3) admonish the disorderly as a brother. On this reading, the disorderly is admonished “as a brother” after he is “withdrawn from.” However, it seems to cut the Gordian knot, and comport better with the grammar of the passage not to understand 3:14-15 as a sequential progression of actions. Instead it is better to read Paul thus: (1) take public note of the disorderly so that (sunanamignumi as purpose infinitive) the congregation may disassociate from him, and (coordinate kai) (2) in relation to “taking note” of the disorderly, do not treat him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

In this understanding, the “taking note” is equivalent to “telling it to the church” in Matt 18, the third “stage” of the Matthew 18 procedure. Even in this final, public stage of church discipline, the last chance for repentance before expulsion, the church is yet to avoid anger toward the offender, still considering them brothers, holding out hope that they may yet repent and remain in the fellowship of the church. If the offender remains obstinate, the church must respond with expulsion, after which time the offender is no longer to be considered a “brother.”

This understanding coheres with the larger situation of the Thessalonian offenders. Note that they are spoken to (among the larger congregation) in 1 Thess 4:10-12 with language similar to that in 2 Thess 3, and in 1 Thess 5:14, the congregation is to “warn the disorderly” (in the NT, the ataktos word group is only used in 1 Thess 5:14, 2 Thess 3:6-7, 11, indicating the connection among the passages). So the offense is not new to 2 Thessalonians. Paul had given them the “no work, no food” principle when he was with them cf. 2 Thess 3:10), he had written to the congregation to warn those not following this principle (1 Thess 5:14), he was admonishing them in the present letter (2 Thess 3:12), and the congregation was to follow through with a final, formal action (“taking note,” 2 Thess 3:14) if they continued to prove unrepentant.

It appears the congregation needed a strong nudge to follow through with the discipline that was incumbent upon them (hence the strong language of command in 2 Thess 3:6); they were not to grow weary in doing what was right (2 Thess 3:13). But at the same time, they were not to let the pendulum swing too far the other way; they were still to admonish the offenders as brothers.

John Gill, for one, subscribed to this understanding: ““But admonish or reprove him as a brother; as one that has been called a brother, and a member of the church…who indeed is to be reckoned as a brother whilst the censure is passing, and the sentence of excommunication is executing on him; for till it is finished he stands in such a relation.” (An Exposition of the New Testament [1746–48; London: William Hill Collingridge, 1853; reprint, Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, n.d.] , p. 586, emphasis added.) This conclusion, or a similar one, is also embraced by Rigeaux, Les épîtres aux Thessaloniciens, 715–16; and John Brug, “Exegetical Brief: 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15 – Admonish Him as a Brother,” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 96 (1999): 208-217.

This explanation coheres (at least broadly) with Matt 18, explains the “brother” language of 3:15 while maintaining the expulsion of the offender, and comports with Paul’s practice of church discipline elsewhere. It also has implications for how the passage is applied to ecclesiastical separation.

[TylerR]

I agree that this is a church discipline situation.

I say they are still brothers. You say they are brothers too, but are to be treated as functional unbelievers. We both agree church discipline does not make a Christian not a brother in reality.

What is the practical difference between our positions? Are we splitting theological hairs here, or is there a real difference? Think we’re on the same page.

Tyler,

Actually, I do not say they are brothers. They may be, or they may not be. Given their expulsion from the church (as I understand this passage), the burden of proof would seem to be on the offenders to show that they actually are “brothers” by means of genuinely repenting from their disorderly behavior.

The significance of this entire discussion (which gestures toward the difference between our positions) is that fundamentalists have very typically taken this passage to be an example (if not the example) of “separating” from someone in a church discipline situation while still acknowledging that they are a brother in Christ.

