Separation: Can We Have a Better Debate?
Image
The biblical doctrine of separation is difficult to discuss. I’ve read, listened to, and participated in quite a few exchanges over the years. More often than not, no movement toward consensus, or even increase in clarity, seemed to result. It’s not unusual for a discussion on the topic to end with—apparently—less mutual understanding than existed at the start, despite the fact that everybody involved seems to genuinely desire to know, live, and teach what the Scriptures require of us. (By the way, long before Internet, this sort of back and forth was going on in magazines, newsletters and pamphlets. It just moved slower in those days.)
So why is the topic so messy?
I don’t fully understand why clarity about separation is so elusive. I do continue to believe, though, that there is ultimately no reason why the various perspectives on the subject can’t be clearly distinguished from one another in accurate and mutually-accepted terms. In other words, though we’re unlikely to ever see complete agreement between conservative evangelicals, 20th century-style movement-fundamentalists, and all the miscellaneous-other among us, it really is possible to reach a point where the differences among us are clear, well understood, and debated mostly on-point—to the benefit of all who seek to know and obey the truth.
Why bother
Not only is a better debate about separation possible; it’s worth the effort to pursue. For one thing, the doctrine and practice of separation has been a prominent feature (some would say the distinguishing feature) of fundamentalist identity in the 20th and early 21st centuries. But the doctrine has importance beyond questions of movements and identities. We’re talking about the purity of the church and the unity (and disunity) of believers. To say the topic is non-trivial is an understatement. After all,
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (ESV, Eph. 4:4-6)
In addition to these reasons to strive for a more fruitful dialog about separation, there appears (from where I sit) to be a major shift in perspective and practice of separation going on. For a couple of generations now, fundamentalists have been rising to leadership who are seriously questioning—or mostly, I think, completely ignoring—the separation concepts they grew up with. Those of the 20th-century movement persuasion (if not other groups as well) ought to be pretty concerned about how to halt that shift.
That may be impossible in any case, but if there is a way to do it, some kind of fresh articulation will be a necessary component. Where there is little interest in dialog, there should at least be interest in increased clarity, consistency, and winsomeness.
Toward doing better
As with any messy, emotionally charged controversy, we can move toward the sort of debate that actually helps truth-seekers grow in understanding if we take some steps to consciously lift the debate to that level. Among the many ways to do that, three (not rigidly-sequential) steps stand out.
1. Identify the points of agreement
The classical rhetors have a few things to teach us moderns (and post-moderns) about debate. Aristotle talked about stasis, using a series of questions to bring your own stand (stasis is basically Greek for “stand”) or position. The idea was that an effective rhetor (we call them communicators now) would need to know with precision what it is he hopes to persuade others to believe and do. Part of that process involved understanding what his opponents’ stand was and taking the points of agreement off the table. Why waste your time defending what is already agreed? People will only read or listen to you for so long. Make it count. Focus on the real points of disagreement by first identifying the points of agreement, acknowleding them, then dismissing them.
For Christians this step has a whole additional layer (or perhaps root) of meaning and importance. We’re debating with fellow bond-slaves of Jesus Christ, fellow pardoned sinners in the process of redemption. And we’re command to seek peace and mutual benefit (Rom. 14:19, 1 Pet. 3:11).
When it comes to the separation debate, incalculable energy and time has been wasted vehemently insisting on what almost nobody denies. For example, virtually nobody holds that there should never be any limits on fellowship and cooperation under any circumstances with anyone who claims to be a Christian. In other words, everybody believes in some kind of separation from disobedient brothers. Most of the debate has to do with the grounds of separation, the nature of the separation act itself, the process to follow, the ultimate end of the process.
2. Identify the problems hindering debate.
The quantity of ways to derail a debate seems infinite sometimes. Some of the most common in the separation debate are these:
- Lack of clear definitions of terms (e.g., personal separation, ecclesiastical separation, secondary separation, second-degree separation), resulting in frequent equivocation, or just confusion. (By the way, to have a fruitful debate it is not necessary to agree on what definitions are “correct” or “incorrect,” only on how each party involved uses the terms, what they intend by them. The goal is to understand what each believes to be right and true.)
