Secondary Separation: Should Christian Brethren Ever Separate?

Tyler, you said, “Therefore it does teach the principle of separation from a brother if he is in violation of the teachings of Scripture.”

The exegetically prior question is, however, is the “disorderly” person from which separation is commanded in 2 Thess 3 to be understood as a brother after separation (i.e., church discipline) has occurred? If he is not to be understood as a brother after separation/church discipline, then that has serious implications for how much application, and what sort of application, can be made to ecclesiastical separation from this passage.

CB

Short answer: He is no longer to be considered a brother in that he has persisted in sin after repeated admonition, and he is being formally removed from the membership of the Thessalonian congregation. As one indication of this, compare “do not keep company with” (mh sunanamignumi) in 1 Cor 5:9, 11, with precisely the same expression in 2 Thess 3:14.

Longer answer: Membership in a local church is predicated upon a credible profession of salvation. When a person’s profession of salvation becomes in-credible, non-credible, because of persistent, unrepentant sin, a church should enact church discipline. Church discipline is a way of saying that one’s testimony of salvation is under question because of evident sin in his or her life that is not being dealt with. I see the final step of church discipline, where a person is to be expelled from church membership and treated as a pagan and a tax collector (Matt 18:17), to be the church formally saying that since a person’s testimony of salvation is no longer credible, they must remove him (regretfully, lovingly, not harshly) from the body of those who claim Christ’s name. This is for both the purity of the church and the good of the person expelled. Once removed from the church, there is no basis for the church to call him a brother.

This mentality is reflected in 1 Cor 5:11 where Paul calls someone who persists in unrepentant sin “one who is called a brother” (adelfos onomazomenos). I think the NAS catches the idiom here with its translation “a so-called brother”. The idea seems to be that although he professes to be a brother, his unrepentant sin belies his confession.

________

And actually, I would contend that there is evidence in the passage that the disorderly should not be “considered” (by the church) to be a Christian. (1) They are running afoul of Paul’s clear teaching after repeated admonition. When a professing believer persistently lives a life contrary to Scripture, especially in the face of repeated admonition, I’d say there is actually a fairly strong reason to call into question that person’s Christian testimony. That’s the point of church discipline. (2) They are being disciplined by the church, and barring their repentance, Paul is commanding their removal from the church, which reflects a stance of the church toward them as a non-believer. Again, this doesn’t mean they are not believers in actuality (and if they are, they will repent), but that the church is to treat them as unbelievers.

Tyler,

Thanks for the interaction. I’m not sure precisely what you mean by “overdrawing” the text, though. Reading more than is really in there?

As to church discipline, you said, “It is surely too much to broad-brush suggest that somebody who does not respond to the first two steps in church discipline is not really a Christian.” In response, (1) I would actually see three steps in Matt 18 before expulsion: private confrontation (18:15), confrontation with witnesses (18:16), confrontation by “the church” (18:17). (2) What do you think Jesus meant when he said that if a recalcitrant offender refused to “listen to the church” (Matt 18:17), he was to be to the church as a pagan and a tax collector? (3) I find 1 Corinthians 5 to be particularly instructive when it comes to understanding how Paul viewed someone who is expelled from the church in church discipline. You might find it interesting to look at 1 Cor 5:9, 10, 11; 6:9-10. Notice how Paul takes the category into which he clearly places the offender of 1 Cor 5 (fornicator) and uses that as the core category around which he builds a growing list (5:10, add three more categories; 5:11, add another two categories; 6:9-10, add another four categories) which culminates in 6:9-10 by noting that people in these categories would not inherit the kingdom of God. That is, there is a strong link between those who to be expelled by church discipline, and those who will not inherit the kingdom of God—which is functionally equivalent to “unbelievers.”

On the one hand, there is the consideration of what the offender is in actuality. Is he/she actually a believer in Christ? Then he/she remains one after church discipline, and will come to repentance should the Lord spare their life. That last bit is a theological point, but 1 John seems to bear that out with John’s discussion of the believer and sin.

On the other hand, there is also the consideration of what the offender is considered to be by the church. I’m arguing that after the due process of church discipline, the church is to consider the offender to be and to treat the offender as (not precisely as (compare 1 Cor 5:11 with 1 Cor 10:27), but generally as) an unbeliever. This follows from their lack of repentance after due process, and comports with Jesus’s language about pagans and tax collectors.

