I like reading Scott Aniol's Religious Affections. Jonathan Edward's A Treatise concerning Religious Affections is important to have read and understand, and Scott does well to name his blog that. Most don't know or understand the implications of not knowing what Edwards talks about in his treatise. I believe he provides a very informative and helpful read at his blog, entitled: "Is Music a Separation Issue?" As it relates to most men today, Scott takes a strong position on music and worship. Much of what he writes is helpful. I recommend that you read his Worship in Song. It's very good and a book I have required for my pastors-in-training to prepare them to lead the worship of their churches. Of course, I also recommend my book, Sound Music or Sounding Brass too for those reading here that didn't know I wrote something on this in 1996.I believe his question is an important one, that is, is music a separating issue? What is the best about what Scott writes is some history about philosophy of culture. In this article, it is for the first time I have read the terminology, "conservative fundamentalist." Scott had to know what he was writing there, introducing a new label, it seems. I've been reading "conservative evangelical," but it seems that as men relate to the culture as Christians, fundamentalists are now to be differentiated.
Scott is very strong. He's on the right side here. But he isn't strong enough, and that weakness surrounds a few statements he makes, first to start his article and then in the comment section. I believe that these statements parallel with the history of fundamentalism and they are a kind of traditional fundamentalist doctrine or just a fundamentalist tradition. They are not biblical. That should be our greatest concern, because we are talking about honor of, obedience to, and love for God. No one should be afraid to leave the fundamentalist reservation for the Lord Jesus. Here are the two statements in order:
Music philosophy is not a separation issue of the same kind of level as heterodoxy or flagrant, known sin.
Strictly speaking, biblical “separation” is refusing to extend Christian fellowship to someone who denies the gospel.
Scott's going to get agreement for these from most fundamentalists. Hearty agreement. Some fundamentalists won't agree with him---the statements aren't strong enough. I don't consider myself a fundamentalist, even though I'm very supportive of the idea of fundamentalism, but these don't read as scriptural to me. That's my concern. They are unscriptural---weaker than scripture.
Do you think they are scriptural? If they are, why? Support it from scripture. If not, then why not? And again, support it from the Bible.
24 comments:
Technically, the statement is biblically accurate according to
Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul's wish for those who denied the gospel to be accursed would not be the same reaction for those who are in flagrant sin. The level of separation is different as we see in:
2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
He doesn't wish that the person who has disobeyed the epistle to be accursed, but rather to be ashamed and admonished as a brother.
So to treat all departure from all truths on every level as equally damning is an over-reaction.
Reforming Baptist,
Unfortunately you only referred to ONE of the passages on separation. What about 1 Corinthians 5? This passage about disciplining church members over sin says nothing about treating him "as a brother", though it does refer to him as being identified as a brother (verse 11). You are right that there are different degrees of dealing people, but our response in separation ultimately has to do - not with the grievousness of the sin - but with the response of the people who is in error. See Matthew 18:15-20 for the explanation of this. This passage clearly states that the disobedient "brother" is to be treated (regarded) as a "heathen man and publican."
Bro. B.,
I think you've asked the question in a very excellent way. If people answer you according to your question, we should read some enlightning and fascinating views here, as well as understand a little better the whole doctrine of separation.
It appears to me that the Scriptures speak about separation from so-called Christians who persevere in sin versus those who are in theological error in, well, separate passages. I'll address the former in this comment, and then come back to the latter in another comment.
I believe that the scripture teaches that the reason we separate from professing Christians who persist in sin is absolutely because they deny the gospel, either essentially or practically. I Cor 5 indicates that such a one may be called a brother but the conduct indicates otherwise and therefore the gospel is being loudly denied (cf w/ I Cor 6:9-11). Additionally, I Peter 1:14-21 teaches us that "fashioning [ourselves] according to the former lusts" distorts the gracious nature of our salvation which effectively corrupts the gospel.
Very clearly, separation in these types of cases is all about the denial of the gospel in the life of the sinning professing Christian, and the affirming of a pure gospel by those who withdraw fellowship from them.
