Secondary Separation

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
In another thread, one brother made the following statement:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Secondary Separation is an extreme measure.

To discuss this topic in that thread would be to take the thread off topic. I would like to discuss this subject here in this forum.

How would you define "secondary separation?"

Since it is looked upon by many in a negative light, how would you scripturally refute those who practice secondary separation?

As I understand secondary separation, it is not only separating from what we consider as wrong, but also separating from those who participate in what we consider as wrong. II Corinthians 6:14-17 seems to support this idea. </font>[/QUOTE]There is no secondary separation. This is a manmade term in the argument over what constitutes Biblical separation. There is only Biblical separation. However, there is disagreement over the extent and application of Biblical separation. Biblical separation is separation from those who are not walking according to truth and are disobedient. This does include those who are not practicing Biblical separation since it is disobedience. Furthermore, associating with compromisers breaks down the teaching and practice of Biblical separation. Now, the application is something else. Unfortunately, we tend to excuse our friends and maintain beneficial associations but we exclude our enemies and break off competitive associations.

Everyone seems to assume that separation is a bad thing. Can anyone find a Scripture condemning it? Modern Christendom operates under the a priori assumption that God intends that we are united in one organization. This is ecumenism. Nowhere can I find Biblical warrant for this thinking. The unity of which Christ speaks is spiritual, not manmade. There is no Scriptural appeal for universal cooperation and unification of Christians. As a Baptist, I separate from Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc. by attending an independent Baptist church and teaching Baptist doctrine including the priesthood of the believer, local church autonomy, Biblical separation from falsehood and baptism by immersion. I would not invite preachers of the aforementioned sects into my church’s pulpit. However, I do have many friends and acquaintances in the groups mentioned.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
I get teased a lot right now because I am a youth pastor in an ABC/USA church, and the denomination is dealing with the issue of homosexuality and churches affirming it.
I hear that we should seperate ourselves (church) from the denomination because of affirming churches that call themselves ABC/USA. The logic is secondary association.

I've heard ministers state that they wouldn't feel right drawing retirement from our retirement board if homosexuals were paying into it.

But when I asked them about drawing Social Security while homosexuals are paying into it, well, they answer, "that's different".
No it's not.

If you are going to separate yourselves from sin, go live on Mars. Then maybe you can be the perfect person God created you to be.
Christ was the only one perfect and he had dinner at a thief's home!

Of course the Pharisees scoffed, "You wouldn't catch me doing that."

Wow, you have unknowingly given the perfect illustration! The ABC/USA denomination is having the problem with the homosexual issue because they did not practice Biblical separation years ago. They tolerated liberals who now support homosexuality. Your stand against homosexuality, I assume you stand against it, is not credible with your youth because some in your denomination condone it. In effect, you are shooting yourself in the foot by remaining in the denomination. You are neutralizing your witness by your compromise.

 

[jw]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Obviously, you don’t understand the Biblical doctrine of separation. You are morphing it into something that it is not. Your illustration and analogy is fatally flawed. Paul was not preaching under the sponsorship of the pagans. His preaching on Mars Hill is more comparable to preaching on the street or in a park than preaching in a Roman Catholic church or Hindu temple. The problem with your reasoning is that your mind is already made up before you begin the process. Your analogy is crafted to provide your bias rather than elicit the truth.

The whole idea behind Biblical separation is to draw a distinct line between truth and falsehood. It is separation unto God from all sin, wickedness and error. By associating with false religion, one rubs out the line. Poor untaught sinners are mistakenly led to believe that Christians accept the false teachings. Thus, we do the heathen sinner no favor by deluding him into a false security in his religion under the guise of reaching him for Christ. As the Pharisees, we make him seven times over the child of Hell.

