Secondary separation, the belief that the Bible requires separation from those who do not separate from apostates (primary separation), is at the heart of what it means to be a fundamentalist today. It is not enough to believe in the fundamentals of the faith, or even to “do battle royal” for them (through separating from apostates). No, one must separate from those who, although they believe in the fundamentals themselves, do not separate (at least to the degree we think they should) from apostates. One must furhter separate from those who associate with those who do not separate from apostates. Only then is one truly a fundamentalist.
This position inevitably (and actually) results in the wholesale rejection of all of orthodox evangelicalism (besides fundamentalists, of course). In short, if you are not one of us, then we must separate from you. Why? Because you are not one of us, of course!
Nathan Busenitz recently addressed this very issue in a series of blogposts on his group blog Faith and Practice (HT: Ben Wright). Nathan is a personal assistant to John MacArthur, and like Phil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame) he has interacted with fundamentalists on the issue of separation. Since many fundamentalists respect MacArthur’s ministry, Phil and Nathan legitimately wonder why fundamentalists cannot/do not associate with them.
I found Nathan’s assessment of secondary separation to be immensely helpful. What follows is a brief summary of his three posts, with excerpts. I encourage you, however, to read them in full on your own.
Nathan begins with a post entitled “History’s Blurred Line of Separation” where he traces early fundamentalism’s inconsistent positions on ecclesiastical separation (separation at the church or public/institutional level). He points out that W. B. Riley, “Fighting Bob” Schuler, and Bob Jones, Sr. all remained in denominations tainted with liberalism for many years. He also demonstrates that John R. Rice preached against secondary separation. Concerning fundamentalist history Nathan writes:
…we see various approaches, applications, and controversies regarding the issue of ecclesiastical separation. There was clearly no unified, one-size-fits-all model of separation, especially with regard to separating from conservative brothers who remained within the mainline denominations (second-degree separation). Some didn’t even believe such separation was right. And yet these men were all equally committed to the fundamentals of the faith and the absolute authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of the Bible.
After presenting the confusing history of early fundamentalism he offers the following suggestion:
Could it be that, for many of the first-generation fundamentalists, second-degree separation was not viewed as an explicit biblical doctrine, but rather as a wisdom issue in which biblical principles were to be applied on a case-by-case basis?
Next, Nathan focuses on 2 Thess. 3 in response to some comments positing that this passage is a Scriptural justification of secondary separation at the ecclesiastical level. His brief post on 2 Thess. 3 does a good job at critiquing the fundamentalist understanding of this passage. It furthers his case that secondary separation is not explicitly prescribed in Scripture and thus should be treated as a wisdom issue.
His final post We Do Believe in Separation emphasizes that MacArthur and his church clearly believe in separating from apostates and even those associated with apostates. But he wraps up the whole discussion as follows:
Where we differ with typical fundamentalism, I believe, is at the third- and fourth-degree separation levels (if I can even speak of such levels of biblical separation). We find primary separation explicitly taught in the New Testament. It is, therefore, a non-negotiable for us. But we do not find secondary (or tertiary) separation explicitly taught in the New Testament. Thus it is treated as a wisdom issue in which biblical principles must be brought to bear on a case-by-case basis.
To conclude my discussion of Nathan’s posts, let me highlight that secondary separation at an ecclesiastical level is not explicitly taught in the New Testament. This is what makes it a wisdom issue. All of us are required to apply the principles of Scripture to our associations, and often some form of secondary separation is found to be wise (as in the case of Billy Graham, for instance). But since it is not explicitly commanded, it is wrong for me to demand the same level of secondary separation from others before I fellowship with them. It is wrong to elevate my wisdom positions to the level of a fundamental doctrine. This is an area where I must part ways with fundamentalists. This does not mean they lose my respect–I respect many of them. It means I differ with them on this point.
Any of you fundamentalist readers want to comment on this? I would be glad to discuss this issue further. But for now, Nathan’s posts seem to clearly express my own disagreement with fundamentalism on this issue.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Bob,
Great post! I’m one of those ‘fundies’ who had been sitting on the fence regarding the secondary-separation issue. I’m a graduate of a fundamentalist Christian college and about to be a graduate of a fundamentalist Baptist seminary. Nathan Busenitz’s arguments practically disarm fundamentalists’ arguments for a ‘biblical’ definition of secondary separation as being a Scriptural command. It’s tough being wrong, but I have to admit that. I hope that other fundamentalists would be equally able to self-examine their stance and see that a view of secondary separation is not tenable from a correct exegesis from Scripture on 2 Thessalonians 3. I posted something on Nathan’s blog, and thank you for posting something about it. Hopefully it will be posted on SharperIron as well.