- Overuse of accusation, resulting in defensiveness and counter-accusation. (For example, whatever accusations might establish about who is or is not guilty of “compromise,” etc., nothing in that activity increases understanding of what Scripture itself teaches. It’s application. Important, but secondary to clarity about what needs to be applied.)
- The already-mentioned defense of points that are not really in dispute (and it’s ugly step-son, the straw-man fallacy).
- Lack of clear application scenarios.
This is really also a problem of definition. Much of the discourse in defense of separation is so vague, believers have little idea what obedience to the doctrine ought to look like in their local church, in their involvement in parachurch organizations, in their personal lives.
I’ve often felt that if you took two brothers who are differing hotly about separation and tossed a couple of scenarios at them privately and asked “How would we obey Scripture in these situations?” they’d arrive at exactly the same conclusions. One might call it “ecclesiastical separation,” or “secondary” or something; one might call it “discipline” or something else, but they’d actually agree that it’s what Scripture calls us to do.
By the same token, I’ve been involved in more than one highly frustrating exchange in which the more I pressed for clarity and concreteness, the more my interlocutor altered his definitions or retreated into generalities. (I’m never sure what to make of that. Do they actually not want to be understood? Do they not understand their own position?)
3. Identify the problems central to the debate.
After working at steps one and two a bit, step three starts to accomplish itself by process of elimination. Still, conscious energy aimed in this direction can greatly further the other steps as well.
When it comes to the biblical doctrine of separation, my experience—which has included a pretty good sampling, I think—suggests that among conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, post-fundamentalists and everybody else who cares all about being obedient in this area, the central problems are mainly these:
- What kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation from other apparently-genuine believers and ministries?
- How do we even go about deciding what kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation?
- What forms should this “separation” take?
- What process should we follow in various situations?
- More specifically, what sort of interaction with those being separated from does the NT require; who should do the interacting; what should be the attitude of those doing the interacting; how much should be public; and how do various responses along the way affect the process?
- Again, how do we even go about deriving the answers to these questions?
I, for one, would love to see a series of public interactions (preferably live and in person) among sober-minded, clear-thinking, even-tempered, gracious, and humble leaders who differ on matters of separation—with the goal not of reaching consensus, but of achieving mutual clarity about what is in dispute and what reasons each has for his own stand on the subject.
Maybe we can do more than “agree to disagree.” Maybe we can agree that we are disagreeing accurately and fairly.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 36 views
Chuck Bumgardner compiled quite a collection of documents on the topic a few years ago. Some of the links seem to be nonfunctional now, but the page is still quite a resource.
http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/resources-on-ecclesiastical-separation/
One of the most recent institutional statements on separation.
http://www.bju.edu/academics/college-and-schools/seminary/preachers-cor…
SharperIron posts on the topic
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Related Biblical words
- “Fellowship” as in 1 John 1:3, “that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship (κοινωνία) with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Chris”
- Also “partner”, “fellowworker”, “fellowhelper”, “partakers”, et cetera
And related non-Biblical terms:
- “to support”
- “association”
- “cooperation”
Brief observations:
- Seems to me that much separation is kind of “club like” (like “you’re not in my club”) that has boundaries set by where one matriculated or denominational sub-group boundaries (like GARBC)
- Or around version debate or music debate
- Or around non-essentials (like our youth group has a ‘long shorts rule’ at all our activities and if we are at camp with your kids you must also follow this standard)
I think the primary misunderstanding between beliefs on separation is the perceived importance of two fundamental aspects of Conservative Christianity.
These two aspects are our devotion to the holiness of God and our mission to evangelize the nations. Those on the fundamentalist side of the debate would tend to claim that evangelicals have a weak view of what it means to be holy and evangelicals would claim that fundamentalists own personal rules and requirements get in the way of our mission of evangelism.
I think true balance will be a discovery of the purpose of those two aspects, along with an understanding of what separation actually is.
