Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Jesus Separated Better than We Can

Aphorism 8: All applications must include the sure knowledge that we can’t separate perfectly because we are still sinners living in the regime of sin and death. Thus part of the grace we extend to others must include the possibility that we ourselves are too narrow or too loose.

In seminary, a friend of mine from the Midwest told me that his father, who was a fundamentalist pastor, received a letter from a brother in Christ practicing strict separation. The letter informed him that he was being separated from. It was polite and earnest, established the chain of separation between the author and the recipient, and closed pleading that he separate from the closest of the offending parties. The only odd thing about the letter was that my friend’s father had no idea who the author was. They had never met.

My memory of the conversation is that the fellow writing the letter was practicing 5th degree separation, but the memory is hazy, so perhaps it was only 3rd or 4th. But if we were to imagine a chain of 5th degree separation, it would look something like this: the Roman Catholic Church (1st), J. I. Packer who signed Evangelicals and Catholics Together (2nd), prominent evangelical pastor who disagrees with Packer but does not separate from him (3rd), me who also disagrees with Packer, but who will not separate from him or my former pastor who is a friend of Packer’s (4th), anyone who remains in fellowship with me (5th).

It should be apparent that if this list spreads out to include all the signers of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, all the friends of the signers who don’t separate, all the friends of the friends, and their friends, we would soon be fellowshipping with everyone who fits into our hat. And we can do the same thing with associating with Billy Graham, Jack Hyles, Fuller Seminary, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and so forth.

In general rigorist separatists avoid the term second degree or for that matter third, fourth, and fifth degree separation. The preferred language is separating unto holiness: thus we read statements like this quotation found in Mark Sidwell’s The Dividing Line:

Separation does not really admit of degrees. It is directed to the other person because of his deviation from Scripture in whatever ways he may express them. If he runs with the wrong crowd, separation at this point is from him and not from the crowd he runs with. (Rolland McCune, Ecclesiastical Separation, 5-6, found on page 6 of Sidwell)

This sort of language sounds defensible, but allow me to challenge it a bit. Is it defensible to say there are no degrees in our separation from deviations from Scripture?

Consider the implications of this explicit command in 1 Corinthians 5:11 (ESV):

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

Jesus defines the guilt of sexual immorality this way in Mathew 5:28—“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The Apostle Paul defines greed as “covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col. 3:5).

So then when we come to whom we associate with, are we going to separate based on Jesus and Paul’s standards for greediness, and sexual immorality, and idolatry? Or are we going to use some other standard? And who exactly do we know that we can fellowship with under Jesus and Paul’s standards for greediness and sexual immorality if there are no degrees?

If we don’t have degrees of allowed deviation from the biblical standard, can we even fellowship with ourselves? Under the standard of, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (KJV, Matt. 5:48), we are all damned to isolation, separated both from God and the people of God.

Further a willingness to repent when confronted doesn’t forgo the necessity of degrees. A godly young man in the congregation who struggles with lust but not fornication is allowed to continue in fellowship with the church even though he stumbles the next week. We do the same with coveting, but we don’t allow multiple repentances with bank robbing or more exotic forms of fornication without separation. We are forced by the sinful human condition to allow degrees of sanctification and therefore degrees of wickedness within our congregations and fellowships. And what is allowed and quashed is often conditioned by local issues.

If the standard of perfection is not our Lord’s standard, what is? Shall our standard be the more or less idiosyncratic practice of a strong personality? So we will we be the people who separate like John R. Rice (1895-1980)? Bob Jones’ (1883-1968) practice of separation prior to 1958 or the shift that occurred in response to Graham? Or shall we separate like Roger Williams (ca. 1603-1684) and A. W. Pink (1886-1952), who both ended life unable to find a church pure enough to include anyone but himself and his spouse? These men understood themselves as obeying God on the issue of separation.

Obviously, our model must be the Lord Jesus Christ who was known as “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 11:19). According to Jesus’ own standards all of his Twelve Apostles, including Judas, practiced sexual immorality, idolatry, coveting, theft, and so forth. Jesus taught this clearly in the Sermon on the Mount, but he didn’t separate from them. And Jesus was separated unto holiness. Jesus was perfectly separated. And yet Christ was “a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”

We’ve been focusing on deviations from the moral norms of Scripture, but Jesus was also perfectly separated on the issue of doctrine. Our Lord Jesus in his human nature had a perfect knowledge of theology. And because Jesus’ theology was perfect this requires that he actively fellowshipped with those with imperfect theology. Many of his followers continued to believe untrue things about him and the Bible. The Apostle Peter was still sinfully separating from the Gentiles as late as Acts 10, causing Jesus to correct his doctrine from heaven (10:15).

We also need to note that Paul allows for degrees of doctrinal deviation in his churches. He explicitly states, “Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Only let us hold true to what we have attained” (Phil. 3:15-16). While Paul’s understanding of theology was not identical to the Lord’s, he himself allowed for disagreement and maturing among his converts as long as they did not reject the gospel.

So what is the standard for fellowship and separation? On the one side we know with certainty on the issue of apostasy and disbelief. But on the issue of how much drunkenness to allow (1 Cor. 11:21), how much sexual immorality (Matt. 5:28), how much greed, even how much murder (Matt. 5:21-22; James 4:2), or how much doctrinal error to allow, it’s an issue of context and wisdom.

Wisdom about unrevealed things, for instance how to apply general commands of Scripture, allows for a diversity of outcomes. This is seen not only in church history, but in God’s word. Apollos and Paul disagreed about how to personally obey Jesus’ command “to make disciples” (Matt. 28:19) in 1 Corinthians 16:12. And they agreed to disagree and moved on while continuing to fellowship and cooperate together.

What both experience and the Bible should make clear is that different godly men and women will often make different decisions in reading the contemporary context and on what is wise. The godly Gurnall (cf. Aphorism 7) disagreed with the equally godly John Owen about the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Bob Jones, Sr., Martin Lloyd-Jones, and Francis Schaeffer disagreed about the best strategy to pursue with Billy Graham. All three to a greater or lesser degree separated from Graham, either in their teaching or explicitly, but the methods were different.

There is a second issue that must be pursued and that is how Jesus himself separated unto holiness. Our Lord separated himself from those who rejected the gospel by taking the symbol of baptism for the repentance of sin. In so doing he united himself publicly and symbolically to sinners. Holiness in Jesus’ estimation included the title friend of sinners even though he himself knew no sin.

Jesus’ separation involved fellowshipping with and worshiping with people who were explicitly disbelieving (John 5:46-47) and misunderstanding (Acts 13:26) portions of God’s word, and he did so not only in the Temple, as commanded by the law, but also in the synagogues. When Jesus entered into a synagogue he was required to obey Isaiah 51:2, as repeated for the church by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:17, “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them.” Jesus in Matthew 12 (cf. vs. 2, 9, 14), and throughout the gospels, worshiped with people that he describes in Matthew 23:15 as children of hell. Jesus separated from sinners by his obedience to the Law, by his preaching, while uniting with sinners in worship.

Prior to the gospel era, the visible people of God were the genetic offspring of Abraham that had not openly apostatized by profession or gross misconduct (Num. 15:30). As far as we can tell from the Gospels, Jesus only separated from the people of God by preaching against their error. Separating to holiness for Jesus meant even commanding that his followers remain in fellowship with the Pharisees: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do” (Matt 23:2-3). It is important to note that there is no explicit command to attend synagogue worship in the Old Testament.

In the post-resurrection era, the visible people of God are those who maintain the profession of faith in the gospel (Gal. 1:8) and have not fallen into gross misconduct. And further there is an explicit command to attend church (Heb. 10:25) or the synagogue as James calls it in the Greek of James 2:2.

At Corinth, the only sins that Paul immediately required separation from was apostasy (1 Cor. 16:21) and incest (1 Cor. 5:5). On the other sins listed in 1 Corinthians 5:11, as well as rejecting the general resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12) and visiting prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:16), he takes no action besides creating a timeline for repentance and proclamation.

Local churches are to have professed Christians and a variety of people with different levels of sanctification. Christian fellowships and associations must include the same, because associations are made up of the very same people as found in the churches.

The model given to us in the New Testament on the issue of separation, as in all other issues, is found in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” As we strive to separate unto holiness, we must recognize, first that Jesus is our model; second, we aren’t even able to separate as righteously as Christ. We know that Paul could not separate perfectly, because he himself was still a sinner (Phil. 3:12). Paul’s instruction is perfect, but to understand his commands we must observe both his actions within the church and our Lord’s.

It is clear that both Paul and Jesus separate from apostasy. But when it comes to the issue of how much doctrinal deviation or what constitutes gross immorality sufficient for separation, we must use our best wisdom, because that’s what we see Paul doing. And if we claim anything beyond wisdom, we are then adding to God’s word and in danger of being cursed (Rev. 22:18).

At the same time, if we do not separate from apostasy, and if we make no effort to separate from gross doctrinal deviation or immorality by wisdom, we are then taking away from God’s Word and in danger of being cursed (Rev. 22:19).

Simply put, there are no axioms of separation. We have the commands, Christ and Paul’s model, the Spirit of God, the counsel of the godly, but at the end of the day we must act trusting in God’s grace. And we must say for ourselves and others with Paul, “It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:4).