Larry,
I know how hard it is to tip a sacred cow. Really, there is so much vested interest in many of the positions fundamentalists of various stripes hold. It seems much harder to honestly evaluate and change your position from within fundamentalism as a movement. If you do change, then you will lose friends, possibly your church, and ultimately your identity.
Great to hear you are willing to change and learn. I do think Sharper Iron has already mentioned Nathan’s posts from their filings section on the side.
Thanks for stopping by, as always.
God Bless.
Well, my church is not ‘fundamentalist’, but rather ‘conservative evangelical/historic fundamentalist’ (Grace Community Bible Church of Venice, Florida), so I won’t have to worry about losing friends and/or church. Many of my ‘fundy’ friends won’t think any less of me, and they already know that I’m more along the lines of MacArthur/Phil Johnson’s idea of separation rather than with Bauder/Doran/Jordan (although my graduate and post-graduate degrees are of educational institutions that are most definitely ‘fundamentalist’).
Something that’s interesting to note is that when I ‘re-enrolled’ back into seminary (I left Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in 1999 due to personal reasons) recently, I am required to submit three of five ‘position papers’ for a class (American Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism) that I’m currently taking via correspondence on DVD from CBTS. Those five subjects are fundy ‘hot topics’, and they are: Bible Versions/Translations/Texts, Music & Worship, Ecclesiastical Separation, Role of Women in the church, and the use of Alcoholic Beverages for Christians. I’d like to write something about all five, although only three are required. My personal positions would probably not be well accepted with regard to two topics (Ecclesiastical Separation and Alcohol), but I know that many CBTS students (even when I was there in the mid-1990’s) take positions that aren’t readily accepted by many ‘older’ fundamentalists. The attitudes among fundamentalists today are changing, and I believe for the better. I know that your own experiences with fundamentalists and fundamentalism was somewhat distasteful (as were mine), but I know that some ‘thoughtful fundamentalists’ are changing their stance, and accepting a more biblical view of ecclesiastical separation.
Larry,
I’m right with you. I am impressed with many of the Sharper Iron folks. Kevin Bauder is really good too. There are just a few methodological and philosophical differences I have with them — enough to not be one of them. But I absolutely listen to and respect them. I am encouraged by those developments, but like I say in this post, I think the secondary separation issue stunts them into a mentality of elitism. If you are not one of them, they really can’t affirm you or fellowship with you. Maybe you can drink a coffee with them, but that’s about it. (Of course 2 Thess. 3 actually addresses the scenario of lunch and coffee and does not address the scenario of sharing a pulpit or attending a conference, but hey! who cares about particulars, right?)
Thanks for the good comments, Larry. I look forward to more such interchanges in the future. I am sure you have learned much which would benefit me in hearing.
God bless!
Bob,
I think that the ‘elitist’ attitude of some fundamentalists is a bit anecdotal, but I believe that it’s an accurate description of the mentality that is fostered with some of the more ‘conservative minded’ fundamentalists. I hope that this notion can be overcome more when fundamentalists realize that their position is untenable and unbiblical to maintain. Their idea of fellowship with a conservative evangelical has opened up more than just having coffee with a fundamentalist (or, a beer in our case!) as the blogosphere has opened the floodgates of correspondence amongst conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I just hope that the ‘elitism’ of some fundamentalists doesn’t close their minds to the Word of God.
Bob, are you still getting responses to this post? jb
JB,
No. I have not. You are welcome to respond, yourself, if you would like, however.
God bless,
Bob
I just wanted to share with you that Larry passed away this past May 18th.
He leaves behind and wife and son.
I know Larry from our biblical counseling course. I just decided to google his name and your site came up. I knew it was him from the church he affiliated himself with.
God Bless..
Larry R. Lawton
Larry Robert Lawton, 37, of North Port, Fla., died Sunday, May 18, 2008.
Mr. Lawton was born April 10, 1971, in Ashtabula, Ohio. Larry moved to this area in 1990, coming from Lexington, Ky.
He was an inventory control technician for the Sarasota County School Board and a security officer for Shield Security. He was a member of Grace Community Bible Church in Venice, Fla.
