Seeking on Separatism, Part One (?)
Dear friends:
I’m new to SI as a poster, though I am a longtime reader. While I disagree with some commenters and couldn’t agree more with others, nearly everything I’ve read has been stimulating and has served to sharpen my love for/pursuit of God and truth.
I need your help. I am a newcomer to Fundamentalism and find myself largely in the DBTS/Minnick/Harding/Horn/Brooks/Central/OBF/BJU camp. It has been a joy, after bad experiences with extremist forms of Fundamentalism, to find many “sane,” healthy men, ministries and churches out there. I did not know there were so many of you. Please receive my heartfelt thanks. So many of you pastors and college professors and even a blogger or two have brought me to a healthy place spiritually and restored my faith in the idea and practices of balanced, separatist Fundamentalism. You’ve helped me grow and for that I will be forever grateful.
One of the things I am still learning about is secondary separation (especially the reasons for it). That is why I’m posting this. What do any of you know about this church? A very dear friend has moved here and I am very uncomfortable with what I’ve seen on the website, and the little I’ve been able to find about its history online. I am worried in particular about its philosophy of culture, especially relating to music styles and church “atmosphere,” as well as the seeming (note the qualification!) lack of separation from the world, or brothers outside the local church.
So: Would this church be one to separate from, and if so, why?
I’m not trying to attack anyone, smear any good names, judge motives (which only God can know!), or denigrate the many wonderful things I am sure the church is doing, But at the same time I never want to endorse error or errant brothers, because I cannot harm them or my God by doing so.
I look forward to many fruitful discussions here, and making some new friends. (c:
For the sake of clarity, I wanted to provide some of my thoughts on “secondary separation”:
• New Testament local churches are under a Divine mandate to aggressively pursue purity by grace, both doctrinally and morally. This is not limited to separation from apostasy but of necessity includes refusal to identify in any way with the world system (and, yes, I do this think includes music and dress though I am in no wise an externalist or moralist), and fellowship with genuine believers inside or outside the local church when their lives, doctrine, or ministry practice falls habitually out of conformity with the Scriptures.
• A principle shared by Chris Anderson on SI years ago has been invaluable to me in understanding my relationships with professing brothers: Cooperation=Endorsement=Accountability=Culpability. Cooperation with a man or work implies not only some significant level of agreement but at the least a tacit endorsement of said man or work. As such, we must be very careful with whom we cooperate, to avoid putting our stamp of approval on the sin of error.
• Disobedience does not have to be consciously understood as such to be a problem. (If that were the case, we never would have separated from Billy Graham. I hardly think he viewed his compromise as compromise.)
• Rejecting separation in principle is grounds for separation, since it is rejection of a clear scriptural teaching.
• While 2 Thess 3 primarily refers to discipline in the local church, I believe it is a grossly simplistic reading to limit it to (a) church discipline alone (as if someone going morally or doctrinally haywire inside the fellowship warrants removal, but whomever you wish to bring into your pulpit or appear beside on a platform is peachy) and/or (b) laziness.
• I should not have to note, but will anyway, that the disobedience is not an isolated instance or inconsistency but rather is a habitual, settled direction. Biblical separatism is not a knee-jerk reaction but a last resort, done with mourning and heaviness. It must intend to restore the disobedient to a scriptural position as well as safeguard the virginal purity of the Bride.
We must, as Doran says, allow room for differing applications of the principles of biblical separatism so long as they are not so different that one’s commitment to the principle is called into question.
I welcome feedback. As I said I am “green” with this sort of issue so I am open to biblical correction if I am erring in any fashion.
In the end, we don’t need grace or truth. We need grace and truth. And for people to see Jesus in us, they must see both. --Randy Alcorn
Do you have any relationship with the church at the present time? Specifically:
- Do you attend there? (I think the answer is no)
- Do you give money there?
- Do they give money to you?
- Do they associate with you in some way?
If the answers to the above questions are No, No, No, and No then …
You do not have a relationship with the church at all.
Jim,
I think he’s asking about how to relate to his friend who has decided to attend there.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
David,
You said you’re in the BJ orb. I’m sure they have some information on the church you linked to. You might even check to see if they are on the approved list for the school.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I’ll preface my statement by saying that sometimes it is necessary to separate from a Christian brother. (Sometimes called secondary separation) The PURPOSE of this is to gain a brother by confronting him with his sin. This confrontation involves personal contact in a spirit of humility. When I have to practice of this kind of separation I ask myself two questions. Is my goal reconciliation? Is what my brother engaging in a sin?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
This is a complex topic, but I think it would be important for you to understand what you are separating from (if you decide to “separate”), before you make any rash decisions.
