Is the Doctrine of Separation a Baptist Distinctive?

In an exchange between Dave Doran of DBTS and Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church - The Master's Seminary, the following definitions within Fundamentalism emerged. You may not agree with these definitions, but for the sake of argument, please humor me.

--------------------------------------------

David Doran:

But your whole premise misses the real point. Eliminate all the labels and boil it down to what a person believes on the fundamental doctrines and about ecclesiastical separation. You come away with two groups—separatists and non-separatists. Among the separatists, there seems to be another division into two groups. On one hand, there are those who will separate from apostasy and those who compromise with it. On the other hand are those who will separate from apostasy, but not from those who compromise with it (or at least not consistently do so). Here’s the big question: which of these belief systems best fits Grace Community Church and the Master’s Seminary? I would love a direct answer to that question.

Phil Johnson:

You won't like my answer, but it's direct. We're in that important third category you refuse to recognize: the true independents. We don't fit your paradigm. Nonconformists. We are separatists; we are harsh critics of the evangelical mainstream; we are militants who don't like compromise. We also care deeply about truth from biblical, historical, and practical perspectives; we recognize the supreme authority and absolute inerrancy of Scripture; and we are therefore not willing to join any movement where matters of conscience are decided by a few men who are high in the hierarchy of the movement. That makes us outsiders as far as both evangelicals and fundamentalists are concerned, and yet both groups insist that we belong to the other.

Dave Doran:

But we can’t act as if the problems of separation sprang up out of nowhere—they sprang up precisely because of the rise of a group of non-separatist fundamentalists. And since the rise of that group, fundamentalists have been divided on how to respond to them.

My point is that there are limited options in terms of your beliefs regarding separation: (1) no ecclesiastical separation; (2) separation from apostates, but not from those who fellowship with them; and (3) separation from apostates and those who fellowship with them. Can you really think of any other options? I can’t.

Phil Johnson:

Sure: (4) Separation from apostates, from those who fellowship with them, from those who fellowship with others who fellowship with them, and from everyone else who is associated with any of those people.

------------------------------------------------

By separatists and non-separatists, Doran means Fundamentalists and New Evangelicals. I think Doran is wrong in his assessment of who constituted the New Evangelicals. I think history will show that the majority of New Evangelicals were fundamentalists who wanted to practice primary separation only, and not secondary or extended separation. There were also those who did not separate from apostates (did not come out) who were classified as new evangelicals. So yes, there were those who fellowshiped with apostates in denominational settings, the non-separatists.

Using their definitions of 1. Non-separation - failure to separate from apostates; 2. Primary separation - separating from apostates only; 3. Secondary separation - separating from apostates and from those who fellowship with them, 4.Hyper-separation - separating from those who fellowship with those who fellowship with apostates, we can construct a chart of Fundamentalism.


1920s Fundamentalism = 1 transitioning into 2.

The fundamentalists and modernists co-existed within the major denominations. Unable to regain control of their denominations, they began to practice separation from apostates by withdrawing from the denominations.


1940s Fundamentalism = 1, 2, 3, 4 in two branches.

As fundamentalists began to withdraw, they began to criticize those who took too long in "coming out." Soon those who were practicing 2 began to practice 3 against those who were still practicing 1. As the conflict turned inward and progressed to 4, a group of fundamentalists sought to return to a more moderate position in regards to separation. This group of fundamentalists, self-identified as "new evangelicals" practiced only 1 and 2. The remaining fundamentalists continued to practice 3 and 4.


2000s Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism

Evangelicalism splintered into progressive evangelicals (doctrinal error) resulting in new "apostates" and those who fellowshiped with them (1). Conservative evangelicals continued to practice 2 against the old and new apostates. Hyper fundamentalists practiced 4, but they called it 3, not wanting to admit the true nature of their practice. A new breed of fundamentalists from the younger generation, calling themselves "historic fundamentalists" practiced 3. They separated from apostates and those who fellowshiped with apostates, but they were no longer willing to separate from conservative evangelicals who were practicing 2. Conservative evangelicals did not fellowship with apostates, but they weren't overly concerned about fellow believers who did. It seems that conservative evangelicals (2) and historic fundamentalists (3) are making a rapproachment. There is considerable fellowship taking place between these two causing quite a cocnern among the older generation of fundamentalists as represented by DBTS, NBBC, BJU, etc.