IMHO, Ravi Zacharias had no business in speaking to the Mormons in Salt Lake. The Mormons are trying hard to make their false religion accepted as just another Christian denomination. Ravi just made it a little easier for them to propagate this lie. Now, they can say, “Oh, we’re just like other Christians; we even had Ravi Zacharias speak in our meetings.” BTW, don’t come with the argument about what a witness he had. Whatever he said was negated by the circumstances. It’s rather like taking out a prostitute to witness to her.

Right back at ya! I don't think you understand what biblical separation is. Jesus and the apostles went to the synagoges and preached.

2 Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

We are not to be yoked, bound together in the same labor, with unbelievers. If I were to preach in a Mosque I wouldn't be yoked with Muslims. I wouldn't be preaching the same message they preach. I wouldn't be doing the same work they are doing or joining with them. I would be preaching the Gospel of Christ, urging them to turn from their false religion.

Paul didn't go to the synagoges and talk about how it's ok to remain a Jew (religiously speaking, not ethnically of course). He preached Christ.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
Yes, I know, Benjamin. I'm mean-spirited, narrow-minded, bigoted--just an ignorant back-woods missionary. (Sob!) Maybe God will forgive me someday!

No, No, No, Lets not be sensitive, just kidding, as in if someone asked me to preach in a Buddhist temple I would be awful tempted to work up a “Fire and brimstone version of the Gospel” and let them have it; what else would they expect? Might be fun.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

There is no secondary separation. This is a manmade term in the argument over what constitutes Biblical separation. There is only Biblical separation. However, there is disagreement over the extent and application of Biblical separation. Biblical separation is separation from those who are not walking according to truth and are disobedient. This does include those who are not practicing Biblical separation since it is disobedience. Furthermore, associating with compromisers breaks down the teaching and practice of Biblical separation. Now, the application is something else. Unfortunately, we tend to excuse our friends and maintain beneficial associations but we exclude our enemies and break off competitive associations.

Everyone seems to assume that separation is a bad thing. Can anyone find a Scripture condemning it? Modern Christendom operates under the a priori assumption that God intends that we are united in one organization. This is ecumenism. Nowhere can I find Biblical warrant for this thinking. The unity of which Christ speaks is spiritual, not manmade. There is no Scriptural appeal for universal cooperation and unification of Christians. As a Baptist, I separate from Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc. by attending an independent Baptist church and teaching Baptist doctrine including the priesthood of the believer, local church autonomy, Biblical separation from falsehood and baptism by immersion. I would not invite preachers of the aforementioned sects into my church’s pulpit. However, I do have many friends and acquaintances in the groups mentioned. [/qb]

How many churches did Jesus ever mention in His ministry? How many brides of Christ will there be? Denominationalism is from man not from God. Are not all of us who believe on Him and follow His commandments Christians? Will only Fundamentalist Baptists be in Heaven? If you believe that, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I think any thread on Separation is incomplete without these two passages.

NASB - Ephesians 4:1-6

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

with all humility and gentleness,
with patience,
showing tolerance for one another in love,
being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body
and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling
one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

NASB - John 17:20-23

I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by jw:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
Obviously, you don’t understand the Biblical doctrine of separation. You are morphing it into something that it is not. Your illustration and analogy is fatally flawed. Paul was not preaching under the sponsorship of the pagans. His preaching on Mars Hill is more comparable to preaching on the street or in a park than preaching in a Roman Catholic church or Hindu temple. The problem with your reasoning is that your mind is already made up before you begin the process. Your analogy is crafted to provide your bias rather than elicit the truth.

The whole idea behind Biblical separation is to draw a distinct line between truth and falsehood. It is separation unto God from all sin, wickedness and error. By associating with false religion, one rubs out the line. Poor untaught sinners are mistakenly led to believe that Christians accept the false teachings. Thus, we do the heathen sinner no favor by deluding him into a false security in his religion under the guise of reaching him for Christ. As the Pharisees, we make him seven times over the child of Hell.