By your own words, you are worried about the church because of what you have seen online and some very sparse information. Why not attend a service with your friend? Maybe you could also download some sermons and listen (it will take more than one). Otherwise you would be acting as the one in Proverbs who judges a matter without hearing it.
But as far as true separation goes, I would agree with Jim above. If you don’t attend this church, send it money, cooperate with them in any ministry or have any other relationship with them other than the fact your friend goes there, then you are already separate from them. No further separation from the church is necessary.
If you are talking about separating from your friend, rather than from his church, you still need to ask yourself what that means. Not eating or having friendship any longer with him? Not being together with him in any ministry opportunity where both of you are there as individuals, rather than as representatives of your respective churches? Or not cooperating in official church ministry? All of these situations are different and would have to be judged differently.
First, though, since this is an issue for you, I believe you would be obligated to understand the whole situation better before you start talking separation based on your discomfort and the “seeming” lack of separation from the world.
Dave Barnhart
A very dear friend has moved here and I am very uncomfortable with what I’ve seen on the website, and the little I’ve been able to find about its history online. I am worried in particular about its philosophy of culture, especially relating to music styles and church “atmosphere,” as well as the seeming (note the qualification!) lack of separation from the world, or brothers outside the local church.
So: Would this church be one to separate from, and if so, why?
DRAlves,
The question is a little confusing here. The point of separation (at least as I read Matthew 18) is to reconcile friends who are heading into error, not to preserve or warn other people about churches that may be ‘wrong’. If you’re concerned about the friend’s direction, then reach out to your friend. Go get a cup of coffee or something and ask him why he’s attracted to that church, why he’s unhappy with his previous church, or anything along those lines.
I’ve argued that we practice secondary separation wrongly on SI - it seems like we have practiced separation in order to admonish erring brothers or institutions, not to restore erring brothers, as Matthew 18, 2 Thess. 3, or Titus 3. I’m writing this on the fly while I’m on hold, but it seems to me that it’s a little backwards.
"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
I tend to agree with Jay.
Paul defined who we separate from- brethren engaged in unrepentant wickedness (1 Cor. 5:10-13) or false teaching. Not because we don’t agree with their ‘atmosphere’.
Separation should not be confused with the ‘birds of a feather’ principle. IOW, some associations happen simply because of shared common ground, not because of a purposeful separation from others not of common ground. We should be very careful about labeling someone with whom we disagree on matters not clearly defined in Scripture as unrepentantly sinful.
Dear all:
I do not know how much longer I want to drag out this discussion in a public forum, but I will say I am very encouraged by the number of immediate and thoughtful replies. I guess that is why I opened this thread to begin with—since I mostly wanted to learn about the whole idea and process of separation, which all of you helped me do.
A few bullet points:
• I realize that I do not have a relationship with this church so there is, in a sense, no way for me to “separate” from them (there is, however, the matter of refusing to extend a relationship, for example). I suppose my question about separating was more hypothetical than actual—i.e., would this be a church to separate from and if so, why?
• I have no plans to end my friendship with the man now at the church. However, the relationship is particularly of interest because he will be a staff pastor, not merely attending. This, especially considering he was formerly a pastor at my current church, definitely does make the question of interest to me.
• The church has been blacklisted by BJU—faculty and staff (and, I assume, dependent children and students) are absolutely prohibited from attending. So it is obviously not on their list of approved schools. :o) I’ve heard from friends that the church was founded in the early 1990s by rather disgruntled BJU graduates (who “questioned all the silly rules”).
• Regarding the comments about “atmosphere”: I was trying to communicate the fact that the church, from everything I have seen, carries a very casual, essentially very missional Reformed, almost seeker-driven, feel (think The Gospel Coalition, Driscoll, Keller, etc.). My concern was that the church—from the music, to its philosophy of culture, to its view of the purpose of the local church—was if nothing else very lax on the idea of separating from the world. This is why I felt the “atmosphere” was an issue, though perhaps I did not phrase it well. Along with this, they planted an Acts 29 church this past April and sent one of their pastors to oversee it.
• This church is doing many good things. The pastors preach expositionally. They are Calvinsitic. The gospel is going out. They seem to have a heart for people and the community. My friend will be an absolutely stellar addition and they are clearly favored by God to have him (though of course I am biased). However, despite all of these wonderful things I was still concerned—not because I am trying to be judgmental or ostracize anyone, but because I want every church, especially the people I love, to be faithful to Scripture and thus obedient to the Lord.
Thanks, all, for a riveting discussion (especially Jim, Dave Barnhart, Jay, and Chip!).
David
Acts 5:20
In the end, we don’t need grace or truth. We need grace and truth. And for people to see Jesus in us, they must see both. --Randy Alcorn
Discussion