Separation: Can We Have a Better Debate?

Image

The biblical doctrine of separation is difficult to discuss. I’ve read, listened to, and participated in quite a few exchanges over the years. More often than not, no movement toward consensus, or even increase in clarity, seemed to result. It’s not unusual for a discussion on the topic to end with—apparently—less mutual understanding than existed at the start, despite the fact that everybody involved seems to genuinely desire to know, live, and teach what the Scriptures require of us. (By the way, long before Internet, this sort of back and forth was going on in magazines, newsletters and pamphlets. It just moved slower in those days.)

So why is the topic so messy?

I don’t fully understand why clarity about separation is so elusive. I do continue to believe, though, that there is ultimately no reason why the various perspectives on the subject can’t be clearly distinguished from one another in accurate and mutually-accepted terms. In other words, though we’re unlikely to ever see complete agreement between conservative evangelicals, 20th century-style movement-fundamentalists, and all the miscellaneous-other among us, it really is possible to reach a point where the differences among us are clear, well understood, and debated mostly on-point—to the benefit of all who seek to know and obey the truth.

Why bother

Not only is a better debate about separation possible; it’s worth the effort to pursue. For one thing, the doctrine and practice of separation has been a prominent feature (some would say the distinguishing feature) of fundamentalist identity in the 20th and early 21st centuries. But the doctrine has importance beyond questions of movements and identities. We’re talking about the purity of the church and the unity (and disunity) of believers. To say the topic is non-trivial is an understatement. After all,

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (ESV, Eph. 4:4-6)

In addition to these reasons to strive for a more fruitful dialog about separation, there appears (from where I sit) to be a major shift in perspective and practice of separation going on. For a couple of generations now, fundamentalists have been rising to leadership who are seriously questioning—or mostly, I think, completely ignoring—the separation concepts they grew up with. Those of the 20th-century movement persuasion (if not other groups as well) ought to be pretty concerned about how to halt that shift.

That may be impossible in any case, but if there is a way to do it, some kind of fresh articulation will be a necessary component. Where there is little interest in dialog, there should at least be interest in increased clarity, consistency, and winsomeness.

Toward doing better

As with any messy, emotionally charged controversy, we can move toward the sort of debate that actually helps truth-seekers grow in understanding if we take some steps to consciously lift the debate to that level. Among the many ways to do that, three (not rigidly-sequential) steps stand out.

1. Identify the points of agreement

The classical rhetors have a few things to teach us moderns (and post-moderns) about debate. Aristotle talked about stasis, using a series of questions to bring your own stand (stasis is basically Greek for “stand”) or position. The idea was that an effective rhetor (we call them communicators now) would need to know with precision what it is he hopes to persuade others to believe and do. Part of that process involved understanding what his opponents’ stand was and taking the points of agreement off the table. Why waste your time defending what is already agreed? People will only read or listen to you for so long. Make it count. Focus on the real points of disagreement by first identifying the points of agreement, acknowleding them, then dismissing them.

For Christians this step has a whole additional layer (or perhaps root) of meaning and importance. We’re debating with fellow bond-slaves of Jesus Christ, fellow pardoned sinners in the process of redemption. And we’re command to seek peace and mutual benefit (Rom. 14:19, 1 Pet. 3:11).

When it comes to the separation debate, incalculable energy and time has been wasted vehemently insisting on what almost nobody denies. For example, virtually nobody holds that there should never be any limits on fellowship and cooperation under any circumstances with anyone who claims to be a Christian. In other words, everybody believes in some kind of separation from disobedient brothers. Most of the debate has to do with the grounds of separation, the nature of the separation act itself, the process to follow, the ultimate end of the process.

2. Identify the problems hindering debate.

The quantity of ways to derail a debate seems infinite sometimes. Some of the most common in the separation debate are these:

  • Lack of clear definitions of terms (e.g., personal separation, ecclesiastical separation, secondary separation, second-degree separation), resulting in frequent equivocation, or just confusion. (By the way, to have a fruitful debate it is not necessary to agree on what definitions are “correct” or “incorrect,” only on how each party involved uses the terms, what they intend by them. The goal is to understand what each believes to be right and true.)
  • Overuse of accusation, resulting in defensiveness and counter-accusation. (For example, whatever accusations might establish about who is or is not guilty of “compromise,” etc., nothing in that activity increases understanding of what Scripture itself teaches. It’s application. Important, but secondary to clarity about what needs to be applied.)
  • The already-mentioned defense of points that are not really in dispute (and it’s ugly step-son, the straw-man fallacy).
  • Lack of clear application scenarios.
    This is really also a problem of definition. Much of the discourse in defense of separation is so vague, believers have little idea what obedience to the doctrine ought to look like in their local church, in their involvement in parachurch organizations, in their personal lives.

I’ve often felt that if you took two brothers who are differing hotly about separation and tossed a couple of scenarios at them privately and asked “How would we obey Scripture in these situations?” they’d arrive at exactly the same conclusions. One might call it “ecclesiastical separation,” or “secondary” or something; one might call it “discipline” or something else, but they’d actually agree that it’s what Scripture calls us to do.

By the same token, I’ve been involved in more than one highly frustrating exchange in which the more I pressed for clarity and concreteness, the more my interlocutor altered his definitions or retreated into generalities. (I’m never sure what to make of that. Do they actually not want to be understood? Do they not understand their own position?)

3. Identify the problems central to the debate.

After working at steps one and two a bit, step three starts to accomplish itself by process of elimination. Still, conscious energy aimed in this direction can greatly further the other steps as well.

When it comes to the biblical doctrine of separation, my experience—which has included a pretty good sampling, I think—suggests that among conservative evangelicals, fundamentalists, post-fundamentalists and everybody else who cares all about being obedient in this area, the central problems are mainly these:

  • What kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation from other apparently-genuine believers and ministries?
  • How do we even go about deciding what kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation?
  • What forms should this “separation” take?
  • What process should we follow in various situations?
  • More specifically, what sort of interaction with those being separated from does the NT require; who should do the interacting; what should be the attitude of those doing the interacting; how much should be public; and how do various responses along the way affect the process?
  • Again, how do we even go about deriving the answers to these questions?

I, for one, would love to see a series of public interactions (preferably live and in person) among sober-minded, clear-thinking, even-tempered, gracious, and humble leaders who differ on matters of separation—with the goal not of reaching consensus, but of achieving mutual clarity about what is in dispute and what reasons each has for his own stand on the subject.

Maybe we can do more than “agree to disagree.” Maybe we can agree that we are disagreeing accurately and fairly.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Guys, all the personal stuff doesn’t help.

It could be that we can’t have a better debate about separation partly because too few know how to talk about ideas at all without getting personal.

As for fundamentalism vs. everythingism, it really is a different topic—unless someone is suggesting that absolutely every difference of understanding or practice is grounds for separation.

… but then every honest (or at least self-aware) person would have figure out how to separate from himself. Who doesn’t have the occasional wrestling match with self? (“Does the passage mean this or does it mean that? It’s gotta mean that. No… on second thought, maybe it’s this… wait, now I have to separate from me because we don’t agree.”)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

Out of all that conversation though, a valid point is brought up. I think the beginning point is the divergent views that come from the various groups that accept either that there is a concept of a universal church and those who do not. I believe this is a starting point, because depending on your view, each point will lead down a different path. Those who believe in a universal church will focus on things such as unity among the “brethren” of THAT body. Also, that discussion will focus around things like essentials vs. non-essentials. Those that go down this path, would separate from those who deny the fundamentals of the faith or from those do not believe the orthodox views accepted regarding the gospel, such as the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. Those who hold to these fundamentals or essentials would not accept a separation perhaps from someone who baptizes babies, Charismatic believers, Reformed believers, etc. Perhaps they would, but their decision process on separation, I believe, starts based on the presupposition that a universal church view guides the discussion. However, those who do not hold to a universal church position, focus more on internal purity of a local church, separation from all other churches in which they differ to some degree. I believe that most of this separation here too is started from the point of one’s position on the universal church. They dogmatically (which unfortunately is a dirty word in these postmodern times) do not accept a multiplicity of views on anything. They believe God provided His revelation to us so that we might KNOW the truth, not permit multiple acceptable conclusions on what the truth might be. These different views on the universal church not only change the landscape about separation, but it lays the groundwork for a multiplicity of views on things like the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, water baptism, etc. I think if we take each path down its road, and discuss in light of each path, perhaps we can all calmly see the reasons, hopefully in one’s understanding of the Scriptures, why each group believes as it does. We will not find a consensus or enjoy fellowship in our discussions simply as believers if we are going to make one party guilty for the lack of consensus. Thanks for initiating this discussion! I think understanding where each of us starts is vital to determining what is truth. (and we may still never agree.)

KML

Aaron,

I think it would be accurate to state that Type A Fundamentalists would not believe in everythingism as you stated. However, I do believe that they would separate from all false teachers on areas of more than just the fundamentals. Most Type A’s would separate from Calvinists. Most Type A’s would separate from Charismatics. Most Type A’s would separate from paedobaptists. I believe that most Type A’s would see these as false teachings, and would therefore separate from those, or have limited fellowship with those who believe such things. I agree that everythingism would be an impossibility, however, I would also state that essentials vs non-essentials is not enough, at least of the meanings of the two I have heard taught and written about.

KML

Ken,

This is where the discussion takes such a weird twist. You are claiming that Type A fundies lump charismatics and paedobaptists in with - Calvinists??? So you would advocate separation from Spurgeon??? And the vast majority of original American Baptists, who adopted the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1689 (a decidedly “particular” Baptist document)???

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Chip,

Not such a weird twist. Look at John Piper. Wayne Grudem. I could go on. However, I am just saying that many Type A fundy’s believe Calvinism is heresy. I guess the point that is being missed here is this: Most Type A fundy’s don’t look at separation like most Protestant fundamentalists would. They don’t see essentials vs. non-essentials. They don’t agree to accept a multiplicity on views on doctrine. For example, Arminianism and Calvinism cannot both be right, is that not correct? Here is an example, while I disagree with the results of the Synod of Dort, at least at that time, those in power declared Calvinism orthodox and Arminianism heresy. They understood both could not be considered orthodox. Are they both considered orthodox today? I would say yes. I would also state that some would not separate today over holding different views on this matter. Back then, one was called orthodox, the other heresy. Type A’s desire truth, not multiplicity. They believe in a single truth on a particular doctrine. Call it egotistical, call it dogmatic, call it absurd, whatever you like, that is how they think.

Of course, some doctrine matters to them more than others, like anyone. But they focus on being holy, being soul winners, being ambassadors for Christ to the world. Another thing about Type A fundy’s: I don’t think they think about associating with past theologians. This is strictly a Protestant thing, in my view. Men in Protestant circles, associate with Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. Most Type A fundy’s don’t to that. They may emulate a certain contemporary leader they learned under or admire, but they don’t think about whether or not they would separate from Spurgeon. He’s dead. They read these scholars, but why discuss whether or not you would separate with someone who is no longer here?

I think another truth about Type A fundy’s is that they would not consider themselves Protestant. For those who grew up being taught that those who hold to Baptist doctrine came out of the Protestant Reformation, they cannot understand how those who don’t see themselves as Protestants think in these terms. Rather than trying to think like them or understand why they do, people ridicule and demean their positions. They ridicule Armitage, Christian, and Carroll and others and those who read them. I think it’s ironic with all this talk of unity, that everyone attacks Type A fundy’s for their views. (it goes both ways of course, but my point is it is done by all parties not just Type A’s) I have seen scores of pastors and theologians on this board and others just excoriating things like Trail of Blood, those who believe free churches existed apart from Roman Catholicism, etc. Type A fundy’s think different because they do work from a different world view. As we discuss the doctrine of biblical separation, you need to know why Type A’s think as they do. They see the battle for biblical separation as one that has existed since the early church, not just since the Protestant Reformation or the Fundamentalist/Modernist Movement.

Speaking of twists, I find it very disarming that many on this board who believe in the concept of a universal church or body of believers, would treat other brethren (Type A’s) in the manner that has become customary here. You wonder why Type A’s don’t post here, many (like Dr. Tetreau) have made them unwelcome. I am not here to say that Type A’s are faultless either. I don’t consider myself part of either Type A’s or Type B’s because I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist, and never have. I believe in the fundamentals of the faith, but it neither labels me nor limits me when I search the Scriptures to determine truth. It’s a shame this got off the beaten path of the doctrine of separation. I search for truth in the Scriptures. If someone starts their interaction on the topic of finding consensus and then blames one group over another for the inability to get to it, they allowed their disdain for one group to grind the conversation to a halt. I think this is a worthy topic for discussion. In order to find consensus, we need to see where we differ and where we agree, just as Aaron stated above. Hopefully, we can get back to our discussion on it.

KML

Why discuss separation from men who are dead? Because it helps give some perspective to the question of living people you would separate from. If Charles Spurgeon were alive today, would you separate from him? Would you separate from living people today who believe what he believed? This is another take on Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees for building monuments to the same prophet that their fathers killed. (Even though they claimed to believe exactly what the fathers believed.) Some of the same people today who read Spurgeon, admire his ministry (especially his big church and his effective soul-winning), quote him with approval, and sometimes even print his sermons, will also castigate as heretics men living today who believe exactly what Spurgeon believed. Hmmm… Ah, consistency, thou art a rare jewel.

G. N. Barkman

Pastor,

If he was a Calvinist, yes I would have limited opportunities of fellowship with him. I think while Reformed brethren maybe kin, their doctrine is dangerous for new and older believers alike. The movement of Independent Baptist Churches towards becoming “Reformed Baptist” is one of the most troubling movements in our day. Perhaps I am different, but I don’t admire various theologians, pastors, etc. And what is it with all these pithy little statements? As if they mean anything. I have castigated no one, but Calvin did actually have people murdered. But let’s go with consistency. Do you believe it is orthodox to accept both Calvinism and Arminianism as biblical? Can you have fellowship with an Arminian? Also, let’s take Spurgeon for a second since you mentioned him. He was brutalized by men in the Baptist Union and even his brother James joined with those who opposed him. Those who claim to follow Spurgeon could probably not separate the way he did, at loss to himself personally and in his ministry. They would rather follow men, and clever theologians following the latest fad in doctrine, than following the word of God alone, just like his enemies.

KML

[KLengel] I think while Reformed brethren maybe kin, their doctrine is dangerous for new and older believers alike. The movement of Independent Baptist Churches towards becoming “Reformed Baptist” is one of the most troubling movements in our day.

Where is the ‘dislike’ button when you need it!

Calvinism is NOT dangerous and churches moving toward a greater respect for the Word of God (which is what it is) should NOT be troubling to anyone.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

John,

So ONLY Calvinists and Reformed Baptists are moving toward a greater respect for the Word of God? Amazing! As I stated, very dangerous! There is a prime example of universal body unity at work! And they say Type A fundies are bad! Really? How far mankind has fallen to accept these statements.

KML

[KLengel] So ONLY Calvinists and Reformed Baptists are moving toward a greater respect for the Word of God? Amazing! As I stated, very dangerous! There is a prime example of universal body unity at work!

Now you’re quoting words I did not write!

Let me see now: you have only 11 posts on SI and you’ve decided to aim your big guns at Calvinists, misrepresenting US badly in the process.

Frankly, I’m not looking for unity with someone who is intent on misrepresenting fellow believers like you are.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

John,

Your implied conclusion in your post was that those who are “Reformed Baptists” are moving toward a greater respect for the Word of God, as though no other churches were. Please be very careful to accuse people when your own words are written above.

Doesn’t anyone else get tired of reading the veiled innuendo’s on this board to people who are not Calvinists, who are not liberal when it comes to music or culture, to people who are not Type B or C, as Dr. Tetreau has defined them? Again, it is quite funny that I have been reading posts on this place for years, and you can all bash others who don’t believe like you, but dare someone call you out on your words and innuendo’s, and then “you are misrepresenting Calvinists.” Perhaps you should be more specific, rather than implying a thought and getting upset because someone called you to the mat on it. I only represented what I thought you implied. If you didn’t imply it, then be careful next time, and be more specific. If you thought others were moving in the same direction, why not say so, and declare who they are. Why not say so? Because that wasn’t your point, was it? As for the number of posts, who really cares! Why does that matter? I could say that you haven’t posted on your blog in 4 months, or that it’s only gotten 3400+ hits in over 7 years according to your counter, so what does that say about your writing? Would you like others to draw conclusions from that? I wouldn’t think so, but I was trying to follow your way of thinking.

Look, I disagreed with the Synod of Dort, and I believe Calvinism is heresy. I believe Reformed Theology is very dangerous. I am sorry if you don’t like that. I don’t believe that both Arminianism and Calvinism can both be right. Either both are wrong, and something else is right, or one of them are wrong and one is right. Period. I have a right to my perspective and I do believe Reformed Baptists are a danger to Christianity. Plain and simple.

KML

Aaron,

You raised a very good point in your article, specifically:

  • What kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation from other apparently-genuine believers and ministries?
  • How do we even go about deciding what kinds of beliefs and practices are grounds for separation?

I must agree with Dr. McLachlan’s remark from his Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, and say that if there is no “thus saith the Lord,” we must not separate. A few points:

  • Separation is a negative term in Scripture, specifically used of a brother who is being Scripturally disobedient
  • We would all agree that some matters in Scripture are pretty clear, that is, they are explicit or implicit (e.g. salvation by faith, the Trinity). Some are general principles and still others are mere personal opinion.
  • I submit that unless we have an explicit or implicit teaching of Scripture we must not “separate.” We may choose not to fellowship, but we cannot say that brother is being Scripturally disobedient.

