I have no doubt that somebody somewhere will label me a compromiser for the simple fact that my title says something “questionable” about the mantra of some fundamentalists. To dare suggest that separation is anything other than the above-all end-all word is anathema in some places. If someone is going to be that shallow, I cannot do much about it.
I can say that I am a fundamentalist, and that I believe the doctrine of separation is clearly taught in Scripture. Anyone can read my article “What about Separation?” where I detail the fact that separation is a big deal because it is God’s truth clearly taught in His Word. Failure to follow the doctrine of separation is failure to obey God Himself.
Neither have I joined the ranks of many young fundamentalists who are patting themselves on their collective backs by criticizing those who have gone before, casting off what they have been taught, and embracing new evangelical ideas, in the process trading pearls of truth for which they have no appreciation for the corn husks of the theologically barren. No, I am a firm fundamentalist.
However, simply because a doctrine in found in Scripture and we apply ourselves to its application does not mean that there are not inherent dangers of veering off course, even with commendable motivation. There are dangers in the practicing of separation against which we must guard if we are to avoid turning to the right hand or to the left.
Danger #1: Pharisaism
The first danger is that of becoming Pharisaical in our approach to separation. That is, equating rules with righteousness. Handbooks become our path to holiness, and standards become our sanctification. We become characterized by a suspicious and critical spirit, and we are quick to become the judge, jury, and executioner of someone else or some other ministry because they do not conform to our holy handbook.
We have had notorious fights over the last decade or two concerning who is a “real” fundamentalist. Which university is better? Whose seminary has things right and who is better than everybody else?
The Pharisees were hypocrites. They thought that their external righteousnesses took the place of their inward condition. They defined their holiness by externals. Have we done the same thing?
To have rule books is not necessarily wrong. Institutions of any sort must have organization in order to function well. Christian educational institutions are well served to have high standards in their rule books. [inlinetweet]The problem comes when we begin to equate the rule book with the Bible, and apply the standards of an institution as the litmus test for whether or not a fellow believer is good enough for us or our ministry.[/inlinetweet]
Danger #2: Isolationism
The monks of the Dark Ages thought that by closeting themselves away from society, they would be more holy. They thought that the secret to separation (admittedly their version of it) was complete isolation. One monk even lived for years up on a stone platform, barely big enough for him to stretch out!
Do we do the same thing in the name of separation? Do we cut ourselves off from the world out of fear that we will become contaminated by their presence in our lives? We can isolate ourselves from sinners, spending our lives playing rabbit-hole Christianity.
We get into our Christian car to go to church on Sunday, go out to eat with only other Christian folks on Sunday afternoon, take a Christian nap, return to church on Sunday night, get up on Monday morning to take our kids to Christian school, take them to Christian sports practice in preparation for their Christian tournaments, Christian school plays, Christian homework, and on and on it goes.
[inlinetweet]We isolate ourselves from unbelievers and we therefore cut off the possibility of contact with them. But there is no impact without contact. Jesus said that he came because the sick need a doctor. A doctor who won’t interact with patients is a bad doctor.[/inlinetweet]
Danger #3: Exclusiveism
We not only isolate ourselves from sinners, but also establish our own monastic orders from other saints. Certain circles of fundamentalists will not associate with other circles. Certain Christian universities’ followers will not have a preacher in to their special event unless he has the right credentials. Politics runs rampant among believers, evidenced by some Christian leaders’ refusal to consider men or ministries who don’t have the right diploma.
It really is unfortunate, because a diploma from a particular university does not guarantee that graduate is going to stay with what he has learned. Nothing can substitute for getting to know an individual for who he is.
I was reminded of politics a number of years ago when a noted leader of a large ministry who had previously demonstrated no interest in our ministry suddenly became interested when he discovered that someone else had brought us in, so I now was “approved.” His motivations were made clear to me when he said, “Now that you are in our circles, you should send me your information so that we can have you in.” Needless to say, I did not pursue that “open door.”
What is the main problem with exclusiveism? It annuls the authority of the local church! The local church is the institution that is supposed to be the final authority on who ministers within its walls or on behalf of it. Church leadership that relies on any institution, university, or “fellowship” to make its decisions on who is “in” or “out” is ignoring the authority of the local church.
[inlinetweet]Why do we wait on an educational institution’s papal edict in order to make decisions? We need to move beyond our ecclesiastical equivalents of teenaged popularity cliques if we are going to make an attempt to stay biblically driven.[/inlinetweet]
Danger #4: Stagnation
One of the most insidious dangers is stagnation. Stagnation is the failure to adapt to societal and cultural changes that are not sinful. We live in the age of technology, and it is bound to affect how information is communicated. While there are certain absolutes, such as preaching as God’s primary method of truth declaration, will we refuse to move from missionary slide presentations to power point because we have stagnated?
Each church will have to make their own decisions as to what technology will be involved in the worship service, but let us at least acknowledge there are decisions to be made. Are electronic instruments inherently wrong? Is the use of an electronic keyboard alongside the piano a sign that a church is compromising? Or is it a legitimate use of technology for a qualified musician to use? We must be cautious before we attach an alleged biblical condemnation to an object or a technology because we are too eager to “take a stand.” Taking stands is a good thing, as long as the ground we’re standing on is Bible.