The fear of God, I believe is something lost on most of my generation. We forget, I think, that our God is immutable. He doesn’t change. Even in this dispensation of Grace to where we are free from the law, God is still the God of the Old Testament as well as the New. This means that, in general, what pleased God in the Old Testament still pleases him today. Now, this may look different today as we are free from the law, and we are in the church age. But most, if not all of the principles of the Psalms and Proverbs as well as the Principles found in the narrative and prophesy of the prophets major and minor should still be important to us today. Through the books of the Old Testament we can find countless examples of the fact that being one of God’s people meant being different from the rest of the world. It was a call to holiness and a demand that one should separate from the world around him. In the New Testament we see a slight difference only in the fact that we are not given a specific yes no set of rules and regulations. We are guided by the example of the apostles and the way in which they followed the principles of the Old Testament. Acts 9:31 states that the congregations where being edified and walking in the fear of the LORD. and then we have in chapter 10 Peter’s vision to allow that Gentiles should be ministered to and brought into the church. We also see that in the future we will have the return of a law in which Christ will rule with an iron fist.
In my opinion it is clear to see that God desires for us to be holy and to be different and separate from the world around us. In my opinion the fear of the Lord, holiness, and separation mean striving to set oneself apart unto God away from the popular sinful culture of the world. Evangelizing the nations is our primary mission, but holiness and the fear of God should be our essence. Everything we do must in first be reverent to the Holy One, because it is he in which we are betrothed.
What does this look like in the doctrine of separation?
In personal separation I think this should look like a disgust and distaste for the loves (pop culture) of the world around us, that results from a deep seeded love for God and our betrothed Savior. This also must be balanced with a love for God’s people made in his image, and lost in the heart of idolatry (pop culture). The difficult question is how does one balance the fact that in order to reach people there must be some at least minor interaction with culture. In my opinion this will look different for many individuals but the key thing is to go into it with a fear of the LORD and a love for one’s betrothed and purity first and foremost.
In ecclesiastical separation this is a separation from any other organization that is Liberal or Legalistic by definition this means that one must separate from any organization that denies the fundamentals of the faith. Liberals deny some combination of Inspiration of Scripture, Deity of Christ/Virgin Birth, etc. and Legalists deny that salvation is by Faith alone through Grace alone and instead place some form of works required for salvation. (legalism has nothing to do with organizational rules)
Secondary separation is separating from any organization that do hold to the fundamentals, but don’t separate from those who don’t believe in the fundamentals.
Ecclesiastical separation does not prevent one from interacting or being friends with a liberal, a legalist, or an atheist, etc. We are to show love to these people, be friendly and make an attempt to bring them to Christ. One must still be careful that their closest and most influential relationships are ones with believers primarily I believe in their church or association.
There is a third category of separation that is not really doctrinally separation. This “division” is not based on separational issues but is based on a difference in purpose, direction, and emphasis. Every individual, organization, or institution has the right to fulfill its purpose called by God using the resources it best deems necessary to do so. A recent big example of this is the division between Faith Baptist Bible College and one of its former approved and supporting churches now Saylorville Church. Faith chose to remove Savlorville from its approved churches not because of any separational issue, but because Saylorville’s style and direction in which God has called them no longer worked with direction that Faith was going and it no longer fit with Faith’s mission of the students it wished to produce. IF this was a separational issue there would of been a separation from the GARB and a much tighter door closed on the relationship between the two organizations, there is no refusal of having ties with the organization, And there is (at least with a majority of those involved with the two organizations) a feeling of a mutual we wish you the best with your work for God and pray for your success. The problems where mainly stirred up with students current and former and a small portion of the congregation that blew the issue out of proportion all together. This division was biblical, but it was not separation.
That is what I believe is biblical separation, as is taught by Faith Baptist Bible College & Theological Seminary and led by Doctors George and Myron Houghton, but stated in my own words.
To not give money to someone is NOT equal to separate from someone …. But
To separate from someone would necessitate not giving them money
Another word = “worldliness” as in: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” ( 1 John 2:15).
