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:
- apostates
- true Christians who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them
- 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.
Tyler Robbins Bio
Tyler Robbins is the Pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Divernon, Illinois. He has been married to his wife Starla for 10 years and they have three children. He recently separated from the U.S. Navy after 10 years as a Military Police Investigator and Anti-Terrorism Planner. He is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary, studying for his MDiv.
- 180 views
I think this may be where you need to compare Scripture with Scripture. That is as you go through the first two stages of Matt 18, they are on probation as you treat them as a sinning brother. Thus due to their sin they are limited in their fellowship, specifically partaking of the Lord’s Table, but the allowance to still attend the worship service so that Heb 10:23-25 exhortation and edification can occur. Obviously if they do not repent they must be dealt with via ex-communication.
Must church discipline involve excommunication or does the New Testament allow for a level that stops short of that? Again, two of the key texts call for excommunication. This is clearly implied in Matthew 18 when the Lord says that the disobedient is to be viewed as a Gentile and tax collector. As discussed above, the combination describes metaphorically those regarded as unbelievers to be placed outside of the membership of the church. In the 1 Corinthians 5 passage, Paul specifically commands the Corinthian congregation to remove the disobedient member from among them, that is, to excommunicate him. In contrast, the third key text calls for discipline that falls short of excommunication. The disobedient in 2 Thessalonians 3 is viewed specifically as a brother or fellow believer, to be disciplined within the church, not as an unbeliever, to be removed from the church. Paul says the readers are to ―withdraw from him and ―not to associate with him. In short, the members are to withhold normal fellowship from him in an effort to bring him to repentance. But this level of separation does not entail excommunication in that the disobedient is still considered a brother in Christ. Thus, depending on how the church views the disobedient, church discipline can involve excommunication, but it can also involve a level of separation short of excommunication. This raises the final question that concerns the number of steps in church discipline. The Lord lays the foundation for church discipline in Matthew 18. The steps begin with private confrontation of one caught up in sin and end with excommunication of the unrepentant. At the point where the church collectively takes action, the Lord mentions only one step, that of excommunication. However, the Lord‘s words allow for and 2 Thessalonians 3 expressly identifies an intermediate step prior to excommunication. Consequently, the Scriptures teach that there are in fact four steps involved in reclaiming the disobedient. The first step is when a member of the congregation sees another member caught up in sin and he goes by himself to the one sinning to convict him and bring him to repentance. If the first step fails, the second step is where the concerned member takes two or three others to assist him in confronting the sinner. If the second step fails, the third step is where the matter is brought before the congregation. Assuming the specific sin allows for a step other than excommunication, the congregation directs the sinner to repent and initiates separation to bring about repentance. If that step fails, the final step is where the congregation excommunicates the unrepentant sinner.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Mike Harding]The Lord lays the foundation for church discipline in Matthew 18. The steps begin with private confrontation of one caught up in sin and end with excommunication of the unrepentant. At the point where the church collectively takes action, the Lord mentions only one step, that of excommunication. However, the Lord‘s words allow for and 2 Thessalonians 3 expressly identifies an intermediate step prior to excommunication. Consequently, the Scriptures teach that there are in fact four steps involved in reclaiming the disobedient. The first step is when a member of the congregation sees another member caught up in sin and he goes by himself to the one sinning to convict him and bring him to repentance. If the first step fails, the second step is where the concerned member takes two or three others to assist him in confronting the sinner. If the second step fails, the third step is where the matter is brought before the congregation. Assuming the specific sin allows for a step other than excommunication, the congregation directs the sinner to repent and initiates separation to bring about repentance. If that step fails, the final step is where the congregation excommunicates the unrepentant sinner.
I have always viewed Mt 18 as a guideline for due process, not a legalistic code that requires explicit compliance. In other words, there may be variations on the theme, but due process must be carried out. We are not to act arbitrarily, and when any kind of public discipline is involved, it isn’t simply an individual decision but a corporate decision.
There may be many meetings at each step of Matthew 18, the process can be adjudicated short of excommunication, even by the corporate body, but the “nuclear option” of excommunication is in play - it is a possible but not absolutely required option of corporate discipline. In other words, once you get to step three, things are getting pretty serious, but the church doesn’t have only two choices available: restoration or excommunication. The Thessalonians passage seems to bear this out.
Unfortunately, some teaching of Mt 18 has created a legalism of relationships rather than understanding it as a guideline for dealing with issues in the local church.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Mark_Smith]Now, that is close to what 2 Thes 3 is addressing since the man is stirring up problem in the church with his own beliefs. Is this man no longer a Christian? Or, is he a brother that you are separating from due to his contentious and unrepentant nature, and his misunderstanding of doctrine?
In my book, it stopped being about the woman teaching and became about his contentious and unrepentant nature within the churc. It’s deliberately walking in disunion. The issue with the teaching is one thing, but the real issue is the (dare I say it?) rebellion against the church and its leadership, even when privately addressed on a multitude of occasions. I’m assuming, of course, that the leadership handled this situation with all the grace and charity they should.
I don’t think you “withdraw his membership” - you throw him out for refusing to act like a believer. From what you’re saying, his actions would indicate that he’s not a believer who wants nothing to do with sound doctrine. If he were a believer, restoration would have been possible because the Spirit, at one point, should have brought about some small measure of reconciliation or repentance.
"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
Jay wrote:
If he were a believer, restoration would have been possible because the Spirit, at one point, should have brought about some small measure of reconciliation or repentance.
I hear you, but at the same time we need to be careful not to draw lines too harshly. Some people take a while to repent. This is why they are put under church discipline, so that this may lead them to repentance.
