Over the last few weeks, I have written a few articles critical of the fundamentalist movement. One might wonder (and some have through comments, phone calls, and emails) why I still consider myself a fundamentalist when the movement has such obvious problems.
The main reason (and there are others) why I will always be a fundamentalist and why I do not consider myself an evangelical or even a conservative evangelical is because I believe in the biblical doctrine of Ecclesiastical separation. What is this doctrine of Ecclesiastical separation? I’m glad you asked.
In the later part of the 1800s, the world was in the beginning stages of a radical technological revolution. It seemed like overnight people were figuring out problems that had plagued the world for ages: like how to cut down on death rates in surgery (Joseph Lister), how to keep your house lit at night without burning something (Thomas Edison), and how to efficiently move stuff and people from point A to point B (Trains and automobiles). By the early 1900s, scientific advancement had produced so many lifestyle improvements that it seemed like the world had been changed for the better overnight. People placed a great deal of hope in science and the scientific method, and openly predicted a time when the world’s evils would be made a thing of the past by scientific and technological betterment. They didn’t know that the scientific ideas they uplifted would produce the gassings and killings of World War 1, the Eugenics movement, and ultimately the Haulocost. Science was the messiah of the day, and questioning science was sacrilege.
Because of this, many religious leaders started to take a second look at scripture and question the things that were “non-scientific”. The creation, the crossing of the Red Sea, the virgin birth of Christ, the inspiration of scripture and many more scriptural teachings came under the scrutiny of these self styled “Modernists” or “Progressives”. Organizations that had long stood firm for the principles of scripture (Like the Presbyterian Church USA, the American Baptist and Southern Baptist Conventions in the USA and the Baptist Union in England) began to be infiltrated and influenced by these “Theological Liberals”. In a short time they had secured places of leadership in denominational colleges and seminaries.
These changes did not go unnoticed by faithful pastors and teachers and many of them stood up for the “faith once delivered to the saints”. People like J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Seminary and Charles Spurgeon in London went on the attack for the “fundamentals of the faith” and tried to rid their respective denominations of doctrinal deviants. When these and others were unsuccessful, they left, either starting their own denominations (like the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) or choosing to remain independent of any denomination. These pioneer fundamentalists paid a heavy price, often losing their retirement funds, having their ordinations revoked and being formally blackballed by their old associations.
The principle these men (and later generations of fundamentalists) invoked in their exodus of mainline denominations was ecclesiastical separation.
Ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to associate with churches, leaders, or institutions that reject the open teaching of scripture.
Not many pastors and churches practice ecclesiastical separation – most of those who do are considered “fundamentalists” and are thus marginalized by mainstream christianity – so you would think that scripture says little about this subject. After all, if so many pastors and leaders aren’t practicing ecclesiastical separation, surely there isn’t any clear cut scriptural doctrine on it.
One would think that, but one would be wrong.
There are many passages that, if followed, would result in clear convictions about ecclesiastical separation. Consider 1 Timothy 6:3-5:
“If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”
Notice Paul’s succinct advise to Timothy on dealing with false teachers: “from such withdraw thyself”. Sounds like separation to me.
Consider also Romans 16:17
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
Again, what possible interpretation of that verse could be made other than that we are to mark and separate from those who teach false doctrine. Mark them, avoid them. Pretty clear.
We could go on. A quick perusal of 2 John or the book of Jude would make you think ecclesiastical separation should be a foregone conclusion to any open minded student of scripture. Unfortunately, it’s not.
There are many evangelicals who, though they themselves believe in the clear teachings of the Bible, are more than willing to associate with those who do not. They, through their denominations, endorsements, speaking engagements and other allegiances profess to stand for the truth while standing next to those who are tearing it apart.
I’m sorry, but that’s not for me.
A relationship with Christ demands purity. Just as my relationship with my wife keeps me from close association with women my age, my relationship to Christ and to His word keeps me out of association with those who are tearing down His teaching and denying His self-professed character.
That is why I am a fundamentalist: Ecclesiastical Separation.
Unfortunately, I can’t stop there. Many people label themselves a fundamentalist and profess to believe in separation but distort it. They take this Biblical doctrine, meant to keep the body of Christ pure, and they use it to preserve their own clique or to insulate themselves from any criticism.