Very gracious men, like Doran (a 4 who thinks that he's a 3), are trying to address this issue. But Doran reveals that though he doesn't even consider "separation" a fundamental of the Christian faith, let alone a Baptist distinctive, in practice it becomes the driving characteristic of independent fundamental Baptists like Doran and DBTS.

The vast majority of Fundamentalists/Evangelicals seem to fall into the conservative evangelical strand (2) and the historic fundamentalist strand (3).

Will there be a coming together of conservative evangelicals and historic fundamentalists into a new movement?

 

First, the "argument" does get the two opposing sides out for discussion, and does lead (hopefully) to the refinement of a position held. I do not believe I have all teh truth about the fundamentalist/modernist/new evangelical controversy, nor will I ever. I would presume Paul would make a similar statement about his own knowledge.

But more to the point, the fact that 60% of a statistically non-existent sample say anything says absolutely nothing. 16 people said they consider it s distinctive. 16 people is the size of a decent SS class. It cannot be taken as authoritative on what any group thinks about anything.

What is the 60% were wrongly taught? Or not taught at all? Do you still give their opinion weight? What if 60% of a group said that Baptists were cars? Would you accept their opinion and give it the weight you have these 16 people? I doubt it.

The poitn is that when someone says the separation on the order of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is a baptist distinctive, they are wrong and they should leave that notion behind.

I believe separation is biblical and necessary. I don't buy all the various degrees of separation that some try to foist on fundamentalists. I think it is a very complex issue and there is room for difference to some degree. But it is not a Baptist distinctive in the way that that phrase is used. Paul is living proof. He is a Baptist who doesn't believe in it.

This statement seems to have generated some confusion and misunderstanidng. Let me explain what I meant. Most of us will never have to worry about whether or not to ask Franklin Graham to pray in our service (to use Paul's example). That is a purely theoretical question. The list of groups that Paul listed on the previous page are mostly theoretical relationshiops ... the relationship doesn't actually exist. He is asking "What would you do?" That is a theoretical question.

I agree, but that is not what makes a baptist a baptist.

 

I think historically this isn't true. Take Graham for instance. The reason he left fundamentalism was primary separation. He wanted to have men on his crusade committees and pulpits who denied basic fundamental doctrines. That was the common approach I believe.

I am curious why you say Doran is a 4 who thinks he is a 3. Have you talked to him? On what are you basing your views?

I think Johnson's (4) is the caricature that a lot make. I think there are people like that. But I think they don't represent mainstream fundamentalism. However, they are an easy target to attack, and in Johnson's Shepherd's Conference presentation, he did a great job of attacking them. But most of the people like me would agree that we should confront and get rid of them.

 

Yes, the Doctrine of Separation is a Baptist Distinctive

 

I am simply pointing out here that your assumption is rather arrogant. Is it not possible that you are the one that has been wrongly taught, and that each one of the 16 that have voted are better informed in the area of Baptist History than you are? Such an assumption that you make is rather demeaning to the others on the board. It makes those that voted look like ignorant fools in your opinion. The typical response that I (and virtually every ex-Catholic) in the Other Christian Denominations Forum, by the Catholics, is that you were taught poorly, didn't have a good priest, etc. etc. You are using the same tactic that the Catholics use against us. It is a very poor argument.
DHK

 

DHK,

If I am wrongly taught, than the vast majority of baptists through the ages have been. My position is the one of historical Baptist thought. It is not a poor argument to appeal to Baptist history and polity. I am not minimizing separation. IN fact, most would accuse me of being too separatist. I am merely pointing out the historical realities. I am not demeaning anyone, at least not any more than you are demeaning me in this post. The fact is that neither is demeaning. We don't get to change Baptist distinctives simply to fit our own personal whim.

