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

Appreciate it. The second part of this article will post next week, I believe. That one surveys several fundamentalist leaders’ views on 2 Thess 3. I believe the passage is speaking specifically about idleness, but is applicable to the greater body of doctrine Paul taught. Therefore it does teach the principle of separation from a brother if he is in violation of the teachings of Scripture.

I don’t think too many fundamentalists (except perhaps Rice!?) would say Scripture doesn’t teach separation from brethren; the difference is in application. That is where the wheels really come off the bus.

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

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

I take the view that he is indeed a brother after separation and church discipline. There is nothing in the passage to suggest the disobedient Christian in question is not actually a Christian. Church discipline does not remove an authentic Christian from the corporate body of Christ. It can remove a person from local church fellowship. The goal, obviously, is restoration upon repentance. V. 15 makes this clear.

In what sense do you see this man as “no longer” a brother?

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

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.

I see from your blog you have been studying this passage for your post-graduate work.

Briefly, I would say that you’re overdrawing the text. Certainly, some people are put out of a local church who never really professed Christ at all, despite outward conformity. However, some Christians genuinely do backslide and church discipline is a measure designed to correct this disobedience.

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.

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. It may be true in some cases, but certainly not true as a rule. This blog is not the place to get into a detailed discussion, but these are my initial thoughts. I’ll hop over to your blog to read more.

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.

It seems as though you are suggesting they may be real Christians, but just shouldn’t be treated as such while under discipline. I read one commentator state that church discipline is akin to shunning, and is supposed to be disgraceful. I understand where you’re coming from in this regard. That does not make them not a “brother,” however.

Back to the article, you do agree that Scripture teaches separation from brethren, correct?

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

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.

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.

Got it. However, you also make this point:

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.

I understand the theological distinction you’re making, but how do you implement this distinction in practical ministry, especially in this era of mass communication? This is an honest question, not a snarky attempt to trap you! I honestly think we’re splitting theological hairs here.

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

Returning to the article, I would say that we would both agree that the matter of separation from brethren is a very serious matter. Far too many fundamentalists trivialize it, and my hope in these articles is to bring us back to a Biblical notion of separation. Your interpretation of 2 Thess 3 only emphasizes this vital necessity. Appreciate it!

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

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

Brian McCrorie Indianapolis, IN www.bowingdown.com

[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.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

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:

American Standard Version
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.

Bible in Basic English
Now we give you orders, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from all those whose behaviour is not well ordered and in harmony with the teaching which they had from us.

Common English Bible
Brothers and sisters, we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to stay away from every brother or sister who lives an undisciplined life that is not in line with the traditions that you received from us.

Complete Jewish Bible
Now, in the name of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah we command you, brothers, to stay away from any brother who is leading a life of idleness, a life not in keeping with the tradition you received from us.

Douay-Rheims
And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

English Standard Version
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

GOD’S WORD Translation
Brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we order you not to associate with any believer who doesn’t live a disciplined life and doesn’t follow the tradition you received from us.

Good News Translation
Our friends, we command you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to keep away from all believers who are living a lazy life and who do not follow the instructions that we gave them.

Hebrew Names Version
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us.

Holman Christian Standard
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother who walks irresponsibly and not according to the tradition received from us.

King James Version
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Lexham English Bible
But we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [that] you keep away from every brother who lives irresponsibly and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

New American Standard
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

New Century Version
Brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ we command you to stay away from any believer who refuses to work and does not follow the teaching we gave you.

New International Version
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

New International Reader’s Version
Brothers and sisters, here is a command we give you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Keep away from every believer who doesn’t want to work. Keep away from anyone who doesn’t live up to the teaching you received from us.

New King James Version
But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

New Living Translation
And now, dear brothers and sisters, we give you this command with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ: Stay away from any Christian who lives in idleness and doesn’t follow the tradition of hard work we gave you.

New Revised Standard
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Revised Standard Version
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

The Darby Translation
Now we enjoin you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the instruction which he received from us.

The Message
Our orders - backed up by the Master, Jesus - are to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don’t permit them to freeload on the rest.

The Webster Bible
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received from us.

Third Millennium Bible
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother who walketh disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.

Today’s New International Version
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us.

Tyndale
We requyre you brethren in the name of oure lorde Iesu Christ yt ye with drawe youre selves from every brother that walketh inordinatly and not after the institucio which ye receaved of vs.

Weymouth New Testament
But, by the authority of the Lord, we command you, brethren, to stand aloof from every brother whose life is disorderly and not in accordance with the teaching which all received from us.

World English Bible
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks in rebellion, and not after the tradition which they received from us.

Wycliffe
But, brethren, we command to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw you from each brother that wandereth out of order, and not after the teaching, that they received of us.

Young’s Literal Translation
And we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw yourselves from every brother disorderly walking, and not after the deliverance that ye received from us.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Ignore that weird phrase. It got in there by mistake!

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