|
The Biblical doctrine of separation is rooted in the very
holiness of God and it is expressed in numerous texts in the Word of
God. Peter expressed it in his first epistle,
As obedient children, not fashioning
yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he
which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy for I am holy (1 Peter
1:14-16).
It only makes sense that a God who Himself cannot be
compromised in His holy character and desires His sons and daughters to
fellowship with Him would require that they become more and more like
Him. John wrote, That which we have
seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship
with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son
Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be
full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare
unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we
say we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not
the truth (1 John 1:3-6).
The Apostle Paul concluded the great chapter on being unequally
yoked together with unbelievers by writing,
Wherefore come out from among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I
will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor. 6:17-18).
In putting the doctrine of separation in its proper perspective,
a few preliminary facts should be noted. First, separation belongs to
the believer, not the unbeliever. Sanctification is not a means to
salvation. A believer must come to Christ and be justified by grace
through faith. It does not help the discussion to disparage separation
with scriptural verses that teach salvation by faith and not by works.
Second, the doctrine of sanctification (of which separation is a part)
is vital for the believer’s spiritual life. There is no power nor Holy
Spirit assurance in an unsanctified Christian life. Separation from
worldliness is a vital part of sanctification. Third, though a believer
is eternally secure in Christ, his eternally secure position in Christ
does not negate nor override the possibility of carnality and the loss
of reward at the Bema Seat of Christ. The doctrine of separation ought
to be of intense interest to any believer who understands that he/she
will stand before the Lord and give an account of the
things done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10).
The problem of definition and degrees
The purpose of this article is to offer a practical way to apply
separation to a believer’s life. I don’t want to be understood,
however, as if I’ve made the whole doctrine too simplistic. I believe
there are areas of ecclesiastical as well as personal separation (2 Tim.
2:16-21). Good men may disagree as to when a believer ought to leave a
church, a movement, or a circle of friends even though there may be
unanimous agreement with the fact that it must happen at some point. I
believe there are times to separate from nonbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14) and
also from believers (2 Thes. 3:6, 14-15). Each man will have to be
fully convinced when he has become “unequally yoked” to an unbeliever
and also when he must have “no company” with a brother. But the fact
is, these concepts are clearly taught in the New Testament Scriptures.
In my lifetime there has been a lot of discussion over
whether there is a “secondary” or “second degree” of separation from
“every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thes. 3:6). I would agree
with those who practice separation to this extent but who also object to
the unnecessary use of the term “secondary.” When a brother fails to
separate himself from unscriptural practices, even from those of another
brother, he himself is walking disorderly. The separation is from him
as well as from any other disorderliness. “Note
that man, and have no
company with him, that
he may be ashamed” (vs
14).
The concept of a threshold
The problem of when and how to separate has been a life-long
school of pass and fail. I have, at times, been caustic and rude in my
zeal to separate from obvious error and in so being have forfeited any
opportunity to “gain my brother.” I have often walked too far with my
disorderly brother out of love or respect and have only made the
inevitable separation harder, like waiting to pull a bad tooth until the
situation has become unbearable. In seeking both to be genuinely humble
and biblically right in these difficult situations, I have found a
biblical concept that has become more obvious to me as time has gone by.
I call this concept “threshold” separation. This is the simple
principle of not crossing the threshold of a room if there is too great
a chance that something in that room will be harmful. By shutting the
door to the whole room, one may forfeit some things that would have been
good, but at the same time eliminate the possibility of harmful things.
A little reflection will reveal that we all do or have practiced this at
various times in our lives. My children were not allowed to play in the
street. A street is actually a great area for children’s play: it’s
flat and smooth for little wheels; it is large and almost endless for
balls and other projectiles; it even has curbs for boundaries! But a
street has an obvious danger to children that overrides all those
advantages. It has cars with drivers who are not careful and small
children are no match for big cars! A parent’s choice becomes obvious:
the street will be off limits to children. The only amazing thing is
how we begin to neglect such a sound principle when our children get
older.
Some biblical examples
Paul wrote to the Corinthians (not a group of believers given to
sanctification), Wherefore, if meat
make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth,
lest I make my brother to offend (1 Cor. 8:13). Paul was
absolutely willing to close the door to that room if that room contained
the possibility of offending a brother. To the Romans he wrote,
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to
drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended,
or is made weak (Rom. 14:21).
At the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, the believers decided to
place certain actions off-limits to all the churches because of the
danger of offense and hindrance to the gospel.
That ye abstain from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:
from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well (Acts 15:29).