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Grace Toward the Godly of the Past

Aphorism 7: Our patterns of application of separation today must include the grace we allow the godly of the past.

Gurnall’s work is peerless and priceless; every line is full of wisdom; every sentence suggestive. This “Complete Armour” is beyond all others a preacher’s book: I should think that more discourses have been suggested by it than by any other uninspired volume. I have often resorted to it when my own fire has been burning low, and I have seldom failed to find a glowing coal upon Gurnall’s hearth. (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1834-1892, quoted in The Christian in Complete Armour abridgment and modernization printed by The Banner of Truth Trust)

I am in full agreement with Spurgeon. The Christian in Complete Armour is a spiritual delight and treasure trove. Much of my preaching and illustrating from Scripture relies heavily on Gurnall’s example and even remembering his sermons warms my heart to Christ.

Let’s consider a little background on William Gurnall (1616-1679). He signed the Act of Uniformity in 1662, which imposed The Book of Common Prayer, required episcopal ordination, and made the crypto-Catholic Charles II the “only supreme governor” of the Anglican Church. At least 2,000 ministers refused to sign the act and lost their churches. Men like Bunyan, Owen, Howe, and Baxter were persecuted because of the act.

So if we understand the commands to separate to go beyond disbelief and apostasy, when did it stop being a sin to obey these commands in the case of Gurnall? Does anyone believe Paul would have signed off on the Book of Common Prayer as a burden to the conscience of pastors and congregations or accepted Charles II as the “supreme governor” of the church?

What do we do with Gurnall? It’s obvious from Spurgeon’s statement that Gurnall played a role in the worship at the Tabernacle in his preaching. I’ve testified the same. If we must not only separate from apostasy but also those who do not separate, did Spurgeon sin, am I sinning?

This issue becomes more dire if our practice is to separate from those who cling to different practices and boundary markers then we hold to, where is the cutoff point in time?

Weigh with me just a partial list of unacceptable practice of past historical figures off the top my head: C. I. Scofield was a divorced, old earther. Spurgeon smoked cigars. John Wesley’s relationship with his wife was strained to say the least. Both Wesley and Whitfield were open to personal continuing revelation, and Wesley to speaking in tongues. Apparently, J. C. Ryle flirted with Anglo-Israelism; Richard Baxter had the “new perspective on Paul” before it was new. Jonathan Edwards tended towards pantheism or panentheism—depending on how you define the terms. The list of early American theologians supporting or participating in the American system of race slavery is horrifying. Wilberforce was an opium addict, Luther wrote a stupid letter justifying polygamy and said gross things about the Jews, and so it goes through history.

We might be tempted to think that once they’re dead they’re safe. But saved dead people are still worshiping God, and though dead, their example and teaching still influence us. We can’t fellowship with the godly of the past in the sense of intercommunication, but we do fellowship with them in that we allow them to help direct our worship through their teaching and doctrine.

I know the above argument seems a bit strained, and I am aware it is. But here’s what I am attempting to expose: there’s something unreasonable and unholy about publically separating from a seminary that teaches modern theistic evolution while supporting the work of a Scofield or a B. B. Warfield and A. H. Strong—all of whom also held to or allowed an old earth and theistic evolution. And there is something wrong about separating from a living evangelist who directs those coming forward to Catholic churches while lauding as a model a dead evangelist who gave decision cards to Unitarian and Catholic churches but preached against liquor—Billy Sunday.

What ends up happening with historical figures is that we praise God for what they did that we find godly and we separate from them by critiquing what they did that we find deplorable. But what we don’t do is absolutely separate from them, unless they rejected the gospel.

In other words, we tend to follow Paul’s model in the letters to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Paul opens up the letter to the Corinthians with thanksgiving for the work of the Spirit in the lives of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:4-9) and then he preaches against the schisms, divorces, drunkenness at the Lord’s Supper, lawsuits, denial of the resurrection, and so forth.

So in the case of C. I. Scofield, I praise God that it was his notes that assisted a group of farmers in rural Iowa to separate from the United Methodist because the denomination had sent down a female pastor in about 1954. The farmers started the Fundamental Gospel Church where I came to know the Lord. But when it comes to Scofield’s gap theory on the age of the earth, Jesus having two wives (cf. notes on Hosea 2:2), prophetic winds sweeping away extra numbers (cf. notes on Daniel 12:12), I am rather more critical and separate from him in my teaching.

On the other hand, when it comes to a teacher like the heretic Pelagius (c. 354-c. 418), it’s much more of a Galatians issue. Paul has no thanksgiving for those who reject the gospel, and his final blessing is to those who “walk by this rule, peace be upon them” (Gal. 6:16). There is no peace between a Pelagius and a Christian or between a Christian and unrepentant T. D. Jakes or Bishop Spong.

And it’s here that we enter into the morass of practical application: it’s easy for us to be gracious about Jonathan Edwards owning slaves. He’s dead, it was legal, and he made up for it by preaching to the Indians at Stockbridge.

It’s also easy for us to be gracious with a Gurnall, but it was a rather different case among contemporary Christians. The contemporary response included statements like this:

Neither is Mr. Gurnall alone in these horrible defilements, hateful to the Word of God and His saints, but is compassed about with a cloud witness, even in the same county where himself liveth, men of the same order of anti-Christians priesthood and brethren in the same iniquity with himself. (J. C. Ryle, “William Gurnall,” in Light from Old Times. Charles Nolan Publishing, 2000, 335)

And it’s here that we come to our current application. I can no longer remember the wag who said it, but the following quote may help us, “the difference between an evangelical and fundamentalist is essentially what they think of Billy Graham.” And while he’s not dead, he is old enough to provide a helpful example.

The response among the godly was various: Martin Lloyd-Jones privately and personally critiqued Billy Graham and refused to publicly cooperate with the Graham Crusades (Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, 75-77), but he did not widely publicize his actions. Francis Schaefer cooperated with the Graham Crusades to a degree, but also publicly critiqued his strategies (Ibid. 77).

In the circle of churches that I grew up in, Graham’s actions were viewed with frustration and a degree of exasperation while there was great appreciation for the number of people saved through his preaching.

Others’ responses were more extreme including not only publically separating and critiquing Graham, but also spreading tenuous accusations against Graham, including attending a “marijuana party” (Ashbrook, The New Neuteralism, 85), and against anyone else whom they saw as compromising with Graham. And such authors’ works abound with statements like, “This silly ‘Second Degree’ Separation myth is an invention of the Neutralists, who for the sake of money support or popular approval, refuse to pay the price of obedience” (Ibid, 51).

Personally, as I sit here in my office of a small church struggling to serve Jesus Christ with the gifts he’s given me, it’s not clear to me that my rejection of second-degree separation is motivated by “the sake of money support or popular approval” or that I “refuse to pay the price of obedience.” From what I’ve observed, there’s money to be had and popular acclaim in both separatist and non-separatist camps.

Further, I do not know why Billy Graham cooperated with Catholics or for that matter why J. I. Packer did the same, nor do I know why Schaefer didn’t follow McIntire’s example, or why Lloyd-Jones remained fairly quiet about his disagreements with Graham, or why John Calvin was a hostile witness against his sister-in-law in a suspect divorce case, why Peter Lombard misrepresented Augustine’s positions in The Sentences, or why Augustine and his friends thought it was appropriate for him to abandon his concubine with whom he had a child. All that I know is their actions. I can condemn the actions and doctrine that are clearly ungoldy, but claiming to know the motive goes beyond what I know.

As I’ve read through separatist material and observed my own heart, the key difference that I can see between our assessment of Gurnall’s submission to the crypto-Catholic Charles the II and Billy Graham’s work with Roman Catholics is our perceived ability to identify and judge motives. We assume that we can judge not only the actions but the motives of our contemporaries, but we tend to be more circumspect with historical figures and more willing to be ignorant.

What our graciousness with historical figures and strictness with contemporaries requires is that separation is always contextual and always based on wisdom. The context of our day may require that we limit cooperation with someone like Gurnall, Scofield, or Spurgeon, but we can do so only as our best wisdom and not as if this was the only possible way to obey God.

Next week, we will close with Aphorism 8: All applications must include the sure knowledge that we can’t separate perfectly because we are still sinners living in the regime of sin and death. Thus part of the grace we extend to others must include the possibility that we ourselves are too narrow or too loose.

Letters of Samuel Rutherford

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), Letters of Samuel Rutherford

Reprint of the 1891 edition; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 744 pgs. 

Summary: The letters of the pious, devoted, lover of Christ, Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford was entranced by Christ and had a moral imagination capable of allowing him to exhaustively incorporate the language of the Song of Solomon to describe his devotion for Christ: 

I would desire no more for my heaven beneath the moon, while I am sighing in this house of clay, but daily renewed feast of love with Christ, and liberty now and then to feed my hunger with a kiss of that fairest face. . . . have no other exercise than to lie on a love-bed with Christ, and fill this hungered and famished soul with kissing, embracing, and real enjoying of the Son of God (341-342). 

Yet, the reader cannot be distracted either by our eroticized imaginations or Rutherford’s stretched allegories. He writes with devotional power:

“They lose nothing who gain Christ” (42).

