Separation: Non-Fellowship of Convenience (Part 2 of 4)

In Part 1, I argued that the term separation should be used only for situations involving sin or false teaching. This means that “departing” without censure is sufficiently dissimilar from separation that it should be considered as a different category. It should not be called “separation.” This category would include those times when we do not label our brother as “in sin,” but we still choose to “depart.” I suggested Non-Fellowship of Convenience (NFC) as a label for this category. This paper isn’t really about “separation,” in my opinion. But it is about something that several people like to call “separation,” so it is important to address it in this series. In this paper, I want to explain NFC. If you have not read Separation: Split or Lump (Part 1 of 4), then just realize that I do not believe that situations that lack censure (either sin or false teaching) should be called “separation.” The phrase I use for “separation without censure” is Non-Fellowship of Convenience.

Two types of situations do involve non-fellowship but are not biblical separation: NFC (Non-Fellowship of Convenience) and NFI (Non-Fellowship of Impossibility).

NFI means that engaging in fellowship would be humanly impossible. For instance, we can’t fellowship with those who are dead. We don’t have to be concerned about when and how to apply this. It’s impossible to get this wrong.

NFC means it is more convenient for two groups not to fellowship than to fellowship.

• When should we apply Non-Fellowship of Convenience?
  
• Is Non-Fellowship of Convenience optional or required?
  
• When we do apply it, what does it practically look like?

When should we apply Non-Fellowship of Convenience?

As a youth leader, I get flyers from camps and colleges asking if we want to come for a weekend. Since our schedule is full of other good things, most times I say, “No.” So I choose for my youth group not to engage in some opportunities for fellowship. Sometimes, I regret that my schedule is full because the opportunity seems like a good one. Other times, I’m glad it’s full because I have a good excuse to say, “No,” instead of, “Wow, that sounds like a big waste of time,” or, “No, you guys are weird.” In fact, planning ahead so that your schedule is full is a good defense against feeling pressured to agree to activities you’d rather not do.

Application of NFC in areas of convictions

I will use music as an example of an issue on which we can form these decisions. Therefore, let me lay some groundwork for my view on music and fellowship.

My church uses some “praise and worship” music in our services. Our youth listen to some CCM, and so do I. I do not believe that these practices represent “worldliness” in the manner in which it is condemned in 1 John 2:15.

I do believe that those who are limited by their conscience in regard to music have a legitimate conviction. If they have reasoned that such music is “worldly,” then for them it truly is wrong; and I can see that they have a Bible-based, plausible argument for their conviction.

When people differ on music, it is wrong for either of them to judge the other. So “separation [with censure]” is not an option. But even so, it is still reasonable, at times, to limit fellowship with him. This is NFC.

If I am to fellowship with a man who has this conviction, I must lay aside my music. I must take on his conviction with the goal that we can have true fellowship. By true fellowship, I mean expressing the commonality of such things as our redemption in Jesus Christ, our love of His Word, our desire to be ruled by Him, and our desire to explore His Word to learn how to serve Him.

“Taking up of his convictions” achieves the following two goals:
1 – In order NOT to encourage him to do that which his conscience forbids.
2 – In order NOT to tempt him to blaspheme that which is good.

This taking up of the restrictions of our brothers isn’t difficult for one person. But for my youth group to do, it requires effort and training on my part. It is training that they need, of course. But prior to fellowship with an anti-CCM youth group, I would want to be confident that my youth would know how to handle the situation. That takes effort. In our day of multitudes of choices of camps, colleges, and church activities, often it is simply more convenient to fellowship with those who share our same convictions in these issues. So we do have Non-Fellowship of Convenience over music. But the convenience is NOT that it is more convenient for us to avoid the anti-CCM group than it is to get together and argue and offend. Arguing and offending shouldn’t even be an option. It should be a given that if we do fellowship, we lay aside our music for the sake of our brothers. Therefore, when I say, Non-Fellowship of “Convenience,” I mean that it is inconvenient to do the prerequisite things necessary for fellowship–-namely, train my young people about the reasons and reality of anti-CCM convictions and about what taking up someone else’s convictions really means.

Either side can apply Non-Fellowship of Convenience. Think of the thought process of two youth leaders. They differ on CCM, but want to have fellowship: If I (and those in my group) put aside our music for the weekend, could you fellowship with us? Most would say, “Yes.” And you should do so. This is fellowship despite inconvenience.