Anecdote: Young seminarian preparing to teach ABF. He will be in this passage. I ask him the week before to define to me. He explains (among other things) - it’s having the latest technology. Observation … when one has a dumb phone (as I did at the time) and young adults are agog over the upcoming new IPhone, it is easy to nod head in agreement. But whenever someone buys technology is basically the latest and greatest.
We human beings have to make judgments, and we do not always render the same verdict in identical situations.
For example, X-ray technicians will read the same X-ray and,if given the same X-ray just a few minutes later, will choose another verdict 20% of the time.
If you are in court for sentencing and your case is first or right after lunch — when the judge has a good amount of sugar in his blood — he will sentence you more lightly. If you appear at 3PM, for example — with the same case — you will get a harsher sentence. [Source: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman].
This issue really affects our PRACTICE of separation. I know I see plenty of inconsistency in my past (in retrospect), erring perhaps on the more stringent side.
So, Aaron, part of the equation is that we argue and debate about these things, but, in practice, what we do may vary quite a bit.
As a result, I have known pastors in separatist denominations or fellowships (IFCA, GARB, Grace Brethren) who, in practice (especially in small towns) — in certain situations (e.g., community VBS, ministerium) are less separatist where the rubber meets the road than pastors in denominations (EFCA, CMA, BGC) that do not emphasize separation.
"The Midrash Detective"
Hope to write a followup eventually focusing on “ecclesiastical separation” (ES) and what it means to it’s various and sundry defenders. I’d be among its defenders though I’m not fond of the term. What I’ve observed is that, back in the 80’s especially, one particular idea of ES (both prinicples and application) seemed dominant to the point that anyone who saw it differently tended to be portrayed as “not believing in eccles. separation,” when in reality, they had differences about how to implement it. The difference between agreement in principle vs. agreement on implementation/application is one that has been too often overlooked.
I’ve also seen considerable variety in definition of ES in more recent years.
Need to do some research, unbox some of my books.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So one quick observation of the topic at hand. My guess is, one of the reasons why this topic (esp ecclesiastical separation - esp 2nd sep.) has been hard to come to consensus is because various sub-set’s within fundamentalism has viewed their understanding of secondary separation as not only right and unquestionably right - but they bring their view of secondary separation to virtually the same level of importance and universality as the “real” fundamentals of the faith (Biblical authority, Deity of Christ, Sacrificial atonement, etc….). So in the minds of a few “type A” (and other) fundamentalist, this is sacro-sanct! No room for interpretation, various opinions, etc….what is odd here - is the same group of fundamentalists have no similar conviction for a sacro-sanct doctrine of functional unity (outside the confines of the local church)!? Interesting…..Maybe even “telling.”
Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - another reality is that “we” who disagree with the more “narrow” approach (“we 4 and no more!”) are in the main irritated with those of the stricter approach (usually because of the way we have been on the pointy end of certain accusations by certain Brethreim). In that sense we sort of don’t even like each other. My guess is its hard to build a consensus when you have that kind of ugly elephant in the room. Just a guess!
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Joel Tetreau]what is odd here - is the same group of fundamentalists have no similar conviction for a sacro-sanct doctrine of functional unity (outside the confines of the local church)!? Interesting…..Maybe even “telling.”
I think that this may be where the whole crux of the issue lies (between fundies, I mean). Most of what you call Type As are committed to Independence, non-denominationalism. I suspect the rise in Reformed theology has exacerbated this tension, as the Reformed view tends away form individualism.
[Joel Tetreau] (usually because of the way we have been on the pointy end of certain accusations by certain Brethreim). In that sense we sort of don’t even like each other. My guess is its hard to build a consensus when you have that kind of ugly elephant in the room. Just a guess!
Two (smart-alecky) things: What’s a brethreim??? And two, you would have to bring up elephants and rooms, wouldn’t you!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] What’s a brethreim???
Seraphim, cherubim. & brethreim!
Let us remember that those who ignore Biblical commands regarding Christian unity are as much disobedient brethren as those who ignore commands regarding separation.
Let us remember that those who use exaggerated notions of separation to cancel teaching on Christian unity as as much disobedient brethren as those who use exaggerated ideas about unity to cancel requirements to separate.