For example, Mark Minnick, in a sermon on separation (“Scriptural Separation: II Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15,” Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, 23 October 2005) says that apart from 2 Thessalonians 3, we might very well conclude on the basis of other church discipline passages (e.g., Matt 18; 1 Cor 5) that those who persist in disobedience in either doctrine or deportment cannot truly partake in salvation in Christ. But because he understands ‘brother’ in 2 Thess 3:15 to indicate the state of the offender after the final stage of discipline, he concludes, “There actually is a category of people who are true believers but they are not obeying,” and applies this category to evangelicals who do not fully obey NT instruction regarding ecclesiastical separation.

Similarly, Joe Stowell: “Let me say this. Most of the people, if not all of them in the New-Evangelical camp, are born-again people. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. But we believe they are walking disorderly and contrary to the teachings of the Bible in these matters [ecumenical evangelism, etc.]. The Bible says to ‘withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly’ (2 Thess. 3:6). So, we do not cooperate with them.” (“Where We Stand Today,” The Gospel Witness (23 January 1975), 13).

Let me put it this way. Fundamentalists were faced with a situation where they (rightly) wanted scriptural warrant for separating from those whose associations were themselves suspect — or, we could say, separating from those who weren’t sufficiently separated themselves. Many believed they found such warrant in 2 Thess 3:6-15 because Paul tells the Thessalonians in 3:6 to withdraw from the disorderly, and then in 3:14 tells the Thessalonians that if anyone didn’t obey Paul’s “word by this epistle” (3:14), they were to note him and have no association with him. But Paul goes on to say “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (3:15). You can see how that language would naturally seem to fit into the scenario in view: new evangelicals were not “withdrawing from the disorderly,” which command was at least part of Paul’s “word by this epistle.” So in a typical fundamentalist reading of 2 Thess 3:6-15, this meant that faithful believers should “note that person and have no association with him” while simultaneously considering him to be a brother in Christ. This reading thus allowed a species of separation which allowed for disassociation without considering the offender an unbeliever.

I do not say that such separation is incorrect; I merely question whether that sort of ecclesiastical separation can be directly inferred from 2 Thess 3:6-15. That is, my reading of 2 Thess 3:6-15 does not conclude with a “separated-from” offender who is still considered a brother, but that is where the sort of ecclesiastical separation under discussion ends up. And that seems to address something of how our positions differ.

Mike, I owe you an apology. I posted my response to you without checking your initial post thoroughly, in order to get my response up before I went to do something I had scheduled with my kids. I re-read your material this morning and realized that I am “talking past you” at at least a couple of points because I didn’t remember everything you said when I read through your material the first time. You are engaging in a very close (i.e., not superficial) reading of the text, and you are asking the right questions about how 2 Thess 3 harmonizes with 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18. You have provided one of the best and most thorough explanations of the passage from the traditional standpoint that I have seen to date. I very much respect you and your work, and I want to be sure to take it seriously. Please forgive me for my undue haste. Let me try to make amends with a couple of points here, and then I have a question of clarification for you.

First, I raised an objection that in your interpretation of 2 Thess 3, the offender would essentially be relegated to sort of a second-tier status in the church. I asked, “Is the offender to be kept in limbo indefinitely?” and spoke of “a secondary level of church membership.” But that is not what you are saying. You indicated that “In effect, the disobedient is given notice that his conduct is in violation of apostolic standards and told he must repent. To drive home the seriousness of the breach caused by sin, the members are to withdraw normal fellowship, to include withholding of the Lord‘s Supper. And, they are to give notice that, if he does not repent and find gainful employment within a reasonable time as determined by the church, he will be viewed as an unbeliever and, thus, excommunicated from membership.” So you are not proposing an indefinite probation, as I suggested. I missed that due to my haste.

All the same, given the history of this problem in Thessalonica and previous instruction by Paul in person and via letter, in addition to the “do not associate” language that is parallel to 1 Cor 5, I still see my reading as a better fit than the traditional interpretation. And I should say that you take a good step beyond where most people leave the traditional interpretation, at least so far as I have researched. Most (as I recall) do leave the offender in limbo, barred from the Table or the like, with no further comment.