If we agree that right now my group isn’t ready to fellowship with an anti-CCM group and do it rightly, then we would agree that fellowship is unwise. How would you describe that? I would not call this “separation” simply because your anti-CCM status is not sin. It is just more convenient for me not to fellowship than it is to quickly try to train my youth in this.

What if you say that right now you suspect that your teens will sin by judging mine if they learn of the music we use? If you say that your group isn’t ready to deal with discussions that might come up in a godly manner, and it really is probably better if we don’t get together, then that is Non-Fellowship of Convenience. You curtailed fellowship because it is more convenient not to fellowship than to try to quickly train your kids.

In both of the above situations, the groups are in need of training; but that training will need to precede fellowship. I hope it is becoming clear that by “convenience,” I don’t mean that the issue is trivial. The application of NFC may be important.

Application of NFC in areas of convictions does not include actions that are explicit sin in the Bible

A couple comes to us and asks if they can help with youth group. We find out they are living together unmarried. The answer is, “No, you can’t help.”

“But,” they say, “We’re willing to live by your convictions. What if we lay aside our objectionable behavior whenever we are with the youth? We promise not to be promiscuous when we’re at youth group meetings.” This issue is not the same as with musical opinions. This is explicit sin. The answer would still be, “NO.” This is not the time for Non-Fellowship of Convenience. This is time for separation because sin is going on. In fact, loving church discipline is necessary.

Application of NFC in areas of stewardship of workload

Another couple asks to help with the youth group. They are a nice, obedient couple; but they’re not very bright. When kids ask them questions about the Bible, the kid often knows more than they do. They mess up schedules. They choose low-quality books for study. I have two choices with this situation. (1) I can spend the time and effort to train this couple, or (2) I can choose not to have them around to mess things up. If I don’t have the time to watch and train them, or if I don’t even think they are trainable, then option 2 would be the better one. Allowing them to help might just increase my workload. This is Non-Fellowship of convenience (it is simply easier to depart than to train). But if they are trainable and I have the time to train them, then option 1 would be better. I would be opting for fellowship despite the inconvenience of having to train them.

Application of NFC in areas of wisdom in choices

What about the Paul-Barnabas situation? Nothing in the text indicates that either of them called the choice of the other sinful. The most likely picture is that Paul and Barnabas had differing conclusions about Mark. Paul believed that confidence in a successful journey was more important than a second chance for Mark. Barnabas believed that the second chance was the right thing to do. Each wanted to follow what he calculated to be wisdom. They suited their actions to their disparate opinions. I believe that each of them was following the wisdom that God gives to those who ask. I think Dr. Paul Hartog would say that they weren’t “separating from” each other. Instead, he’d say that they were “separating to” their wise choices. Or, better yet, both Paul and Barnabas, if following the thinking of Dr. Hartog, would say they were “separating to” wisdom.

Application of NFC in areas of non-central doctrines

Non-Fellowship of Convenience is also useful for non-central doctrinal issues. One of my favorite professors while at Bob Jones University was Michael P. V. Barrett, who is now president of Geneva Reformed Seminary. He is Presbyterian; I am Baptist. BJU chose to hire him to teach despite the fact that he holds some teachings that are at odds with other BJU professors. This is fellowship despite inconvenience. I am sure that, at times, differences arise in such an institution due to these differences. This might be inconvenient for the Bible faculty. It leads to questions like, “Well, Professor X, Professor Y taught us this…” In fact, it might be very inconvenient for Dr. Barrett and I to plant a church together. But I believe that it would be possible to do so. We would have to plan for a lot of differences over baptism, especially. There would be a lot of inconveniences. The majority of us would avoid these inconveniences by utilizing NFC. We form Baptist and Presbyterian churches, not Bapto-presbyterian or Presbyobaptist ones. But we should be careful here not to label our brothers as in sin or “false teaching” by calling our non-fellowship “separation.”

Would I allow Dr. Barrett to preach in my church? Sure (I’m not a final authority, though). In doing so, we would have to acknowledge our differences, and he would have to agree not to sow discord in our church. So there would be inconveniences, but even pulpit-sharing fellowship would be possible.

Is Non-Fellowship of Convenience optional or required?