There is a big difference between ecclesiastical separation based on principle and flowing out of obedience to Christ and God’s word and ecclesiastical separation as a convenient excuse to never explain your positions, to exercise control over your tribe, and to prevent any changes from occurring in your church or movement.
I want to point out three errant variants of ecclesiastical separation, which are, unfortunately pretty prevalent in modern fundamentalist “circles”:
Camp Separation is refusing fellowship with other churches because they aren’t a part of your particular tribe. I’ve heard of churches who will only fellowship with churches and pastors who graduated from Hyles Anderson College. I’ve heard of churches who refuse to take on missionaries because they are supported by independent Bible churches, and I’ve heard of baptist churches breaking fellowship with a man because he preached for a fundamentalist group of Presbyterians.
In each of those cases, it was obvious that ecclesiastical separation was invoked not because of doctrinal error, but because of harmless labels and associations.
I’m afraid that in the arms of the wrong men, ecclesiastical separation is little more than a weapon to use against Christian brothers who dare to think for themselves. The doctrine of separation was never meant to be a whip to scare young preachers into staying in a certain circle, but unfortunately I think that is how it is often used.
Closely tied to camp separation is what I would call everythingism separation. Whereas fundamentalist refuse to associate with those who don’t agree with them on the fundamentals of the faith, everythingist refuse to associate with those who don’t agree with them on everything.
I’ve heard of pastors who were ridiculed and pushed out of fellowship for growing goatees, for using a screen in church, or for having midweek services at a different time than on wednesday night at 7:00 p.m..
No where is this kind of separation more evident in fundamentalism than in the area of music. I’ve heard many many times that a church was “off” in their music and needed to be avoided. The churches in question weren’t bringing electric guitars into their service, they weren’t hiring a “praise team” or rapping out for Jesus. Usually, they were just using a style of music that was unfamiliar or different from what their critics used. For example, I have many times heard West Coast Baptist College criticized for their music and they recently produced a book which is, in my opinion, the best polemic in support of conservative Christian music I have ever read.
Again, this kind of ecclesiastical separation ends up just being a tool that pastors and leaders use to control and threaten their followers.
The last errant variety of separation that I see in fundamentalism today is “Old Paths” Separation. There are pastors who are threatened by anything new, even if it is outside of the realm of biblical criticism, and they want to form fellowships that insulate them from any change.
Culture changes and culture has changed. The Bible is mute in some areas where culture has changed. The Bible says nothing, for instance about what type of microphone you use or whether or not you use a screen in church. The Bible says nothing about your use of facebook, twitter or the church website (although it says a lot about how we communicate, and those rules still apply). The Bible says nothing specific about pews, architectural styles, or even about dressing up in church. (Did it ever occur to people that most of the Christians in the world probably don’t have two changes of clothes, never mind a suit?) There are biblical principles that apply to all of those areas, but those biblical principles don’t necessarily cement churches into being exactly what they were in 1960.
Unfortunately, some pastors will use ecclesiastical separation (or the threat of ecclesiastical separation) to try to insulate their church from change. The pastor is free to determine the direction of their church, but using the doctrine of separation to manipulate people is wrong, plain and simple.
Dave says: Okay, Ryan–
I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with an open mind. I appreciate that you are doing it a humble, honest fashion. I appreciate your willingness to disagree even with the movement that you are in.
However, I must strongly strongly disagree with your interpretation/application of 1 Tim. 6 and Rom. 16, which form the basis of your stance on ecclesiastical separation. FTR, I too believe in ecclesiastical separation–strongly. In fact, I stand by the same verses you quoted.
So let’s take a little closer look at them:
1. Paul is urging Timothy to separate from those who refuse to “consent to wholesome words.” Grammatically speaking, Paul defines “wholesome words” as the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, Paul is referring to false teachers who blatantly deny the teachings of Jesus Christ (eg. teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount, parables, Olivet Discourse, etc.). Furthermore, all of Christ’s teachings pertained to godliness, as opposed to greed, pride or selfishness.