Let us understand that it takes Biblical teaching on Christian unity to guard against unbalanced ideas of separation.
Should Bible believing fundamentalists separate from other fundamentalists who ignore Scriptural teaching on Christian unity? (Just asking.)
G. N. Barkman
I certainly agree that unity is important too. On the other hand, I think if we were to put the unity passages in a column next to the separation passages, we might see some interesting differences. Or not. It would be worth doing. What I’m suggesting is that the two are probably not all that parallel, though both matter. I mean, even the idea of biblical unity requires, as GNB somewhat facetiously suggested, guarding and defending. So if separation is an extension of the mandate to uphold truth and reject error (among other things it might be an extension of), even unity requires separation.
… especially if we understand unity biblically as something that exists objectively, so to speak, from God’s point of view not (“not only”?) something that describes what believers do in relation to one another. Eph. 4 speaks of the unity of the faith. The case could be made—and has been made—that unity depends on separation but the converse is not true (separation does not depend on unity).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Joel,
No offense, but I think your post is really just a cheap shot, something worthy of my teenage son when he’s caught doing something wrong, rather than a valid observation. It is always convenient for him to blame someone else for his sin. It is very telling that those who believe in a universal church have no room in their midst for those who believe everything is essential. It is very telling that those who say with words that they desire consensus but really just want acceptance for a multiplicity of interpretations and views. It is very telling that those who call these believers ugly elephants, they really have no understanding of unity or respect for the brethren at all. Good thing we believe in our own local churches, for there is no room in your universal tent for us.
KML
KLengel,
I’m not sure who you are - which is neither here or there. I’ve been around for about 25 years in ministry and I’ve been having various discussions about the sinful approach to secondary separation for decades. Here on SI alone I’ve no doubt written hundreds of pages of substantive issues between the various approaches to ecclesiastiocal understandings of separation - including back and forth with brethreim over textual issues. I’m not going to get in a spitting contest with you brother. If you really care to go back and forth with me - I’ll speak to you directly over whatever issue you want to talk a-bout. My comment was a quick observations - primarily focused on an issue or two -which still stands despite your patronistic tone. I’m nothing like your teenage son who has been caught - I’m more like your peer who has spent at least 25 years in ministry or in active study of the issues at hand.
Try again.
Staight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Joel,
Perhaps you shouldn’t spit if you don’t want responses. Your “quick” observation was one that lacked any depth, regardless of your experience. (I have been serving God for 35 years.) Your issue is against an alternative position than yours who are firm in their beliefs, that was clear. You seem to fault those of that certain fundamentalist type as the reason why we cannot come to a consensus. Isn’t that your “quick” observation? Then in the next few sentences, you attempt to validate your quick observation by stating their unwillingness to accept a variety of views or interpretations. You can’t have any consensus at all, with a multiplicity of views. With your experience as you state, you already knew that. That was my point. So, why else write what you did? Patronistic? I didn’t think that was a word, so not sure what you could mean. You missed my many points provided. Why is it a particular group’s fault why a consensus cannot be made?
Your observation was one that placed the blame on another, which is often what a child would do. Hence, the comparison. Why is it not your “type” that is the cause for a consensus not being agreed upon? Where’s your “quick” observation on your failure. It’s easy to place the blame on others. I stand by what I said. You started this strain of the conversation, I did not. Perhaps in the future, you can avoid making it personal and then, actually working towards a consensus might be possible. Perhaps it would have been better to suggest that one position is rooted in the belief that the local church is the only visible body of believers that God works through, and such independent, free churches choose to separate from other churches based on this and other beliefs. In addition, another position is that some churches believe that believers are all part of a universal body or church and they are more hesitate to separate from fellow believers and the churches who accept the fundamentals of the faith (the gospel). In my opinion, I believe the debate over the universal church and the local church only (if one wants to call it that) is one of the reasons for a lack of consensus. Wouldn’t it have been nicer just to have said that, then to blame the lack of consensus on one of the two positions?
KML
Featured Resource
Discussion