IMHO, Ravi Zacharias had no business in speaking to the Mormons in Salt Lake. The Mormons are trying hard to make their false religion accepted as just another Christian denomination. Ravi just made it a little easier for them to propagate this lie. Now, they can say, “Oh, we’re just like other Christians; we even had Ravi Zacharias speak in our meetings.” BTW, don’t come with the argument about what a witness he had. Whatever he said was negated by the circumstances. It’s rather like taking out a prostitute to witness to her.

Right back at ya! I don't think you understand what biblical separation is. Jesus and the apostles went to the synagoges and preached.

2 Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

We are not to be yoked, bound together in the same labor, with unbelievers. If I were to preach in a Mosque I wouldn't be yoked with Muslims. I wouldn't be preaching the same message they preach. I wouldn't be doing the same work they are doing or joining with them. I would be preaching the Gospel of Christ, urging them to turn from their false religion.

Paul didn't go to the synagogues and talk about how it's ok to remain a Jew (religiously speaking, not ethnically of course). He preached Christ. </font>[/QUOTE]You don't have a valid analogy. The synagogues are not comparable to pagan temples. Jesus came to fulfill the OT Law. The Law was taught and preached in the synagogues. However, you never found Jesus preaching in a heathen shrine. It is your false assumption that he would go anywhere under any sponsorship to reach people. You have no Biblical backing.

Furthermore, you embrace a faulty hermeneutic. One cannot build doctrine on narrative and events. Doctrinal teaching, such as Biblical separation, must come from clear statements in the Word of God. Allegory and analogy are subject to any number of interpretations. Then, it is every man to his own interpretation. The hope of knowing is destroyed. The NT theology of separation is founded in an understanding of OT separation. Your theology is of the WWJD variety. It is unknowable and spurious.

 

[guitarpreacher]

Sounds a lot like salt wanting to live in the saltshaker to me.

 

[jw]

You don't have a valid analogy. The synagogues are not comparable to pagan temples. Jesus came to fulfill the OT Law. The Law was taught and preached in the synagogues. However, you never found Jesus preaching in a heathen shrine. It is your false assumption that he would go anywhere under any sponsorship to reach people. You have no Biblical backing.

Jesus was there to fulfill the OT Law.. why was Paul there? Why was Peter there? They were spreading the Gospel. It wasn't a pagan place, but it was not a group of believers either. We do have Paul preaching at Mars Hill however. You can blow it off if you want to, but it was a pagan arena if there ever was one.

Furthermore, you embrace a faulty hermeneutic. One cannot build doctrine on narrative and events. Doctrinal teaching, such as Biblical separation, must come from clear statements in the Word of God.

LOL, give me a single "clear statement" that says it is wrong to preach the gospel in a Buddhist temple. In fact, your ENTIRE argument is based on historical narrative. The only passages you guys use are things like 2 Cor 6, with the worst hermenutic I've ever seen.

Allegory and analogy are subject to any number of interpretations. Then, it is every man to his own interpretation. The hope of knowing is destroyed.

Where is a single place I allegorized anything?

The NT theology of separation is founded in an understanding of OT separation. Your theology is of the WWJD variety. It is unknowable and spurious.

Founded on OT narrative? It thought that was a no no. I'll play along though, what OT narrative tells us not to preach the gospel in Buddhist temples? The story of Jonah? Elijah? Elisha? Jeremiah?.. hmm... I don't recall them hanging out at the Temple waiting for the heathen to come to them.

My position was based on a proper understanding of 2 Corinthians 6 (which is not a narrative) put in its historical context including the OT quotation that Paul uses. Show me where I error.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There is no secondary separation. This is a manmade term in the argument over what constitutes Biblical separation. There is only Biblical separation. However, there is disagreement over the extent and application of Biblical separation. Biblical separation is separation from those who are not walking according to truth and are disobedient. This does include those who are not practicing Biblical separation since it is disobedience. Furthermore, associating with compromisers breaks down the teaching and practice of Biblical separation. Now, the application is something else. Unfortunately, we tend to excuse our friends and maintain beneficial associations but we exclude our enemies and break off competitive associations.