Survivors include his wife of 3.5 years, Christine E. Lawton of North Port, Fla.; son Simon R. Lawton of North Port, Fla.; mother, Connie Wimbish of Nokomis, Fla.; sister, Lorie Lawton of Lexington, Ky.; his aunt; two uncles; and four nephews.
Services: Visitation will be on Thursday May 22, from 3 to 5 p.m., with a service to follow at 5 p.m., at Farley Funeral Home, Venice Chapel. Private burial will be held at Venice Memorial Gardens. Farley Funeral Home, Venice Chapel, is in charge of arrangements. To send condolences, visit http://www.farleyfuneralhome.com.
Contributions: Memorial donations may be made to Grace Community Bible Church, P.O. Box, 1637, Venice, FL 34284; or to Clearwater Christian College, 3400 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33759.
Dorothy,
How sad to hear that. I checked his facebook page and left a note there for his family. They will be in my prayers.
I had become a somewhat close online blogging friend with Larry. We had exchanged emails often, and sent packages to each other, etc. He was a regular at my blog, and we frequented some of the same online sites/blogs.
He will be missed.
May Jesus comfort the family in their time of grief. He was a good man, from all I’ve heard.
Thanks again and God bless,
Bob Hayton
After reading the many takes on secondary separation, here’s what I penned for my own edification. Hopefully it adds something to your own. Thanks for your wise, insightful comments.
Will M
(BJU grad, former “fundie”)
Thoughts on Fundamentalism and secondary separation
Paul’s teaching on separation, as understood by fundamentalists, would rule out their associating with Paul. Think about it. There’s simply no way he could survive the rigors of their separatist scrutiny. Paul fellowshipped with Christian communities riddled by egregious immorality, false teachers, sectarian dissension and charismatic excess (mind you, this all took place just in Corinth), and rather than separate, he confronted and corrected in the tone of a spiritual parent, voicing both disappointment and hope and consistently pointing them back toward faith in Christ and love for other believers as central to the Christian walk.
Now, one might argue that Paul would have eventually broken ties with the Corinthians (or Galatians, etc.) had their sins and errors come to dominate their fellowship so as to render it unrecognizable as Christian or redeemable as a gospel-centered community. I suspect that’s the case, but in his writings he expressed gratitude and joy over their shared fellowship in Christ, exhorting them as his children and evidencing an eagerness to protectively battle those false teachers who were distracting them from the unity found in a pure gospel and holy love for neighbor. His goal was clearly unity, not faction.
The point is this: secondary separation, necessary as it might be, is inherently subjective, and it should be exercised with sorrow and regret, and only after patient efforts to correct definitive error have failed.
Why then, in the present age, are fundamentalists so quick to separate from believers who are clearly acting in the spirit of Paul within wider evangelicalism? I understand one might so disagree with, say, Billy Graham’s or Rick Warren’s methods, that one can no longer in good conscience participate in their spiritual efforts, but does that necessitate breaking fellowship with genuine, godly believers who might not draw the same lines of separation?
In trying to establish a hard-and-fast rule of the very subjective call to separation, one is doomed for hypocritical inconsistency and ineffectual isolationism. You may rule out involvement with the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, due to its perceived entanglement with theological liberalism, but what about serving as a military chaplain? It’s hard to imagine a religious position that would require greater interfaith cooperation on the part of a believer, yet fundamentalists answer this call almost daily.
In reality, these are judgment calls that require wisdom, counsel and self-examination, and black-and-white, rule-of-thumb guidance is not as obvious as fundamentalists would have us believe. Our decisions are often based on the whether there is reasonable expectation we could advance the cause of Christ without compromising our personal commitment to the gospel and Christ-like behavior. Our decisions are ultimately circumstantial – case by case – with the Scriptures, reason and godly counsel serving as our faithful guides.
Discernment is an ongoing and difficult work, and one we don’t always “get it rightâ€. Simply put, there is spiritual risk involved, and in an effort to avoid any ambiguity, the fundamentalists have increasingly gravitated toward an “us†and “them†line of demarcation, which is both simple and, on some level, “safeâ€, but it is a safety that atrophies the robust work of Christ in his body and the world. Rather than serve as the light among men, they have created a myopic subculture, and failed to provide to the larger body of Christ their prophetic and corrective voice, one which it so desperately needs.