I haven't commented yet because I want to read what others have to say. Thanks for commenting, however.
Gary,
My point is that the first line of separation starts at the gospel the severity of separation lessons from there. Blatant sin that will not be repented of by a professing Christian is an indirect attack on the gospel and after it's been dealt with according to Matthew 18, then the sinning person is to be treated as an unbeliever. But to treat to call someone accursed and an enemy of the gospel because he worships with CCM, disagrees with certain dress standards, disagrees with the Bible version issue is to take a radically extremist stand in light of Jesus attitude about those who didn't do exactly what the disciples were doing:
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
Perhaps they should have been following Jesus like the other 12, but they had a misunderstanding of what it meant to be a disciple. Jesus didn't demand that they be called out and separated from.
My question that still remains as I read this blog is: "Is there one level of separation? If a professing Christian doesn't hold to every thing that you believe is 'the faith' then they are to be separated from as an unbeliever?"
Kent,
I think the term 'separation' is applied too broadly in general. I think Scott does this when he says separation is refusing to extend Christian fellowship.
Separation is separation - i.e., having nothing to do with someone or something. 2 Cor 6.14ff.
Withholding fellowship is not separation, it is keeping a distance from a professing brother for some reason or other. Rm 16.17.
Loving the world is not loving God, loving God is not loving the world. (Among other things.) That is why the music issue is important. It falls under 1 Jn 2.15-17 more than the other passages, but certainly someone who is disobedient here can become someone we mark and avoid.
BTW, I am not that impressed with Scott's book. He started well, has some good ideas, but didn't finish as well as he began. He also cites human authority far more than he does Scripture. It comes down to one man's opinion more than anything, in the final analysis. I had hoped for better.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
William,
Do you think it is possible to keep it to the principles themselves? You make the blatant assumption that the issues you bring up are what we might be talking about. In my previous post, the only thing close to that was Grunge Rock Worship, which is something even worse than most CCM. Again, I'm not going to make a point per se until I wait a little longer, but I don't think your cherry picking of the particular issues you want to be in our minds change anything as to the actual doctrine and practice we're talking about. With not offense intended, I find that to be the typical new-evangelical, non-separatist argument, that is, the straw man of reading into this that this is about women's pants and the King James. It's just deflecting from the discussion. It's like talking about abortion and saying that we don't care about a woman who has had the pregnany forced upon her. What I am asking, at least for awhile, is that we could talk about this without arguing like that.
I think the degrees of separation are present in Scripture. In the issue of I Cor. 5, Paul says nothing to the church at Corinth about the man making repentance (which he later did, see II Cor.) The reason for this was that he might make a false repentance, in which case there would be cause for the enemies of God to blaspheme. In contrast, after he repented, Paul said to take him back to fellowship - until he repented, he was to be counted as an heathen, but Paul skipped over the first steps of Matthew 18, and went straight to putting him out of the church because this had become necessary - it was too well-known in the community for "going privately" or "going with one or two witnesses" - Matthew 18 shows the ideal, all with the hope of repentance on the part of the one who did the wrong.
Compare this to "have no company with ..." which is different than what I Cor. 5 says. I Cor. 5 says to put him out of the assembly - as it were, do not let him in the doors. In writing to the Thessalonians, Paul did not say to remove one from the assembly, but to have no fellowship with him.
Probably the best book I have seen on the subject is John Ashbrooke's "Axioms of Separation" in which he discusses what separation is, and what it is not - when it is to be used, and when it is not.
Reforming Baptist,
We know that Christians have to grow & learn & have our minds [thinking] transformed by the truth. I know that that can take quite a bit of time, depending upon what quality of teaching a person has.
However, you seem to miss the severity of the issues you listed. Take the version issue: there is hardly a stronger condemnatory passage in all the Bible than Revelation 22:18-19. On the dress issue: a primary passage [Deuteronomy 22:5] says that the violator is "an abomination to God." It would not be me or Brandenburg then that is calling those who reject Bible teaching in these areas as "accursed" but the Bible itself. Again, souls need time to learn, & this is a day of confusion, but the Bible is where the condemnation comes from. Is taking the Bible at face value a "radically extremist" position?
