Separatism...

[Cright]

Please give me your ideas on:

- separatism
- where do you draw the line
- what biblically supports those ideas?


Thanks!

Carina

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Oh, there is TONS of verses about being separate from the world. Another word for this is sanctify. I would pull up all the verses that have each word in them. You will learn alot. As for drawing the line, I think looking at the verses would be a start. Everyone has thier pencil, its up to our convictions from GOD where we draw the line!
GEL
Ps. I am totally for seperatism. I think about it like a wedding ring. THAT ring seperates us from the single people, that is how they know we are married! Somewhere in your life, you need to be SHOWING people, that you are seperated from the world.

 

[Iosias]

Please give me your ideas on:

- separatism
- where do you draw the line
- what biblically supports those ideas?


Thanks!

Carina

There is a wealth of info here

This is Scofield on separation:

Separation, Summary:


(1) Separation in Scripture is twofold: "from" whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and "unto" God Himself. The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. The unequal yoke is anything which unites a child of God and an unbeliever in a common purpose Deuteronomy 22:10.

(2) Separation from evil implies (a) separation in desire, motive, and act, from the world, in the ethically bad sense of this present world-system. (See Scofield "Revelation 13:8") and (b) separation from believers, especially false teachers, who are "vessels unto dishonour" 2 Timothy 2:20,21; 2 John 1:9-11.

(3) Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or the church, but from complicity with and conformity to John 17:15; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Galatians 6:1. (4) The reward of separation is the full manifestation of the divine fatherhood 2 Corinthians 6:17,18 unhindered communion and worship Hebrews 13:13-15 and fruitful service 2 Timothy 2:21 as world-conformity involves the loss of these, though not of salvation. Here, as in all else, Christ is the model. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners" Hebrews 7:26 and yet in such contact with them for their salvation that the Pharisees, who illustrate the mechanical and ascetic conception of separation (See Scofield "Matthew 3:7") , judged Him as having lost His Nazarite character. Luke 7:39 Cf ; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23; 10:27.

 

[Gold Dragon]

We are called to be separate, but separation easily turns into isolationism when we see the sin in this world. In their noble quest to be holy, some Christians have rendered themselves "obsolete" for evangelism by not interacting with the world or being able to communicate effectively with the world.

How can we be effective ambassadors in this world who can understand and communicate with the lost while also being holy and separate from the values and ways of the world? It is a delicate balance.

The medieval monks had to struggle with this issue. Most of the orders that leaned too far towards separatism or too far towards secular life would struggle and soon die off. It was the orders that maintained the delicate balance of holy separation from the ways of the world, while interacting with and meeting the needs of surrounding culture on a regular basis that were able to thrive and flourish.

 

[Ave Maria]

I feel as though one can easily fit in with society and still yet be separate from society. I really don't know how to explain this though. Personally, I see nothing wrong with fitting in with society as long as you don't compromise God's standards in doing so. By keeping and upholding God's standards, you are in a sense, being separate from society.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm not 100% sure I understand what the OP means by "separatism." Everyone here seems to be talking about separation from the world, and probably that is the theory behind the whole idea of separatism, but in the real world, those who claim to be separated from the world seem most of all to separate themselves from other Christians. It seems to be at the root of many schisms.

Can anybody help me understand?

And if we are to be separated from the world in the sense intended by the separatists, how do we explain or define this in a way that doesn't logically lead to schism after schism?

And are all these schisms a bad thing?

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm not 100% sure I understand what the OP means by "separatism." Everyone here seems to be talking about separation from the world, and probably that is the theory behind the whole idea of separatism, but in the real world, those who claim to be separated from the world seem most of all to separate themselves from other Christians. It seems to be at the root of many schisms.

Can anybody help me understand?

And if we are to be separated from the world in the sense intended by the separatists, how do we explain or define this in a way that doesn't logically lead to schism after schism?

And are all these schisms a bad thing?

Excellent point Crazy Liz. Almost every denomination in existence has been formed because of Christians being separatist from other Christians who have "compromised" in some form or another. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't think Christians have a problem with not being "separatist" enough.

 

[RED that's ME]

We still live IN the world
We just don't live LIKE the world

How are we to share our faith/gospel of Christ if we totally separate ourselves from the world? God has christians here for a reason. Separation at times is a good thing but we should use every opportunity to show/tell Christ to others.

We just don't do the same sins/lifestyles that the world does.

 

[Echoes Peak]

We still live IN the world
We just don't live LIKE the world

How are we to share our faith/gospel of Christ if we totally separate ourselves from the world? God has christians here for a reason. Separation at times is a good thing but we should use every opportunity to show/tell Christ to others.

We just don't do the same sins/lifestyles that the world does.

I agree. I think that we most definitely should be separate in our lifestyles but not necessarily physically separate just for the simple fact of what Red said up there. As far as I understand, Christ never separated himself from the people around him as far as presene is concerned, but He most definitely different in His course of action and manner of approaching life.

