Separation versus Limited Participation: Is There A Difference?

Part I: The Basis for Prudential Limits on Association¹

There are many issues determined by direct Biblical statement or clear biblical principle. In such matters, our obligation is loyalty to the Scriptures. Other issues are matters of preference. In these areas, we should defer to others in Christian love. I believe, however, that there are disagreements that belong to neither category. These are matters of considered judgment or conviction.² Such things as ministry philosophy, theological systems and prudence dictate the convictions one holds.

A believer may decide not to participate with fellow Christians in certain amusements or other activities because he or she does not think it wise or God-honoring. Parents may place requirements on their own children that they may not impose on other children in the youth group. Church leaders may feel the need to caution their members against the potential dangers associated with a certain Christian movement, however well-meaning it may be. Such practices may seem to be common sense, but are they biblically or theologically justified? At least two principles support limits on participation. They are soul liberty and the autonomy of the local church.

The Principle of Soul Liberty and the Importance of Conscience

Soul liberty is the belief that the opinions or dictates of others may not bind the believer’s conscience in matters of faith. Some misunderstand soul liberty to mean that Christians have the freedom to believe whatever they want. This is not the case. Where the Scriptures are clear, believers must submit. Neither does soul liberty mean that believers are exempt from legitimate human authority. It does mean, however, that a Christian’s conscience is answerable ultimately to the Word of God.

One responsibility that comes with soul liberty is that believers must seek to live according to their convictions. Paul made this point clear to the Romans in his discussion of dietary restrictions and holy days (Rom. 14). The Old Testament dietary laws, fulfilled in Christ, were no longer in force. Therefore, Paul called the brother who retained scruples about such things “weak in the faith,” in that he lacked a mature understanding of New Testament theology. Nevertheless, even in this case where the brother was incorrect in his conviction, Paul insisted that such a brother not be pressured to act against his conscience, because to so act would be sinful (Rom. 14:23). Instead Paul commanded everyone to be “fully persuaded” in his own mind. The term Paul uses, the passive of plērophoreō, is the same verb he employs to refer to Abraham’s faith in the promise of God (Rom. 4:21). Therefore, Paul is not talking about a mere subjective preference.³ He is talking about a conviction seriously formed. In such cases, believers cannot surrender their own convictions unless they are freely and genuinely persuaded otherwise, neither should they seek to impose those convictions on other believers. Rather in these matters, believers must respect one another when they disagree (Rom. 14:3, 10).

This leeway also applies to the exercise of spiritual authority. Parents, pastors, and Christian school administrators have an obligation not only to insist upon adherence to explicit Biblical commands but also to practice Biblical wisdom when leading those under their charge. Of course, the nature and extent of this authority varies depending on the relationship involved, and no human authority is absolute. Pastors are not parents of their members. Neither do they have the right to bind their consciences apart from clear biblical command or principle. Nevertheless, their shepherding responsibility gives them spiritual authority.⁴ Not all leaders will agree about how to apply biblical principles to the practical situations they face. Nevertheless, that does not excuse them from exercising their authority in a way that they believe honors God and that benefits those under their care.

The Principle of the Autonomy of the Local Church

The second Biblical principle informing the concept of limited participation is the autonomy of the local church. The local assembly has the right and the responsibility to manage its own affairs, free from the control of other ecclesiastical bodies. Like faithful Christians, faithful local churches do not see eye to eye on everything. Local churches may cooperate in various ways to advance the Lord’s work. However, each church is obligate to participate or not as it understands its responsibility to the Lord. Churches must decide what missionaries to support, what evangelists to invite, what activities to attend and what colleges to recommend. In some cases, Bible precepts mandate these decisions. In others, they are matters of sanctified prudence. The church can and should make such distinctions based on its understanding of Scripture as fleshed out in the church’s ministry.

These principles suggest that Christians individually and collectively have a responsibility before God to discern His will for their lives. In many cases, this determination is not something that is also applicable to others, but neither is it a mere whim. Differences about these matters can at times legitimately limit participation with other believers or ministries. As we will see in the next post, however, limited participation differs greatly from the practice of biblical separation.

---

David Shumate is the General Director of MGM International and Chairman of the FBFI Board of Directors.

1. This article is part 1 of a three-part series, a version of which was published as an article in Frontline Magazine (May/June 2009). [↩]
2. Here, the term, conviction, has the sense of something of which one is convinced, a sincere belief. In this sense, convictions may vary in importance and may involve different levels of certainty. They are, however, serious. [↩]
3. If conscience is this important even when it is not informed by a mature theology, how much more should it be respected when it is based upon arguably valid spiritual, ethical or prudential concerns? For example, Paul gives several circumstances in which a believer should refrain from eating food offered to idols. Eating is wrong if it somehow involves the believer in pagan worship (1 Cor. 10:18-22). It is also wrong if it leads a brother into idolatry (1 Cor. 8). There are many other principles that could legitimately cause believers to adjust their behavior, even when there is no explicit command and when others might disagree with their applications. [↩]
4. Hebrews 13:17. [↩]