Fornication was surely prohibited by other biblical statements, but the
others may or may not have been in many New Testament contexts. The
appeal, however, was to avoid these things completely. The prohibition
to idol meat was still being upheld in the Lord’s letters to the seven
churches in 95 AD (Rev. 2:14, 20).
In 1 Corinthians 10:27-33 Paul advises believers that if a lost
person notifies you that the meat you are eating is idol meat (and the
man is proud of it, too!), then quit eating the meat altogether. Use it
rather as an opportunity to bring conviction to the lost man once he
sees your biblical conviction.
Paul used the threshold principle in refusing to take John Mark
on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-41). Barnabas was of the
opinion that more good than bad could come of Mark’s presence, but Paul
would not take the chance of one mistake ruining the whole journey.
Therefore he refused to take Mark at all.
Church discipline itself utilizes the concept of threshold
separation. The last step that the Lord gave (Matt. 18:17) is to
exclude the brother completely and treat him as you would an unsaved
man. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul commands the church to do this with the
fornicator. This step, regardless of how severe it may seem, must be
taken when other admonitions have failed. They were not to pick and
choose how he may intermingle with the church but rather to close the
door completely to fellowship.
The biblical admonition to believers not to marry non-believers
is an obvious use of this principle. Paul’s clear instruction (1 Cor.
7:39, 2 Cor. 6:14) eliminates any possibility of a believer agreeing to
marry a known unbeliever. Only a blanket prohibition could possibly
work in this matter.
John’s prohibition to believer’s ever bidding a false prophet
“God speed” (2 John 10) is a blanket policy due to the obvious result:
you would become a “partaker” (koinonei, a fellowshiper, a sharer) in
all of his evil deeds. One cannot take a chance with such fellowship by
trying to discern before each declaration.
Practical results
First, there is the obvious advantage of safety. When that room
contains dangerous things, I know I will not be harmed by them if I
never enter the room. Second, it avoids failing to discern questionable
things. John said “try the spirits” not “try out the spirits.” For
young or immature believers this is necessary at least for certain
periods of time. Third, we cannot serve two masters. The more we love
the one, the more we hate the other. We are commanded NOT to love the
world for this very reason. If that room will not bring me closer to
God, I don’t want to be in there. Fourth, I brought nothing into this
world and I will take nothing out. Godly contentment will not miss
whatever else is in that room! I am waiting anxiously to leave this
“worldly” existence altogether. Why should leaving some of it now cause
me any regret?
Possible applications
Until recently Christians agreed that abstaining from substances
that cause us bodily harm is wise. I have never smoked, drunk alcoholic
beverages, or used addictive drugs. I can’t imagine a scenario where it
would have been any advantage to me as a husband, father or pastor to
practice these. Yet smoking and “social” drinking are coming into
Christian circles now in a large way. Christian young people do these
things “underground” without knowledge of parents or church, and many
adults are now flaunting their ability to “live large” for Jesus.
Sadly, only time will tell what harm this “room” will bring to the cause
of Christ and a whole generation of young people.
Some “places” where I may go may be able to be avoided altogether
and some may not. I never go to a “bar” to eat or get a cup of coffee,
yet I cannot avoid all stores or restaurants that sell liquor. But my
blanket refusal of “bars” still stands. My wife and I have never been
in a movie theater together nor with our children. This was an easy
decision with an easy line to draw. That doesn’t mean we didn’t watch
TV or movies on the TV (though nothing above a G rating was brought
home!). The line was drawn at the theater and my family was both
protected and made stronger because of it. I have advised it for anyone
who loves their children and have forced it upon no one.
We have kept the ministry of our church within the purpose of the
gospel and the Scriptures. We do not have social and political
entanglements within the church. I believe these are good and noble for
Christians to do (as many other things in life), but they are not
described, much less prescribed for the local church in the New
Testament. This is becoming increasingly difficult for many people to
understand in this purpose-driven environment.
The ecumenical movement has placed pressure upon fundamental
churches to “tear down the walls” that divide us. Denominational names
and other identifications, however, are a good and proper way of
guarding our doctrine. Most churches stay within their own
denominational circles because it greatly decreases the chance of
exposure to contrary doctrine. Sometimes, however, a description such
as “fundamentalist” or “conservative” may bring closer communion than
our own denominational name.
And so . . . .
“Threshold” separation is a biblical concept with obvious
practical advantages. In a day when the boundaries of morals,
proprieties, and manners are being eroded, it is wise to have a good
stopping place.
|