“I have received many and divers dashes and heavy strokes since the Lord called me to the ministry; but indeed I esteem your departure from us the weightiest. But I perceive God will have us to be deprived of whatsoever we idolize, that He may have His own room. I see exceeding small fruit of my ministry, and would be glad to know of one soul to be my crown and rejoicing in the day of Christ” (43) 

“[T]he King of kings also hath servants in His court that for the present get little or nothing but the heavy cross of Christ, troubles without and terrors within; but they live upon hope; and when it cometh to the parting of the inheritance, they remain in the house as heirs” (86). 

“If contentment were here, heaven were not heaven. Whoever seek the world to be their bed, shall at best find it short, and ill-made, and a stone under their side to hold them waking, rather than a soft pillow to sleep upon” (129).

“Say, ‘I shall rather spill twenty prayers, than not to pray at all.’ Let my broken words go up to heaven: when they come up into the Great Angel’s golden censer, that compassionate Advocate will put together my broken prayers, and perfume them’” (590).  

“I desire to desire, and purpose by strength from above, to own that cause. . . .” (686).

The letters essentially span the convulsions in Britain as the House of Stuart under Charles I (reigned 1625-1649) and Charles II attempted to establish an absolute monarchy in the face of popular uprisings, religious dissension, and common law. 

The letters begin in the parish of Anwoth (1627), Scotland, continue into the years of exile as a “prisoner hope” in Aberdeen (1636-1638), his translation to professorship (1639) and principal at St. Andrews (1647), in London (1643) working on what will become the “Westminster Standards,” and then back to Scotland as the Proctorship collapses and Charles the II returns (1660). Rutherford was summoned back to London to stand trial for sedition by Charles, but died before his arrest (1661). His last words were, “Glory! Glory, dwellth in Emanuel’s land.” 

Detriments/Benefits: Rutherford is an example, perhaps the best, of high Presbyterianism. He taught that the national church ought to be Presbyterian and that the government and its agents must submit to the Presbytery in areas of churchly authority (cf. review of Light in the North). 

Further, Rutherford was a scholastic theologian and political theorist, writing Lex Rex for the secular realm, Plea for Presbytery for a national Presbyterianism, and A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience, defending state persecution of non-Presbyterians. 

Rutherford developed a hermeneutic of Scripture that essentially allowed Scotland to become an Israel, and Presbyterian pastors to become the prophets of Scotland. He freely appropriated Old Testament passages directly to Scotland without considering the differences between the old and new covenant. Such an interpretation allowed him to publicly desire and pray for God’s judgment on other born again Christians who disagreed with him on secondary matters (651), reprobate those who disagreed with him, and to command in contradiction to Scripture, “whosover would keep their garments clean are under that command, ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not’” (703). (Rutherford’s application of Colossians 2:21 is exactly opposite the Apostle Paul.) 

The Banner of Truth reprint contains excellent notes by Andrew Bonar (1810-1892) and a glossary of Scottish and archaic terms (i.e. barins=children, horolouge=watch).   

Having said so much, his letters are a balm and succor to my soul and the majority of Christians who have read them. The overheated language must not be allowed to mask his loyalty and fervency for Christ and a holiness of enormous depth and devotion. The Letters and their historical context are also a reminder of 1 John 4:11, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”

Recommended for all. 

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: 'Imminent' May Not Mean 'Soon'

Aphorism 5: No one knows when Jesus is coming back or how long it will be before Jesus comes back, and so application of separation passages cannot be dependent on how close or far the return of Christ is.

The words are startlingly clear—“the Pope of Rome … is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” This statement is found in The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (26.4) as well as in unmodified versions of the Westminster Confession of Faith (25.6). Currently most modern Presbyterians and Baptists using these confessions have changed the wording or do not enforce this section. However, some stalwarts still remain.

Let’s unfold the exegesis a bit. There are about a dozen passages of Scripture in play, and application has been made. The “man of sin [has been] revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess. 2:3, KJV). The “falling away” has occurred and the person bearing the title “the Pope of Rome” is the end time’s figure of the final antichrist (cf. 1 John 2:18). Of the 7 billion people on the planet currently, only one man or his successor can be the antichrist. There is now no possibility of salvation for some future pope, because he is the antichrist. And there is no point in continued exploration of the meaning of Daniel, Matthew 24, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation on this issue.

Our brothers in the 1600s and 1700s created a particular reading of human history and the Bible. The exegesis of both history and the Bible was then made normative and placed in their doctrinal statements and to a greater or lesser degree enforced. The wider context of the unfolding of human history was simplified to provide a single possible context—the pope is the antichrist—and then all Scripture and applications of Scripture related to this were understood under the first interpretation. By elevating a probable interpretation of Scripture and history to the level of a necessary interpretation, they began the process of adding to God’s Word.

Please allow me to be clear the Bible commands separation from apostasy—apostasy liberal, conservative, and historical. As long as any church denies salvation by faith alone, Bible believing Christians should separate from them. Having said this, there is no necessary conclusion within Scripture that the pope is the antichrist nor does history require it. For all we know the antichrist will be an independent Baptist. We should not separate from Rome because we know that the pope is the antichrist, but we should separate from Rome because she teaches a false gospel. We should also separate from Bible churches, Baptists, Brethren, Methodist, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and anyone else who does not love Jesus as reveled in the Bible. Paul puts it rather clearly, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8, ESV).

We need to highlight a brief distinction here between a necessary and probable interpretation. The doctrine of the Trinity is a necessary interpretation of the Scripture. To hold the unity and diversity of the relationship of the members of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, one must come to the conclusion of the Trinity. We can add other necessary interpretations—the virgin birth, Jesus Christ being fully God and fully man, inspiration of Scripture, and other cardinal doctrines. These are often rightly called the fundamentals that make up the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). But on other and secondary issues, there are more or less probable interpretations and applications. This is particularly the case in issues of the end times.

What the London Baptist and Westminster Confessions of Faith illustrate is the tendency to absolutize a probable interpretation as a normative application. The list of ways that Christians have made the probable absolute is mind boggling. And one of the first steps is to universalize the context outside of the intention of Scripture or what is knowable—all Christians everywhere must do x, because all Christians everywhere share in the identical context.

One historical way of absolutizing is to assume that the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ necessitates the contemporaneous return of Christ. If the soon return of Christ is knowable, then how the Scriptures are applied is dependent on this knowledge.

The logic of such a misapplication of Scripture might work like this: Jesus must soon return. Therefore Satan is currently preparing his antichrist and the single world religion foretold in Revelation; any cooperation with impure, confused, or compromising churches or organizations is then to cooperate with the end times’ church of Satan. The possibility of reformation or revival within impure or confused churches is rejected because of the lack of time before the return of Christ.*

Please notice, I am not claiming that the pastors and authors who promote this view are setting a date for the return of Christ. But they are confusing the scriptural truth of an imminent return with the likely return of Christ within the lifetime of their hearers.

The rhetoric of “we know the ship is sinking fast” tends to ratchet up the perceived need for separation and to develop models of separation that prioritize separation over the other commands of Scripture. Their reading of modern history coupled with their interpretation of the end times then create applications. Yet to prioritize separation over the other commands of Scripture is directly forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 9:11-13 (cf. Aphorism 4).

Until Jesus returns, we cannot know if the Spirit of God will sweep through the Roman Church, the apostate liberal denominations, or any other group of professed Christians. We cannot separate to avoid cooperating with the satanic one world religion of the last day, because we won’t be able identify that entity until the return of Christ. All that we can do with biblical warrant is separate from disbelief as wisely as possible.

The same tendency that drove the authors of the Westminster and London Baptist Confessions of Faith to identify the pope as the antichrist rather than an antichrist can now be used to motivate separation from those perceived as compromising. The impulse is the same even though the historical motives are somewhat different (cf. Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology for a fascinating discussion of end time views in the Westminster era).

The difficulty facing all of us on the issue of separation, and many other secondary theological issues, is that we all fall into patterns of interpretation and application. The patterns tend to be ingrained in other theological conclusions as non-articulated assumptions, and we rarely pause to think through the relationship between our reading of the world, the Word, and our applications.

The entire purpose of this series up to this point has been to tease out these assumptions in our exegeses and application to make sure we are biblically framing the issue of separation. We now need to turn to how our patterns of application expose our agreement or disagreement with God’s Word. Lord willing, we will continue next week with aphorism 6.

Aphorism 6: Our patterns of application of separation need to include people to the left and the right on the group boundary markers—our “friends” and those who make us uncomfortable. Grace on believers who are like us or provide advantages to us but no or little grace on believers who are different is a sin (James 2:1; Luke 6:3-32).

Notes

* I’ve included a selection of quotes from William E. Ashbrook to show that this summation is not hyperbole on my part: “[The New Neuteralism] is propagated for the most part by men who at best are shaky and uncertain as to that great New Testament doctrine of the imminent return of Jesus Christ… . Uncertainty concerning the truth of our Lord’s return, coupled with fuzzy thinking as to the rapture of the Church, has provided an open door to the errors of this current neutralism.”(4) “[H]ave highly intelligent men learned no lessons from Church history? Can they not see that embracing New Evangelicalism means helping build the World Church and the World Government of the end times?” (26) “Put these signs together in one unprecedented package and one must conclude we are living in what the Bible calls ‘the last days.’” (118) William E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism: The New Neturalism (Columbus, OH: Calvary Bible Church, nd).

Similar language can be found in John E. Ashbrook’s writings. Ernest Pickering in Biblical Separation takes a more careful and scholarly stance but comes to similar conclusions.

