Beale on Broader Evangelicalism

I have long thought that “primary” and “secondary” are bad terms for separation. Separation is based on a person’s actions or beliefs, not on someone else’s. So separation from Graham was because of what Graham did, not what someone else did. I think this might be the grandfather of the “gospel only” idea of fellowship that is prevalent today. It is insufficient for Christian doctrine and fellowship. There are reasons to separate that have nothing to do with the gospel or being apostate.

It is interesting that even apostates and the dreaded “new evangelicals” are seeing the value of so-called secondary separation though, just as fundamentalists are abandoning it.

Yes, before you chime in with “What about …”, we can all agree that there were lots of abuses of it. And notice how many people separate from people who abused secondary separation or who associate with those who abused secondary separation. It’s one of the ironies that the ex-fundamentalists are, in many ways, just as fundamental as the fundamentalists they so despise. They have the same militant and angry spirit; they just have different fundamentals.

I think it is generous to attribute Graham’s actions to ignorance. He knew what he was doing and many people had warned him, both lovingly and not so lovingly, about doing it. It was not personal malice to be sure. But it was an intentional act. It was just disobedient and he knew better or at least should have known better.

It’s a given that we should separate from liberalism./apostasy/false teachers (First degree). Most of the post 50’s fundamentalists hold that we should separate from Christian brothers who don’t practice first degree separation and are, therefore, disobedient brothers (Second degree). The question remains, “Are we to separate from those don’t practice secondary separation?

[Ron Bean]

It’s a given that we should separate from liberalism./apostasy/false teachers (First degree). Most of the post 50’s fundamentalists hold that we should separate from Christian brothers who don’t practice first degree separation and are, therefore, disobedient brothers (Second degree). The question remains, “Are we to separate from those don’t practice secondary separation?

[AndyE]

Ron Bean wrote:

It’s a given that we should separate from liberalism./apostasy/false teachers (First degree). Most of the post 50’s fundamentalists hold that we should separate from Christian brothers who don’t practice first degree separation and are, therefore, disobedient brothers (Second degree). The question remains, “Are we to separate from those don’t practice secondary separation?

Well, before we get to that remaining question, should we separate from those like BG, who to use your words, “work with the enemy,” or to use my words, “give Christian recognition to unbelievers?” Bert has said he doesn’t agree with secondary separation at all. But are there legit Biblical reasons to separate from a disobedient brother at all, and in this specific case, one like BG? I’m not asking if the Fundamentalists who did this were mean, unloving, or sloppy in how they did it. I”m just trying to see what you (and others) actually beleive the Bible teaches in this regard.

We are all free to do do what we want regarding these levels. The Bible says that we are to be separate from false teachers. It also says that we may have to separate from disobedient brethren after we have confronted them and deduced that their disobedience is willful. As an aside, I’ve always found it difficult to separate from people with whom I have no personal relationship and who do not know that I exist.

[Ron Bean]

We are all free to do do what we want regarding these levels. The Bible says that we are to be separate from false teachers. It also says that we may have to separate from disobedient brethren after we have confronted them and deduced that their disobedience is willful. As an aside, I’ve always found it difficult to separate from people with whom I have no personal relationship and who do not know that I exist.

A few corrections. We are free to do what God wants, not what we want.

Second, I think you are being a little fast and loose with what the Scriptures say. Mt 18 talks about personal offenses and calls us to meet with our brethren to try to reconcile the matter, but that isn’t the “one passage to rule them all.” Paul demanded they put the man in 1 Cor 5 out of the church, no confrontation, no debate, get rid of him. His problem wasn’t that he was a false teacher as such. Those are two examples where your statement clearly doesn’t comprehend the whole teaching on dealing with disobedience.

Last, we’ve been over this over and over again, and partly its due to our sloppy use of the term “separation,” but we all are aware of well known preachers who we would urge people to avoid, not buy their books, not watch their TV/internet shows or what have you. We might differ on which ones those are, but that is so. If someone in your own church is drifting away and visiting around to other churches, there are some churches in town (not just liberal churches) where you would be concerned and would warn against if you had a leadership position. Its just the way it is. Is that separation? Maybe not, but some will call it that. But it all falls under the question of what to do about other ministries that are in disagreement with our own ministries. How do we relate to them? Some of them we stear completely clear of, even though we acknowledge they are believers.

[Ron Bean] We are all free to do do what we want regarding these levels. The Bible says that we are to be separate from false teachers. It also says that we may have to separate from disobedient brethren after we have confronted them and deduced that their disobedience is willful.

As an aside, I’ve always found it difficult to separate from people with whom I have no personal relationship and who do not know that I exist.

Paul demanded they put the man in 1 Cor 5 out of the church, no confrontation, no debate, get rid of him.

I don’t think this is evident at all. The assumption I would make is that he had been confronted and failed to repent. To put him out without confrontation would disobey other passages such as Matthew 18 or Titus 3 or others which both require and show confrontation prior to any action. It seems unlikely that Paul would require a church to do something that would contradict what he has commanded elsewhere.

Having said that, I don’t agree with Ron that we must confront someone like BG personally. His actions were public, not private and not confined to a local church. I don’t know that we need to say something about it publicly, although we might.

Ron asks,

The question remains, “Are we to separate from those don’t practice secondary separation?

While I reject the category, the question is, Are we commanded to separate from disobedient brothers? If the answer is “Yes,” then this question has been answered, at least in principle.