As to whether church discipline changes the status of the offender from “brother” to “not a brother”: in connection with the two considerations I’ve just set forth, I would say that church discipline does not change the actual state of the offender from brother to non-brother (Christian to non-Christian). If the offender is truly a believer, he continues to be one after church discipline. But church discipline does, in my opinion, change how the church considers the offender, so that while the offender remains unrepentant, it does not consider him a brother, does not consider him a believer, although it holds out hope that the offender may yet repent and thus provide indication that he is indeed a brother, is indeed a believer.

______

Do I believe that Scripture teaches separation from brethren? Yes, but I think we pull that teaching too directly from 2 Thess 3:6-15.

When in conversations about ecclesiastical separation we speak of “separation from brethren,” we generally mean that we disagree with some aspect of their doctrine or practice strongly enough that we refuse to cooperate with them, either at some level or at all levels. However, we still consider them to be Christian brothers. The whole idea of “separation from brethren” is drawn very directly from 2 Thess 3:6-15. That passage (3:14-15 especially) is usually read to say that there is to be some level of separation from these disorderly brethren, but that at the same time, we are to continue to acknowledge them as brethren (3:15).

But I disagree with that interpretation of the passage. I see the situation of 2 Thess 3:6-15 as equivalent to other examples of Pauline disciplinary practice (e.g., 1 Cor 5), where the recalcitrant offender is to be expelled from the church and considered to be an unbeliever. If you’d like, I’d be glad to go into detail as to why I disagree with the typical interpretation, and why I think 2 Thess 3 is better understood as a “typical” church discipline passage.

So on the one hand (in my understanding) at the end of the day in 2 Thess 3, those “separated from” at a local church level (via church discipline) are to be considered unbelievers. But on the other hand, “separation from brethren,” as typically conceived, ends with those from whom one is separating being considered believers, albeit disobedient ones.

Could you expand on what you mean by “especially in this era of mass communication”?

I reread this passage since you all were talking about it. I haven’t studied this passage out in any way, I am only giving my impression based off of reading it in the 1984 NIV. It seems to me 2 Thes 3 is about brothers avoiding and admonishing other brothers who were taking advantage of them financially. It has nothing to do with sin in general. That is why it is difficult to connect to Matthew 18. In this case Paul is telling the Thessalonians to not rely on the Christian charity of believers for their day to day living, but to work. And telling believers to not feel like they are not being loving if they refuse to feed a “lazy” brother. I see it as simple as that. vss 14-15 are a warning that if the “lazy” brothers don’t correct themselves with this admonishment mark them and avoid them not as enemies but warn them as brothers.

Edit Addition: This isn’t about separation, secondary or primary, at all in the sense we mean it. This is more about practical matters of daily living.

Chuck,

Great work on the 2 Thess. passage! Hope you are doing well.

Brian

[Mark_Smith]

I am only giving my impression based off of reading it in the 1984 NIV. It seems to me 2 Thes 3 is about brothers avoiding and admonishing other brothers who were taking advantage of them financially.

I think a more literal rendering might help. This passage is one of several shaping the doctrine of separation.

Hi, Mark,

A cursory reading of 2 Thess 3:6-15 might very well give the impression that Paul is dealing with a relatively minor matter, and that is one reason that many people have not seen a full-fledged “church discipline” scenario in this case. So you are not alone in the impression you are getting as you read the passage.

In response, I’d offer several points for your consideration.

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 the seriousness of the infraction. Most translations, such as the NIV, render a key word group in this passage in terms of “idleness” (3:6, 7, 11). That is not accurate. The ataktos word group should be translated in terms of “disorderliness” (as, e.g., the KJV does). (See http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/2-thessalonians-3-idle-or-d…) What is the “order” in view that the “disorderly” were not following? The “tradition they received from us” (3:6) — the apostolic teaching, the handed-down body of instruction about Christian believe and behavior. (See http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/what-is-the-apostolic-tradi…). Specifically, they were not working when they should have been, in direct opposition to what Paul had taught them by word and example (2 Thess 3:7-11). 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. 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.

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. They are to “keep away” from them (3:6) and take special note of them in order that they may not associate with them (3:14). 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.

All in all, it seems best to understand 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 as a church discipline situation on par with other Pauline church discipline situations.

Here’s a list of the way 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is translated in a bunch of different translations. There’s quite a bit of variance in how it’s translated: