Six Degrees of Separation

After reading the article, there’s really only one thing to do. Yes, I must separate from the author! Consider it done …

• Actually, I need to separate from anyone who clicks “like”, too - because if I don’t, I’m condoning their wickedness
• Actually, come to think of it, I need to separate from Jim, if he agrees with the article - because he posted it.
• If Jim agrees with the article, then I must also separate from SharperIron if it doesn’t repudiate him.
• If anyone won’t follow me and separate from SharperIron, then I must separate from them, too.

Oh, where will it end?

I remember mentioning an important church to my then-“pastor”, and all I got in response was a dismissive “huh”. No appreciation for what my college era pastor had done, no interaction even, just a dismissive huh.

I can see the importance of separation from those who truly deny the Gospel—the Osteens and Jakeses of the world and such—but what I see too often is, per the article, simply disagreement over music genre, beards, glasses, attire, and the like, or the simple fact that one had ever interacted with someone who was less than perfect doctrinally. To repeat something a lot of people smarter than I have noted, what would they have done with the One who dined with prostitutes and tax collectors? Who preached before Pharisees and Sadducees?

We believe that believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17); that believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Romans 16:17; Philippians 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15); and that believers and churches must strive to reflect God’s holiness and to live differently than those who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16; Ephesians 4:17-19).

The fallacy of the beard reasons that since it’s impossible to tell exactly how many whiskers are required to constitute a beard, there is no such thing as a beard.

In separation this takes the form of: it’s impossible to define everything that is grounds for separation, therefore there is no such thing as proper grounds for separation.

Of course, non-participating with apostates is pretty obvious (not really separation on a personal level, because we were never “together”). But when to separate from erring brethren? How about if we let the NT be our guide? … which means local churches separate from erring brethren after an appropriate process of personal confrontation and discipline?

And how about if we stop calling various kinds of selective cooperation “separation”?

I just think the whole topic would be less confusing if we stuck to NT categories.

I wrote a two-part article on secondary separation some years ago for SI. I need to read it again, to see if I still agree with myself …

I still remember once, when I put on a youth apologetics conference, I was told I couldn’t give out a copy of The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, because he was associated with Willow Creek. I’ll never forget that. How stupid can we be? Next month, I’m going to give away a free copy of Bill Hybel’s Just Walk Across the Room at church, because it’s a great book on personal evangelism. I don’t like Hybel’s method of ministry, and think he’s wrong about many things. But, it’s a good book. I’ll give it away with a smile on my face, knowing it’ll make some fundamentalists really mad …

Should I not give out J. Warner Wallace’s Cold Case Christianity, because he believes in evolution, and mentions it in passing in the book?

This kind of silliness only sounds good in the abstract. To be honest, secondary separation is more of a doctrine for pastors and theologians who don’t live and work in the real world.

Before you comment on this, beware - if you disagree with me on any of this, I’ll separate from you. And, if you’re consistent, you should immediately leave SI and not associate with it at all. After all, you can’t fellowship with a disobedient brother, can you!?

I always return to my Seminary training on fundamentalism:

• Is it an explicit or clearly implicit teaching of Scripture? Then, separate.
• Is it just a principle, not a didactic teaching which can be clearly proven? Meh, it depends - maybe just agree to disagree. Of course, this assumes you have the ability to fairly look at the other side, and concede they may have a point. That’s a rare gift. That’s why, in my secular field, most people aren’t good investigators - their bias’ get in the way of the facts.
• Is it a preference or opinion? Get a life and deal with it.

That’s a paraphrase from Dr. Oats’ notes, but that’s basically it. Extraordinarily helpful stuff. Extraordinarily balanced, and filled with common sense.

I’ll leave ya’ll with a word from Doug MacLachlan (Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism, 132-133):

If there is no clear cut, “Thus saith the Lord,” we shouldn’t judge and neither should we separate.

