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

I have recently updated my blogroll (although I plan to overhaul that completely when I get back from our trip this month) to include several other good blogs which critique IFB & IFBx fundamentalism. One of those blogs that I really enjoy is Bread and Circuses by Matt and Josh Richards. They both attended Hyles Anderson College and are doing a good job of providing a thoughtful and careful critique of the excesses of that ministry and IFBx in general, over on their blog.

Anyway, they recently posted a speech delivered by Dr. Dan Davey of Colonial Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, VA (also the president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary East, I believe) back in July of 2004. The speech was entitled “The Label of ‘Fundamentalism'”, and is a “great conversation starter in regards to true fundamentalism” as Matt Richards, put it. The Richards brothers asked for our comments, and so I gave mine. I definitely agree that the speech is worth reading and discussing, and so I am encouraging my readers to go check it out. They posted it in two parts, but it is really not all that long. You can see the first part here, and the second part here. I also want to reproduce my comments on the speech here for your benefit. What follows is my comment (almost verbatim) that I posted over on their blog. If any discussion ensues, you may need to follow the comments over on their blog.

---

 

As a former “cultural fundamentalist” (who thought of himself as more of a “historic fundamentalist” at the time) I was very interested in Davey’s lecture. [Thanks Matt and Josh for posting it!] For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts concerning it.

1) I am impressed that he used three general categories, rather than two. He separated between the Billy Grahams and the John MacArthurs within Evangelicalism. Some would rather conveniently prefer to just lump them all in together and mark poison on the pot.

2) like the “rabbi-philosopher” I was disappointed by Davey’s dismissal of Piper. I think “rabbi” made a good point when he stressed that “avoid” does not necessarily mean “leave a denomination that they are in”. Several things frustrate me about the “historic fundamentalist (HF)”‘s treatment of conservative evangelicals.

First and foremost, they conclude that if anyone does not apply the doctrine of separation exactly like they (HF’s) do such a person or group is not separating at all and hence does not believe in separation. Thus this person or group becomes worthy of separation since they are obviously disobedient. In fact, however, the person or group is only disobedient to the fundamentalist’s application of separation, not the principle of separation itself.

Second, they refuse to be as polite to others as they are to anyone in their own movement. What I am getting at here is that it took almost 40 years for HFs to leave some of their denominations completely (for example the history of the FBF). It took years before those trying to save the Southern or Northern Baptist Conventions finally left. For some of the HFs it was against their will that they finally decided to leave. Now the HFs of today expect Piper to leave the BGC at the drop of a hat! Talk about inconsistency.

Third, they fail to consider the nature of a Baptist denomination. Baptists by their very nature are independent and autonomous and this is respected in most of their denominations. On the one hand, independent Baptist fundamentalists criticize Southern Baptists, for instance, for being a convention or a denomination. Then on the other hand they criticize the convention when it does not immediately step in and intervene in the autonomous affairs of a local congregation. The truth is that almost all Baptist denominations are not much different from the independent Baptist fellowships. They do not have a lot of authority by themselves: they require the authority of other churches. To do any disciplinary action, it takes a long process and the cooperation of other autonomous churches.

Before moving on, I should point out that Piper (I have been going to his church for almost a year and a half now, by the way) has been influential in trying to get the Baptist General Conference to take a position on Open Theism. It has not happened yet. Clearly not every BGC church is open theist. Piper reasons that he can continue to have an influence for good in the BGC by remaining in it. And Bethlehem Baptist Church retains autonomy, so he is not losing too much by staying. This is not to say that at some point in the future that Piper and the BBC elders will determine it is best for the church to just leave the BGC. But for now, they autonomously choose to remain.

3) I am glad he does stress that “cultural fundamentalists” (CFs) are a problem and schism to the HFs (and the church at large). Yet I wonder if the HFs and CFs are not closer together organically then HFs might be willing to admit. Now I respect the HFs, and I am happy for any of the Fs who are genuinely serving God and trying to please Him according to their conscience (wrong though some of them may be). But I think that the CFs come from the same root as the HFs. Yes, some of the positions of the CFs are culturally based, but then so are some of the positions of some HFs (think music). Further, both groups practice secondary separation often to the nth degree. And further, as Davey’s speech admits, the HFs practically conclude that anyone not organically connected to their movement is not really a fundamentalist and does not really do battle royal for the fundamentals. CFs share this same movement-oriented, us vs. them mentality.

4) In conclusion, I hope that Davey and other voices like his do prompt the HFs to clearly separate from the CFs. But I hope that they go one step further, that they take pains to go out of their way to say that people outside of their movement are faithful to the Scriptural commands concerning separation. In other words, that they refuse to act and operate as if they are the only ones who practice separation, and that if you really did practice separation you would run from conservative evangelicalism into historic fundamentalism’s open arms. They should own up to the fact that their main difference is in application of separation. And they should welcome and affirm those without their group as Bible lovers too. Then, perhaps, HFs might be able to truly distance themselves from their CF brethren. And they may be listened to and respected. After all, when the HFs go out of their way to cast stones at any and EVERY one outside of their group, how can you blame outsiders if they choose to ignore such a group?

Ultimately faithfulness to the truth is more important than influence, I know. But they need to be honest by admitting that HFs do not have a corner on the truth.

---

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7