Romans 14:22 gives instructions to those who have confidence to do something: “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God.” Is this telling us not to “share our faith”? No. It is telling us that there are times when we are not to express our “faith”—our “confidence” with regard to some action should be kept to ourselves. The next verse (14:23) gives the picture of a brother who is encouraged to do the thing that he has judged to be unclean—he is condemned—he is guilty. This is one risk of fellowship – at times your actions might tempt someone else to sin – rather than encouraging them to do right.

There are two obvious remedies for this problem, and one that is uncommon:
1 - Romans 15:1 - Those who do have confidence that they can do something must abstain in the presence of those who are non-confident that they can do it. By changing our behavior, we can fellowship with our brothers. And we ought to do this. Fellowship is important and sometimes it can’t happen without this type of self-sacrifice. It is inconvenient, but we should be happy to do it.
2 - Romans 14:22 - Have your faith to yourself before God. In other words, by departing in some way, one may do before God what he cannot do before some of his brothers. This Non-Fellowship is certainly more convenient. By not fellowshipping with those who are not able to do something, we are free to do or not do that action without concern for causing offence. This is by far the most common method of dealing with differing convictions.

There are a few caveats here.

1. Each brother still is responsible to not judge or blaspheme that which is good.
2. There is a limit to how much we must take on the convictions of others. Paul does not hold back in saying that it is ok to eat. In v. 15:1, he puts himself in the group that can eat. Therefore, we may allow those who cannot do something in faith to know that we do that thing. Allowing your brothers to know that you do it should not be taken as enough to encourage them to violate their own consciences. After all, Paul let them know as he wrote Scripture.
3. The Apostolic Decree (Acts 15) did preserve a few points of the Law - Idol-meat, fornication, things strangled. But it also publicly stated that many many other points were not to be expected of the Gentiles. These other things were to be allowed in Jerusalem. So it is not always necessary to live according to the strictest person around. At some point the strict ones need to realize that other believers do not accept their convictions. They will have to live by their convictions even though many around them obviously do not.

So there is a third remedy for the problem of encouraging a brother to violate his conscience:
3 – Be sure that your brother is fully convinced of his conviction and will not be “tempted” by your action – either to sin by doing it or by judging it. You should be able to eat in front of him if you are careful to be sure that he will not be encouraged by your actions. This third strategy has a few problems of it’s own. It is fairly rare in modern Christianity, so people will not “naturally” do it. They will first need to take the time and effort to get to know each other. So this is based on a fairly detailed knowledge of those with whom we will fellowship.

The most common way of dealing with these differences in convictions is to depart. Sometimes we may not call our brother’s action sin, but if it would be sin for us then it is simplest (most “convenient”) to simply form a different group or church. One GARBC church in our town uses very conservative music - ours uses some CCM/P&W. This is a fine arrangement. Our youth groups have gotten together at times, which is nice. Our churches often have a Good Friday service together. When we bring music, we bring music that will be acceptable to them - at least if I get to put my two cents in.

When we do apply it, what does it practically look like?
Non-Fellowship of Convenience is backed by Bible principles (wisdom, stewardship, etc.) Dr. Hartog does a very good job of discussing the thought process here – so I’ll refer you to the Faith Pulpit articles that I referenced in Part 1. What I call NFC, Dr. Hartog calls “separation to.”

1. It should be done with precision and clarity.

We should be plain with those we are Non-Fellowshipping with that we are not “separating with censure.” We should not judge their behavior as sin.

We should be clear about our convictions and why we need them to modify their behavior for fellowship.

2. It should be done with regret.

Fellowship is nice and we should, in general, promote true fellowship. We are indeed commanded to fellowship. Romans 14 is really just a precursor to one of the great pro-fellowship passages in the Bible.
15:1–7 explains the importance of fellowship.
16:1-16 names a bunch of Jews and gentiles that Paul wants to see in fellowship.
16:17–18 tells them what to do about those who don’t obey that teaching. If they cause divisions or cause stumbling, then they should be avoided.

3. It not be done to the point where fellowship of some type is excluded.

If one person likes CCM and no one else in town does, he should fellowship with the traditional music church. He should do so for the purpose of true fellowship and not for the purpose of “fixing” their view of music. If the case is the opposite (anti-CCM guy whose only option for fellowship is a CCM church), he may have to step out during the music, but he should be able to fellowship around the Word. Of course, church planting is always an option if he’s able.