Golden Dragon,

I don't want to minimize the result of this poll. I don't really care. IN fact, I never took the poll until today. My point is that the poll is not sufficient to determine anything except the views of people who took the poll here.

 

Perhapst then "Baptist distinctive" ought to be more clearly defined. Historically they separated. The contention of B.H. Caroll, J.T. Christian, Armitage, et. al., is that there have been in every age since the apostles those that have held to the basic beliefs of Baptists though not called Baptists themselves. Would you agree with that much. That is not a Landmarckist belief, nor a Baptist apostolic successionist belief. It is simply saying that the Lord has never left himself without a witness to the truth.

For example, the early Montanist movement (which I am sure many will demonize as a cult, etc.) was basically a movement of separation against the corruption that was in the church. They wanted to see purity in the church. They may have gone too far in some areas for some peoples liking, but then what about the church at Corinth?
The Montanist movement was premised on separation--"come out from among them."

Baptists from all ages have done the same thing. They have separated from the Catholic Church--apostasy; from erring churches, from brethren that do not walk according to truth. This has been historically true of Baptists. If it isn't then a distinctive, what is it?
DHK

 

It is a practice, not a distinctive. There are many baptists who do not do it. It cannot be a distinctive unless it is true of all Baptists. Distinctives are what make Baptists Baptists.

 

There are many liberal Baptist churches whose memberships have more unsaved than saved. Yet our distinctives definitely say: a regenerated baptized church membership. Just because all Baptist churches do not hold to ALL the Baptist distinctives does not make one of the distinctives not a distinctive.
DHK

 

I presume that they would not accept the premise ... that they have unregenerated in the church membership.

 

Larry,

The Shepherd's Conference generated an exchange between Phil and Dave that was profitable and irenic in spirit. I hope that you and I can have that same kind of tone in our discussion.

Larry, I don't dispute that many fundamentalists never came out of the denominations. Nor do I dispute that Graham wanted to hold crusades with these denominations that still contained some fundamentalists left over from the fundamentalist/modernists controversy. I don't even dispute that Graham had some "apostates" on committees that invited him to speak. But not everyone who self-identified with the new evangelical label was seeking fellowship with apostates, which appears to be your view of history and Doran's as well. I would submit that the vast majority of self-identified new evangelicals did not want to fellowship with apostates. Rather they no longer wanted to fight over who was separating fast enough or not at all. Most new evangelicals practiced primary separation. They weren't going to fellowship "directly" with apostates, but neither were they going to separate from Billy Graham or others who stayed in the denominations who held to the fundamentals of the faith as defined in the 1920s.

If this assessment is correct, it puts a different feel on the whole new evangelical movement and explains why there are millions of conservative evangelicals reacting with dismay to the general drift of evangelicalism. Conservative evangelicals as a class do not seek out fellowship with apostates.

I think that it is misleading to say that all new evangelicals sought fellowship with apostates. I don't think that accurately reflects the new evangelical movement at its origin or adequately explains the resulting reaction among conservative evangelicals against false doctrine today.

I trust that you will consider this in our discussions.

As to Doran being a 4 who thinks that he is a 3. I took that from his exchange with Phil on a forum. I understand Doran's perspective that anything beyond secondary separation is simply a matter of degree. But I think that in practice, as Phil has pointed out, Dave's position does generate "hyper" separation. Dave even admits that it is there among some.

The example used is Al Moehler. Dave separates from Billy Graham because Graham fellowships with apostates. Moehler fellowships with Graham. So Secondary separation requires separation from Moehler on Doran's part. Phil likes Moehler, and would not separate from him. So Dave must now also separate from Phil.

It may be a matter of secondary separation applied against a disobedient brother (Phil), but it sure feels like "hyper" separation to me and many others.