Also, I would like to make two pleas in regards to William E. Ashbrook (1896-1977) to the readers of SharperIron. My research suggests that Ashbrook was a key figure in the development of secondary separation in the United States, but as far as I can tell this has not been explored by historians.

I am deeply concerned that the primary source documents (sermons, articles, letters, and biographical material) on both of the Ashbrooks may being lost to future historians. So, please if you are aware of primary source documents for William E. Ashbrook or John E. Ashbrook forward them to the Fundamentalist File at Bob Jones University or to some other research facility.

The second issue is that there is rich ground here for a dissertation that would help illuminate the background of the development of fundamentalism in the United States. Please consider this as an avenue of research if you are pursuing a doctorate in American church history.

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Separating from Our Enemies and Friends

Aphorism 6: Our patterns of application of separation need to include people to the left and the right on the group boundary markers—our “friends” and those who make us uncomfortable. Grace on believers who are like us or provide advantages to us but no or little grace on believers who are different is a sin (James 2:1; Luke 6:32-33).

Seven years ago, I became the pastor of a church that had a history of practicing second-degree separation. My exposure to the defense of such doctrine and the organizations enforcing it had been rather limited. And so I began reading, watching, and asking questions. Many of the conversations that I’ve had were decidedly cordial—some less so.

Allow me to share how one conversation about separatism with a representatives of a mission board went:

Shane: I’ve noticed that your doctrinal statement requires that you not cooperate with neo-evangelicals.

Mission Board Representative: That’s right, we’re separatist.

Shane: I see that. My training in seminary didn’t include a lot on separatism. Perhaps, you could help me understand what a neo-evangelical is, because I am concerned that I may be a neo-evangelical and for you to accept money from my church would mean you’re violating your doctrinal statement.

MBR: Aah. Yes, well, “neo-evangelical” is a historical term that’s not really well defined. And our mission board is thinking through exactly what it means, because it’s unfamiliar to the younger generation.

Shane: I see. My understanding is that “neo-evangelical” is often traced to men like Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003).

MBR: Yes that’s right. Henry was a neo-evangelical.

Shane: So, since Carl Henry and I were both members of the same church when he died, does that make me a neo-evangelical?

MBR: Seriously? Well, not really. What a neo-evangelical is has changed.

Shane: Okay. Well, perhaps, if I named some living folks you could tell me if they were neo-evangelicals. So, Billy Graham?

MBR: Yes, certainly Billy Graham.

Shane: Dr. Mohler?

MBR: Where did you say you went to seminary?

Shane: Southern, where Dr. Mohler is the president.

MBR: As I said, we’re still working on how best to define that term.

What I hope is obvious is that at least with this mission board second-degree separation meant something like “we separate from those who don’t give us cash.” And, as far as I can tell, to hold to such is a sin.

Our Lord Jesus warns in Luke 6:32-33:

If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

The flesh tends to be more ready to “do good to those who do good to you.” But Jesus points out that this is the standard of sinners and not His followers. The flesh finds it easy to love those who love them back and to do good to those who benefit us. But Christ’s followers are to be those who do good to those who provide us no benefit. Our Lord goes on to remind us in Luke 6:37-38 we must have one standard of judgment for the application of mercy (cf. v. 36) and justice.

Like it or not, we feel more comfortable when others’ practices match our general practices. Communication is simpler among those who are similar to us. We intuitively trust those who run in our circles, graduate from our schools, and follow our practice. And we are all more willing to accept benefits rather than detriments from others.

By “practice,” I mean different actions and symbols that are essentially indifferent in themselves in particular contexts. So Jonathan Edwards preached wearing what would now be considered an effeminate powdered wig. Chrysostom wore a toga when preaching, Wesley sometimes a robe. My experience in rural China in 1991 showed that pastors wore long fingernails and open-toed, high-heeled sandals. Each of these in our context would lead to confusion, but in themselves and in their contexts are acceptable.

Practices that do not disobey the intent of the Scriptures are indifferent, and to separate on the grounds of indifferent practice or boundary markers is a sin. We can’t separate because other Christians have different non-sinful traditions. We must also notice that Jesus condemns requiring a higher standard of those who reject our boundary markers.

Boundary markers are doctrines and practices that create boundaries between groups and establish grounds for easy communication and group identity. Boundary markers tell us who is in and who is out of the group. Boundary markers between Christians and non-Christians are things like belief in the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, inspiration of Scripture, and the other fundamentals of clinging to the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). These beliefs create boundaries between Christians and non-Christians. To be a Christian, in the biblical sense, is to maintain this boundary.

Some boundary markers exist between both non-Christians and Christians and are biblical, for instance sexual purity (1 Cor. 5:1). Not all Christians obey God’s law in this area. The boundaries created by God’s word need to be maintained with wisdom and grace by all Christians as a form separation.

Two other kinds of boundary markers

Yet there are two other kinds of boundary markers that we must consider. The first is contra-biblical. Paul provides us an example of this in 1 Corinthians. In Corinth the grounds of fellowship and group identity among Christians were working out as a party spirit based on following particular leaders (1 Cor. 1:12) rather than on being Christians. We also see this attempted on the issue of biological heritage (2 Cor. 11:22) and wealth (James 2:3). Erecting and enforcing boundary markers that are contra-biblical is a sin. Paul tells us that at the heart of contra-biblical boundary markers is to “go beyond what is written,” because to do such leads us to “be puffed up in favor of one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6).

There are indifferent boundary markers described in Scripture as well. These remain indifferent as long as they are not used for sin. So we read in Act 6 that there were both Hellenistic Jews and Hebrews in the church of Jerusalem. The Hellenist were Jews that spoke Greek and generally led a Hellenized lifestyle and had an affinity with Diaspora Jews. The Hebrews were Jews who lived in the Palestinian manner and spoke Aramaic or Hebrew.

It’s not a sin for a Greek speaker to find it easier to speak to a fellow Hellenist than a Hebrew, nor for the Hebrews to find it easier to speak Aramaic in homes with a Palestinian order. But these boundary markers can lead to sin: “a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution” (Acts 6:1).

Further, it’s no sin to be rich. But it is a sin “if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ while you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there,’ or, ‘Sit down at my feet’ ” (James 2:3-4). James’ question makes the point: “have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?”

James and Paul both tell us the issue is not differences in the church. Christians may have different convictions regarding practice (Rom. 14:5), to a degree different convictions regarding doctrine (Phil. 3:15), and have different levels of wealth, giftings, preferences, language backgrounds and so forth. But we cannot make sinful “distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts.” Our boundary markers must remain indifferent or be biblical, but they cannot be contra-biblical. Because this is a great wickedness.

And it is here that we come to our boundary markers on separation. Part of the way we can discern if we are sinfully loving those who benefit us above Christians who provide us little benefit is based on our patterns of application. When we only have mercy on our friends—those that have our indifferent boundary markers—we are sinning. And when we are quick to separate from those with different and innocent boundary markers we are sinning. Christians are not allowed to hold to two standards of judgment in their bag (Deut. 25:13; Luke 6:38).

So a community of Christians that rigorously separates from those who provide them no benefits, but allows gross doctrinal deviation among their in-group is sinning. For instance allowing forms of racism as acceptable (a traditional boundary marker) but separating from those who are too friendly with modernism (a progressive marker) as sin. Rigorously separating from an evangelist who cooperates with Catholics but maintaining relationships with an evangelist full of doctrinal error, immorality, and gross pragmatism but who holds to our boundary markers is a sin.

And again, I want to emphasize that both modernist and traditionalist fall into this pattern of sin: the Sadducee and Pharisee impulse is a part of our flesh. Thus when the Presbyterian Church in the USA defrocked J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), their pattern of separation was to behave as if the gospel was better preserved by taking way from God’s Word, or by consistent Sadduceeism. And this behavior is threatened with a curse (Rev. 22:18).

Yet we must notice the opposite conduct is wrong as well. A pattern of application that tends to support people who add to God’s Word (Pharisees/rigorist/traditionalist) while separating from those who take away from God’s Word (Sadducees/latitudinarian/modernist) is also a sin. To behave as if the gospel is better preserved by adding to God’s Word also has the potential of drawing a curse (Rev. 22:18).

Perhaps, the clearest test of our heart is how we speak, preach, and pray when tragedy strikes those who are not a part of our in group. When a nightmare scenario strikes a moderate evangelical’s family, how do we preach about and pray for him? When an arch-Pharisee is forced to step down because of accusations of impropriety, what do we hope or what level of evidence do we require prior to condemnation? What level do we require for our friends?

Notice I’ve avoided the use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative;” there was a time when to be a conservative was to remain in the Roman Catholic Church and to be liberal was to separate from them. There was a day when liberals stood against the Ku Klux Klan and the conservatives looked the other way.

By an accident of history and English usage the word liberal has come to be identified as a system of doctrine that rejects or minimizes the truth claims of the Bible. I agree strongly with J. Gershen Machen’s conclusions in Christianity and Liberalism—Liberalism isn’t Christianity. But we also need to note that some traditional boundary markers aren’t Christianity either. Conservatism can be just as damning as Liberalism.

