Secondary Separation: Should Christian Brethren Ever Separate?

The concept and practice of so-called “secondary separation” is a divisive issue within fundamentalism. It is appropriate now, more than ever, to examine the matter in light of Scripture. What follows is an all-too brief survey of several respected fundamentalist leaders of the past 50 years on this very matter. Their views are briefly presented and analyzed, and some conclusions will be drawn at the end. Hopefully, this modest study will edify the body and exhort fundamentalists to be captive to the Scriptures, wherever they may lead.

At the outset, a brief definition of fellowship must be offered so we’re all on the same page going forward. Loosely, “fellowship” is defined as a union for spiritual purposes. More precisely, a partnering of individuals, churches, organizations or any other group for the purpose of promoting Biblical truth, based on a common spiritual foundation. Therefore, when we discuss a separation among brethren, we are really pondering the question, “With whom or what can I legitimately enter into a spiritual partnership with?” (Oats).

What in the world is “secondary separation?”

Ernest Pickering

A secondary separatist would be one who will not cooperate with (1) apostates; or (2) evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them; or, as employed by some (3) fundamentalists who fellowship with those in the previous category. (217)

Rolland McCune:

“Secondary separation” is the refusal to cooperate with erring and disobedient Christians who do not adhere to primary separation and other vital doctrines. (146)

Douglas McLachlan:

Familial separation is the unfortunate necessity of functional severance from members of the family who are true Christians, when doctrinal or ethical compromise creeps into their lives or ministries. (132)

John R. Rice:

Do you see that since this secondary separation is an artificial, man-made doctrine, in every case it must depend on one’s personal, variable judgment? How much better to follow the simple rules in the Bible. Since there is no clear-cut Bible teaching on the question, secondary separation is a manufactured doctrine that leads to great confusion. And, sad to say, it also leads to passing judgment on Christian brethren, judging people’s motives, and this leads to division and strife among people who really are serving the same Saviour, who believe the same Bible, who preach the same Gospel, and both seek to win souls. That is unfortunate and, I think, unscriptural. (228)

In light of the above, my own working definition of so-called “secondary separation” is this:

A secondary separatist is a Christian who will not cooperate with:

  1. apostates
  2. true Christians who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them
  3. true Christians, when a Scripturally defensible claim of doctrinal or ethical compromise creeps into their lives or ministries

This is a concise definition, and one all fundamentalists would do well to adopt. Many would disagree, and I believe they are wrong. John R. Rice, as we will see, draws his circle of fellowship around the fundamentals of the faith and allows very wide latitude within this boundary. His views may surprise many, especially fundamentalists of the Sword of the Lord vintage.

John R. Rice

Rice was strongly against secondary separation. His primary focus was revivals and soul-winning, and his theology on separation reflects this. For Rice, the threshold of orthodoxy was the fundamentals of the faith—period. Rice would accept any Christian so long as he espoused (1) faith and salvation in Christ, (2) the Bible, (3) the virgin birth, (4) blood atonement, (5) the deity and (6) bodily resurrection of Christ (182, 224). I have chosen to spend a great deal of time on Rice because I believe he speaks for a great many frustrated fundamentalists on this matter.

The important thing is, is a man for Christ and the Bible? If he is, and he makes no divisive issues and strife, then fellowship with him. So the Scripture teaches. That means I can fellowship with some who fellowship with some they ought not to fellowship with. (182)

[W]e have an obligation to have brotherly love and kindness and charity toward those who are weak in the faith, but just so they are “in the faith. (224)

Rice would likely separate from fundamentalists who were in favor of secondary separation, citing Rom 14:1 as support.

Listen, you are not to run with anybody if it means quarreling and strife and division and hair pulling and hell raising. Say to that one, “God bless you, but go your way, and I will go mine.” If there is going to be strife and no real unity and no real heartfelt joy and results for God, then sometimes we cannot cooperate with Christians who make strife over minor issues. They are weak in the faith and they make an insistent division over it. (184)

Rice decried what he saw as undue obsession with division at the expense of evangelism. Fighting modernism was not Rice’s main priority—evangelism was.

The tendency to go to extremes appears in the matter of defending the faith and standing up for Christ and the Bible. Those of us who would defend the faith and expose false prophets are constantly urged to attack good Christians, to spend our time and energy in fighting good Christians who may not agree with us on some matters or may be wrong on lesser matters but are born-again, Bible-believing, soul-winning Christians. We have followed a simple course down through the years. We are against infidels and false teachers. We are for good Christians. (196)

Rice’s most passionate plea was for Christians to have perspective. The great division, he warned, is between those who are saved and those who are lost. “Let us face it honestly: Are we going to fight for God’s people and against Satan’s people? That is what we ought to be” (197).