Second, I downplayed your acknowledgment of the seriousness of the offense. You do note “the seriousness of the breach caused by sin” and do see this sin as ending in excommunication if the offenders continue in it. You note that it is in violation of apostolic standards (the “tradition” of 3:6). I was focusing not on your fifth paragraph, but on your second paragraph where you argue that the sin of 2 Thess 3 is not of the same stripe as that of 1 Cor 5.

Our point of disagreement, then, is not whether the sin of 2 Thess 3 should end in expulsion if not repented of (we both agree to that). Instead, our point of disagreement is how 2 Thess 3:6-15 fits into the disciplinary process.

And in that vein (“where in the disciplinary process”), I wonder if you could help me by clarifying a point you are making. I have understood church discipline to involve the entire process from start to finish, from the initial confrontation through the typical steps of Matt 18, ending in formal expulsion. (The hope is for restoration, and perhaps that might be included under the broad rubric of “church discipline” as well, should it happen.) In your material above, you ask whether church discipline must involve excommunication, or whether the NT allows for a level that stops short of that. Your conclusion, after referencing Matt 18, 1 Cor 5, and 2 Thess 3, is that “depending on how the church views the disobedient, church discipline can involve excommunication, but it can also involve a level of separation short of excommunication.”

But in your treatment of 2 Thess 3, you indicate that the church is “to give notice that, if he [the disorderly man] does not repent and find gainful employment within a reasonable time as determined by the church, he will be viewed as an unbeliever and, thus, excommunicated from membership.” So, in the end, this church discipline does not really “involve a level of separation short of excommunication,” since that excommunication is precisely where it will end up if the offender remains unrepentant.

Am I misunderstanding you? On the one hand, it seems as you see 2 Thess 3 as “stopping sort” of excommunication, but on the other hand you do see it ending in excommunication.

And one further point. If you do see 2 Thess 3 as eventually resulting in excommunication, how does that principle carry over to ecclesiastical separation for you?

Thanks,

Chuck

I’d like to make a brief hermeneutical point regarding our use of church discipline passages in the present discussion. I’ve been focusing on the exegetical details of particular passages, 2 Thess 3 in particular, but these are questions apart from how these passages are to be brought to bear on the question of ecclesiastical separation.

In 2005, Phillip Brown presented a paper at a Bible Faculty Leadership Summit and in it noted, “It seems to me that we have applied [2 Thess 3:6-15] to the entire gamut of ecclesiastical relationships (e.g., believer-to-believer, believer-to-congregation, parachurch-to-parachurch, church-to-parachurch, etc.) without carefully arguing the hermeneutical grounds that justify such a broad application.” I believe he is correct. (You can read the entire paper here: http://www.apbrown2.net/web/CategoriesOfTruth_DBTS.pdf)

I believe that church discipline passages — passages that teach us about how to handle separation from a professing believer in the context of the church — do have much to teach us about separating from professing believers in other contexts. But we must respect the fact that “other contexts” are indeed in view as we seek to apply those passages to ecclesiastical separation.

This point — the need for hermeneutical sensitivity — is perhaps unnecessary to make in our present discussion, but many of us have no doubt seen a church discipline passage directly applied to non-church-discipline situations without taking account of the differences between what the passage is specifically addressing and the situation to which we seek to apply it. It might be instructive to chase Phillip Brown’s statement in one of the posts on this series on secondary separation.

CB

You are the pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Anywhere, USA. A person comes to your morning service and professes to be a Christian. After talking with him you come to understand that he is. He provides a baptismal certificate from another like faith church as well. After a year, the brother, who has since joined your fellowship and has been faithful, starts asking about whether women can teach in church. It turns out that his sister, who is Charismatic, regularly teaches in the main service at her church. After you show him the Bible’s instruction, he seems unconvinced. Over the course of weeks he needles this issue in Sunday School. You once again readdress this with him in private, which he rejects. He continues to grow more belligerent on the issue, becoming more contentious and causing problems in the church. You gather the deacons and such, as your constitution states, and address the man again. Anyway (to save time typing), after following the proper church discipline, which he rejects because he thinks the Bible teaches woman can teach, you withdraw his active membership for not agreeing with your church’s statement of faith and ask him to not return until such a time as he can abide by the statement of faith. You did this because he had become contentious on the issue and was causing problems pushing his beliefs despite agreeing to abide by your fellowships statement of faith.