I have appreciated the comments here, and I think that Don did answer the question. He said, "No." D4 is saying, "Yes," unless I've got him wrong. Will said, "Yes." I believe Gary is saying, "No," because he is disagreeing with Will(Reforming Baptist). If Claymore agrees with Ashbrook, then he is with Don and Gary. I've already said I don't agree with Scott's definition of separation, but I haven't dealt with it scripturally.
Gary,
So, let's say that you're absolutely right about the Bible version issue and the pants on women thing and that God means it the way you mean it. So is 99.98% of Christians all over the world that don't believe this not truly Christians? They are an abomination, in sin, and only the fundamentalists who believe like this are the only true Christians? Because that's where your argument is taking you. If you want to go there, then you just put the cult label on yourself.
Kent,
Whether it's the music issue, or standards of dress, it's all the same argument. If it's in 'the faith' the 'body of doctrine' then it's worth separating from like an unbeliever. I'm not trying to deflect the issue. My point is, I don't care what the issue is, I'm trying to ask if you are teaching that everything is a first degree separation issue. It looks that way to me.
Will,
I think we should talk about this from the perspective of "what does the Bible teach." Are we regulated by what God said or by just part of what He said.
And second, do you know what a cult is? I would like to assume you do. At one time, every Christian, every, practiced like we do with regards to gender distinction. Normally when everyone is practicing a certain way, and then the practice changes, you don't refer to those who practice the historic way as being a cult. And those who took the position most often defended it with Deut 22:5. I'm not that interested though in debating Dt 22:5 and the preservation issue on this juncture. But I think it is important to say that we take a position on both the ones you mentioned that is the historic position of the church. A cult follows the teaching of a man---like Charles Russell or Mary Baker Eddy. Do you understand that? Cults change historic doctrine. They break with the historic path. They believe in a total apostasy. If not, let me know of a cult that doesn't.
RB:
The word "cult" is not to be thrown about lightly. It is a term that should only be used for those who hold to the marks of a cult. Here are some of those marks:
1. Belief that anybody outside their own local group or (in some of the more well-known cults) outside the cult title is on his way to hell. As such, it is tantanount to leaving God to leave that title, or that local group for any reason.
2. Interference in the lives of the people by the leadership - as such, Bob Mumford was guilty of establishing one through the shepherdising movement in Ft. Lauderdale.
3. Acceptance of authority outside of Scripture - see the way that "infallible popes" contradict each other to make equally valid ex-cathedra authority.
4. Shunning of those who leave the cult (either the local or otherwise).
5. Salvation by works
6. No such thing as security of the Believer (in other words, the just do not live by faith alone). My views on the security of the believer are simple: as long as one believes, he is secure (Heb. 10:35) - this in no way implies a cult's view which is that a man may be "zapped" for not doing enough of this or that (as the JW would say).
There are others, which may be found if you look for them. Dr. Spence of Foundations Bible Church wrote an article on the cults once which will give the signs of a cult and commentary on them.
As to stating that one is in a cult if he believes that women should not wear a man's garment, or holds to a certain version as opposed to many versions, or even believes that one preaches a false gospel if it states that men must live
I forgot to finish the above comment:
... if it states that men must live in sin, or without victory by constant struggling (when Christ said that He would give rest), this is nonsense.
Reforming Baptist,
OK. Nice response. You totally overlooked my beginning & ending statements about learning. I think that, no matter what the subject, anytime someone knows the Bible teaching & rejects that teaching, there are severe consequences from God. In regard to dress, from my observation, those who discount the "pants" application have no application at all. This is an abomination to God.
Bro. B., I think it is clear as well that cults also alter, drop, or add to the essential elements of the gospel as directly pertains to Salvation (as the LDS and JWs have with the diety of Christ).
Yes, I was saying yes as far as personal separation from sinning individual professing believers. I think brother Johnson makes an important point/distinction about what we call Ecclesiastical separation.