Rice’s critique of secondary separation

Rice’s guiding verses on this matter were Ps 119:63 and Rom 14:1 (221). He outright denied that Scripture teaches separation from brethren. “No, there is nothing in the Bible like that” (224). He saw separation as an “all or nothing” proposition. He did not allow for the different “levels” of separation that Ernest Pickering wrote about, which we will examine in the next article. He defined the doctrine as follows:

But what is called ‘secondary separation’ means not only must the Christian be separated from liberals, modernists, unbelievers, but he is to separate from anybody who does not separate enough from unbelievers. (218)

Rice charged that Christians are commanded to fellowship and love other Christians (Jn 13:34-35), and this very love, not division, should guide Christians in this matter. Fractious, subjective battles among real Christians divide the body and hinder the cause of Christ.

But still the weight of the Scripture here is tremendous. We should love other Christians as Christ loved us. Our love for others ought to be such an obvious fact that people will know Christians are different. So only a very serious matter ought ever hinder the fellowship of good Christians who love each other. (222)

Most fundamentalists who uphold separation from brethren point to 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 as support. Their arguments will be presented shortly, but I ask Christians to examine the passage for themselves and reach their own conclusions. Rice expressly denied that 2 Thess 3:6-15 teaches secondary separation, labeling this “a clearly biased interpretation” (226). He maintained it merely taught that the disorder in question was eating without working (224-225).

Going back to his call for unity for the sake of evangelism, Rice protested that secondary separation resulted in arbitrary decisions. “Where can one draw the line? Unless he takes the plain Bible position of separation from the unsaved and the restrained fellowship with Christians who live in gross sin, one will make subjective decisions according to his own preference” (226-228). Fred Moritz dismisses such objections as a “smokescreen,” and calls for biblical discernment on the matter (84).

Finally, Rice appealed to examples of other Godly fundamentalists to bolster his case, men who did participate in inter-denominational fellowship for the sake of the Gospel, including Moody, Billy Sunday, R.A. Torrey, Bob Jones, Sr., H.A. Ironside, W.B. Riley, Bob Schuler and J. Frank Norris (228-234).

Rice’s work on separation was published in the midst of his very public falling out with Bob Jones, Jr. Any honest Christian will admit that views change with perspective, as hard-won knowledge, wisdom and experience are brought to bear upon tough issues. Perhaps Rice would have taken a harder line on separation earlier in his ministry. Regardless, a position must be evaluated in light of Scripture, not by the character of the man promoting it.

Rice’s plea for unity is appealing, but incorrect. He errs by failing to acknowledge different levels of fellowship and ignores Scriptures which clearly teach separation from brethren. In this respect, Rice epitomized a particular fundamentalist mindset which is antithetical to militant separatism. George Marsden remarked,

Antedating fundamentalist anti-modernism was the evangelical revivalist tradition out of which fundamentalism had grown. The overriding preoccupation of this tradition was the saving of souls. Any responsible means to promote this end was approved. (67)

Rice’s was a “big tent” fundamentalism, and given the nature of his revivalist ministry, perhaps it is understandable Rice was so inclusive about doctrine. He was still mistaken. I will survey several fundamentalist leaders who believe Rice was mistaken in the next article.

Works Cited

Marsden, George M. Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Print.

McCune, Rolland. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville: Ambassador International, 2004. Print.

McLachlan, Douglas. Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism. Independence: AACS, 1993. Print.

Moritz, Fred. Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation. Greenville: BJU, 1994. Print.

Oats, Larry. American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Watertown: Maranatha Baptist Seminary, 2012. Unpublished class notes.

Pickering, Ernest. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg: Regular Baptist Press, 1979. Print.

Rice, John R. Come Out or Stay In? Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1974. Print.

Discussion

Joe,

Next time one of these guys contacts you - put me on a 3 way call with our “brother.”

Straight 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;

Sharpeiron is not practicing proper fundametlist seperatism, so I refuse to fellowship with Aaron Blumer.

Joel Tetreau does not approve of everything on Sharperiron and while he expresses his concerns to Aaron Blumer, he still considers him a friend and maintains fellowship with him.

