Separation scope
I posted up a question in a filings discussion thread and someone suggested it would make a good thread for further discussion here. Here goes…
When we discuss “separation” these days, who or what has the mandate to separate? I’m not asking “what should we separate from,” but rather “who should be doing the separating?” Is separation a personal one-on-one act, where an individual Christian cuts off association with another individual because the latter is schismatic and/or preaches another gospel? Can it be one-to-many whereby one individual disassociates from an organization (or vice-versa, where an organization disassociates from an individual)? Or should it be many-to-many, where one organization disassociates from another organization? Or is there enough scriptural support in any of the directions that we can simply say that separation can be from anyone to anyone, whether individual or corporate?
A secondary issue that arises when you throw organizations into the mix is, is that binding upon the members of the organization to practice personal separation from the offending party (if an organization is separating from an individual; the opposite question is, if an indivudual separates from an organization, does he also separate personally from every individual in that organization)? Or is that scope limited to an organization not being officially associated with the activities and efforts of another organization, without carrying the expectation that individuals within the organization(s) should remove themselves from individuals in the other organization? So, for example, when my church announces that it’s separating from another church on the other side of the town for XYZ reason, am I expected to, in effect, separate myself from every member of that other church because my church and their church have parted ways, even if I don’t actually agree with the reason for separating? Does the organization doing the separating have the right to mandate for all the members of that organization who they may associate with and work with in ministry?
- 4 views
i was with mission board X in country 1. my parents are with mission board Y in country 2. MB X says MB Y is too … nonconservative … shady … maybe?
so on the missionfield, my parents (in 2) give me a gift through a missionary with their MB (Y) who lived in my country (she traveled from 1 to 2 and back). I am told that I can meet the missionary briefly to get the stuff but not ‘fellowship.’
fastforward to today. i’m with MB Z in same country, and I have several friends with MB Y, and they are almost all, to a man, more personally conservative than I, my family, and my church am!
organizations, individuals, individuals in organizations … . it’s a crazy mixed up world.
i read some stuff about why this MB Y is not considered conservative … so-and-so was on the same speaking platform as so-and-so … and on it goes.
it was a DAY for me when i realized that God wouldn’t call me a conservative or a liberal at the judgment. that he had his own standards. yes, there are serious times when we common sense separate from people teaching a false gospel, but what we consider “disobedient brothers” and hence separating from them is sometimes so … . just weird.
and mission boards in the states making decisions for missionaries on the field about who they can fellowship with is another interesting topic.
Here’s an observation: In the Matthew 18 sense, separation within a church (church discipline) is initiated by church action rather than pastoral. If my church is going to reject an organization as heretical, maybe I should go through the steps. Invite a representative to come defend them. Inform the congregation, and make it a vote.
It would certainly be educational for the congregation (and maybe the pastor too).
Not too long ago, I preached a sermon on the Bases of Unity and Separation from Ephesians 4. In it, I explained to the congregation what the Bible said was necessary for unity, and that where that was lacking, separation must sadly be the outcome. NOTE please that unity is the Scriptural default position, and separation the sad exception. How sad that for many fundies, the opposite attitude prevails.
I preached that sermon because I want our congregation to be thinking Biblically about this stuff.
Of course, what I call thinking Biblically about this stuff might be different from a few others on SI. As in, we do a bit less separating that some of you folks who go kind of crazy with it. ;)
If a reader checks the various “Fundamentalist” publications and websites such as The Sword of the Lord and Way of Life.org, he or she will find that these are Indpendent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) publications. Though they represent two factions within the Independent Baptist orbit, they are enough alike to merit comparison.
Current IFB thought revolves around their view of seperation. The Sword defines “ecclesiatical separation” as:
”WE BELIEVE that Christian believers and local, New Testament churches should be guided and governed by the Bible, and consequently, we believe it is imperative that we identify false doctrine and those who perpetrate it, and subsequently, stand separate and apart from them.
We welcome all who come to our doors, but we give no place on our platform to honor or to hear the opinions and the views of those who do not hold to ‘sound doctrine.’
With this in view we oppose the widespread popular practice of ecumenism (getting theologically diverse groups together for the sake of fellowship, for the cause of evangelism, and for the exercise of their ministries together)”
The primary source of IFB separation is the King James Version, or as they prefer to call it, the King James Bible:
“The Holy Scriptures
WE BELIEVE the Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things (II Tim. 3:16-17; II Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:18-19)”
Pensacola Theological Seminary is a fountainhead of IFB pastors. Their Doctor of Ministry program offers a course on the use of the KJ in IFB churches:
”DM 707 The Bible Translation Controversy and the Principle of Separation (3) This course applies principles of separation to the textual translation issue from the standpoint of a pastor. Especially applicable to local churches, this course will enable pastors to help their lay people understand the textual issue. Students critique Westcott and Hort’s unorthodox beliefs, along with doctrinal deviations in the NIV and NASB”
Separation is the “hill” Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors have chosen to fight and maybe even die on. It is that important.
Discussion