Everyone seems to assume that separation is a bad thing. Can anyone find a Scripture condemning it? Modern Christendom operates under the a priori assumption that God intends that we are united in one organization. This is ecumenism. Nowhere can I find Biblical warrant for this thinking. The unity of which Christ speaks is spiritual, not manmade. There is no Scriptural appeal for universal cooperation and unification of Christians. As a Baptist, I separate from Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, etc. by attending an independent Baptist church and teaching Baptist doctrine including the priesthood of the believer, local church autonomy, Biblical separation from falsehood and baptism by immersion. I would not invite preachers of the aforementioned sects into my church’s pulpit. However, I do have many friends and acquaintances in the groups mentioned.

How many churches did Jesus ever mention in His ministry? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]None! Jesus endorsed no denomination in His day because there were none. Of course, He endorsed no Christian colleges, seminaries, mission boards, etc. either. Your argument from lack of evidence is an inanity.

How many brides of Christ will there be? Denominationalism is from man not from God.

Oh, yeah? What about seminaries, mission boards, etc.?

Are not all of us who believe on Him and follow His commandments Christians? Will only Fundamentalist Baptists be in Heaven?

Of course not! However, a lot of pious unbelievers will be missing. Also, the Christ-denying liberals and apostates will not be there. The disobedient Christians and compromising Christians will be there but they will be without reward.

If you believe that, you are sadly mistaken.

I never said that! You have put words in my mouth. You twisted my post to make a straw man. Either you didn't understand (read carefully) or you deliberately twisted my meaning. Your response really has very little to do at all with what I said. Your post only deals superficially with some things that you suppose separatists believe. Well, you’re wrong. I am opposed to ecumenism and I am a separatist. Ecumenism results in the denigration of doctrine.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with denominations or separation into groups of common doctrine. Tell why people should not congregate with others of like faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with freedom of association unless you are a humanist. A basic humanist goal is an unified and deified mankind.

I have good Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. friends but I am unashamedly an independent Baptist. However, I have no Mormon or JW friends. On the other hand, I do try to evangelize every JW or Mormon that I meet but I don’t socialize with them on a personal basis. Furthermore, you have given me no Scripture condemning separation.

Your fallacious reasoning leads to Christians associating with disobedient believers, apostates and heretics. Scripture clearly forbids this. (see I Corinthians 5:4-11; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14; Matthew 18:17; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; II Timothy 3:5; II John 10) Your position is backed by sappy sentimentalism or humanist ideals, not Biblical doctrine.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by jw:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Allegory and analogy are subject to any number of interpretations. Then, it is every man to his own interpretation. The hope of knowing is destroyed.

Where is a single place I allegorized anything? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I was speaking of the faulty analogy that you used. Allegory was included because it suffers from the same weakness. You’re grasping at straws.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The NT theology of separation is founded in an understanding of OT separation. Your theology is of the WWJD variety. It is unknowable and spurious.

Founded on OT narrative? It thought that was a no no. I'll play along though, what OT narrative tells us not to preach the gospel in Buddhist temples? The story of Jonah? Elijah? Elisha? Jeremiah?.. hmm... I don't recall them hanging out at the Temple waiting for the heathen to come to them. </font>[/QUOTE]You seem to be taking some existential leaps here. I never said anything about OT narrative. Again, I was speaking of OT separation clearly expounded in no uncertain terms forbidding the intermarrying and intermingling with the pagan religions and cultures. The reasons are given. These reasons are valid in our Christian culture today.

You are nudging the argument on one side to include physical location as to opposed the compromising act of speaking under the auspices of a false religion. The physical location is not the issue. It is being associated with a false religion by accepting an invitation to speak under their sponsorship.

My position was based on a proper understanding of 2 Corinthians 6 (which is not a narrative) put in its historical context including the OT quotation that Paul uses. Show me where I error.