Safety is never found in our extra-biblical practice and markers but in Christ and fidelity to His word. We must separate from unrepentant apostasy when it is found among our friends and outsiders. And we must also have the same standard of justice and mercy. The patience and hope we have for our friends must be the same as we have with Christians and professed Christians outside our camp. To do anything else is to begin to either add or take away from God’s word.

Next week’s aphorism continues to work through the issue of our patterns of application.

Aphorism 7: Our patterns of application of separation must include the grace we allow the godly of the past.

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Not Separating What God Has Joined Together

Aphorism 4: None of the commands of Scripture contradict the other commands when rightly understood, and to be correctly applied and interpreted all of the commands of Scripture must work together.

Eight hundred feet below the surface of the water, in a cramped nuclear submarine armed with ballistic missiles, my friend and newly minted lieutenant felt like he was faced with an impossible decision. On Sunday morning would he meet and worship with the dozen or so sailors on the boat that professed Christ but belonged to compromised groups (American Baptist, United Methodist, etc.) or quietly pray by himself in his bunk? Would he “be separate” (ESV, 2 Cor. 6:17) or neglect “to meet together” (Heb. 10:25)? Would he “[b]ear one another’s burdens” (Gal. 6:2) or would he “[p]urge the evil person” (1 Cor. 5:13)?

My friend had grown up under the teaching of Axioms of Separation which required separation from disobedient brethren. And disobedient brethren were by definition anyone who did not separate from other disobedient brethren. Thus the conundrum. How does one obey the commands to separate and the commands to be unified?

One option when faced with two seemingly contradictory commands is to attempt to sin the least. So if unity with Christians is “better” than separation from Christians, one might unify or vice versa dependent on which command one believes will create the better outcome.

Yet this strategy has devastating scriptural problems. Sinning less as a necessity cannot be a godly option, because Jesus in “every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). If sinning less is a temptation of man, Jesus experienced this temptation “yet without sin.” Therefore when faced with two commands that seem contradictory, there must always be a way to obey both commands without sin, “for sin is the transgression of the law” (KJV, 1 John 3:4). There must be a way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13); God promises it and Jesus’ holiness requires it.

By God’s grace, Jesus interacted with the Pharisees on this very issue. They had prioritized separating from disobedient brethren over the other commands of God. So we read in Matthew 9:11-13 (ESV),

And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

Our Lord’s frustration with the Pharisees was that they did not provide opportunities for reformation and revival in the sinner’s lives. By completely and rigorously separating from the disobedient brethren (the tax collectors and sinners were Jews), they denied them the possibility of mercy through repentance and faith. And they also provided themselves the opportunity for prideful self-righteousness (Luke 18:11).

Jesus obeyed the injunction “be separate” (2 Cor. 6:17; Isa. 52:11) by refusing to join the tax collectors and sinners in their sin. And Jesus separated by preaching against sin, but Jesus also obeyed, Leviticus 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Jesus loved them by spreading “the knowledge of God” (Hosea 6:6; cf. Matt. 9:13 citation).

The Pharisees did not separate for the purpose of reformation among their brothers and sisters, but rather for the purpose of taking vengeance. They separated so that they could say in the Temple, “God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector (Luke 18:11). The Pharisees absolutized the commands to separate at the expense of God’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” But God’s intent for the commands is found by obeying both commands in the same action.

Jesus makes this clear in Matthew 23:23-24,

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

The problem Jesus has noted is not that they were obeying God’s command to tithe, but rather that they prioritized tithing over other “weightier matters of the law.” The Pharisees were particularly rigorous in obedience to some of God’s commands, but in so doing they began to contradict other commands of God. When their actions became a pattern Jesus states that they were “making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” (Mark 7:13).

Absolutizing the commands beyond God’s intention leads to “straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.” So when Christian unity is prioritized over separation the gospel is compromised and holiness is subsumed in licentiousness. This is the way of modern liberalism that prioritizes love over holiness. But when separation is absolutized, the offer of mercy within the gospel is compromised and holiness petrifies into legalism. This is the way of modern rigorist. But both prioritizing unity and prioritizing separation are sins.

The “weightier matters of the law—justice and mercy and faithfulness” teach us how to obey all of God’s commands at the same time. Jesus gives us three examples of his use of “weightier matters of the law.” In Matthew 12:2-7, Jesus

said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

Neither David nor Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:8) sinned in the exchange of the bread of the Presence. It is clear that they were guiltless. The priests were not sinning by profaning the Sabbath in obeying God. The law of the bread of the Presence was never meant to weaken the future king of Israel as he fled from the demon oppressed king of Israel. The 4th Commandment was designed to assist people worshiping God and to allow Jesus’ disciples to eat on the Sabbath. Or as Jesus asked rhetorically, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (Luke 6:9). And so Jesus violates a first-sight reading of the 4th Commandment’s “you shall not do any work” with the words “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (John 5:17).

We see the balancing of the “weightier matters of the law” throughout Jesus’ ministry. Jesus violates a first-sight reading of the ceremonial law by touching lepers and not declaring himself unclean (Matt. 8:3; Lev. 15:7). Nor does Jesus declare himself unclean when touched by a menstruating woman (Luke 8:45; Lev. 15:19). Obviously, the intent of the ceremonial law allowed Jesus to make the unclean clean without himself being tainted.

Since the Bible does not allow us to prioritize separation over mercy or unity over holiness and the model of Jesus and Paul (cf. Aphorism 3) requires that we separate by proclamation as we extend the opportunity for reformation and revival, we thus have again returned to the issue of wisdom. How do we know if we have correctly balanced the “weightier maters of the law?” Wisdom. The way that we apply God’s commands comes down to wisdom.

I opened this article with my friend on the submarine trying to think through if he should worship with the professed Christians on his boat. The intent of both the commands “separate” and “meet together” is love God with all your being and love your neighbor as yourself. So, taught Moses (Deut. 11:13; Levi. 19:34), Hosea (Hosea 6:6), Jesus (Matt. 22:37-40), Paul (Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 16:22), John (1 John 4:20-21), and James (2:8) in various ways throughout their writings.

My friend decided to love God and his neighbor as himself by joining the sailors in worship. The specific context of the situation, the character and faith of the sailors, and the singularity of their united faith made this appear the wisest choice. And in so doing he “went out of their midst and [was] separate from” the unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:17) and he met together with fellow Christians.

In a different context, say on an aircraft carrier with a godly Anglican chaplain and a profane Baptist chaplain, holding separate services, he would have to separate and meet together in a different way. The rules of application are not axioms of tradition, but rather the rule of wisdom as guided by specific commands and God’s intention that He be loved with all our being and that we love our neighbor as ourselves in the specific context.

Having established that all of God’s commands can be obeyed without contradiction, we now need to move on to a consideration of the issue of Christ’s return and the commands to separate.

Aphorism 5: No one knows when Jesus is coming back or how long it will be before Jesus comes back, and so application of separation passages cannot be dependent on how close or far the return of Christ is.

Following the discussion on the end times, we will consider how patterns of application expose whether or not we are truly obeying God.

Aphorism 6: Our patterns of application of separation need to include people to the left and the right on the group boundary markers—our “friends” and those who make us uncomfortable. Grace on believers who are like us or provide advantages to us but no or little grace on believers who are different is a sin (James 2:1; Luke 6:3-32).

Aphorism 7: Our patterns of application of separation must include the grace we allow the godly of the past.

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Were Jesus and Paul Separatists?

Aphorism 3: Applications of the commands of separation must take into account Jesus’ and Paul’s application of these same commands as recorded in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles.

Was Jesus a separatist? Given that Jesus acted according to some of the same commands He requires His church to obey, the answer must be yes.

Let consider some of the examples: “Purge the evil person from among you” (ESV). This phrase is from the LXX and is used six times in Deuteronomy (17:7, 19:19, 21:21, 22:21, 22:24, 24:27).The Apostle Paul uses this phrase and demands obedience to it of the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 5:12. The Greek verb behind “purge” is only used here in the New Testament, “suggesting Paul’s intentional and explicit use of the formula from Deuteronomy” (Beale and Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 709).

Our Lord Jesus was also required to obey, “Depart, depart, go out from there; touch no unclean thing” (Isa. 52:11). The Apostle Paul requires this of Christians in 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Further, in His relationship with other believers Jesus was also required to obey the command, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). This command is picked up and proved as normative for the church by both Paul and James (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 2:8).

Obviously, Jesus’ context is different, but inasmuch as there are similarities in context, Jesus provides us an authoritative model for the application of the commands to separate and God’s intent in giving the commands. At the bare minimum, Jesus provides us with a rich example to think about separation.

Jesus’ context

The two generally well-known theological groupings in Jesus’ day were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It is almost completely anachronistic to call these two parties liberal and conservative. From the point of preserving the status quo religiously and politically, the Sadducees were conservative, but they also had a low view of the existing Bible and in that sense we might call them liberal. The Pharisees were conservative in the sense of having a high view of the Bible, but were liberal in the sense of going against the established norms of worship and practice. The sinful propensity of the Sadducees was to take away from the Bible (Luke 20:27, Acts 23:8) and the sinful propensity of the Pharisees was to add to God’s word (Mark 6:5-9). In our day the general propensity for “liberal” Christians is to follow the Sadducees by taking away from God’s Word by rejecting parts of God’s Word as authoritative. Modern “conservatives” tend to follow the Pharisees by adding to God’s Word.

