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