You’re dead wrong. Read II John.

 

[Paul33]

Here's how rediculous the "separatists" really are.

1) They cannot work with John MacArthur.

2) They cannot work with John Piper.

3) They cannot work with Al Moehler.

Need I say more?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
I think any thread on Separation is incomplete without these two passages.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> NASB - Ephesians 4:1-6

Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called,

with all humility and gentleness,
with patience,
showing tolerance for one another in love,
being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body
and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling
one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism,
one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

NASB - John 17:20-23

I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.

The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.

</font>[/QUOTE]Consider the audience, context, etc. This is a plea for no personal divisions but it is not pleading tolerance for apostates, disobedeient brethren and heretics. You must consider the whole of God's Word, not favorite selected teachings in isolation from all of Scripture. To apply this teaching to heretics, apostates and disobedient brethren is misapplication.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
To apply this teaching to heretics, apostates and disobedient brethren is misapplication.

Good thing I didn't apply them that way then, eh? In fact, I didn't apply them in any way. I simply quoted them.

Originally posted by paidagogos:
You must consider the whole of God's Word, not favorite selected teachings in isolation from all of Scripture.

This is good advice for those who support secondary separation and is what I hoped to encourage by quoting the above verses.

 

[Paul33]

Hey guys, all the Scripture in the world won't change the results of the reality test.

Most fundamentalists won't fellowship with MacArthur, Piper, or Moehler. It doesn't get any easier than this.

Whatever their exegesis, when applied to real life situations, they come up smelling like rotten eggs.

Can God really be pleased when we can find reasons to disassociate from MacArthur, Piper, and Moehler?

And I don't buy their argument of "Oh, they are brothers in Christ but we must separate from them ecclesiastically." What bunk!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Here's how rediculous the "separatists" really are.

1) They cannot work with John MacArthur.

2) They cannot work with John Piper.

3) They cannot work with Al Moehler.

Need I say more?

What's wrong with separating from these guys? You are assuming cooperative effort across all boundaries is a virtue. How do you support this idea? Unification of mankind is a major humanist ideal, not necessarily Christian. Unity among believers sharing a common faith is desirable and Scriptural. Since we do not all believe the exactly the same thing, there is room for differences, denominations, and associational groups. People tend to associate around a theological cluster. There ought not be division along personal lines due to jealousy, envy, strife, etc.. Until Christ returns, however, we'll never have complete worldwide unity of Christianity. What's wrong with everyone carrying out his own ministry and associating with whom he pleases?

The cooperative mentality is just as ridiculous and hateful. They hate anyone who refuses to join with them. Hey! I believe in freedom of association. BTW, you haven’t invited me to speak in your church. I could provide plenty of good alternative views and a lot of new theological ideas for your people to think about. (However, you’ll spend the next five years trying to put things back together.) I bet you’re going to be a separatist and not invite me for a week of meetings!

Yeah, I would separate from Piper although he has some good points. I have theological problems with his “Christian hedonism” and his other strange, aberrant teachings. Also, he is reportedly accepting church members at a Baptist church who have not been baptized as believers by immersion. I teach and believe that believer’s baptism by immersion is Biblical. (see note) I would not have him preach in my pulpit because it would confuse the people and possibly lead them astray. There’s nothing wrong with this kind of separation. It’s okay by me if John never invites me to speak at Bethelhem Baptist Church. Now cuss me roundly for being a hateful, narrow-minded bigot!

NOTE: I anticipate someone whining:
(1) You can be saved without being baptized.
Answer: True, but we believe believer’s baptism by immersion is Scriptural and we do not admit anyone to membership who is being disobedient to Biblical teachings.
(2) Baptism doesn’t save you.
Answer: True but salvation is only one of the requirements for church membership.
(3) Everyone in heaven won’t be Baptist.
Answer: True but we are not talking about heaven; we’re talking about membership in a local Baptist church where everyone ought to be Baptist.
(4) ad naseum

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
To apply this teaching to heretics, apostates and disobedient brethren is misapplication.