All well and good, so then why did the FBFI serve a whole issue about separation from “The Growing Convergent Menace” (TM) if what you say is true?

Ah, yes. The infamous “Covergent” issue of Frontline. I’ll never forget that edition, and the unfortunate screed by Dan Unruh. I have saved an electronic copy of that article, and I show it to everybody who wants to know what a wrong version of Christianity looks like. It’ll do me good service for, quite literally, the rest of my life. That one article epitomizes everything that is wrong with that particular flavor of fundamentalism.

That article, and the mindset it represented, is one of the last, desperate death throes of the dying, rotting organization known as the FBFI.

It’s all good though - Unruh separated from me (no, I’m not kidding) when I posted a public article with over 40 questions addressed to him.

I liked this author from the moment he talked about watching Dr. D. James Kennedy! LOL

Folks, here’s some advice when it comes to fundamentalist identity politics:

1. If you usually blindly support a particular flavor of Baptist fundamentalism, without any introspection or constructive thought, that means you’re a Company Man. It also means you’re unbalanced.
2. Don’t be a Company Man. Think for yourself, even if that means disagreeing with the Godly folks who trained you. You have a brain, so use it. If your congregation wants a robot, it can turn to Alexa or Siri.
3. It’s ok to disagree. If you blindly tow the line on everything your ecclesiastical sub-culture’s powerbrokers say, you’re probably foolish and shouldn’t be a leader. Step down and make room for someone else.
4. Your fundamentalist heroes could be wrong about something. Yes, it’s true.
5. Nobody cares about the fundamentalist politics but other pastors. That means it’s not important.
6. Most members of your church don’t care about the FBFI, IFCA or the GARBC. They care about Christ, the Gospel, and living holy lives. That’s means fundamentalism isn’t very important.
7. If “the movement” is more important to you than the original philosophy and impetus which inspired the movement in the first place (i.e. militant defense and offense against apostasy), then you’re unbalanced and unstable. Go buy yourself a life on Amazon and get some perspective.
8. Fundamentalism isn’t a confessional, pseudo-denomination. Anybody who acts like he, or his organization, is the enforcer for a narrow and very particular flavor of “fundamentalist orthodoxy” is a Company Man. Stay away from him.
9. Think of historic fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry, not a traditional movement. You’ll be happier.

If we define secondary separation as separation from a brother in Christ whom we believe is in error, then there seems to be a Biblical warrant for the practice. There is also a Biblical purpose for separation from a brother and that is restitution of our fellowship. That restitution is pursued by lovingly confronting that brother with what we perceive as his sin.

The problem many have with the secondary separation practiced today is that it is identical to first degree separation. There is no desire for restitution of fellowship and no effort made to pursue it. Simply put, men on the platform at T4G are treated like they were Rob Bell.

[Mike Harding]

We believe that believers and churches must separate from those who deny essential doctrines of the faith (Jude 3; 2 John 9-11; Romans 16:17); that believers and churches must separate from those who compromise the faith by granting Christian recognition and fellowship to those who have denied essential doctrines of the faith (Romans 16:17; Philippians 3:17-19; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15); and that believers and churches must strive to reflect God’s holiness and to live differently than those who have not experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:15-16; Ephesians 4:17-19).

Jay asked a good question about how this fits with the FBFI “convergent” issue, and my thought is that it it really depends on that last bit about “living differently”, and whether one can be asked to separate based on “living differently” in that interpretation. I can’t speak for Mike, but I do know that my interpretation of what constitutes actionable separation differs markedly from the FBFFI’s.

Really, I’m, like Ron, no enemy of the idea of secondary separation. I’ve done it myself, specifically when a church I was a member of was using materials from a guy who had compromised on the Trinity (greeting T.D. Jakes as a brother), preached at least a hint of prosperity theology, and expelled elected elders because they actually wanted to see the line items of a budget. So when someone compromises the Solas, the Fundamentals, the Trinity, and the like, I’m OK with that separation.

