E-Separation ... a Need for a "Fundybook"?
I have experienced this. Several years ago, I was rebuked by one brother for being on sermonaudio.com. He said that sermonaudio was not practicing biblical separation and I was compromising for being on there. He also said that Bob Jones University and other fundamentalist institutions were compromising for being on sermonaudio.
On top of this, I once received a phone call from a preacher telling me that my church web site was “New Age.” He proceeded to rebuke me for being such a compromiser.
On top of this, I once received a phone call from a preacher telling me that my church web site was “New Age.” He proceeded to rebuke me for being such a compromiser.
I think the messiness of the new “social media” is a good thing in this regard. What it does is force folks to reflect about what biblical separation means. It’s not really that these websites and such present any new application of the principles involved, but they expose gaps in what separation has been understood to mean/assumed to mean when you carry it out in its various forms.
A huge part of it has always been “What does this relationship or participation in this ministry/event communicate about the others who are also in the relationship/ministry/event?” IOW, what does my participation mean?
During my BJU days, a buzz phrase we heard often was “share the platform.” Being on the same platform was understood to be meaningful. Usually, what it meant was assumed and the speaker skipped ahead to the issue of whom we ought not to “share the platform” with (at least, that’s how it seemed at the time). It often struck me as odd to emphasize a scenario that most of us would never have the opportunity to experience in our lifetimes (was Billy Graham going to invite me to sit up there with him at one of his big events so I could decline the invitation?). Obviously separation means a lot more than that, and we knew that back then, too. I’m just illustrating how rote it can all get. The web disrupts the endless parroting and might lead to some further thinking-through of what the principles are and how they work out.
A huge part of it has always been “What does this relationship or participation in this ministry/event communicate about the others who are also in the relationship/ministry/event?” IOW, what does my participation mean?
During my BJU days, a buzz phrase we heard often was “share the platform.” Being on the same platform was understood to be meaningful. Usually, what it meant was assumed and the speaker skipped ahead to the issue of whom we ought not to “share the platform” with (at least, that’s how it seemed at the time). It often struck me as odd to emphasize a scenario that most of us would never have the opportunity to experience in our lifetimes (was Billy Graham going to invite me to sit up there with him at one of his big events so I could decline the invitation?). Obviously separation means a lot more than that, and we knew that back then, too. I’m just illustrating how rote it can all get. The web disrupts the endless parroting and might lead to some further thinking-through of what the principles are and how they work out.
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.
Hopefully when people start taking a good look at the “messiness” of the current social media scene they’ll stop and reflect on their current practices and maybe end up in a better position. Or they could just get back out of social media once and for all and declare it a lost cause.
Three guesses which option I think the majority of people who would actually consider e-separation would choose, and the first two don’t count. ;)
Three guesses which option I think the majority of people who would actually consider e-separation would choose, and the first two don’t count. ;)
Discussion