The Sadducees, who rejected the existence of angels, the resurrection, and spirits, controlled the Temple in Jerusalem. For Jesus to come to the Temple required Him to come under the human authority and to fellowship with people who openly rejected parts of God’s word. The law required Jesus to go to the Temple and He did so. Further, we see Jesus both asking questions and listening to the teachers in the Temple as a 12 year old (Luke 2:46-47). Thus Jesus’ model allows a degree of fellowship and training with theologians and believers who reject portions of the Bible as true.

We should also note the Temple itself was tainted. The architecture did not exactly follow the model shown to Moses (Exod. 25:9; cf. Heb. 8:5) or to David (1 Chron. 28:19), but was instead an approximation of the written description contained in the Old Testament with some additions. Finally, the building had been funded by the syncretistic Herod and was policed and overseen by the pagan Romans.

Our Lord’s most basic means of separating Himself from the error found within the Temple was through His proclaimed doctrine and His actions. “Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me” (Matt. 26:55). Jesus obeyed the commands to separate through His teaching ministry as He united with the Sadducees and Pharisee in worship at the Temple. We also know it was Jesus’ custom to worship at the local synagogue (Luke 4:16) each Sabbath; an educated guess is that this was about as much of a mixed blessing as it is today for those of us who attend an unknown church while traveling.

We should also note the requirements that Jesus places on the godly members of the church of Thyatira in Revelation 2:18-29. There is a false prophetess functioning in the church “teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). Yet, there is no command to separate from her or her followers as church members. In fact Jesus says to the faithful, “I do not lay on you any other burden” (v. 24).

Paul’s context

And then we come to Paul. Paul worships at the Temple controlled by and administered by people who explicitly reject the deity of Christ and who reject portions of the Old Testament (Acts 21). He held a Bible study in a philosopher’s hall (Acts 19:9). Paul continued in fellowship with a church where people were getting drunk during the Lord’s Table celebration (1 Cor. 11:20), people were denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12), a party spirit divided the church (1 Cor. 1:12), church members were going to the local pagan temple and having sex with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:16), and the spiritual gifts were operating without control. Paul, while forbidding these gross sins only demands church discipline for the man cohabitating with his stepmother. There is no mention of discipline for the whoremongering, drunkenness, or party spirit, but there is a request for funds for the church in Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:1-4).

Yet at the same time, we read,

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:11-13)

There is a tension between Paul’s practice and his commands. Paul commands “not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one,” and yet he fellowships with and accepts and collects funds from the church of Corinth. And we see the same in Jesus’ ministry; He also was required to “Purge the evil person from among you,” and yet He worships at the Temple, attended dinners with Pharisees, and so forth. How do we reconcile the commands with Paul’s and Jesus’ practice?

I will attempt draw the practice and the commands together in a two-step process. My first step will be to highlight how Jesus and Paul separate by proclamation and establish a timeline and benchmarks for repentance. This require us to continue the discussion of aphorism three below.

The second step will be to argue for aphorism four (that none of the commands of Scripture contradict the other commands when rightly understood, and to be correctly applied and interpreted, all of the commands of Scripture must work together) in the next installment.

Jesus and Paul as Separatist

The argument I am pursuing is that Jesus and Paul were separatist. (I’ve attempted to cover this in greater detail in the previous article.) Jesus and Paul must be separatists because they are obeying many of the same commands that we are. Further, Jesus and Paul give us a model to both follow and to understand God’s intent in giving these commands. Paul and Jesus’ model is the rule for Christians, because Paul commands us, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

We’ve already noted that Jesus entered into theological dialogue with the doctrinally compromised teachers at the Temple (Luke 2:46), that he was known for dining with Jews who were morally compromised either politically with the Romans (i.e. tax collectors) or were sinners (Luke 7:34). It must be noted that both tax collectors and the more general category of sinners were members of the nation of Israel and therefore necessarily under the law. Jesus dined with the Pharisees and interacted with the Sadducees. Further, Jesus supported attendance at the synagogues and submission to the scribes and Pharisees who taught there (Matt. 23:2).

The New Testament parallel to all these groups—tax collectors, sinners, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees—is backsliding church members, churches, and even denominations. And Jesus describes the Sadducees as those who knew “neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mark 12:24) and the Pharisees and scribes as children of hell (Matt. 23:15).

So how did Jesus obey Isaiah 52:11a, “Depart, depart, go out from there; touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of her”—a command Paul repeats to the church in Corinth? Or, “Purge the evil person from among you” found six times in Deuteronomy (17:7: 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:27), and repeated by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:16?

Jesus’ primary means of separation was through proclamation. He worked both to proclaim himself as the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17), but also to correct the false teaching of his day on various issues.

Much of Jesus’ preaching ministry correcting the sinful doctrine of his day. The reason for this is that rejecting or misapprehending the Old Testament made it impossible to accept him as the Messiah. Or as Abraham describes it in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

Thus we find Jesus defending salvation by faith alone by correcting the Pharisees’ faith plus works formula (Luke 18:14). He preached against the easy divorce practice of the day (Matt. 19), and overturned the traditional interpretations and applications of the false teachers (Mark 7:11-13).

Most importantly Jesus argues against rigorously separating from disorderly and sinful Jews without the opportunity to extend mercy through repentance. So we read in Matthew 9:11-12, “And when the Pharisees saw [Jesus fellowshipping with sinners], they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

At the same time, Jesus also establishes two timelines for repentance: the first is death or the second coming (Matt. 25:30). If those who are professed Jews do not repent of their sins and have faith, they will die and go to hell. So the Pharisee who trusted in his self-righteousness went away from the Temple without justification (Luke 18:14), while the tax collector was saved. The Pharisee remaining in his sin on death would join the rich man in Hades (Luke 16:23-24).

But there is second timeline. Jesus, in agreement with John the Baptist, preaches about a coming cutting off of the corporate nation of Israel if they do not repent. John is the most explicit, “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Luke 3:8-9).

Our Lord Jesus adds to John’s doctrine: “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24).

If the nation of Israel does not repent and believe “what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass” (Acts 26:22), then a terrible judgment would come upon the nation of Israel. And as history teaches us, Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the nation occurred in 70 A.D. and ushered in the “times of the Gentiles.” We also need to note that the cutting off included the expectation and hope of future repentance.

The way that Jesus separated himself from sinners was by proclamation of the truth, warning of the individual consequences, and proclaiming the coming corporate cutting off. And Jesus extended this patient warning from his preaching ministry in the early 30s to 70 A.D. Jesus gave the nation of Israel nearly 40 years to reform and repent and then the axe came.

Though we do not have as explicit a timeline in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation, we have an almost identical pattern. Jesus extends the opportunity to repent (Rev. 2:5) and informs them of a coming corporate judgment (2:22).

In Paul’s context at Corinth, we find him following a similar model to Jesus but with different emphasis.

Paul clearly lays out some of the sins from which Christians are to separate from among those who profess Christ—sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness (1 Cor. 5:11). Yet he only calls for church discipline on the grossest form of sexual immorality, incest, within the church (1 Cor. 5:5). And, he demands that the other forms of sexual immorality—prostitution (6:15), refusal of conjugal rights (7:5)—immediately cease. He does the same for greed expressed through lawsuits (6:1), idolatry (10:14), reviling (1:10; 4:6), drunkenness at the Lord’s Supper (11:21-22; 15:34). But Paul does not demand the separation of church discipline for these sins, but rather calls for repentance. Further, Paul strongly critiques the teaching within the church on prophecy, speaking in tongues, gender roles, and the denial of the resurrection (15:12). But the only sins that Paul requires immediate separation from is incest and those who do not love Jesus (16:22), and Paul continues in financial and ministry cooperation with the church of Corinth.

When we move to 2 Corinthians, it becomes clear that some degree of repentance from these sins has begun (7:15-16). Yet at the same time we read in 12:21 that some or possibly many of the church members “have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality.” And so Paul will come a third time and he “will not spare them” (13:2) and use his apostolic authority in a severe way (v. 10). It is difficult for us to establish a firm timeline, but Paul’s patience with the Corinthians lasts perhaps a year or two.

Both Jesus and Paul separate from professed believers who have fallen into doctrinal error and sin by proclamation, but continued in worship, fellowship, and financial cooperation (Matt. 17:26) with disorderly believers and professed believers; they both extend the opportunity for repentance, and they establish a timeline and even bench marks for repentance. They warn of the personal consequences of not repenting (2 Cor. 13:5-6), but they act with great patience always looking for and hoping for repentance and reformation. In both the first and second letter, Paul continues in financial partnership with the church.

Jesus’ patience with the nation of Israel was based on divine revelation, yet Paul does not appear to be responding to revelation on the timing of separating from both the individuals at Corinth or declaring the church apostate. Paul language is too tentative for revelation in 2 Corinthians 12:20, “For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps…” and then in 13:5, “unless indeed you fail to meet the test.”

It is then apparent that Paul’s decisions for prioritizing the incestuous relationship over the other sins and the amount of time allowed for reformation and repentance was based on wisdom. Paul’s best wisdom was to demand church discipline for the sin that was “not tolerated even among pagans” (1 Cor. 5:1) and to strive for reformation until he was forced to “use of the authority that the Lord had given.”

