Introduction
Let me start out by saying that this is a response to Dave Marriott’s blog post entitled Guarding What Is Primary: Second Degree Separation which was posted today on The Gospel Toolbox. But with that said, let me add that I say “response” for lack of betters words. “Response” makes it sound like I am arguing with him, which is not what I’m doing. (For all I know, he may agree with me!) I am more so continuing the conversation.
I appreciate Dave’s post for the fact that it begins to clarify what separation and “secondary separation” are in contrast to misconceptions. He defines these terms as follows:
Primary separation is separation from apostates (i.e. a denier of the [essentials or fundamentals of Historic] Christian Faith). Secondary separation is separation from those who fail to separate from apostates.[1]
Concerns
Now, technically “secondary separation,” at least as a term, is a Fundamentalist distinctive.[2] Therefore, my following comments and concerns pertain specifically to “secondary separation” as it exists in the Fundamentalist movement.
I am a conservative evangelical. And at the same time, in a very qualified sense, I believe in the concept of “secondary separation.” However, I disagree with what many (most?) Fundamentalists understand to be its implications and/or the way in which they practice “secondary separation.” I believe they err due to the follow reasons or in the following ways:
- Separation, to actual mean anything, is an entirely practical reality; it is not hypothetical and abstract. Fundamentalists have a tendency to hypothetically separate, which practically just means bashing and slandering people. This is one of the ways “Fundamentalism” has become a negative and condescending term.
- As separation is historically understood, it is separation over what is essential. Therefore, the concept of “secondary separation” immediately begs the question, “Is separation an essential?” In other words, is separation so essential that one must separate from people/organizations that don’t practice separation? “Secondary separation” assumes a positive answer to this question–yes. Now, in a sense I agree with this assumption; but my agreement depends on this issue–over what is one separating? But at the same time, in light of the fact that an assumption needs to be made to affirm the validity of “secondary separation” in any circumstance, I think we must be honest and admit that “secondary separation” is much harder to prove from scripture than “first degree separation.”
- Fundamentalists often separate over secondary (non-essential) issues. I understand that this is not “secondary separation” itself; but it does affect Fundamentalists’ implementation of “secondary separation.” One could define the Fundamentalists’ typical practice of “secondary separation” as “separating from others who don’t separate over things which are not worth separating over.” (See the following points for further explanation of this claim.)
- Fundamentalists have a tendency to miss the fact that separation (and conversely fellowship) exist on a continuum. This understanding is based on the idea that separation is the absence of fellowship, fellowship being described as having commonalty and being in partnership. Fellowship occurs in degrees; therefore, separation, the lack of fellowship, occurs in degrees. As a result, separation rightly practiced is frequently not in terms of “all” or “nothing.” However, Fundamentalists have a tendency to practice separation in these terms of “all” or “nothing,” when in fact degrees of separation ought to be practiced based on degrees of fellowship or lack thereof.
- This point above affects “secondary separation” in significant ways. The effect(s) can be demonstrated by two rhetorical questions: 1) What degree of fellowship does the individual from whom I am separating have with the apostate/heretical individual or organization? And 2) In light of this, to what degree do I separate from this individual or organization? The answer to the first question must inform the answer to the second. Too often, for Fundamentalists, it doesn’t; the second question is answered with little or no thought given to the first question. This results in other errors I have mentioned, namely, the one directly above.
- Therefore, in light of the point above, thinking in terms of “secondary separation,” is incorrect; and Biblically, it’s nonexistent. It is better to think of “secondary separation” from the vantage point of “first degree separation.” Thinking, why am I separating from this individual directly (“first degree separation”) helps one bypass many of the errors mentioned here. To leave the abstract and to enter the practical, often times “secondary separation” is an unneeded category. Why? I have a hard time believing that one who partners with apostates in inappropriate ways has sound theology himself. In other words, his fellowship with apostates (at an improper level) is probably a manifestation of his or her own bad theology.
- As more of an aside, the separation (and hence “secondary separation”) practiced by what I will call “mainline Fundamentalists” tends to be one directional; it tends to be geared towards liberals and evangelicals but not towards those within their own camp, those falling within Fundamentalism who have blatant and serious practical and theological errors. Sailing under the flag of “Fundamentalism” gives these individuals immunity from separation. This terrible inconsistency in Fundamentalism’s practice of separation has resulted in much damage to Fundamentalism as a whole. For this reason (among others), one could possibly say that I separate from Fundamentalism to a significant degree. I am practicing “secondary separation” due to their lack of separating from the “crazy Fundamentalists” (for lack of better words).