I see where the Bible calls us to separate from heretics which cause divisions (Romans 16, II Timothy 2), and it makes sense to have no cooperation with congregatipons pastored by false teachers (btw, both of these would be separation on basis of the gospel). But where does the Bible prescribe any other type of ecclesiastical separation?
Something that is generally overlooked in discussing separation is that if the godly separate from professing brethren based on either a doctrine or a practice, the separation is usually mutual. As a "for instance" there are several people who claim to be Christians that I am not speaking to because they reject what has been said to them about the way they live based upon the Word of God, but they have had little to do with me before I came to this conclusion. The separation between King Saul and the Prophet Samuel was mutual for neither came to see the other until the day of Saul's death. If we try to live godly in Christ Jesus, people will ultimately separate from us if they desire not to live godly. This goes for personal and ecclesiastical separation.
I confused at The Word of Truth
Conferences will you all just be
covering ecclesiastical separation
or personal also? I only bring it
up because this post has to do
with separation.
Phil
Phil,
Word of Truth is only ecclesiastical separation for the next three years.
If every aspect of the faith relates to the gospel, then we separate only over the gospel. However, scripture itself does not make that kind of statement. I don't agree with Don that we can differentiate not having fellowship from separation. When we won't have fellowship, that is separation. We see that in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. When we will not have communion, we are coming out from among them and being separate.
We look at the separation passages and they talk about more than just the gospel. Yes, Gal 1:6-9 brings in the gospel, but we have more than that in the other texts, like Romans 16:17 and 1 Cor 5 and 2 Thess 3 and 1 Tim 6.
Let's consider one issue, baptism, and consider it apart from the problem of baptismal regeneration. A church or a preacher sprinkles (unscriptural mode) or baptizes infants (unscriptural recipient). We don't have the Bible say that it is wrong to sprinkle or baptize infants. God didn't say it was wrong to carry the ark on the back of a cart either. God didn't say it was wrong to offer fruits and vegetables. Do you see what scripture is saying? Believing or practicing something different than how God said is sin. It is disobeying God. We are to separate from that. God separated Himself from that when it wasn't repented of. Those who fellowship with God and with other believers walk in the light as He is in the light. Infant sprinkling is a walk in darkness.
With respect to not having communion, Kent, do you have communion (the Lord's Table) with anyone outside your local church? I hadn't thought you would hold to open communion, but perhaps I am mistaken. But perhaps you might take communion in a like-minded Baptist church. Even so, I suspect there are some churches where you would not take communion, but you might have some kind of fellowship. Is that correct? Is that separation, in keeping with the dichotomy of 2 Cor 6?
By withholding or limiting fellowship, I am thinking of a more narrow meaning to the word fellowship that is more in keeping with the term koinonia, i.e., ministry partnership. There are erring brothers in our city with whom I would not cooperate or work with in any ministry whatsoever, but I don't deny they are brothers. To me, separation means denying that the profession of someone else is true. I think that is what 2 Cor 6 is saying. But there are brothers with whom I can't work closely. That is what many of the other passages are saying.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jerimiah 33.3
Hi Don.
When I said communion with regards to your comment, I was speaking of koinonia, that is translated "communion" there in 2 Cor 6, I believe. No communion and separate seem to be synonymous, Don. I'm not looking at a Gk NT right this moment, but I would believe that it is. So I wasn't referring to the Lord's Table, although to answer that question, I practice closed communion and I don't partake with other churches because of that belief. I've had just once where it came up, but it was last summer and my family and I left before they partook, even though they would have offered it to us.
I do believe that fellowship is something beyond a game of pick-up basketball based on the usage of that word. Or you and I talking like we do.
Kent,
I agree that 'no communion' and 'separate' are synonymous. But is that what is called for with the disobedient brother?
Isn't there still some communion? That is, are these folks still not branches connected to the living vine? Hence the difference. I may withhold full fellowship in some ways, but I can't deny that they share in the same eternal life by faith in Christ.
That doesn't mean that I would go out of my way to find some common activity that I can participate with disobedient brethren. In most cases I think there error is too great for any kind of close identity.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Post a Comment