In his book titled, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church" [1], Dr. Pickering explains the teaching of secondary separation. This is the position that maintains a man must not only separate from apostates. There is a second degree of separation one must take, by withdrawing from any fundamentalist who is known to cooperate in any way with apostates.
(Remember, in a previous post Pickering refuses to use the term "heretics" for those who err doctrinally; his word for those who teach doctrinal error is "apostates." Yes - in a future post we will look into this term categorizing those who are reckoned "apostate" according to Dr. Pickering... definitions are on the way soon!)
For illustration.... Imagine that you're a separationist. Though you may personally benefit from a relationship with an erring Christian, by affiliation you are not permitted to cooperate with or minister to such an erring (unrepentant) Christian.
But there's more. If you choose to invite your erring Christian, to, say for example give a speech on any range of other doctrines in which you are in agreement, you then become subject to separation yourself -- you will be separated from, by your fellow separationists. Separationists would invoke the second degree of separation, upon you.
A concise definition is on page 251:
Coined in the aftermath of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the term "secondary separationist" refers to those who will not cooperate with apostates or with other evangelical believers who aid and abet the apostates by their continued organizational or cooperative alignment with them.
Pickering teaches why he believes secondary separation is necessary. In his book he explains how it is critical to maintain the purity of the truth through our times. To accomplish this, each one of us must take a clear stand against those who have become apostate. In addition, we must not keep company with those who do not also withdraw from apostates. If a teacher be apostate, the testimony of the truth is being attacked. How can we fellowship with those who are an enemy of truth? An apostate teacher may be a true believer. He may also be a gifted and many times accurate teacher; however he is nevertheless teaching some false doctrine. He may be well meaning. But we have to consider how he spreads untruths to the unsuspecting.
Pickering goes on to insist that those who are younger in the faith have no way of knowing for themselves whether what they have heard could be false, and they will assume it is true because of his position as a teacher. To permit a man to teach what is known to be error, implies to others that there is nothing wrong in him doing so, or at least not sufficiently serious enough to do anything about it.
Dr. Pickering has made a checklist to help his readers consider their personal responsibility to not only separate from apostates, but also from fundamentalists who will not keep their own fellowship pure from apostate teachers. I take this directly from his text, pages 276-277:
1 - Am I honoring God by my fellowship? "Whatever therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). When a believer remains in an apostate denomination, that believer is supporting the Lord's enemies through is or her money and presence. Is that believer honoring the Lord by "staying in"?
2 - Am I aiding or encouraging someone to continue a walk of disobedience? If a great preacher continues to remain within a group largely influenced by apostates and a separatist church has him speak, is this occasion helping or hindering others? Having them participate with us is not the way to assist them from the path of disobedience.
3 - Will my cooperation with a person or organization give the impression that I condone a lackadaisical attitude toward apostasy and compromise? Did not the writer of Proverbs say, "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil" (prov 8:13)? Is the support of apostasy, its publications, schools, spokesperson, and missions evil? If it is, do I as God's child truly hate it?
4 - Will others under my leadership or influence be tempted to further compromise or be confused or weakened in their testimony because of my actions? We cannot live to ourselves. We are responsible for our brothers and sisters as well.
5 - What long-range effects will cooperation have? As previously noted, Bob Jones Sr. often said, "Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate."
[1] Pickering, Ernest & Houghton, Myron. Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church. Schaumberg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press; 2008.
2 comments:
Michele (or Rose, or whoever is familiar with this book),
I'm getting an impression from what you're posting about this book, please tell me if I am incorrect.
It seems to me that Pickering is speaking primarily about separation from a church leadership perspective. For example, a church should not have so-and-so in to speak, despite agreement on many issues, because of disagreement on a certain issue or two, and the invitation to speak could cause the weak in faith to accept the error since they don't know how to tell the difference(supposedly).
If that is the case, I would probably generally agree with that. It would depend on the nature of the disagreement, of course, since probably no one agrees with any other person on every single thing. But you know, we might agree with the pope that Jesus died for sins, but having the pope speak at our church probably wouldn't be a good idea, since our disagreements are so major. So I can see and agree to that idea, generally (although even that could be problematic).
But does Pickering address personal separation? Or is he lumping it all in together? I mean, should I cut off all friends who do not agree with me on major doctrines? And what about morals? Should I also separate from all friends who either do not agree with ne on moral issues, or do not act in moral ways?
I guess that's where I find it to be a much more gray area. I'm also still working through the issues of what qualifies as "heresy" and who is a "heretic", as well as the meaning AND application of the "mark and avoid" verses - what did they mean back then, and how does that apply to us today.
Sorry if I rambled, hope this wasn't too off-topic.
Rachel,
I just quickly want to tell you that your reaction is very, very similar to my own. I find his teachings very reasonable and agreeable, in the same ways you describe.
You are certainly on the right track. And I will be posting more on his counsel of public affiliation and relationship and marking and avoiding. In fact most of your comment will be touched on in this next post. I'm glad you're thinking about heresy and so forth because I am too.
Thanks, Michele
Post a Comment