 

[jcright]

I agree. I think that we most definitely should be separate in our lifestyles but not necessarily physically separate just for the simple fact of what Red said up there. As far as I understand, Christ never separated himself from the people around him as far as presene is concerned, but He most definitely different in His course of action and manner of approaching life.

Hmmm...this brings to question what I think Carina was trying to get at. Jesus spoke out against the pharisees. Should we, as Baptists, speak out against other denominations from the pulpit? I guess a better question would be is it necessary? We are told that we need to be on the watch for false teachings and the only way to do that is to know what the bible says. Are we really supposed to point out where other denominations go wrong? Or is it sufficient to teach the truth of the bible so that we know the lies when we see it?

 

[Carrye]

Should we, as Baptists, speak out against other denominations from the pulpit? I guess a better question would be is it necessary? We are told that we need to be on the watch for false teachings and the only way to do that is to know what the bible says. Are we really supposed to point out where other denominations go wrong? Or is it sufficient to teach the truth of the bible so that we know the lies when we see it?

There is always an obligation to the Truth.

 

[Cright]

I'd first like to say "thank you" to everyone who as responded thus far! I have alot of material to research, and alot of vs to look up!

Now that I've seen all of these great responces.. I want to break it down to a situation and see where my fellow B/Abers would draw the line in church.

Clskinner said "there is always an obligation to the truth" which I agree with! ..but how far do you take it?

Example:

I'm in a study group at church and we are working on the book of Ephesians. We get to chapter 2 and see this:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

so the leader/pastor/teacher says that "some people might not like this because it tells us that we saved by God's grace and should show it through our works. Some believe that salvation is a joing venture between God and man and their works help to bring their salvation".

he continues to say "ABC denomination is wrong because they teach that your salvation comes from eating chocolate on the 3rd Wednesday of every month and XYZ has it wrong because they are teaching that salvation is gained by begging Christ for it.
So here's the question:
Do we stop at the end of the orange paragraph by telling the truth of the verse and telling a common false teaching to compare the difference...

or are we called to show who the false teachers are? If so, what in the bible tells us we should do this?

My PERSONAL feeling is that we should not go on to preach the pink paragraph, because if a member if ABC is a visiting member of the group they will feel singled out and insulted. It might turn them off from hearing (and considering) the orange part of the message. It is also my personal feeling that we shouldn't waste time worrying and learning what other people are doing things wrong to speak on it, and instead just make sure we are doing things right. However, I don't want to rely on MY FEELINGS.. I want to rely on the word of God!

Looking forward to more posts!

God Bless,
Carina

 

[Crazy Liz]

Another good reason to stop at the end of the orange paragraph is that what is in the pink paragraph is usually a caricature of ABC and XYZ, not what they really believe. If you want to continue to the pink paragraph, you'd better be pretty sure.

Converts from ABC and XYZ are not reliable sources of information, either. So yes, I agree about stopping at the pink paragraph in public preaching and teaching, but for more reasons than you mentioned.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Hmmm...this brings to question what I think Carina was trying to get at. Jesus spoke out against the pharisees. Should we, as Baptists, speak out against other denominations from the pulpit? I guess a better question would be is it necessary? We are told that we need to be on the watch for false teachings and the only way to do that is to know what the bible says. Are we really supposed to point out where other denominations go wrong? Or is it sufficient to teach the truth of the bible so that we know the lies when we see it?

Paul spoke about the churchs and so did John in both of thier writings. Its the same thing. It edifies the church! Its not judging the denomination, its taking truth and applying everywhere, not just in YOUR church, but in all churchs. I think its a good thing!
GEL

 

[Iosias]

My PERSONAL feeling is that we should not go on to preach the pink paragraph, because if a member if ABC is a visiting member of the group they will feel singled out and insulted. It might turn them off from hearing (and considering) the orange part of the message. It is also my personal feeling that we shouldn't waste time worrying and learning what other people are doing things wrong to speak on it, and instead just make sure we are doing things right. However, I don't want to rely on MY FEELINGS.. I want to rely on the word of God!

Looking forward to more posts!

God Bless,
Carina

The pink part is 100% necessary for we are to protect our fellow Christians from error.

 

[jcright]

The pink part is 100% necessary for we are to protect our fellow Christians from error.

I hear what you and GEL are saying and to an extent I would agree. Let me use the analogy of a baby vs. an adult. A baby needs to have milk first, after a while, the baby can go to solid foods. An adult, however, needs solid foods. Okay, so let me apply this to the church. The regular congregation is going to need the solid foods...there's no arguement there! In that setting we should be preaching the pink part. However, for someone who is visiting, that person who is trying to get back into church or has been going to church but is questioning their current church, they need the milk! If you give them the solid food, they will most likely choke. They simply aren't ready to handle that much of the truth this quick. The end result is that they are going to consider the service a negative experience and most likely will never come back. Where will they go? If we are lucky, they will most likely go to a church that will feed them the milk...but never prepare them for the solid foods. At that point, we've done a huge injustice to that person who is seeking. If we are unlucky, they will abandon church altogether.