Scott Davis has fellowship with Joel Tettreau even though Joel refuses to take a stronger stand on Aaron. So Scott is not fully obedient.

Dan Burrell fellowships with Scott Davis even though he has fellowship with Joel Tetreau who fellowships with Aaron Blumer.

So in the end, you end up with one person who sees most believers and most churches as compromisers.

And, you end up with a lot of factions and a lot of division.

How many fundamentalists camps are out there today who have nothing to do with each other and who give the impression that they are the last official remnant of the godly?

I am definitely going to separate fellowship from anyone who has fellowship with me.

Heathen compromisers!

I’d tell ya’ that I luvya’ Joe, but if I did, you are likely to lose a lot of friends. Therefore, I’m going to separate from you.

You’re welcome.

:-D

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

[Mark_Smith]

This is a tricky one. There are denominations that use fermented wine for communion. I refuse to and I would not take wine for communion. That being said, I believe that a person could be a true believer and do so. So, if I refuse to take communion with them because they use alcohol but I believe they are believers, is that separation?

Likewise, I know people who believe NOT using wine for communion is wrong. Would come to my church and accept grape juice?

this has all already happened! just that those involved all spoke russian and not english. Christian culture has its similarities all over the world, I guess. …. :D

**I will add to clarify: a pastor stopped using wine in his communion services, and the other pastors “separated” from him. …. It says “wine” in the original Greek, don’t you know….. It also says “one cup,” and they were also upset that he started to use individual drinking cups for communion. Tsk, tsk. slippery slope, you know, stop using wine, stop using one big cup, next thing we’ll stop believing in a literal hell, etc.

We could all go on for hours about poor, ridiculous and un-Biblical examples of so-called “separation” we’ve seen implemented. All honest Christians should acknowledge a few truths:

1. Separation must be Scripturally based

2. Separation is an ecclesiastical issue. In this context, the grounds for Biblical separation are really not any different than the grounds for church discipline against a brother or sister in Christ. If you are willing to say you would separate from a brother, you must also be willing to say they would Scripturally qualify for church discipline.

3. There are also different levels of fellowship we all recognize. I could enjoy a cup of coffee with a Reformed pastor, yet I couldn’t have him preach on Sunday morning in my church. Just because we implement common-sense restrictions on different levels of fellowship does not necessarily mean I am “separating” from a brother.

4. There is an undeniable element of subjectivism here, taking into account the sinfulness of men and differing interpretations on doctrine.

Recall my own definition of so-called “secondary separation” from the article:

A secondary separatist is a Christian who will not cooperate with:

(1) apostates
(2) true Christians who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them
(3) true Christians, when a Scripturally defensible claim of doctrinal or ethical compromise creeps into their lives or ministries

Is a brother compromising doctrinally or ethically, or do I simply disagree with him on a matter of preference? Is the issue at hand over a Biblical principle which may allow for genuinely different interpretations? If the matter is not an implicit or explicit teaching of Scripture, we must be very cautious at this point. Too many fundamentalists have not been cautious, but impetuous - to the detriment of both the movement and the cause of Christ.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Tyler thanks for your article. My question is in regards to the third element of separation. The first is obvious as is the second. But I struggle to understand what the scriptural support for the third is or more specifically how to apply that. If we are to separate from apostates then we must separate from those disobedient brethren who refuse to do so. That much seems clear. But by what criteria do we decide if someone’s theology is bad enough to separate from them? I believe this is where the idea of limited fellowship comes in. If a person is reformed then I am naturally going to have less fellowship with them. If they are charismatic then significantly less.

But how do I say that their theology is so bad (even though they are fundamental in their understanding of the gospel.) that I am required to separate from them?

What types of errors would qualify? I can think of some errors that are bad enough that I would separate from an individual but they undermine the gospel itself.

Is this the type of thing you are thinking of?

I’ll talk about this in the next article, which I have to email to Aaron tonight!

There is an element of subjectivism in determining the parameters of fellowship. Nobody will be precisely alike on their applications. We have soul liberty in this matter, as we each strive to Biblically apply Scripture to our lives.

1. Is the issue at hand an explicit or implicit teaching of Scripture (e.g. justification by faith)? If so, then separation is probably recommended.

2. Is the issue a principle from Scripture (e.g. every believer must join a local church). If so, then separation may be appropriate. That’s up to you!

3. Is the issue a mere personal preference (e.g. my own intense dislike of the phrase “soulwinning” in favor of “evangelism.” Soulwinning assumes we are actually “winning” souls, not God. I think it’s man-centered and really hate the term!) Some people would put use of CCM in this category.