Now, that is close to what 2 Thes 3 is addressing since the man is stirring up problem in the church with his own beliefs. Is this man no longer a Christian? Or, is he a brother that you are separating from due to his contentious and unrepentant nature, and his misunderstanding of doctrine?

Mark,

You asked, “Is this man no longer a Christian?” Not to nitpick, but to clarify, do you mean, “Is this man to no longer be considered a Christian?” If he was a Christian before expulsion, he is still a Christian afterward, and if he was not a Christian before expulsion, he remains unconverted afterward as well. As I understand it, church discipline deals more strictly in the realm of the credibility of the profession, although that certainly has implications for the reality of the matter.

CB

Chuck,

Thank you for your excellent work on 2 Thess 3. I have appreciated very much what you have written. The present passage introduces a possible probationary period for the subject depending upon the nature of the infraction. However, as you have observed, where there is prolonged continuance to violate clear apostolic instruction, eventually excommunication appears to be involved in 2 Thess 3.

Labeling someone as a disobedient brother is a serious matter, whether or not we can reasonably determine the salvific status of the subject. It should not be done lightly. In many cases, I think we are dealing with disagreeing brethren or brethren who have accepted some level of theological/ministerial error. Thus, Bauder’s paradigm of levels of cooperation come in to play.

Thanks, Mike.

A followup to that: in your reading, 3:14-15 indicates a probationary period. Where in 2 Thess 3 does “excommunication appear to be involved”?

CB

I think this may be where you need to compare Scripture with Scripture. That is as you go through the first two stages of Matt 18, they are on probation as you treat them as a sinning brother. Thus due to their sin they are limited in their fellowship, specifically partaking of the Lord’s Table, but the allowance to still attend the worship service so that Heb 10:23-25 exhortation and edification can occur. Obviously if they do not repent they must be dealt with via ex-communication.

Must church discipline involve excommunication or does the New Testament allow for a level that stops short of that? Again, two of the key texts call for excommunication. This is clearly implied in Matthew 18 when the Lord says that the disobedient is to be viewed as a Gentile and tax collector. As discussed above, the combination describes metaphorically those regarded as unbelievers to be placed outside of the membership of the church. In the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, Paul specifically commands the Corinthian congregation to remove the disobedient member from among them, that is, to excommunicate him. In contrast, the third key text calls for discipline that falls short of excommunication. The disobedient in 2 Thessalonians 3 is viewed specifically as a brother or fellow believer, to be disciplined within the church, not as an unbeliever, to be removed from the church. Paul says the readers are to ―withdraw from him and ―not to associate with him. In short, the members are to withhold normal fellowship from him in an effort to bring him to repentance. But this level of separation does not entail excommunication in that the disobedient is still considered a brother in Christ. Thus, depending on how the church views the disobedient, church discipline can involve excommunication, but it can also involve a level of separation short of excommunication. This raises the final question that concerns the number of steps in church discipline. The Lord lays the foundation for church discipline in Matthew 18. The steps begin with private confrontation of one caught up in sin and end with excommunication of the unrepentant. At the point where the church collectively takes action, the Lord mentions only one step, that of excommunication. However, the Lord‘s words allow for and 2 Thessalonians 3 expressly identifies an intermediate step prior to excommunication. Consequently, the Scriptures teach that there are in fact four steps involved in reclaiming the disobedient. The first step is when a member of the congregation sees another member caught up in sin and he goes by himself to the one sinning to convict him and bring him to repentance. If the first step fails, the second step is where the concerned member takes two or three others to assist him in confronting the sinner. If the second step fails, the third step is where the matter is brought before the congregation. Assuming the specific sin allows for a step other than excommunication, the congregation directs the sinner to repent and initiates separation to bring about repentance. If that step fails, the final step is where the congregation excommunicates the unrepentant sinner.