So what do we do? At the moment, I'm sold on a particular solution. During the regular service, the orange part is preached. Wednesday service, small group bible studies, recommended reading lists (thanks NicodemusPrime, I'm stealing some of your ideas), etc. However, it can't end there. These new people need to go through an education system of their own outside of the Sunday service...one that will prepare them for the pink service.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I hear what you and GEL are saying and to an extent I would agree. Let me use the analogy of a baby vs. an adult. A baby needs to have milk first, after a while, the baby can go to solid foods. An adult, however, needs solid foods. Okay, so let me apply this to the church. The regular congregation is going to need the solid foods...there's no arguement there! In that setting we should be preaching the pink part. However, for someone who is visiting, that person who is trying to get back into church or has been going to church but is questioning their current church, they need the milk! If you give them the solid food, they will most likely choke. They simply aren't ready to handle that much of the truth this quick. The end result is that they are going to consider the service a negative experience and most likely will never come back. Where will they go? If we are lucky, they will most likely go to a church that will feed them the milk...but never prepare them for the solid foods. At that point, we've done a huge injustice to that person who is seeking. If we are unlucky, they will abandon church altogether.

So what do we do? At the moment, I'm sold on a particular solution. During the regular service, the orange part is preached. Wednesday service, small group bible studies, recommended reading lists (thanks NicodemusPrime, I'm stealing some of your ideas), etc. However, it can't end there. These new people need to go through an education system of their own outside of the Sunday service...one that will prepare them for the pink service.

I don't think any set formula is required for the pink part. I wouldn't have a problem with presenting the pink part in the sermon as long as

1) The presentation is well researched. Often preachers will attack what appears to be a heresy without really researching what it is they are attacking, only through third hand information or rumours. Find out about the people you wish to challenge with good honest research, preferrably from first hand sources.

2) The presentation is balanced. All of us have bias of some sort. But if an effort is made to see the good qualities in groups you wish to challenge, and still determine that challenge to their teaching is valid, I think people will be more receptive. In every disagreement, there are two sides. Looking at some of the ways the "heretical" group can challenge your group to grow will also help.

3) The presentation is not emotionally charged. I know we often get emotional when a different party challenges our perspectives but offering a level headed and reasoned response to heresy will encourage level headed and reasoned reactions. I don't think inciting lynch mobs and hatred is a very Christ-like thing to do.

 

[kayanne]

I get really turned off by the "pink part." Our pastor does do that occassionally, enough that I will never invite certain relatives of mine to church with us, even if they are staying with us for the weekend. In a preaching context, where there is not opportunity for questions/answers/discussion, the criticism of other denominations just comes across as offensive (even to me).

For another thing, I want sermons that preach the truth, that teach ME how to be a better Christian, that makes God's Word deeper in my own life. I don't really find it helpful to me to hear that church XYZ teaches this wrong thing, and church ABC teaches that wrong thing. I probably already know that I disagree with XYZ and ABC, and that's why I attend the church I do attend!! It's like the old expression "preaching to the choir"!

And I think caution needs to be exercised that this "we're right and they're wrong" attitude doesn't become a source of pride. Even on issues that I do really believe a particular denomination is wrong about, I still need to exercise love and humility. Especially on doctrines that do seem a little "fuzzy" in the Bible; if another church, who highly regards the Bible, happens to come to a different interpretation of some scripture, I don't see any need to hear that criticized during a sermon in my own church. It's not perfect doctrine that saves us. When we're in heaven together with people from church XYZ and ABC, these various doctrinal differences aren't going to mean ANYTHING! And if I think for one minute that out of the millions of churches in the world, that mine is the one and only who has every point of doctrine, and every verse of Scripture, totally 100% figured out perfectly, I've got a serious pride issue!

Man oh man, we're all going to be humbled before the Lord one day, and I hope we won't be arguing with HIM that we're right about every doctrine!

 

[Cright]

Thank you again everyone for your responces.. the last several people responding are those who I am looking for!!

GEL, AV1611 and Gold Dragon...

I understand you do believe in the preaching of the pink paragraph! I understand it is to educate ourselves in the ways of the world (and false teachings) so as not to follow them. The question I'm really trying to get at (and I hope you can help here ) is...
What biblically supports this way of teaching?
Someone mentioned that Jesus spoke against the pharisees.. can you point me in the direction I should look in my bible for this and other situations.. or any verses that support that this way of teaching is biblical?

Thanks again!
God Bless,
Carina

 

[Iosias]

What biblically supports this way of teaching?

Thanks again!
God Bless,
Carina

One of the key teachings of the Holy Bible is that we must separate ourselves not just from sin whilst perfecting holiness in the fear of God but also that we separate ourselves from error. If a church we attend teaches something contrary to the word we must separate from them.

1 Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

Titus 2:15 "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee."

Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"