The record of Acts shows that the Apostle Paul was also willing to worship with Jewish believers that explicitly rejected the deity of Christ and his gospel (Acts 21:26; cf. Acts 22:22). And that he did so after writing the letters to the Corinthians explicitly citing Old Testament passages as normative for the church. It is also apparent that this was the practice of the majority of Christians in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:18-25).

I need to be rather clear here: Paul’s behavior serves as a model for us, yet the Jewish Christians use of the Temple prior to 70 A.D. was a unique issue in salvation history. After the destruction of the Temple, John refers to the synagogues’ of Satan (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)—language not found in the earlier epistles. Paul openly anathematizes anyone who does not love Jesus (1 Cor. 16:22), and modern Christian are not to worship with those who openly disavow Christ or his gospel as the official practice of their congregations.

My purpose here is for us to recognize Jesus and the Apostle Paul’s patterns of application of the commands to separate and to attempt to imitate them in as much as our context is similar to theirs. God’s intent in the commands to separate is not found in the letter or in our traditions of application, but rather in the whole council of God. Separation is fundamentally about wise application.

The next series of aphorisms will attempt to lay out how we can discern God’s intent in the commands and provide a test to analyze our patterns of application as being wise.

So Lord willing next week will discuss Aphorism 4: None of the commands of Scripture contradict the other commands when rightly understood, and to be correctly applied and interpreted all of the commands of Scripture must work together.

Aphorisms for Thinking about Separation: Command, Intent and Application

Aphorism 2: All applications of the commands of Scripture are based on a particular context outside the Bible. Therefore unless the context is identical to what was intended by the Bible, an application cannot be as normative as Scripture itself.

Allow me to share an explicit command of Scripture, repeated five times in the New Testament which is patently ignored at least in literal obedience by almost all churches in the United States: “Greet one another with the kiss of love” (ESV, 1 Peter 5:14; cf. 1 Thess. 5:26, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Cor. 16:20, Rom. 16:16).

I hope you obey this command of Scripture by greeting all Christians in a culturally appropriate way. But my guess is that your church does not practice a literal kiss of love but replaces it with a handshake, shoulder squeeze, or hug. We look through the culturally decided symbolism of a kiss and replace it with our culture’s symbolic synonym of a warm greeting.

Obedience to the command is then based on our cultural context. The trans-contextual aspect is that we must greet all Christians in a friendly way. We must obey the command or we are sinning.

Command and intent

Most of the time we overlook the complexity of the Western church’s interpretation and application of “Greet one another with the kiss of love.” It’s not a hot issue, but any meditation on our non-literal conformity to this clear biblical command should tell us that we often unconsciously recognize the differences in the command, the intention of the command, and the application of the command.

The intention of “greet one another with the kiss of love” is that Christians will warmly greet each other. But if obeying the command itself leads to licentiousness or confusion, then the intention of the command must be obeyed above the literal wording of the command.

Our Lord Jesus teaches us this explicitly on the issue of the 4th Commandment—“the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work” (Exod. 20:10). The Pharisees had built up a pattern of application that forbade Jesus from healing on the Sabbath. And so Jesus confronts them by asking, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4).

Jesus’ diagnostic question considers God’s intention within the Sabbath law. Was the 4th Commandment intended to harm or cause unnecessary suffering for God’s people? Was obedience to cause good or evil? Jesus argues that the purpose of the command was to do good. Jesus then explicitly contravenes the literal meaning of the command “you shall not do any work” with the words, “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (John 5:17). Jesus is of course obeying the intent of the command by resting from a particular category of work to honor God, but He is working in the sense of doing good on the Sabbath.

Thus when we come to a command, it is not enough to merely ask if we are obeying the words of the command. The modern Western church, in general, does not obey the words of “Greet one another with the kiss of love,” but it does obey the intent of the command.

Intent and application

The issue of both the intent of the command and the application of the command can be observed in more basic commands like, “You shall not murder.” What determines whether an act is a murder? Numbers 35:16-24 gives some of the scriptural conditions for murder and includes motive, pre-meditation, and the situation. The Bible itself clearly teaches that the command “you shall not murder” is to be applied with consideration of the intent of the command, the motive, and the specific situation. The application of a command is then dependent on the intent of the command, the motives of those obeying and disobeying, and the specific situation.

But there is a further element that must be noted. Part of the universal context of all human beings is finitude, fallibility, freedom, and fallenness. Humanity is forced by our existence to trust in God’s grace and give grace to others, because of our limited perspective in the application of God’s command and our own sinful natures. Sometimes the issue is incredibly clear, but sometimes it’s less clear, and sometimes we must simply trust in the grace of God.

Elusive clarity

There will always be unclear areas based on individual conscience even with the issue of murder: What treatments should be used for pregnant mothers with advanced cancer? How much responsibility does an individual Christian soldier take for the possibility of “collateral damage” to civilians in warfare as a pilot, sniper, or drone operator? What formula decides if a police officer who shoots and kills a bystander because he missed a criminal is a murderer? How high a standard of evidence is needed by the state to use the death penalty? Where exactly is the line between negligence and a mistake in medical treatment that leads to death?

Thinking through how to obey a command or recognizing when others have disobeyed thus requires biblical wisdom. We see an example of such wisdom in the relationship of Apollos and Paul. They had a disagreement over how Apollos should obey the great commission in Corinth. In particular, how he should “make disciples” and teach “them all that [Jesus] had commanded.” (If you’re not comfortable with the great commission being in play in 1 Corinthians 16, supply the second great command, Matt. 22:39.) And so Paul strongly urged the application that Apollos would immediately visit Corinth, and Apollos said, “No.” He disagreed with the Apostle Paul’s application, and so we read in 1 Corinthians 16:12, “I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all his will to come now.”

If Paul had elevated his wisdom to the authority of Scripture by commanding Apollos to go to Corinth, he would have been sinning just like the Pharisees. The Pharisees, according to our Lord Jesus, taught “ ‘as doctrines the commandments of men.’ [They] leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7-8). The Pharisees elevated their applications to the level of law. But when Paul doesn’t have a specific word from God on the application of a command of Scripture, he leaves it up to the individual conscience (c.f., Rom. 14:23).

Yet this doesn’t make Paul a moral relativist who allows anything. Paul is abundantly clear about how and when to obey the command, “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). God, “now commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Everyone is expected to immediately obey this command and to obey in the exact same way. There are no cultural accommodations (1 Cor. 9:18-23). There is only one gospel and only one way to obey the gospel command—repent and believe.

The obvious reason for this is that the intent of the command “repent and believe the gospel” is universal and it is to be obeyed by “all people everywhere” in the exact same way. The motives for not repenting and believing are always the same. And “all people everywhere” desperately need to obey the gospel.

If you disagree will Paul about the gospel, it’s not an issue of conscience or application. We find no extending of a gracious opportunity for greater spiritual growth (Phil. 3:15) to those who reject the gospel. Rather Paul damns all who would preach a different gospel, including himself, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:9, cf. v. 8). And if someone preaches that salvation requires one to repent, believe and be circumcised—Paul wishes for severe consequences (Gal. 5:12).

Different kinds of commands

The Bible, then, has different sorts of commands. “Repent and believe the gospel” is applied to all men everywhere exactly the same way. Paul and Apollos cannot disagree on the application of this command or the context. But there are other sorts of commands—for instance the great commission—where Paul and Apollos can disagree about application and the context.

This leaves several things to be considered on the issue of separation, and even on God’s commands in general. The most important of these is, What is God’s intention in giving us the commands to separate? Next week, (DV) I will attempt to discover this by analyzing Paul and Jesus’ obedience and application to the commands to separate.

In anticipation of possible questions, the next two aphorisms to be considered are these:

Aphorism 3: Applications of the commands of separation must take into account Jesus and Paul’s application of these same commands as recorded in the Gospels, Acts, and the epistles.

Aphorism 4: None of the commands of Scripture contradict the other commands when rightly understood, and to be correctly applied and interpreted all of the commands of Scripture must work together.

Celebrating Christ’s Nativity and Resurrection at Andover

On 27 April, 2014

When I became a pastor about 7 years ago, I held to a rejection of all holidays in the Sunday morning service. And I came to this conclusion from three, I hope, godly influences: the first was to not wield a coercive authority over a tender and biblically informed conscience in obedience to Scripture (Rom. 14:21) at a required meeting of the church. The second was responding to open idolatry in evangelical church services that I had attended, and the inability of the pastors of these churches to comprehend that what they were doing was idolatrous. The third was a desire to conform my practice to the Spirit inspired practice of the godly throughout history.

The difficulty or the tension that I see in this now is: first, that as an elder my authority to select the text is coercive. I force the members and attenders at my church to celebrate the nativity of Christ when the text requires it or the resurrection, or accession. This authority was given to me by God to be used in wisdom. I think it would be a sin for me to spend 20 years preaching on say Esther though it is in my authority as an elder to do so. My authority in this regard includes preaching topical sermons on Sunday morning or selecting particular texts for the health of the congregation based on events outside of the church.

The point that I am reaching towards is that Andover Baptist, our church, has a church calendar. Outside events, my vacation—scheduled by the way around historical church or secular holidays and providentially my birthday—illnesses, theological events, and the like, all influence what is preached on. Often times while the text is selected sequentially the application is driven by current events as well.

So the worship at Andover's calendar is influenced by things outside of our local congregation and I as a pastor require the congregants to submit to my wisdom on these issues. Because we are a congregational church if I were to become extremely foolish or sinful in this regard, I would be removed.