Most of the debate over separation has to with confusing principles, or worse - mere personal preferences, with clear commands and teachings of Scripture. I believe if we can begin making these distinctions, we will be a lot better off. There are a whole host of issues to discuss once we get into the nuts and bolts of this, but I’ll wait to see if this thread climbs out of the ditch before I continue!

Another issue, are we just engaging in semantics when we proclaim, “I can’t say I’ll ‘separate’ from Bro. Franeknstein, but I certainly won’t fellowship with him?” I don’t think so, because there is a clear difference between willful Scriptural disobedience and a difference of opinion and interpretation.

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

One question I have for you in this regards…Do you believe this all depends on your church and their views of biblical separation? The members of a local church covenant together with God to believe certain doctrines and certain practices, do they not? I think where the confusion comes is when members don’t understand what they have covenanted together with their church and God, and personally then accept views and practices contrary to their church and the covenant they made with both. This would address the issues of both personal separation and ecclesiastical separation. Since we all go to different churches, we all covenant different things as separate distinct local churches.

Where the challenges occur, is whether or not we can associate with or should separate from other churches, and I think that is dependent on the endeavor. On a personal level, I think we need to realize that we have made a commitment that we believe our lives should be governed by that covenant which each of us made with our churches and our God. (of course, it is important that that covenant be biblically based in its content.) When we decide to act outside of that agreed upon covenant, this can cause issues for that individual church with that member. If I may, let me bring up a sore subject, just to give an example.

If a local church is dispensational in its beliefs and proclaims Calvinism as heresy, it would be difficult for someone who believed in Calvinism to covenant with that church, would it not? It would also be the same if a Reformed Baptist church had a person who wanted to join the church who believed Arminianism to be correct. I think when a church is “open” to multiple views, it’s covenant has to be very open and promotes a sense of confusion among its people. I think that our individual churches have become too open to multiple views and it causes a great deal of issues.

I personally think the fundamentalist movement has led us together for some essentials of the faith (as some would refer to them), but that bond has also led to us seeing the glaring differences between our beliefs and practices of our individual churches. When people from one church, thru its pastors or theologians try to convince other pastors, theologians or people from another church that their view is, let’s be nice and say, an “option”, it causes division. The reason I go to a Baptist church is not because I am not Methodist, but because I believe the Baptist doctrine and practices to be correct. We don’t agree, and we think we can easily agree, but our differences are there for reasons, and perhaps we simply cannot rally around separation like we could the fundamentals of the faith because of our view of the church we belong to. A movement such as fundamentalism has different boundaries than a local church. One final note, if one accepts the premise of a universal body of Christ, the issues become even more complex, because then we are trying to find agreements across multiple church views on doctrine. Again, perhaps that is fine for a movement, but to come to a consensus among various churches in an area like separation, feels like an attempt to dictate from the decisions of a group of outsiders who agree what separation should mean to a particular local church who has covenanted together what to believe and practice.

What do you think?

KML

Do you believe this all depends on your church and their views of biblical separation?

Yes. I am a Baptist, and believe the NT clearly teaches the primacy and autonomy of the local church. That is why, in another thread some time ago, I mentioned to Jay that, to some extent, I don’t worry whether somebody agrees with me on a principle of separation or not. I don’t have to worry about his church and his orbit; I only have to worry about my own! That doesn’t mean I don’t care, but it doesn’t matter a great deal to me.

If a local church is dispensational in its beliefs and proclaims Calvinism as heresy, it would be difficult for someone who believed in Calvinism to covenant with that church, would it not? It would also be the same if a Reformed Baptist church had a person who wanted to join the church who believed Arminianism to be correct.

I see what you’re saying, and I would agree so far as it goes. I don’t think Calvinism and dispensationalism are at odds with one another, though! A church member would certainly have to agree to the church covenant and statement of beliefs to join. Another pitfall would be having a statement of faith so detailed that only people EXACTLY LIKE YOU could possibly agree to it.

Also, how nuanced do we really think the average church member is on doctrine? I had an 86-yr old church member, a life-long Christian, ask me the other day, “Pastor, do you have to be baptized in order to be saved? I want my grandkids to be in church so bad, I wish I could tell them they need to come to this church and be baptized or they’ll go to hell …”

I think when a church is “open” to multiple views, it’s covenant has to be very open and promotes a sense of confusion among its people. I think that our individual churches have become too open to multiple views and it causes a great deal of issues.