[Mike Harding]

The Lord lays the foundation for church discipline in Matthew 18. The steps begin with private confrontation of one caught up in sin and end with excommunication of the unrepentant. At the point where the church collectively takes action, the Lord mentions only one step, that of excommunication. However, the Lord‘s words allow for and 2 Thessalonians 3 expressly identifies an intermediate step prior to excommunication. Consequently, the Scriptures teach that there are in fact four steps involved in reclaiming the disobedient. The first step is when a member of the congregation sees another member caught up in sin and he goes by himself to the one sinning to convict him and bring him to repentance. If the first step fails, the second step is where the concerned member takes two or three others to assist him in confronting the sinner. If the second step fails, the third step is where the matter is brought before the congregation. Assuming the specific sin allows for a step other than excommunication, the congregation directs the sinner to repent and initiates separation to bring about repentance. If that step fails, the final step is where the congregation excommunicates the unrepentant sinner.

I have always viewed Mt 18 as a guideline for due process, not a legalistic code that requires explicit compliance. In other words, there may be variations on the theme, but due process must be carried out. We are not to act arbitrarily, and when any kind of public discipline is involved, it isn’t simply an individual decision but a corporate decision.

There may be many meetings at each step of Matthew 18, the process can be adjudicated short of excommunication, even by the corporate body, but the “nuclear option” of excommunication is in play - it is a possible but not absolutely required option of corporate discipline. In other words, once you get to step three, things are getting pretty serious, but the church doesn’t have only two choices available: restoration or excommunication. The Thessalonians passage seems to bear this out.

Unfortunately, some teaching of Mt 18 has created a legalism of relationships rather than understanding it as a guideline for dealing with issues in the local church.

[Mark_Smith]

Now, that is close to what 2 Thes 3 is addressing since the man is stirring up problem in the church with his own beliefs. Is this man no longer a Christian? Or, is he a brother that you are separating from due to his contentious and unrepentant nature, and his misunderstanding of doctrine?

In my book, it stopped being about the woman teaching and became about his contentious and unrepentant nature within the churc. It’s deliberately walking in disunion. The issue with the teaching is one thing, but the real issue is the (dare I say it?) rebellion against the church and its leadership, even when privately addressed on a multitude of occasions. I’m assuming, of course, that the leadership handled this situation with all the grace and charity they should.

I don’t think you “withdraw his membership” - you throw him out for refusing to act like a believer. From what you’re saying, his actions would indicate that he’s not a believer who wants nothing to do with sound doctrine. If he were a believer, restoration would have been possible because the Spirit, at one point, should have brought about some small measure of reconciliation or repentance.

Yes, we must sometimes separate from a Christian brother.

What bothers me is the way this separation is practiced.

Why are you separating?

Is it to see your brother repent and have your fellowship restored?

Or is it a way we can be more sanctified by being set apart from his sin?

What’s the process?

Do we at least try to make contact with our brother so that at least he knows that we’re separating from him?

Do we at least try to bring his error to his attention before we tell everybody else what he’s done wrong?

Or do we just tell others that we don’t fellowship with some Christians because they’re not pleasing the Lord?

What is our attitude when we separate?

Is it in a spirit of humility and awareness of our own personal failures?

Is it an act of love toward our brother because we care for him?

Is it difficult because it hurts to sever a relationship with another member of the Body?

Or is something that makes us feel good because we know that what we’re doing is the right thing?

Mike, thanks for the good interaction on 2 Thess 3. I really appreciate the great amount of thought that you’ve obviously given the passage.