Since, I require the congregation to celebrate the nativity of Christ when I believe it’s wise (my memory is that we’ve done this now in July and April), I am at loss as to how to explain why it’s not wise to celebrate the nativity in late December once a year or for that matter to celebrate the resurrection of Christ in the spring. This is especially case given the evangelistic opportunity offered by both holidays.

The second issue is the idolatry occurring in both Protestant and Catholic churches during the celebration of Christ’s nativity and resurrection, accession, entering into Jerusalem, and so forth. None of the idolatry is necessitated by considering the texts describing and celebrating these events. The idolatry is caused either by rank stupidity or by incorporating things into the Sunday morning service that are not required by Scripture, not required to obey Scripture, or are not indifferent.

On the issue of indifference. What is indifferent in one context, say 1550 Paris, is not indifferent in Harvey, Iowa in 1935. Indifference is created not merely by the Scripture but how local contexts arrange symbols and practice in response to wisdom. Culturally, among most Baptist it’s not currently indifferent to use wine at the Lord’s Supper; historically the current Baptist practice is an anomaly. (I don’t think we are necessarily sinning by using “fruit of the vine.”)

Finally, I had assumed that Protestant practice was monolithic on the issue of rejecting the historical holidays of the church. And the answer, just as with articulating the degree of application of the 4th Commandment in the New Covenant, is more mixed. There is a Continental tendency and a British Isle tendency.

The Synod of Bern (1532) advocated celebrating communion on Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.  The Church Order of Dort (1619) did so also.

The Palatinate Liturgy (Heidelberg, 1563), according to the notes of my assistant pastor, advocated the celebration of five festivals: Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsuntide (Pentecost).

Bullinger advocates six festivals (the five above plus Circumcision) in both the Decades and the Second Helvetic Confession.  The Second Helvetic says that if those six be religiously celebrated "according to Christian liberty, we do very well approve of it."  In the Decades, in his sermon on the Sabbath, he says, "[I]t would be against all godliness and christian charity, if we should deny to sanctify the Sunday: especially, since the outward worship of God cannot consist without an appointed time and space of holy rest.  I suppose also, that we ought to think the same of those few feasts and holy days, which we keep holy to Christ our Lord, in memory of his nativity or incarnation, of his circumcision, of his passion, of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ our Lord into heaven, and of his sending the Holy Ghost upon his disciples.  For christian liberty is not a licentious power and dissolving of godly ecclesiastical ordinances, which advance and set forward the glory of God and love of our neighbour."  Though he uses such language there, he says in the Second Helvetic (in a later period in life) in the context of the Lord's Day, "we do not account one day to be holier than another...”

I draw this altogether to say that as long as the elders of a local church or local group of churches believe that it is wise for the congregation to meditate on the passages of Scripture describing the events celebrated in a historical church holiday, and they do not exceed their biblical authority in the worship service, the celebration of some church holidays in the Sunday service now seems to have dropped to the level indifference or wisdom.

The issue of indifference is only related to those holidays that celebrate events in the life of Jesus Christ. The continued habit of idolatry over Mary and the other saints among non-Protestants means that remembering the past saints and martyrs must be done with care and almost always outside of the Sunday morning service. The proliferation of secular and card holidays must be addressed on a case by case basis, but I personally see no need and much detriment in celebrating them on Sunday.

I do not regard my refusal to celebrate church holidays in the past as either unwise or a sin. When I first arrived at Andover, there was still a pressure to incorporate unwise and possibly ungodly elements into such celebrations. My hope is that God has used my conviction, wisdom, and practice for the good of your souls and the church.

If I have sinned in this regard, it has been on the prideful application of my best wisdom and not on the conviction itself. And for this pride I ask to be forgiven. I am particularly ashamed of having harangued church visitors during my first Easter and perhaps Christmas sermon.

What this means for the church is that the next Sunday before Christmas, we will have a scriptural passage selected to highlight the incarnation and birth of Christ. And the next resurrection Sunday, we will have a passage selected to honor the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. I would also like to continue celebrating these and other holidays outside of the Sunday morning service.

At the same time, while I believe the use of symbols to celebrate Christmas and Easter are an issue of conscience for individual Christians in their homes, I cannot support nativity scenes, Christmas trees, bunnies, and eggs, crucifixes or the like as decorations in the church.

I have spoken often of the regulative principle of worship. It is a doctrine that I hold dear and rejoice over as unburdening the conscience of the congregation. I do not now believe that a careful incorporation of the evangelical church holidays, those that celebrate events of the life of Jesus, necessarily violate the regulative principle, and I have purposely framed my explanation of this in terms of the regulative principle.

Parenting Part 3: Modern Parenting and the Bible Club

One of the sticks that Christians tend to whack each other with is the biblical club. One group of Christians defines their understanding of parenting as biblical parenting. By necessity then, everyone who disagrees with them is practicing “un-biblical” parenting. Rhetorically this tends to work out in language that denigrates anything anyone tries that does not agree with the biblical “principles” discovered or promoted by so and so. Perhaps, you thought rewarding your children for good behavior was similar to God rewarding his people? Depends on who you ask. One author might call that bribery or manipulation. Another might call it godly wisdom.

Mind the Gap in Charity

Part of the problem arises from two sorts of being “unbiblical”: The first way is that the Bible must be bridged from its original language and situation to our context.  We don’t speak Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. We don’t live in Corinth or Bethlehem. Our language, cultural patterns, habits of mind and so forth are not identical to the original writers or recipients of the Bible. Modesty in Corinth in about 60 A.D. has overlap with Baltimore in 2012, but they are not identical. I am unbiblical in that I am wearing kakis rather than a toga, but biblical in that I am attempting to please God.

Let me illustrate this from yesterday and today: Richard Baxter (1615-1691) saw the susceptibility to sin in terms of body temperature. We tend to see susceptibility in terms of genetic predispositions. In as much as neither Baxter nor we use the current thought patterns to excuse sin or violate the Bible, we aren’t sinning. Yet we are both thinking and applying God’s words using thought patterns that are somewhat foreign to the Bible and to situations to a degree different then found in the biblical record.

The “unbiblical” nature of application means that we all must have the proper humility when speaking to other Christians about applications of Scripture. Applications can’t be as normative as God’s Word unless the biblical situation and current application are identical.  Biblical principles on child rearing can never become the Bible.

Out Right Sin

All ages are also unbiblical in the sense of having ungodly blind spots. Every age allows some sin to be respectable and minimizes portions of God’s Word. Augustine should have married his concubine. Luther’s trust in God’s grace was sometimes an excuse for vulgarity. Wesley needed help with his wife.  Modern Christians look back in horrified amazement at the American record of racial slavery. And in all likelihood, our children or grandchildren will look back at us with a similar and completely accurate disgust.

We sin. And part of the way that we can stop sinning is by reading the applications of Scripture by other Christians. We’ve got to be open to being convicted of our sins and the possibility of blind spots. We are really good at spotting Baxter’s sin, but miserable at seeing our own, and so we’ve got to think with care. We need to think with Christians of the past and modern Christians, because we are all trying to serve God together.

Modernity and the past aren’t safer or better—just different.  There’s no need to fear anything but God. While we need to be wary of modernity and we need a proper sobriety towards our responsibility of raising children, we also need to “Rejoice always!” And we need to believe, Psalm 127:3-5, “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”

God’s Gifts Are Good

God gives us children because he loves us. “For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust” (Ps. 103:14). And the thing God wants us to do is to raise up our kids in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and enjoy it. Really, I am not kidding. It’s supposed to be fun to have kids, not constantly hilarious or entertaining but a godly delight. So much so that when God talks about prosperity, he writes this way, “And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets” (Zech. 8:5).

In God’s eyes there is something delightful, wholesome, and good about streets filled with playing children. Every “good” parenting book I have begins by soberly reminding us that our children are all potential axe murders or totally depraved, and then that they must be converted. Great, God agrees and so do I, but the whole council of God includes streets “full of boys and girls playing”; and “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt.18:3-4). There is something delightful about children, so much that God gives them as a good gift to sinners and believers (Pss. 17:14, cf. 127). They’re something to rejoice over and in, but we can only do it if we trust in God’s grace and not in books or this blog about childrearing.

We can’t cure our fear and trembling over modernity or the responsibility of being parents by reading the right books; we can only do it if we trust in God’s grace and trust in God’s Word. You don’t want to purposely sin, but you also don’t want to be anxious. You will sin, but God has fixed all of this on the cross. We can cry out with David, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son” (2 Sam. 18:33). But we don’t ever want to cry out in sorrow, “But we did everything according to The Duties of Parents.”

Back to the Blog

Having said all this, and perhaps rambled a bit more than I intended, let me come down to the nitty-gritty of this series. I understand my calling as a pastor to help people worship God by understanding the Book and the lesser book of creation—which includes lots of even lesser books and blogs, some about childrearing.  In the coming weeks, I hope to think through the books I’ve listed in the first blog, so that we might worship God better by delighting in him and the job he’s given us to do.

Yet, I did want to put this out again: “Read your Bible. Love your kids; play with them. Be consistent with rules. Disciple them when they need it. Every kid’s different.”   And I want to add one thought, “Don’t be scared. He’s a good God. ‘For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself’” (Acts 2:39).