Secondary Separation

I have no idea what you are talking about in your efforts at interpreting my "eating dinner" analogy.

I was illustrating secondary separation rather than defining it.

I could have said it this way just as well and been equally accurate:
Secondary separation is not only not associating with heretics but it is also not associating with those who associate with heretics.

That is what secondary separation is, Brother Larry.

It is related to Pharisaism as well. Therein do we find the self righteous spirit from whence secondary separation is born.

How holy do we need to be? Don't hang with sinners nor those who hang with sinners nor those who hang with those who hang with sinners nor those who hang with those who hang with those who hang with sinners, etc...

This is "hedge about the law" propagated by the Pharisees.

 

Perhaps an eyewitness account of the history of this term would help. To the best of my knowledge John R. Rice invented the term in 1971 or 1972 to describe what he felt was an unbiblical view of separation. Bob Jones Jr. and others took offense at Rice's position, and a debate occurred, with Rice writing in the SOTL (Sword of the Lord) and Jones and others writing open letters and pamphlets. I still have some of this material.

John R. Rice was my grandfather (I usually say that just so people will know this fact from the start and thus not embarrass themselves), and I was there at BJU in 1972 when the whole debate took place. I'll briefly describe the debate and give their definitions. Remember that both men were fundamentalists and both took strong stands against theological liberalism and other heresies, and those who cooperated with such heretics.

Having said that, while rejecting the term "secondary separation" as describing his position, in his tract, "Scriptural Separation," Jones listed three points:
(1) "Avoid being identified in any way with infidelity or in any compromise with infidelity."
(2) "Avoid any course of action that will assist or promote infidelity or unScriptural compromise."
(3) "Provide leadership toward a Scriptural stand on the part of others."

Now, note that Jones believed the SBC to be apostate at this point. (He says as much, though not explicitly, in the open letter, "A Statement from the Chancellor of Bob Jones University.") Jones began to feel that Rice was weak in the area of separation because Rice had not cut himself off from all Southern Baptists. This was somewhat strange since a certain Southern senator who was also a Southern Baptist was on the board of BJU.

Rice disagreed with Jones, and preached for and printed sermons in the SOTL by such men as W. A. Criswell. He pointed out in an article in the SOTL contra Charles Woodbridge that the SBC is not a denomination but a fellowship. He could thus associate with good SBC men without cooperating without liberals and without compromising his position (SOTL, 9/3/1971, "Shall We Fight God's People or Satan's?") This is part of what Jones objected to.

And there it is in a nutshell. A long time friendship was broken because of this discussion. Jones came out with a pamphlet, "Facts John R. Rice Will Not Face," in which all sorts of rumors were spread. (One accusation being that John R. Rice paid his grandson--me--to transfer to Tennessee Temple.) When it became personal, John R. Rice dropped the issue and wrote no more.

Postscript: Jones Jr. called and asked permission from the family to come to Rice's funeral. And he was there.

 

Yes, that's true.

For just one semester, if I remember correctly.

Burying the hatchet is a good thing, unless like the country song I heard once, you bury the hatchet in each other! :laugh: But anyway, peace among fundamentalists is certainly a good thing. No need to fight each other while there are still liberals out there.

 

New York Times, Apr. 15, 1953, p. 45
"Pastor Hits Rift in Conservatives: Head of Evangelicals Protests Attacks on His Group by American Council"

 

off Track post, but I sure miss those years when Dr. Rice and Dr Hyles would come through a town close by and preach Monday nights, Tuesday morning with pastors and then Tuesday nights. If they were anywhere within 100 miles of where i was, we 'd get a car load of people and hear some great preaching and be motivated to reach someone for Jesus.

I still have a Bible signed by both Dr. Rice and Dr. Hyles. It was retired to my bookcase soon afterwards because I thot it too valuable.

Now back to secondary separation... :tongue3:

 

Very interesting. So the term goes way back! Thanks, Jerome.

 

You said (and I quote): It works like this- If you should not eat dinner with heretics then you should not eat dinner with those who eat dinner with heretics.

The fact is that secondary separation has nothing to do with who you eat dinner with. It has to do with ministry participation and cooperation.

This is a much more accurate way of putting it so long as by "associating" you mean "ministry participation and cooperation."

"Association" gets used way too loosely at times, such as your designation of "eating dinner with." It is not merely association in some generic sense, but ministry association, ministry participation, ministry cooperation.

Again, if you are referring to ministry cooperation and participation, yes. However, secondary separation does not apply to who I might sit across from at the dinner table, or who I might play a round of golf with. It applies to ministry participation and cooperation.

No, it's not. The godly men I know that believe in secondary do it out of obligation to the gospel. They do it with great sadness and regret. They do it with great humility. It has nothing to do with self-righteousness.

That's not the point at all. Genuine secondary separation is about biblical obedience to the command to protect the gospel by separating from false teachers and from those who send conflicting messages about it by their ministry participation with false teachers. It is about wolves in sheep's clothing. It is not about "hanging with sinners" unless those sinners are false teachers such as the Pharisees were. Jesus "hung" with sinners all the time. That has nothing to do with secondary separation.

Secondary separation is limited to discussions of false teachers (apostates) and those who participate in ministry or cooperate in ministry with false teachers (apostates).

No it's not. Distortions such as you are presenting are straw men. They are not what is meant by legitimate secondary separation.

The question is simply this: What do we do with Christian teachers who refuse to obey God's commands? According to the Bible, we admonish them, we mark them, we exhort them to repent, and ultimately we separate from them.

 

Pastor Larry, you are killing me in this thread! :laugh: (form of speech) The reason I say this is, just because even tho you may well, and it seems like you do, have a rather fair-minded application of this 'tenet' (that I do not say 'doctrine') - you cannot by sheer force of will or 'fiat,' establish the parameters whereby everyone else applies it!

The fact is, that many - in my experience I would say most - that hold to this tenet of 'secondary separation' do abuse it, and ridiculously so, to the nth degree, as has been mentioned here already. Their 'hermit-ed' lives languishing in wastefulness because they are too afraid of what associating with an apostate Southron Bapdist (for example) might do to them spiritually, personally, and saving face socially with their like-minded ones.

We could call this 'street slang definition' of the tenet. Your bookish, 'dictionary definition' as defined in Larry's Dictionary of biblical(?)/fundamentalist terms is not - I dare say - the experience of near 100% of everyone else!

 

You are absolutely right.

Even his definition is inconsistent with the idea behind Secondary separation. He says it's about separating from apostate false teachers in the sense of not cooperating with them in ministry but that is erroneous.

First of all, EVERY Christian believes that! That's biblical separation. He needn't try to tell us that these secondary separatists are just mischaracterized, noble people who are trying to preserve the Gospel. No, that's what the rest of us are trying to do!

Secondly, SECONDARY separation has nothing to do with separating from the apostate, but rather from the one's who don't separate from the apostates.

Thirdly, you are right that the VAST majority of those who espouse this doctrine are not only interested in separating from Apostates or those who labor with apostates. They are rather interested in building their own holier than thou communes (using commune loosely in the sense of fellowship not location).

 

I separate from all those who disagree with my definition of separation. You're all heretics anyways.















:laugh:

 

I am not pretending to. I am telling you what it is, not what people have made it out to be for themselves. The fact that some distort any teaching of Scripture does not mean that the teaching of Scripture is changed.

Furthermore, we all recognize that in a forum, we give our view of what something is. That's what I have done.

 

No, no, no. You clearly are not paying attention here. I didn't say secondary separation was about separating from apostates.

Go back and read what I said in my response to you: Secondary separation is limited to discussions of false teachers (apostates) and those who participate in ministry or cooperate in ministry with false teachers (apostates). Notice that secondary separation requires two things (that's what the "and" means ... you have both). It takes an apostate and someone who participates in ministry with an apostate. Otherwise, it is not "secondary."