2. In the following verse, Paul elaborates on these false teachers by giving a very specific description of them. They are arrogant men who always crave controversy and strife over words (frivolous issues), which inevitably produces sinful fruit. “…He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,”
3. Paul goes on: These men have corrupted minds and are destitute of the truth. “…Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth.” How? They teach that Christianity is a means to prosperity and wealth, In other words, they preach gospel that feeds people’s lust and coveteousness rather than godliness. “…supposing that gain is godliness.”
4. Finally, Paul sums up his initial point: “From such, withdraw yourself.”
———————————————————————————
So, Paul is clear: we should avoid false teachers that blatantly deny the gospel of Jesus Christ and his teachings, or from arrogant, divisive men who would pervert the truth by twisting words, or from men who would seek to preach a prosperity gospel to feed people’s lust. Agreed.
So, my question to you Ryan, is this: How do teachers like Macarthur, Sprouls or Washer or others fit this description that Paul gives? These are godly men who unashamedly preach the unadulterated gospel of Christ. Surely, you could not possibly say they openly deny the Jesus’ teachings or remotely resemble Paul’s description of a false teacher?
Ryan says: I’ll work on it and read that article. Appreciate the comments, I have been getting tons of traffic with this, I think I’ll keep it up.
Sorry — the first post was only a fragment of my post, here is the entirety:
I am not here to offer polemical counterpoint (ironically the spirit of the movement you write of).
Great article, Ryan, and I fully agree. Xenophobia is the mantra of many Christians today, ranging from Amish, Mennonite, and many independent Baptist camps — all groups finding their historical provenance in the Radical Reformation (the Anabaptist tradition has always produced extremes, sometimes good, mostly bad IMHO, though I do consider myself a Baptist).
I call it theological inbreeding — doctrinal endogamous marriages that produce gross and visually disturbing growth abnormalities. We all from the independent Baptist movement all know these type of churches — every other denomination, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Pentecostal are pretty much from Hell, as they have erred so far from they believe are essential tenets to faith (like having a clean shave lol).
People from the “tribes” (good word Ryan) of Phil Kidd, Hyles-Anderson, Peter Ruckmann, etc. would have you to believe they are the only to God, that only the handful of cult churches they manipulate have a monopoly on the truth of God. The result? Gross doctrinal errors that are so far off from the Bible, let alone the reasoning of grade-school children (Ruckmanism’s, “King James English corrects the original Greek and Hebrew, etc.), that it is disgustingly pathetic.
A few months back I had to separate from some extreme Pentecostals over here in India — I could graciously overlook (he that is not against us is for us; Indie-Baptists do not know what spirit they are of, the spirit of Boanerges) our cultural differences in mode of prayer and worship, but when they started mimicking the Hindus with their shaktipat (what Pentecostal rename as “slaying in the spirit”) and other mystical hynoptic ploys over the illiterate Indian peasants and thus obtaining their obsequious devotion, I grew suspicious.
I inveighed against the Word of Faith false prophets to them such as Benny Hinn (he is idolized here in India), and we agreed to disagree (hey, if two men think alike, one of them isn’t thinking — the problem with our Indie-Baptist friends above). But when one of them claimed that he was sinless and the same as Christ, deducing this from the reality of Christ’s Spirit in Him (dubious) — I firmly rebuked him from I John 1:10. I then proceeded to write out in big font Romans 16:17 and left it in the hospital the other faith-healer owned (these were big time wealthy prosperity preachers), cut him off from FB, deleted his number from my mobile phone book, and have been ignoring his calls ever since (he doesn’t stop calling as he wants he wants me to get him a visa to the US lol).
I believe in ecclesiastical separation, but not amputating limbs or gouging out the eyes — whole denominations — of the Body of Christ. Now there remaineth many denominations and church traditions, whether it be Presbyterian, Methodist, or Reformed Baptist — but they greatest of these is love.
By this shall all men know we are His disciples — by our love for one another.
The distinctive ethos of the Christian is charitability and catholicity of spirit — this distinguishes us from all other religions. When you are on the frontlines, if you will, surrounded my Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., one fully grasps how stupid it is to divide with others who have also sworn fealty to Jesus Christ — the imperative resourcefulness inherent in the distinct Christian spirit of love is nowhere better appreciated then on the mission field (which the US is also btw).
This is not pragmatic, this is the new commandment and the old commandment that we have heard from the beginning, that we love one another.