The issue here is what I believe Pickering termed “levels of fellowship.” There may be greater toleration for divergent views depending on the context. For instance, say you have a heavy LDS presence in your area, and you decide to bring in a special speaker to talk about whether LDS folks are really Christian. Pretend you want to call James White, a Reformed Baptist apologist, to address the issue. I disagree with him on particular redemption, aspects of his soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology. But, he won’t be coming to address that, will he? Wouldn’t it be perfectly acceptable to tell him, “Look, we’re dispensational, Baptist fundamentalists over here! Reformed theology is off the table, ok?”

We don’t agree, and we think we can easily agree, but our differences are there for reasons, and perhaps we simply cannot rally around separation like we could the fundamentals of the faith because of our view of the church we belong to. A movement such as fundamentalism has different boundaries than a local church.

Yes, I agree. I think fundamentalism is a “big tent” philosophy of ministry that spans a theological gamut of options. It is bigger than dispensational, fundamentalist Baptists, but we are increasingly the only ones who will self-identify as fundamentalists any longer.

One final note, if one accepts the premise of a universal body of Christ, the issues become even more complex, because then we are trying to find agreements across multiple church views on doctrine. Again, perhaps that is fine for a movement, but to come to a consensus among various churches in an area like separation, feels like an attempt to dictate from the decisions of a group of outsiders who agree what separation should mean to a particular local church who has covenanted together what to believe and practice.

I agree with what Hiscox wrote in his classic work on Baptist polity; there is both a universal and a local church. I would say that the universal, corporate body of Christ should (ideally) be organized and structured into autonomous, local NT churches.

I’m only half answering your questions, and basically thinking out loud. I’m a young Pastor, so I’m sure somebody more experienced can chime in with more substantive comments. I just don’t see anybody coming to broad agreement over separation. Because I am a Baptist, I don’t particularly see a need to do so, either. Maybe I haven’t thought that one through enough, but there it is. I’m off to make coffee with my new french press …

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

Ken,

I think Tyler has summed up some of the issues pretty well. You yourself have admitted that you can’t separate over everything, and as Bible-believing Christians we believe there are key doctrines obviously worthy of separating over. So what we are down to is defining something between those two views, and finding those lines of separation (and non-cooperation). The local church is certainly one of the places where those battle lines are drawn, and the church doctrinal statement and covenant are two places where those lines can be laid out.

However, we know that there can be discussion and personal fellowship outside of our local-churches. This occurs at a minimum when special speakers or missionaries come, but it is also true that the members will have Christian contacts and fellowship outside the local church. This occurs even to some degree here on SI. We also know that working together in ministry is different from other types of fellowship. There are people of many views that participate here on SI, and each of us would find some we can cooperate with and some we can’t. That’s the nature of Christianity. We tend to look at this as our own views being correct and others not (and I would agree that on any issue, more than one view can’t be correct), but I think it’s more likely that all of us have incorrect views in some way, which is why some charity needs to be present in all our interactions, even if we must remain true to our own beliefs. We should also recognize that non-cooperation is not necessarily the same as separation, but it’s not always seen that way. That’s why I believe the OP’s call for more understanding of separation is critical.

SI, of course, is a place that is open to all of fundamentalism, and even those who have fundamental views on the key doctrines named in our statement without naming the name. You would be wrong to say that only Calvinism (for instance) is accepted here. I’m a moderator here, and I’m not a Calvinist, and further, I don’t come from a Baptist background. But because of the nature of SI as a discussion forum and NOT a church, different opinions will be expressed, and SI is generally NOT the place to condemn all Calvinists (or all Arminians) as being heretical. That is for inside your local church (if your church together as a body deems that appropriate). However, you certainly will find that some views are defended more than others. We don’t have many “local church only” or KJVO types here, for example. That doesn’t mean they can’t participate, but being in the minority, they may find it (fairly or unfairly) more necessary to defend their views than others who are more in the majority. That’s just the nature of human interaction.

As a forum, we have (at least) a couple of goals which seem incompatible — we want to see the free expression of ideas surrounding and key to our faith, but we also want to keep unprofitable types of interaction to a minimum. That is hard to do, and we don’t always do it perfectly, or even well. Nonetheless, if you can deal with our human frailties, you might find SI a good venue in which you can participate. If, on the other hand, you find that SI is not “narrow” enough for you (and many have expressed that over the years), then that’s OK too, but please don’t hang around only to tell us that. That would quickly enter the realm of “unprofitable interaction,” at least as defined in this forum.

Dave Barnhart