(and to be fair, it was almost primary separation, because the teaching that they were using was, politely speaking, nonsense, including the guy telling us, while obviously carrying at least an extra 50 lbs, that he’d overcome his “addiction” to food by fasting…nice try, but my eyes aren’t THAT bad!)

Where I draw the line is when the argument is made that if someone partakes of Jesus’ first miracle, or celebrates God’s goodness as is described in Psalm 150, then one ought to separate. Again, if the BFI can come up with arguments not rooted in “guilt by association” and the like that things have changed, I’ll listen, but….crickets so far.

“This is not to say that Pickering doesn’t adequately express the view of a separatist. This is not to say that Pickering wasn’t an amazing man of God who lived a very holy life. This is to say that this book was flawed in its explanation of ecclesiastical separation and has caused irreparable damage to a once thriving movement.”

I knew Ernest Pickering. I studied systematic theology with him as my professor. I served as a trustee of Central Seminary under his presidency. When I was executive director of Baptist World Mission he came to work in our administration. Pastor Teis’ statement above reveals his flawed understanding of Pickering. If the book is flawed in its explanation of ecclesiastical separation, then please give us chapter and page number.

The question at issue is: does Scripture ever instruct believers and local churches to separate from disobedient brothers? I refer to Romans 16:17 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15. You may call that secondary separation, or perhaps more accurately separation from a Christian brother as distinguished from separation from apostates (2 Cor 6:14-7:1). The fact remains that such separation is taught in the Word of God.

I’m very sorry that Pastor Teis so misrepresents a man whom I knew and loved. There wasn’t a trace of bitterness in him. I’m more deeply saddened that our brother doesn’t deal with those scriptural principles.

According to II Corinthians 6:14-18, there seem to be definite blessings accompanying first degree separation. The question I’ve asked for years of those who practice secondary separation from another Christian without contacting the brother and pursuing reconciliation is what do you hope to accomplish or gain from such anonymous action? (Let me state again that I believe in the proper practice of secondary separation.)

I appreciated Pickering’s book. Of course, separation is Biblical and necessary:

• On a personal level, a Christian ought to separate from another who is in deliberate and unrepentant sin. The details of how this works vary, depending on context.
• On an ecclesiastical level, a congregation ought to distance itself from another congregation that is disobedient to some portion of Scripture. There is a Baptist church in our “orbit” that is ridiculously contemporary, hip and is desperately trying to be “relevant” in the typical loser way. Last year, for example, our church did a joint Good Friday service with this congregation, and I sat dumbfounded as the “pastor” of this church never mentioned the Gospel at all, and just urged all the visitors from the community to “talk to somebody” if they wanted to know about salvation. This blasphemy was capped with an open invitation for everybody to partake of the Lord’s Supper. For various reasons, I’m going to do everything I can to lead our church to not participate in a joint Good Friday service with them. I don’t think we should be associated with that philosophy of ministry.

If this is “secondary separation,” then I’m for it. But, perhaps we could just drop the extra-biblical label and call it “separation?” The principles Larry Oats laid out during my Seminary training (which I briefly mentioned, somewhere above) are excellent and common sense. I took the author of this piece to be reacting against an extreme perversion of these principles, to the point where separation gets so far out of hand you eventually end up separating fom everybody who isn’t precisely like you.

If we can remember MacLachlan’s advice (“if there is no clear-cut ‘thus saith the Lord,” we shouldn’t separate), and the principle that we shouldn’t separate unless it’s over an explicit or clearly implicit teaching in Scripture, then we’d all be much happier … and Biblical.

Somebody has systematically gone through this thread and deliberately “disliked” every post critical of the excesses of the Baptist fundamentalist movement or the rotting corpse that is the FBFI. Whoever you are, I still love you … even if you separate from me.

Update - the “dislike” button was hit within eight minutes after I posted this.