JoJ,
I have, as you know, the utmost respect for you as a Fundamentalist. You and Dr. Kevin Bauder are two of the "shining lights" in the entire movement IMHO! The two of you, to the exception of many others, are "Thinking Fundamentalists." That is why I come to you with this issue.
I'm flattered to be compared to Kevin Bauder, but he may be insulted to be compared to me! :smilewinkgrin:
It seems to me, and I assume you know my "IBF connections" background, that the whole of the Fundamentalist's "secondary separation movement" turns on one word in one verse of Scripture; i.e., the word "yoke."
The Fundamentalist thinkers I respect who have written on the subject usually use the "yoke" term to refer to primary separation, or ecclesiastical separation from unbelievers, rather than secondary separation. See Chapter 1 of John R. Rice's
Come Out or Stay In; Fred Moritz in
Contending for the Faith: "The Bible Commands separation from unbelief" (after which he lists 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1); Ernest Pickering in
Biblical Separation, esp. pp. 176-177 where he contests the idea of J. Elwin Wright that the passage doesn't mean separation from modernist churches, but only from idolatrous religion.
The Fundamentalist position from this passage is that separation is separation
to God from the world and thus naturally from false doctrine. I remember Dr. Monroe Parker making this point from the pulpit, and that made a great impression on me as a young preacher.
Now this historically is only on the post-WWII Fundamentalist's-Evangelical arguments and subsequent "words of war;" not on the original Fundamentals of the earlier 1900s. (Please correct any vagueness or misunderstandings in any historical issues here).
I do believe that the original Fundamentalists of the early 1900s interpreted the "yoke" this way, judging from the battles that occurred in those days in the various denominations. It's late here and I have to hit the sack, or I'd comment more on this.
It seems to me that I have heard many a "stomp and snort" more "heat that light" sermons on the concept of "being unequally yoked" rather than a rational discussion on what it means exegetically to be "yoked."
To continue, the Scripture most used on which to base secondary separation is the "disorderly" passage of 2 Thess. 3, starting with v. 10.
I was a student at BJU in 1972 when the Rice vs. Jones Jr. controversy on secondary separation blew up. Imagine me, if you will, slouching in the chair in chapel when Bob Jr. mentioned my Granddad from the pulpit. At that point I researched this passage thoroughly, checking every single commentary in the BJU library, and coming to the conclusion that this was not about ecclesiastical separation, but about an internal church matter, church discipline if you will.
I was particularly bemused to read a little set of notes by Charles Woodbridge, who made no mention in his notes of the secondary separation possibility. However, in his little booklet
Bible Separation written to counter Rice, Woodbridge adopted the secondary separation position. And after that Woodbridge eventually separated from even BJU, as I recall!
It seems to have varied greatly from preacher to preacher. It seems to collect more vitriol and "one-ups-manship" and ego than anything else. But then again there is a "kindler-gentler" younger Fundamentalists who have arrived on the scene is there not?
And even to the point of the younger Fundamentalists being of all things Calvinistically-leaning soteriologically. What a thought? :smilewinkgrin:
Can you clarify for me this issue over "yoke?"
"That is all!"
I'm afraid if I commented on the young Fundamentalists, I'd be out of my depth. I don't have much contact with the younger Fundamentalists in the States except through my son sometimes. And I must tell you that he's not Calvinistic, nor are his friends generally (grads and profs of Maranatha BBC and Calvary Baptist Theo. Sem.).