Keep this in mind when labeling new evangelicals of the 40s. Most were guys who practiced primary separation, though there were many non-separatists who took that label. There were even secondary separationists who didn't "apply" it aggressively enough and got disenfranchised from their fundamentalists friends and accused of being new evangelicals. That's still happening today. Where did they go? Phil says they became true "independents."

As to separation being a "Baptist" distinctive. Doran says that it's not even a "fundamental."

I find this very interesting. So all this fuss is about how to apply the doctrine of separation which is not a fundamental of the faith nor a Baptist dictinctive, but which in reality separates and divides Baptists and fundamentalists! Very interesting.

Thanks.

 

Larry,

How do you define separatism?

 

In a conversation with a deacon from a liberal Baptist church from this area, we found that not only was the deacon not saved, he also said that being "born again" was not important to church membership. This was a Baptist church.

 

Paul,

Thanks for your kind post. I have read the exchange between Doran and Johnson and found it enlightening. Knowing Doran and having talked to him about it, I read it in a different way than perhaps you do. I will make a few comments, probably somewhat disjointed, but hopefully they will make some sense, and make a decent contribution.

Let me say that I agree that not all evangelicals (or new evangelicals as they called themselves) want to fellowship with apostates. If I communicated something otherwise, I apologize. In writing fast, I don't always write clearly. I do not believe that all evangelicals want to fellowship with apostates. But that being said, I cannot in good conscience limit the biblical teaching on separation to merely separation from apostates. The Bible also includes walking disorderly in that, and I think we have to give that more weight than I think you want to. My reading of history is that there was a good deal more latitude in the 40s and 50s than you might admit. The process of separation took place over years. Graham began his move in the 40s, but maintained fellowship with people like Jones Sr and Jr, well into the 50s. The final separation took place probably more than 10 years after the initial signs. They were certainly not quick to cut him off. They pled with him to reconsider. In fact, in the early 50s, I believe Jones Jr preached for Graham at more than one of his crusades (at least one, but I believe there was more), even after the concerns about Graham's direction came up. The 1950 Greenville crusade was outdoors and rain drove it indoors to the campus of BJU. Throughout hte 50s, Graham and Jones Sr remained close and Jones Sr treated him like a son. Dan Turner's Standing Without Apology has two chapters (15 and 16) with full documentation and some of the correspondence and interaction between Graham and Jones that was never made public until this time. It shows a different perspective than what is typically imagined.

The hard line split that you see today between fundamentalists and new evangelicals, really came into being over 20 years or so. It was not a quick cut off of everyone who disagreed on minor points. Even in teh NAE, which was more inclusive from the beginning, men like Rice and the Jones's stayed in for a long time, hoping to direct it to a more separatist position.

With respect to degrees of separation, I actually reject the whole idea of degrees. I think separation is always "first degree" -- I have said that before and some reject my nomenclature, which is fine. When I separate from someone, it is not because of someone else, it is because of them. Take Mohler for instance, although I hate hypotheticals. Mohler was the chairman of the Graham crusade and has said he would do it again. How can he? We should all be able to agree that Graham has, at the very least, disobeyed Scripture. That is not to malign him personally or attack him. It is not to speak evil of hte good that he has done. That is a whole different discussion. But when Mohler overlooks Graham's disobedience, he himself becomes party to Graham's philosophy and doctrine, which puts Mohler in the camp of "walking disorderly." Interesting, Johnson agreed that that secondary separation was appropriate. He refused to apply it to Mohler, which was troublingly inconsistent to me.

