The Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Separation is Being Lost—We Cannot Let It Happen
Last night, I sat with some GenZ college students and talked about the history of fundamentalism. We talked for two and a half hours. I tried to answer every question and be as candid as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of biblical Baptist fundamentalism over the past 100 years. The conversation is typical of others that I have had lately. I came away with some observations I would like to share.
These sincere young men told me that they had never even heard of the doctrine of ecclesiastical separation, even though they had grown up in fundamental Baptist churches, went to fundamental Christian Schools, and were attending a fundamentalist Christian University. They knew what a theological liberal was, but they had never heard the history of the fight of the early fundamentalists for the gospel and the church’s purity. They eagerly listened as I narrated the story of the German Liberalism that permeated colleges and seminaries in the early 1900s, the battles that ensued in the denominational structures in the 1920s, and the separation that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. We talked about the doctrines we call the fundamentals of the faith. These young men did not know that the creed that they recite in chapel every day is a memorized list of those fundamentals.
We moved on and talked about the philosophy of the New Evangelicals of the late 1940s and into the 1950s. We talked about the tremendous gospel preaching of Billy Graham and the horrible ecclesiastical compromise that undermined the message. And we talked about the new challenges we are facing today, not only in ecclesiastical relationships but also in dealing with the sins of the culture.
I am surprised that the schools that were born out of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy have not even bothered to tell the story of their own roots—the reason that they exist. This problem is not confined to only one school, it is generally true of every school in our own fellowship. I hope that part of their education is yet to come. These GenZers are eager to hear both the theological foundations for the doctrine of biblical separation, and how it was put into practice over the last hundred years. They are longing for a biblical paradigm to enables them to deal in a principled way with the confusing theological landscape they are facing.
One of the young men exclaimed, “Shouldn’t they be teaching us this stuff in college? I have never heard this before at all!”
I came away from the conversation committing myself to teach it in private conversations as often as I can to any young person who is willing to hear it. We need to be honest about the weaknesses of fundamentalism over the last 50 years especially—the failure to develop and implement, reverent, God-focused, Spirit-filled worship services—the lack of vibrant, effective, evangelism and discipleship—a practice of sanctification based upon a list of rules rather than a growing relationship with God through the Holy Spirit—and the King James Only movement which has served as a lazy way of dealing with the “good church/bad church” question.
For too long we have let our voices trail off as naysayers roll their eyes at the idea the practice of biblical separation continues to be relevant. It is not only relevant—it is essential.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. These ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone. Matthew 23:23
Audio version of this post: The Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Separation is Being Lost — We Cannot Let It Happen (substack.com)
Or search for Proclaim & Defend on Apple, Spotify, or other providers.
Amen. Well said. I am glad to have been taught this doctrine in my time at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. May it filter down to the church level and also to other schools.
I am a committed fundamentalist (even though the term has been greatly abused in recent years….we do not advocate flying planes into buildings!), While we can all acknowledge some of the “problems” that have occurred the last 50+ years, it always amazes me those that “hold on” to hurts that happened to them 40-50 years ago in “such and such” church and they use that as an “excuse” to do nothing for God now……….
If the history and such is that important, then 90% of the burden falls on local churches. Plenty of folks don’t go to college. Higher ed bears merely a sliver of the burden.
But if the pastors don’t know then the churches generally won’t either. Denominations typically fall from the top down. Why we are fundamentalists and what defines us needs to be understood and taught. If it’s not done in the institutions it’s not likely going to be done in the churches.
I don’t think it is one or the other, it is both/and. Local churches must teach this, but also the colleges must teach it on a different level.
JS, Andy, and Kevin,
I’m grateful for the education on the history of Fundamentalism and teaching on separation that I received. I received so much teaching on Fundamentalism and the doctrine of separation during my undergraduate and graduate program at one of our sister institutions, that I was initially a little startled by the lack of teaching in the church I heard on the history of Fundamentalism and the different approach to teaching separation post-graduate school. I agree that the institutions need to teach the our history and Separation to the future pastors, and somehow fit it into their elective courses required for all students. And those pastors need to teach separation and our history to the laypeople to continually put them in remembrance of those things.
I wonder if those young men were being taught separation from the world, false doctrine, and disobedient brethren, but didn’t know it as the doctrine of Separation. I wonder if they were asked if their pastor ever named modern day pastors or preacher to avoid, said why their church doesn’t cooperate with a particular church down the street, or preached on Romans 12:1-2 and applied it to their lives, they would probably say “Yes.” Then I would say they were taught about biblical separation. I wouldn’t be surprised if they would say they don’t remember ever hearing references to Fundamentalism history in a positive light in their church. I think some pastors are trying to faithfully teach separation, but may not do so in ways similar to how I was taught at our sister institution. But I think some pastors want to avoid any association with the stigmas of Fundamentalism (people and issues) and therefore avoid teaching on Fundamentalism.