I further clarified it with this: Secondary separation is limited to discussions of false teachers (apostates) and those who participate in ministry or cooperate in ministry with false teachers (apostates).

In the Bible, there are two facets of separation: Apostates and Christian brothers. In each case, it is not really "secondary"; it is about the individuals' actions of obedience. As I said in my original post, secondary separation is a misnomer. It is actually separation from Christian brothers.

Every Christian doesn't believe that. Some do not, though we may legitimately question their Christianity. One of the most famous Christian preachers of modern times didn't believe that--Billy Graham.

Clearly you do not know people who practice legitimate secondary separation. I think it is obvious that you have mischaracterized the issue. You built a straw man caricature that simply doesn't match up to reality enough to make it useful.

A person who maintains fellowship with an apostate is not protecting the gospel. A person who maintains fellowship in disobedience with someone who denies the gospel is, at best, sending a mixed message about the gospel.

Exactly. That's the point. The relationship with the apostate establishes the biblical disobedience

Really? You gotta study on this? Because I probably know a bit more about fundamentalism than you do, and I have never seen a study that bears this out.

I think your haste to be judgmental has led you to say some things that might be true about some, but are not true of the biblical idea and are not true of others.

So, in the interest of truth and fairness, you need to realize that there are a number of people who believe just what I have said here. Your experience may simply be too limited to allow you to make legitimate observations about the whole topic.

I won't defend what some of these bozos do in the name of separation. I think there is a lot of stupidity and sin going on. But I also think that it doesn't help to misrepresent something in order to attack it. I can attack some issues of secondary separation while still recognizing that it is a biblical obligation which I must take seriously when the Bible calls for it.

 

Actually, you're mistaken here. Every Christian does not believe in ecclesiastical separation. In fact, the very reason for the split between fundamentalists and New Evangelicals in the 1950's was because the fundamentalists believed in ecclesiastical separation and the New Evangelicals adopted a policy of infiltration. By this they meant that conservative Christians should cooperate with liberals with the idea of winning them to Christ.

In his press release of Dec. 8, 1957, describing New Evangelicalism, Harold John Ockenga said just that: "The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of static front battles the new theologtical war is one of movement. Instead of attack upon error, the new Evangelicals proclaim the great historical doctrines of Christianity."

This strategy was then carried out most publicly by Billy Graham in his 1957 New York crusade, when he purposely rejected an invitation by fundamentalists led by Jack Wyrtzen, and accepted one by a group which specifically included liberals.

 

You are correct John. I can still hear Jack Wyrtzen, if I recall correctly Graham was in the fundamentalists camp or at lease accepted by most of them. We do forget rather quickly.

 

Wyrtzen was a great Christian and a captivating speaker.

Graham was accepted by fundamentalists until the 1957 crusade. Even before that some were beginning to question his associations, in particular the Bob Jones. Beginning in 1957 he was clearly ecumenical, and he himself asked to be dropped from the board of the Sword of the Lord because he no longer agreed on separation (contrary to some who believe that John R. Rice kicked Graham off the board).

 

My friend, you are correct. He is one of the three or four best speakers I've ever heard, what ever he preached on or spoke about would be running through my mind weeks later.

I think so many like to blame John R. Rice for everything. I was speaking a few week ago and after the meeting a man was telling me how John Rice was KJO, I send him my book by Dr. Rice, the Bible, The God Breathed Book. I just got it back with a note from him, saying that so much of what he had heard about John R. Rice wasn't correct.

 

I have heard of this concept, i.e, separation, but have not had any experience with it since the 1950's. So please explain what you mean by "fellowship." Is fellowship confined to interchurch relationships, or does it extend to other social interaction? What about business dealings? As you can see, I'm somewhat in the dark here.

 

You did a good deed for this man! :thumbs: I've had to correct people about JRR quite a few times here on the BB.