A good thought-provoking piece on our present topic in today’s “Nick of Time”: http://www.centralseminary.edu/Nick/Nick20130524.pdf

All, I’d like to mention a really helpful book on church discipline that is probably not as well known because it is by a Mennonite and not by a mainstream publisher: Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church: Recovering a Ministry of the Gospel, 3rd rev. ed. (Herald, 1988). It is the fruit of his dissertation work (although it’s the third edition, so there’s obviously been additional thought given to it) and there’s a lot of helpful stuff in it.

I touch on several points he made, in these posts:

http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/church-discipline-and-the-g…

http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/jeschke-steps-in-corrective…

http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/jeschke-go-and-disciple/

http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/jeschke-on-church-disciplin…

i have come to wonder what we would see differently if we started this entire idea of separation by first writing a doctrine of unity. I think the exercise would be intriguing and challenging.

maybe tyler would be up to doing that in an article???

oh I’m currently reading about the formation of the Brethren (in the 1800s) which is what brought this to my mind again. They grew out of a conviction to not separate, as was then practiced widely, like here:

… told me that the time was drawing nigh when the church would take the Lord’s Supper, and that they had a rule which they considered to be Scriptural, which was, neither to take the Lord’s Supper with anyone who was not himself baptized by immersion after he had believed, nor with anyone who, (though thus baptized himself) would take the Lord’s Supper with any who had not thus been baptized. Nor did they take the Lord’s Supper with any brother who would take it with any yet belonging to the state church

Lang, G. H. (2012-10-11). Anthony Norris Groves: Saint and Pioneer (p. 116). Kingsley Press. Kindle Edition.

At this day there are godly persons who will not take the Lord’s Supper if the bread be leavened or the wine fermented, nor will break bread with any person who would use those elements in another place, nor with believers who, though themselves using unleavened bread, would receive anyone who elsewhere would break bread with those who use leavened bread.

Lang, G. H. (2012-10-11). Anthony Norris Groves: Saint and Pioneer (p. 117). Kingsley Press. Kindle Edition.

It might help us clarify when “separation” is a sin.

This seems to be Kevin Bauder’s starting point. If you have not listened to it yet I highly recommend his 10 part series on separation.

Is brother simply a synonym for Christian, or is does it mean a Christian that you will allow in your fellowship. It seems really relevant here. I know many people that I consider Christians in the sense that they believe in the fundamentals of the faith but who, on so called secondary issues, hold to things that would not allow me to have direct fellowship with them. It seems to me that Paul is using brother in the generic sense for a believer, but not for one that you have fellowship with.

Mike Harding’s response says he holds that brother here means one still in the fellowship, but that you avoid. That strikes me as odd. You can be a member of the church, but stay in the corner, sit down, and shut up…and don’t ask for seconds at the pot luck!

Does it simply mean to remove from your fellowship, or does it mean to declare they are a non-Christian?

It seems to me declaring one to be a non-Christian is primary separation, whereas removing from the fellowship but still calling them brother is secondary separation. Perhaps I am operating with a misunderstanding?

I’m on the mailing list of a fundamentalist paper. Their recent edition featured an article on NIU in which they drew heavily from Lou Martuneac. Here’s their conclusion:

…….The drift began back in 2009 in spite of Dr. Les Ollila’s protestations to the contrary and now we see the result. They were not truthful then and they are only now admitting to their changes.

My friends, this is the Devil’s work, not God’s work! There is no teaching of the difference between the holy and the profane now at Northland International University. An egalitarian approach to holiness and error is now the standard. They can co-exist, holiness and the profane, because we say they can. This is an affront to the authority of the Word of God.

In my opinion, Northland is beyond hope now. I would encourage every fundamental pastor to get their young people out of Northland before the walls of Jericho fall. We will now watch as Northland slides into destitution and failure, for the Word of God is now but a prop in a play, not the main actor. How utterly sad and needless.