Too many fundamentalists are characterized by their willingness to separate from anybody and everybody. There is no matrix of explicit/implicit/principles/preferences for them. It is an all or nothing proposition. Such people are in serious error.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

“Too many fundamentalists are characterized by their willingness to separate from anybody and everybody. There is no matrix of explicit/implicit/principles/preferences for them. It is an all or nothing proposition. Such people are in serious error.”

Bingo brother. That was all I was trying to say. Thanks for bringing these issues up.

[Anne Sokol]

[Mark_Smith]

This is a tricky one. There are denominations that use fermented wine for communion. I refuse to and I would not take wine for communion. That being said, I believe that a person could be a true believer and do so. So, if I refuse to take communion with them because they use alcohol but I believe they are believers, is that separation?

Likewise, I know people who believe NOT using wine for communion is wrong. Would come to my church and accept grape juice?

this has all already happened! just that those involved all spoke russian and not english. Christian culture has its similarities all over the world, I guess. …. :D

**I will add to clarify: a pastor stopped using wine in his communion services, and the other pastors “separated” from him. …. It says “wine” in the original Greek, don’t you know….. It also says “one cup,” and they were also upset that he started to use individual drinking cups for communion. Tsk, tsk. slippery slope, you know, stop using wine, stop using one big cup, next thing we’ll stop believing in a literal hell, etc.

And if it’s the Lord’s “Supper”, why do you have it in the morning?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Rice took a firm stand against the inclusive evangelism of Billy Graham. He separated from Graham because Graham would not separate from apostates. He loudly criticized Graham for being sponsored by committees that were composed of evangelicals and apostates, and he refused to cooperate with them. Seems like Rice wanted his to have his cake and eat it too.

Thanks for the response Tyler. I look forward to your next article.

Not sure. If I could find way to view back-issues of Sword of the Lord, we could look at it. Don”t know if they’re available. If anyone knows if they are, give a hollar!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

The controversial parts of this have to do with the third portion of your definition of “secondary separatist”.

Many of the disputed claims on both sides of the NIU controversies could be entitled “ethical compromise”, even if they are not doctrinal compromises in one’s particular book. I do definitely think there is an ethical element to it. Some have suggested that those separating from NIU have been capricious and inconsistent in application. While I don’t deny that could happen, it could also be that the ethics of what is happening is what is found to be offensive and worthy of separation.

(Sorry to be so late with this comment…I had to register to comment and there was an inadvertent delay in getting that through.)


Because 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 has so often been used in discussions of secondary separation, I did a master’s thesis on the passage, studying it in the context of Paul’s teaching on church discipline elsewhere in the NT. I mention that for two reasons:


1) In association with that work, I put links to a good bit of source material on my blog at http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/resources-on-ecclesiastical-separation/. It’s been a few years since I did any updating, and many of the links in the “online materials” section are no doubt defunct, but there is also a print bibliography. That source material might be of interest in the present discussion.

2) Aaron, regarding your comment on 2 Thess 3:14-15 speaking of “breaking of fellowship with one who is clearly not being regarded as an unbeliever”: This is the most common interpretation of the passage in discussions of ecclesiastical separation. I tried to demonstrate in my thesis that this interpretation is actually a misconception of the “disorderly” discussed in the passage, especially in light of Paul’s practice of church discipline elsewhere in the NT. There is a very legitimate way of reading that passage which places it squarely in line with the other ones you mentioned. I don’t want to lengthen my comment unduly, but if an explanation is of interest in the present discussion, I’d be glad to expound :-). You can read a summary of that position at http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/warn-him-as-a-brother-in-2-…


Harmonizing Matt 18 with 2 Thess 3 is, as you noted, a challenge. (Indeed, trying to harmonize all of the various passages that reference church discipline has its challenges and may point to a bit more flexibility in the church discipline procedure than we might normally think.) My harmonization does have flaws, I’m sure, but I think there is a legitimate way to make the two passages fit together.

I will say that, in my view, it is important in this discussion to understand church discipline passages as such before we go about applying them to separation outside the church. Those are two different species of separation, and Scripture’s teaching about the former (church discipline scenarios) should not be uncritically applied to situations involving the latter (ecclesiastical separation more broadly speaking). This is not to say that such application cannot be made, but it is probably better made (from church discipline passages at least) less directly and more principally or by analogy.

CB