All of these errors are interdependent and impact/influence one another. Error in one area results in consequent errors in other areas. (Therefore, you may do well to re-read this list, paying careful attention to how these errors relate.)
Conclusion
So, again, I full-heartedly believe in the Biblical teaching of separation. I even believe in the concept of “secondary separation.” However, I believe its implications look a bit different than the way my Fundamentalist friends tend to practice it and talk about it. I guess I see the issue, on a practical level, as a bit more muddied and messy than the reductionism that Fundamentalists often propose and practice. And further, I don’t see degrees of fellowship and separation as incompatible; I see the two on a continuum, which I think is very important to do. You might safely call me a moderate, mild, balanced separatist or maybe even an ecumenically minded separatist (understanding both “separatist” and “ecumenical” in very qualified senses).
Notes
[1] For many of you, this idea of “secondary separation” as defined by Dave may seem odd and/or radical. If you are in that boat and this idea is quite unfamiliar to you, I recommend reading his article before you continue on from here, otherwise the rest of what I am about to say may not make much sense.
[2] However, I don’t think “secondary separation” in it’s proper implementation is distinctively Fundamentalist.
[3] This is one of the problem’s with Dave’s post;. He defines “separation” in terms of with whom one should separate; but he does not clearly define what “separation” actually is.
Good article Kirk. I read Dave’s post and felt like his argumentation for secondary separation was very weak. I also felt like he argued for (or at least implied) an all-or-nothing mode of separation. I agree with you that the issue of separation must be approached as a continuum. In fact, I tend to think in terms of fellowship instead of separation.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment.
And yes, thinking in terms of fellowship is needful.
LikeLike
Hi Jarred. I don’t know you, but assume you’re a good guy. 1. Do you believe in any form of secondary separation, but just feel that my post was very weak? 2. If so, how would you argue for it? 3. I do believe in levels of fellowship, btw, it’s clearly not an all or nothing. My post was simply intended to define and somewhat defend the concept of secondary separation.
LikeLike
Thank you Kirk! I think Dave Marriott did a good job yet I also appreciate the continuation of the discussion.
I also believe in the concept of secondary separation. With a gospel this magnificent (D. Marriott called it the Mona Lisa which I love) we must guard it very carefully.
But the problem with many fundamentalists’ view of separation is that the gospel and separation from apostasy is not driving separation but rather fear and issues of lesser importance.
For example: Billy Graham has done some great things for the glory of God. Based on his testimony I would call him a brother in Christ. However, based on some of his associations, partnerships, speaking arrangements, and watered down doctrinal viewpoints, I would not encourage people to support him.
I can, as my priesthood through Christ allows me, abstain from endorsing and bashing alike. Jesus Christ said that “Whoever is not against us is for us (Lk. 9:50).
I think the local church leadership is responsible to decide who they will and will not associate with. Ultimately, they give account to God for their leading of the church, which is much more serious than the nearest blogging fundamentalist.
LikeLike
Yes, and although I don’t think Paul had doctrinal errors in mind, but rather improper motivation, Paul’s words in Philippians 1:18 are helpful to remember. “In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.”
LikeLike
I enjoyed both the discussions on secondary separation. In reality, everyone performs some separation. The liberals separate from the evangelicals and fundamentalists. The evangelicals tend to be more sympathetic to the liberals, yet separate from the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists separate from both. Then, there’s the whole “conservative evangelicalism” that is as yet not entirely defined (in my opinion).
I think secondary separation needs to be nuanced though. Separating from Billy Graham is a good example of good secondary separation. Separating from Northland because their (now former) president praised/endorsed a sovereign grace ministries church (which believes in continuationism)? Not so much. Beyond this, there is something to be said for degrees of separation.
One critique I would give. You might be painting fundamentalists with a little too broad of a brush. I consider my home church within “mainline” fundamentalism (is there even such a thing?) and the previous pastor (of 30 years) would not have viewed separation in the ways you described above. (Keep in mind, my church was one of the largest mainline fundamentalist churches in Indiana for many years). I’m not saying the above critiques are not common within fundamentalism. Only saying that stereotyping a fundamentalist church is easy to do…
Anyhow, good discussion on an important topic.
LikeLike
I grant the fact that I am broad-brushing Fundamentalism. However, I am not really writing a post on Fundamentalism. On the other hand, stereotypical Fundamentalism provides my context. So I am using the term in this stereotypical sense for the sake of providing context. As it is typically used today, it is a pejorative term for basically everyone but Fundamentalists. I don’t intend to be pejorative; but I do want to use words as they are understand in today’s context. If there are Fundamentalists who don’t think they fit this mold, then maybe they should abandon the label(!).