Thank the Lord that you, brother, recognize this. Your writing is confirming what I have sensed talking to young men in my limited sphere. Could you with your “weight” influence the presidents of these institutions to get this into the program of the schools? All the students need to know the history, the issues, whatever the student’s field of study.
This made me dig into old files, found The Ohio Bible Fellowship Visitor, June 2005, by John E. Ashbrook (& author of New Neutralism 11). This was titled “From New York to New York”, on Billy Grahams crusade there in 1957, & last one in 2005, and on his change of direction. He gives 3 results, 1 of which is “Christianity is not pragmatic but authoritarian…God did not command us to cooperate with apostasy and then evaluate the results. Rather, God simply commanded, “Come out from among them and be separate”. His writings were so Biblical!
His pamphlets are very helpful. Also, Pickering’s book on Biblical Separation is excellent.
Yes, I just found that one also, a classic !
The weaknesses mentioned are why many of us left the FBFI brand of fundamentalism. That and the emphasis on separating from other Christians on matters like music. Many of us found what was missing in good churches that were “outside the Village”.
Ron. There is a difference between separation and limited participation based upon philosophy. Most fundamentalists have recognized this for a long time. Consider Dave Shumate’s article here entitled “Separation verses Limited Participation.” We do need to be able to make our case for our understanding of biblical obedience. Practice differences do limit practical participation with one another in ministry without rising to the level of separation.
https://fbfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NovDec-2020-lowres.pdf
Rather than react against specific applications of separation by individuals, I would encourage everyone to deal with the biblical data. For instance Ron, would you take issue with Pickering (Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Separation-Struggle-Pure-Church/dp/0872278034)?
Making fellowship decisions based upon what we like to do rather than based upon the biblical data is a bad way to make decisions, regardless of which direction I lean. With music for instance (since you brought it up) in our own fellowship, we have significant differences among us on specific publishers and writers we will use in our services–and we still love one another, fellowship with one another, and challenge one another on those issues.
Thank you Kevin. I have warm memories of having lunch and a discussion with Ernest Pickering and other pastors on this subject as well as his recollections of seeing some of the results of the Isle of Lewis Revival when he was in Scotland. I think part of my difficulty has been the practice of separation by individuals. Those who imply that conservative evangelicals who have no association with liberalism are the same as new evangelicals are hard for me to understand as well as rejecting all CCM, even that that is doctrinally sound and singable. Again thank you.
Perhaps you should contact the institution and ask if Mark Sidwell’s book (formerly “The Dividing Line,” now titled “Set Apart”) is still required reading for Bible Doctrines courses. Ten years ago it was, covering the doctrine and history.
Kevin, you mentioned one of the problems being “a practice of sanctification based upon a list of rules rather than a growing relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.” It seems to me that many have reacted wrongly to this with a broad acceptance of worldly practices. 1. No movies has been replaced with it’s okay to overlook foul language, nudity, and violence. 2. No rock music has been replaced with music is amoral and worldly music is a good way to bring people to Christ. 3. Separation from worldly believers has been replaced with as long as we share the same doctrine. Too many rules has turned into anything goes.
I realize that these are simplified examples, but things have progressed in a wrong direction for too long
There’s another side to this that is not mentioned often, but needs addressing as well- historic Fundamentalism was inter-denominational in character. The leaders had the discernment to recognize and even invite into their pulpits men from other denominations who held to the same core principles of Christianity. They also gave grace to brothers who were seeking to recover their denominations from the inside (like the Puritans). There’s always a debate about when a denomination is too far gone, but Fundamentalism became so isolationist it lost the ability to make these careful and necessary distinctions.
Cameron – exactly right. Actual historic fundamentalism was remarkably diverse denominationally, partly because the actual fundamentals were the focus.
JS and Cameron
I would say that it is more “fundamentaliisms” than “fundamentalism,” as Kevin Bauder often says. There was some interaction between Baptist and Presbyterian fundamentalists but they were mostly fighting their own fights in their own arenas.
While I certainly applaud and welcome fundamentalist Presbyterians and others into the arena, I think we will naturally tend to mostly “proclaim & defend” within our own spheres of influence.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3