The basis for secondary separation, to me, has to do with "lending support and aid to the enemy." When Peter compromised the gospel at Antioch (Gal 2), Paul confronted him to his face. Peter was not an apostate, nor was he "teaching" falsely by his words. But his actions brought the gospel into disrepute, and that was sinful. Peter responded obediently to God in that matter. Consider the example of 1 Tim 5 where elders are not to "lay hands" on someone quickly. The reason is because ordination or approval is an endorsement of someone's position. In other words, when you join hands with someone in ministry, you are endorsing them. When I have someone to preach, I am endorsing them. Can I endorse the lifestyle and actions of someone like Mohler? My answer to that is No, not because I don't appreciate his good, but because I can't overlook these issues of his disobedience. I realize that some would dispute whether or not it is disobedience. My case for that is Rom 16:17-18 where we are told to mark those who teach contrary and separate from them. Graham has taught contrary to the truth. In response to that, Mohler should "mark him ... and turn from him." Mohler has not. Therefore, Mohler is disobedient. Now, the question for me is, Can I endorse Mohler, knowing that he has willfully disobeyed that? I can't imagine we can really argue that Mohler doesn't know what Rom 16 says, nor can we legitimately argue that a misunderstanding gives cause for a free pass. To me, this is not like someone teaching a posttrib rapture, which I disagree with but would not use as a basis for separation. (It would limit my fellowship to some degree, e.g., I wouldn't have them preach to my church on eschatology).

Third, you said Dave's position leads to hyper-separatism. I say it can, but it doesn't have to. I don't think Dave is a hyper-separatist, though he is more than most. I think he is one of the sharpest minds in fundamentalism. He can think about and articulate issues that most people don't even know exist. I think the pursuit he has, and I try to have, is consistency, which was one of Johnson's main critiques. Consistency is hard to come by admittedly. But I don't think Doran is a hyper separatist. I think he can give well reasoned support for his choices, though they are not all choices I would make.

Lastly, I agree with Doran about the "not distinctive, not even fundamental." I think by that that he means it is not a "load bearing" doctrine. One can be a Christian and not practice separation. Fundamental doctrines are those doctrines without which Christianity would cease to exist. The same is true about a distinctive, though it is usually used in terms of denominational distinctives, those ideas that make a denomination different from others. For instance, the deity of Christ is a fundamental, not a distinctive, since it is necessary to be a Christian, but is common to all denominations. Separation of church and state is a baptist distinctive, since that, in conjunction with other things, sets it apart from other denominations. Distinctives are not exclusive to denominations (two denominations may hold a common distinctive); It is the whole set of distinctives which makes a denomination ... well ... distinct.

I would close by saying that I think modern times have shown us that evangelicalism was a great failure, and men like Henry and Woodbridge have admitted as much. The times have not shown us that clear lines and strong doctrinal teaching purified the church, but rather that the evangelical movement was a hindrance. I am not saying by any means that the fundamentalists always got it right. Believe, there are some I would like to zap off the scene and pretend like they never existed. I cringe when I hear some men called fundamentalists. But I would urge all to remember that there are some of us, however small our voices might be, who are trying to be genuine men of conscience with the Scriptures, who don't apply separation for the sake of division, but rather out of love for the truth.

 

I appreciated your thoughts. I would only ask that the same latitude you give to "fundamentalism" be given to "evangelicalism." There are millions of conservative evangelicals who practice separation from apostates, and who, on a case by case basis, separate from fellow believers who fellowship with them. Conservative evangelicals are embarrassed by all that passes under their "label" too, just like gracious fundamentalists are embarrassed by some who are called "fundamentalists."

Latitude also needs to be granted to conservative evangelicals who remain within denominations that include apostates. In the SBC, conservative evangelicals who practice separation from apostates are cleaning up their seminaries. As pastors, they don't fellowship with liberals directly. They are vocal about the fundamentals of the faith. We need to grant them the right over "years" to continue to influence their convention for the fundamentals of the faith, without accusing them of not coming out and being separate. The nature of the SBC or any denomination that believes that each church is autonomous is such that conservatives never need to fellowship directly with liberals.

We are in agreement that the growing divide among fundamentalists over how to practice separation took place over a period of time in the 40s and 50s. I think we also agree that from the time the first individual pulled out of a mainline denomination, hyper fundamentalistism became a potential threat.

 

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 48% (16)

I believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 36% (12)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 3% (1)

I do not believe in the Doctrine of Separation and do not consider it to be a Baptist Distinctive. 12% (4)