Good thing I didn't apply them that way then, eh? In fact, I didn't apply them in any way. I simply quoted them.
</font>[/QUOTE]Did I say you did?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
You must consider the whole of God's Word, not favorite selected teachings in isolation from all of Scripture.

This is good advice for those who support secondary separation and is what I hoped to encourage by quoting the above verses. </font>[/QUOTE]It's good advice for anyone, including you Cold Dragon.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Hey guys, all the Scripture in the world won't change the results of the reality test.

Most fundamentalists won't fellowship with MacArthur, Piper, or Moehler. It doesn't get any easier than this.

Whatever their exegesis, when applied to real life situations, they come up smelling like rotten eggs.

Can God really be pleased when we can find reasons to disassociate from MacArthur, Piper, and Moehler?

And I don't buy their argument of "Oh, they are brothers in Christ but we must separate from them ecclesiastically." What bunk!

Why don't you let them separate in peace? Scripture does command that we are to do all within our power to maintain peace. It seems that your ridicule and invective does more to cause division meanwhile you are arguing for unity. Your demeanor repudiates your own message of peace, tolerance and unity. Let them go!

 

[Roguelet]

Here's what i believe the bible teaches about seperation.

As Christians we are all ( no matter the denomintaion ) the body of Christ one church, there is no seperation in ones heart to fellowship with all believers on a personal level. Giving grace where grace is due. Doesn't mean you have to agree with all thier doctrines.
In heaven we will all be one and all be the bride of christ.

As far as seperating from those in the world we cannot and should not. we are to be the salt and the light in the world. Jesus said " Be in the World , but not of the world " seeing people through Gods eyes. " for by the Grace of God there go I " and to see them as potential Christians that God will save.

As far as seperating from habitual sinning brothers and sisters the bible is clear in Matt 18 and 1 Cor 5 what we should do. Seperation in this area due to a christian known to be living in habitual sin, is always done for Restoration and for no other reason but to bring that person back into fellowship with God and the body of christ.

Just my take on the subject

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Wow, you have unknowingly given the perfect illustration! The ABC/USA denomination is having the problem with the homosexual issue because they did not practice Biblical separation years ago. They tolerated liberals who now support homosexuality. Your stand against homosexuality, I assume you stand against it, is not credible with your youth because some in your denomination condone it. In effect, you are shooting yourself in the foot by remaining in the denomination. You are neutralizing your witness by your compromise. [/QB]

Yes, I stand against homosexuality, but to give up fighting against it would ultimately be handing over a whole denomination to Satan. Are we to throw away all the good bible believing churches away to a handful of sinners.

And what makes homosexuality the seperating issue?
Yes it's a sin, but so is gossip. in Romans 1, paul puts a lot of different sins in the same category: simply sin is rebellion against God.

So do we seperate against every church that has sin in it? Some churches preach against movies, dancing, rummy, country music, CCM, If you believe these are sins, would you ask your church to seperate from other churches that don't think anything is wrong with them?
What about women pastors, divorced pastors, remarried pastors?
The list could go on. Where would you stop seperating? Until it is just you and God.

Where do you draw the line?
I don't affirm homosexuality.

My church does not affirm homosexuality.

My local association does not affirm homosexuality.

My state convention (WVBC)does not affirm homosexuality.

The ABC/USA does NOT affirm homosexuality.

You see the problem in the ABC is not Homosexuality. The majority of the churches calls it what it is...sin. Only a few trouble making churches are stirring the pot.
The Problem is Autonomy. That is something that we refuse to give up! No church has the right to tell our church what to do, or believe.

So What do I seperate from?

The few handful of churches that are trying to be approved? Yes, I do seperate myself from them.
I've never been to them. I don't support them with my prayers (except to pray for their souls).
I don't support them with my money. So what do I seperate from?