Going beyond church discipline to the larger issue of the fruits of a Christian life, I will say this:
We can all think of Christians who honestly struggle with terrible sin, are repentant, but have great difficulty pulling themselves out of the ditch for any length of time. We can say their walk with God is shallow, we can say they are caught in the midst of their sin - we can say all of these things. We cannot always say they are not Christians. I have one particular man in mind right now at my church, who struggles mightily with a crack addiction. Some people are not real Christians, and their fruit will demonstrate this. However, some are real Christians who simply struggle mightily. I’m not a wishy-washy guy, but we have to tread carefully on this matter.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Yes, we must sometimes separate from a Christian brother.
What bothers me is the way this separation is practiced.
Why are you separating?
Is it to see your brother repent and have your fellowship restored?
Or is it a way we can be more sanctified by being set apart from his sin?
What’s the process?
Do we at least try to make contact with our brother so that at least he knows that we’re separating from him?
Do we at least try to bring his error to his attention before we tell everybody else what he’s done wrong?
Or do we just tell others that we don’t fellowship with some Christians because they’re not pleasing the Lord?
What is our attitude when we separate?
Is it in a spirit of humility and awareness of our own personal failures?
Is it an act of love toward our brother because we care for him?
Is it difficult because it hurts to sever a relationship with another member of the Body?
Or is something that makes us feel good because we know that what we’re doing is the right thing?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Amen! The next article should be posted early next week, and it addresses criteria for separation. What you say is absolutely correct.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Mike, thanks for the good interaction on 2 Thess 3. I really appreciate the great amount of thought that you’ve obviously given the passage.
A good thought-provoking piece on our present topic in today’s “Nick of Time”: http://www.centralseminary.edu/Nick/Nick20130524.pdf
All, I’d like to mention a really helpful book on church discipline that is probably not as well known because it is by a Mennonite and not by a mainstream publisher: Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church: Recovering a Ministry of the Gospel, 3rd rev. ed. (Herald, 1988). It is the fruit of his dissertation work (although it’s the third edition, so there’s obviously been additional thought given to it) and there’s a lot of helpful stuff in it.
I touch on several points he made, in these posts:
http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/church-discipline-and-the-g…
http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/jeschke-steps-in-corrective…
http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/jeschke-go-and-disciple/
http://cbumgardner.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/jeschke-on-church-disciplin…
i have come to wonder what we would see differently if we started this entire idea of separation by first writing a doctrine of unity. I think the exercise would be intriguing and challenging.
maybe tyler would be up to doing that in an article???
oh I’m currently reading about the formation of the Brethren (in the 1800s) which is what brought this to my mind again. They grew out of a conviction to not separate, as was then practiced widely, like here:
… told me that the time was drawing nigh when the church would take the Lord’s Supper, and that they had a rule which they considered to be Scriptural, which was, neither to take the Lord’s Supper with anyone who was not himself baptized by immersion after he had believed, nor with anyone who, (though thus baptized himself) would take the Lord’s Supper with any who had not thus been baptized. Nor did they take the Lord’s Supper with any brother who would take it with any yet belonging to the state church
Lang, G. H. (2012-10-11). Anthony Norris Groves: Saint and Pioneer (p. 116). Kingsley Press. Kindle Edition.
At this day there are godly persons who will not take the Lord’s Supper if the bread be leavened or the wine fermented, nor will break bread with any person who would use those elements in another place, nor with believers who, though themselves using unleavened bread, would receive anyone who elsewhere would break bread with those who use leavened bread.
Lang, G. H. (2012-10-11). Anthony Norris Groves: Saint and Pioneer (p. 117). Kingsley Press. Kindle Edition.
It might help us clarify when “separation” is a sin.
This seems to be Kevin Bauder’s starting point. If you have not listened to it yet I highly recommend his 10 part series on separation.
Is brother simply a synonym for Christian, or is does it mean a Christian that you will allow in your fellowship. It seems really relevant here. I know many people that I consider Christians in the sense that they believe in the fundamentals of the faith but who, on so called secondary issues, hold to things that would not allow me to have direct fellowship with them. It seems to me that Paul is using brother in the generic sense for a believer, but not for one that you have fellowship with.
Mike Harding’s response says he holds that brother here means one still in the fellowship, but that you avoid. That strikes me as odd. You can be a member of the church, but stay in the corner, sit down, and shut up…and don’t ask for seconds at the pot luck!
Does it simply mean to remove from your fellowship, or does it mean to declare they are a non-Christian?
It seems to me declaring one to be a non-Christian is primary separation, whereas removing from the fellowship but still calling them brother is secondary separation. Perhaps I am operating with a misunderstanding?
Traditionally, primary separation is defined as separating from carnal, worldly and generally unholy things or people. We are to be seperate from the world, etc. So-called secondary separation has generally been defined as separating from true Christians who have Scripturally identifiable doctrinal or ethical compromise in their lives, personally or ecclesiastically. I have a larger definition in the article above.
Many respected fundamentalists have argued that there is no Scriptural warrant for “degrees” of separation - there is simply separation. I agree with this statement.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m on the mailing list of a fundamentalist paper. Their recent edition featured an article on NIU in which they drew heavily from Lou Martuneac. Here’s their conclusion:
…….The drift began back in 2009 in spite of Dr. Les Ollila’s protestations to the contrary and now we see the result. They were not truthful then and they are only now admitting to their changes.
My friends, this is the Devil’s work, not God’s work! There is no teaching of the difference between the holy and the profane now at Northland International University. An egalitarian approach to holiness and error is now the standard. They can co-exist, holiness and the profane, because we say they can. This is an affront to the authority of the Word of God.
In my opinion, Northland is beyond hope now. I would encourage every fundamental pastor to get their young people out of Northland before the walls of Jericho fall. We will now watch as Northland slides into destitution and failure, for the Word of God is now but a prop in a play, not the main actor. How utterly sad and needless.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Discussion