Regarding your first paragraph, I don’t know if I’d use “sympathetic” to describe evangelicalism’s relationship toward liberalism. Maybe(?). But “more understanding of liberalism” than Fundamentalism is probably better. Evangelicals are the ones engaging and debating with liberals, not Fundamentalists. Again, although they are less likely to characterize them than Fundamentalists, I’m not sure I’d necessarily call their position “sympathetic.” But maybe that’s fair.
Further, I’m not sure if your assessment of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals separating from each other is altogether accurate. You are falling into a broad-brushing which I don’t think is helpful. (My broad-brushing was pragmatic, helpful in providing a context for my post).
I appreciate the fact that you agree “secondary separation” (can we not call it that though?) needs to be nuanced. But, are you nuancing (recognizing a degree of) hypothetical fellowship/separation from Billy Graham and Sovereign Grace; or do you mean to contend that these are good examples of “all” or “nothing” separation? You don’t need to answer that; we don’t need to fall into hypothetical separating (see my post!)
Conservative Evangelicalism is probably best defined by TGC and T4G’s doctrinal statements. Those groups have really stepped forward and provided definition, recognized by mainline evangelicals, for this subgroup. I think that’s fair.
Anyways, thanks for the comment!
LikeLike
When I wrote my post yesterday, I really had no intention of involving myself in a long exchange, partly because I don’t have time (as a pastor of a young congregation) and partly because these conversations are rarely profitable (in my opinion). My desire was simply to write a post that defined secondary separation and defended it to some degree, especially since I believed there was a lot of confusion on the matter (even before I misread David’s post last week). I feel like I accomplished my goal. In fact, I was pleased to see Kirk write: “I believe in the concept of ‘secondary separation’.”.
Quite frankly, though, I do not feel compelled to speak to how fundamentalists have historically or even occasionally implemented the practice or a false-form of the practice. My concern is that the principles of separation are practiced with fidelity to Scripture, not necessarily that one be a card-carrying member of any broader movement. Let me also say that I also believe that separation is important in both directions (although an error like KJVO is more tolerable to me than the error of Peter Enns, for example), that levels of fellowship/cooperation exist, and that there is even a time to stay within partnerships for the sake of recovering them.
LikeLike
When I wrote my post yesterday, I really had no intention of involving myself in a long exchange, partly because I don’t have time (as a pastor of a young congregation) and partly because these conversations are rarely profitable (in my opinion). My desire was simply to write a post that defined secondary separation and defended it to some degree, especially since I believed there was a lot of confusion on the matter (even before I misread David’s post last week). I feel like I accomplished my goal. In fact, I was pleased to see Kirk write: “I believe in the concept of ‘secondary separation’.”.
Quite frankly, though, I do not feel compelled to speak to how fundamentalists have historically or even occasionally implemented the practice or a false-form of the practice. My concern is that the principles of separation are practiced with fidelity to Scripture, not necessarily that one be a card-carrying member of any broader movement. Let me also say that I also believe that separation is important in both directions (although an error like KJVO is more tolerable to me than the error of Peter Enns, for example), that levels of fellowship/cooperation exist, and that there is even a time to stay within partnerships for the sake of recovering them.
LikeLike
I respect that. Thanks for your comment!
LikeLike
Although you are pleased to see me say, “I believe in the concept of ‘secondary separation,'” one could rightly say that at the same time in a very real sense I don’t believe in “secondary separation” based on the distinctives I presented. I’m drawing a fine line here.
For example, I believe that the assumption behind “secondary separation,” the assumption that separation itself is essential, is only valid in certain circumstances, not all situations. I believe separation is essential when it concerns essentials.
Further, I state, “thinking in terms of ‘secondary separation,’ is incorrect; and Biblically, it’s nonexistent.”
These two distinctions heavily qualify my initial statement that I affirm the concept of secondary separation–emphasis on ‘concept’ in terms of abstract logic. In other words, I recognize and see the logic behind the idea as valid; I’m not arguing with that. But I’m not convinced that the assumptions made in order to get to that logically conclusion are always valid; and I’m not convinced the perspective of the conclusion is valid.
Hopefully this clarifies that initial statement for everyone else as well.
LikeLike
@[161300223:2048:Dave]- could you link the post in question that you referenced from @[679638522:2048:David D Morse]?
LikeLike
David Morse’s “post” that Dave Marriott mentioned was simply a Facebook post or comment if I understand correctly. It’s not a blog post anywhere.
LikeLike