Jeff, what is your problem man? I am offended at the spirit in which you censure your brother. You talk you of the need for Christians to stop fighting each other, yet your grievous words are stirring up strife. Obviously haven’t read Ryan’s post carefully, nor do you yourself have the spirit of the love of Christ in you. Examine yourself whether you are in the faith.
Ryan,
When I have a bit more time, I may respond more fully, but take a look at Phil Johnson’s latest post at his blog: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/02/faithfulness-fruitfulness-and-twisted.html. Phil is an editor of J-Mac’s books and a member of Grace Community. He is not a “fundamentalist” but would be considered a “conservative evangelical” However, is he not a biblical separatist? I think in many (of course, not all) cases, the CE are indeed separating according to biblical principles.
Hi Ryan.
I don’t believe we talked too often in college, but I’ve always admired your respectful tone and spirit. I see you still carry that gift, even through your writings. When you posted this on Facebook, it caught my eye. As one who has journeyed from fundamentalism, I figured I’d comment.
The comments from some guys above are worth listening to so I won’t be redundant. I just would clarify that I think you might be presenting a false dichotomy here: is it that fundamentalists are the ones practicing biblical separation and evangelicals are not? I would argue it’s not that black and white. The more conservative, Reformed evangelicals indeed practice ecclesiastical separation, albeit it is applied differently. So you need to consider that the argument is not separation vs. non-separation; the argument is how best to apply separation. And one step further from that: we must wrestle with how best to apply principles of unity, too.
One word of caution. Be careful with “I will always be” statements. I haven’t read everything on your blog but skimmed through, and you raise the same concerns about fundamentalism that many of us who left have raised prior to our departures. I think it’s true for most of us that we have originally sought to help provoke change within the movement but realized all too soon that said change is impossible. You can try to distance yourself from the more extreme sectors of fundamentalism and be a different kind of fundamentalist but, in my opinion, you will eventually see that the movement is not worth staying in. Of course, I could be wrong – I’m not trying to make predictions. But, saying “I will always be a fundamentalist” may not be as true as you think, as you reflect on this years down the road.
God bless!
Dave says: One more thought–
There’s nothing wrong with finding more association with people of the same “stripe.” For example, in our church, we won’t send out missionaries that don’t hold to the same basic doctrine of our church. But just because our church may not support a missionary of a different stripe, it does not mean that we consider them less spiritually mature or close to God as us. Neither does it mean that we would avoid fellowship with them. Neither does it mean we’d never preach in the same meeting. We just generally choose to associate with church leaders that we can find more common ground with and who share the same philosophy of ministry. The point is this: it’s normal for churches to form groups as long as they don’t view themselves as superior, more spiritual than others. It’s okay if Presbyterians don’t always hang out with Methodists. But that’s not ecclesiastical separation. That’s just the way things work.
And here’s the crux of the Fundamentalist’s problem. They suppose that if they don’t have complete union and agreement in every single jot and tittle of their theology/standards/philosophy with another believer, then they feel impelled to practice ecclesiastical separation with that person. How stupid.
Its’ really easy to know who to separate from: people who distort the gospel and feed people’s lustful ears. Plain and simple. A few names come to mind: Osteen, TD Jakes, Schuller, Copeland, to name a few. If we know a brother who is fellowshipping with false teachers such as these, we need to confront him, help him and admonish him to avoid them, just as Paul did with Timothy. If he continues to do find fellowship with false teachers after reproof, then we may have a reason to break off fellowship.
Ryan says: Good points. For the record, I wasn’t saying there is anything wrong with having a clique or a crowd. I was saying it is wrong to use Eclesiastical Separation as a way to manipulate your crowd and insulate it from all criticism.
Incidentally, what do you think about Mark Driscoll preaching at the Crystal Cathedral or hob-nobbing with Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
Dave says: Yeah, obviously I don’t like it at all. Truthfully, I’ve never been a fan of Driscoll. He’s proven to have very little discernment and spiritual maturity, imo. Some of things he has recently done and said has really concerned me. So, I hope that Pastors are honest with him to reprove him in these issues, if they haven’t done so already.
[...] You can read a past article about separation here. [...]
Ryan Hayden