Suppose that another youth leader in town says to me, “Hey, I’m a single guy. I have no lady in my church that can do counseling for girls. A couple girls really need it. My board has suggested that we get our youth groups together some. We’re hoping that one of your female leaders could help us here. What do you think?” Preparing for fellowship might be inconvenient, but it also might be very beneficial.

4. It should not be done to the point where fellowship is impaired.

1 Corinthians 12:17 - “If the whole body were the eye, where would the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?” I believe that, to far to great an extent, there is a discrepancy in gifting between the populations of our churches. Some love to show mercy. It is their gift. The weakness is that they may want to show love so much that they don’t give the truth. Here I am thinking of the churches that are continually building bridges with the community, but never seem to actually give the Gospel. Others with other gifts are most interested in the truth and purity of the church. They may be so interested in purity that they will stomp all over someone who simply has a different conviction or who doesn’t understand some Bible teachings. Or they sit in their church and Christian school and say, “I can’t share my faith because I literally don’t know anyone who isn’t a believer.” And this doesn’t really bother them!

I believe that these believers are in need of the other. The problem is that they annoy each other. They decided long ago that Non-Fellowship would be easier than getting along. So they formed different churches. It is my belief that by over-segregating we have somewhat divorced the “eye” from the “nose.”

5. The application of NFC is up to the individual believer.

It should be obvious from 1-3 that the application of NFC will be tough. As we make these conclusions we should base them on Bible principles about wisdom, respect of elders and wise counsel, stewardship, etc. We combine these with what we know of the world we live in. These conclusions will limit us in our choices and in that sense they are “commands.” Our confidence in these commands will be less than that which we have in the explicit commands of the Word. For instance, wisdom is commanded. But we have all been in situations in which wise, experienced people apply wisdom differently. There are often good reasons for different conclusions. One person may be accounting for his own tendency to some particular sin or accounting for his own giftedness.

What do we do when a brother does not apply NFC the same as we do? We cannot determine that a brother has sinned in his application of NFC. Therefore there can be no “secondary separation” where the primary event is the sin of failure to employ NFC (or “separation without censure”).

Exception #1: Church leadership – The leadership of a church must make choices for the church in this area. The Apostolic Decree is a good model here. Church leadership has the right to say, “We will not use X music. We will not fellowship with X church unless they understand that to leave their music home.” I think that this should be done very sparingly – but that discussion will have to come another time.

Exception #2: The application of NFC is up to the individual. But each individual must actually live in accordance to what he calculates is the wise way to live. We cannot determine that a brother has sinned in his application of NFC. But he can determine it. Therefore, if someone tells me that he is convicted that he should not have a particular fellowship – and then he does have that fellowship, he has sinned. This rare case does open the door for separation with censure.

Exception #3: All of us must be seeking to understand the Word and apply it to our lives. Therefore, if a brother altogether denies the teaching of wisdom or bearing the convictions of others, or stewardship, then he is in need of teaching. If he refuses to be taught by the Word, then his position is one of false teaching. This also opens the door for separation with censure. But this is not the case any time two brothers disagree about some doctrine. Two things must come together: 1) acknowledgement that the Word teaches the doctrine in question 2) refusal to accept that doctrine. If he has a different interpretation that is plausible to him, then I will not censure. Of course, Non-Fellowship of Convenience is still an option.

6. In some rare cases, both parties might be convicted that they must do a particular thing.

Most convictions are regarding things that we must avoid (alcohol, music, etc.). But at times our conclusions might bind two of us to disparate positive actions. If so, then neither can take on the conviction of his brother. Non-Fellowship would, in this case, be far more convenient than trying to design a ministry that allows two such people to work together.

Non-Fellowship of Convenience acknowledges that a brother is not in sin. Therefore one could fellowship with him. Sometimes the benefit of that fellowship will be great. Other times there are many other options for fellowship and this fellowship opportunity offers little benefit. Sometimes the inconveniences of fellowship are huge. Other times they are small and we easily make whatever practice changes are needed for fellowship. The benefits will have to be weighed against the inconveniences.

These are complicated decisions. But they are also important ones. I hope this paper helps some people think through some of these issues. I’ve tried to suggest some general principles to guide Non-Fellowship of Convenience (or as some like to call it, “separation without censure”). I look forward to discussing them.