Home » Posts tagged 'ecclesiastical separation'
Tag Archives: ecclesiastical separation
Rick Warren and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation, pt. 2
Rick Warren and Saddleback Church
Expelled by the SBC
February 21 of this year (2023) the Southern Baptist Convention expelled Saddleback Church. Saddleback was the church Rick Warren started and pastored in Southern California. The SBC ejected Saddleback for having a woman pastor. Rick Warren decided he was wrong about woman pastors. The Bible actually did allow it.
Ejection from the SBC is a kind of separation. No doubt. Rick Warren, it seems, wants to fight it. I read an article this week that chronicled a bit of an account in an interview of Warren.
The author of the article learned much from SBC training for a state contracted prison chaplaincy, and he thinks Warren will be back. Part of the reason, it seems, is that he’s already seen that the SBC has many women pastors. Warren maybe thinks the SBC will take back Saddleback because of the 6,000 Purpose-Driven churches in the Convention. He says these churches don’t need the SBC, but he wants to influence the SBC.
Rick Warren in Christianity Today
Former SBC leader and chief editor of Christianity Today, Russell Moore, interviewed Warren March 8, 2023. Even though I don’t like Warren’s belief and practice, his answers to Moore reveal inconsistencies for the SBC. Apparently, the SBC avoided dealing with some abuse of women with a reference to autonomy in churches. Warren claims the SBC didn’t give Saddleback autonomy in their decision for female pastors. I too have seen autonomy as a regular tool for disobedience. It becomes a convenient excuse for pastors doing what they like the most.
I read Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church book right when he published it. I knew nothing of him and started the read with a positive outlook. That assessment became negative when I started reading his rank pragmatism. I think Rick Warren has done as much damage to churches as anyone in the history of the church. Still, his treatment of the SBC brings out a good learning moment about the biblical doctrine of separation.
Ecclesiastical Separation
Assessment of Separation
Ecclesiastical separation means a church separates from another church or even other non-church institutions. The SBC has no biblical authority to separate. If many churches in the SBC continue with many varied types of unscriptural belief and behavior, separation from Saddleback looks political in some way. It also exposes the corruption of an unbiblical Convention system.
I’m taking my analysis mainly from the article by C. D. Cauthorne, Jr. at SharperIron. Warren as reported by Cauthorne supports some kind of separation without addressing ecclesiastical separation. He quotes not one of a multitude of separation verses from scripture and yet says this:
We should be able to expel people over sin, racism, sexual abuse, other sexual sins, things like that.
Who is We?
Rightly practiced, I don’t disagree with Warren. I would start, however, by asking, “Who is “we”?” We expel. Who can expel people. We seems to be members of the SBC. Warren thinks the SBC should expel other members and other churches over certain wrong behavior. I would call what Warren says next, a “riff.” He’s talking from the seat of his pants and making aggressive, false statements. He is inventing material right on the spot really in a typical manner a postmodern world might do that.
This is the same old battle that’s been going on for 100 years in the SBC between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptists… . Today, a fundamentalist means you’ve stopped listening… . That’s the number one mark of it… . We have to approach Scripture humbly saying I could be wrong. You’ll never hear a Fundamentalist say, “I could be wrong.” A conservative Baptist believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, a fundamentalist Baptist believes in the inerrancy of their interpretation.
Conservative Baptists and Fundamental Baptists?
Has there been a battle for a 100 years between conservative Baptists and fundamental Baptists? Who are conservative Baptists? Warren seems to include himself with conservative Baptists. Who are fundamental Baptists, and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention? Warren seems to think he will get some traction with an audience by weaponizing the term “fundamentalist.” He says it means, “You’ve stopped listening.”
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
Warren and Fundamentalism
People who actually will call themselves fundamentalists would not use Rick Warren’s ad hominem definition. Maybe you’re laughing as you read his definition. It is funny what someone can say and get away with it in a mainstream interview. Fundamentalists, Warren says, never say, “I could be wrong.” “A fundamental Baptist believes in the inerrancy of their (sic) interpretation.” The latter is just a rhetorical turn of phrase meant as combative. He’s unhappy, but the female role or female pastor issue isn’t just an interpretational one. In addition, all doctrinal issues relate to interpretation of scripture.
As coarse as Warren is in his take, he manifests a problem with separation in evangelicalism. They have almost no established, systematic or biblical doctrine of separation upon which to operate. Scripture says a lot on separation, but since they never include anything about separation in anything they write, no one knows what to do.
Sounding like a Fundamentalist
Warren himself sounds like a fundamentalist. I understand fundamentalism. I was a fundamentalist for at least the first 35 years of my life. Warren advocates for separation, but like all fundamentalists, he argues over the standard used. The Bible is not the standard. With some kind of social norm as the standard, the arguments about what standard to use will never cease, like they never did in fundamentalism. These debates occur and occurred until the now gradual disappearance of fundamentalism as a movement.
A good question might also be, what makes someone conservative? That isn’t established either, as much as Warren floats the term. He uses “inerrancy” as an ambiguous standard as well as other terms used in an equally ambiguous way. Warren is working at excluding the belief in male only in the office of pastor. He says scripture convinced him. He thinks the SBC should, as it has done in other areas, allow this diversity of “interpretation.” It’s just a different interpretation, perhaps like the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 and the like. Who separates over interpretations?
Biblical Separation
Like a Fundamentalist
Maybe a more preliminary question is, “Who separates?” Or furthermore, “What is biblical separation?” Evangelicals can’t give a good answer on separation because they do not preach separation. They do not teach separation. They are not separatists. Separation, when they practice it, is not about God. It is not about obedience to scripture.
Warren uses all sorts of strategies against the SBC in his interview that sound just like what a fundamentalist might do. He wants to change the criteria for separation and he applies pressure in political ways. Warren pulls the race card and says that “black churches” ordain women. He concludes, “The SBC is holding up a sign saying: All Black churches, look elsewhere. You’re not wanted here.” I wonder what black pastors think about Warren’s statement, who don’t endorse female pastors. Is the idea of “Black churches” itself a kind of racism? All “Black churches”? Warren lumps all into one category of groupthink. Not one church peels off the lockstep, uniform whole according to the Warren assessment.
A tell-tale moment, very fundamentalist of him, Warren says, “This issue, the women’s role, it’s not a primary issue because it doesn’t have to do with salvation. It is a secondary issue.” This way of talking is inherently fundamentalist. Warren is saying that someone separates on “primary issues.” These are what? Fundamentals.
John MacArthur
John MacArthur, when he attempted to answer in the Q and A in the matter of separation, talks the same way as Warren here. He’s attempted to categorize what is primary and what is secondary. MacArthur says, the woman’s role is a primary issue. He says, infant sprinkling, that isn’t a primary issue. That’s secondary, and you don’t separate over that.
MacArthur also echoes Warren or Warren echoes MacArthur with the statement, “It doesn’t have to do with salvation.” MacArthur called this someone who is in the kingdom of God. You’ve got to work with people who are in the kingdom of God. Are these women pastors in the kingdom of God? Are they saved? I think you can see how that this kind of arbitrary, unscriptural standard will not settle issues of separation.
First, do we separate? Second, what is the basis of separation? In part three I want to go through MacArthur’s Q and A answer to show how he falls short. We know that Rick Warren falls short, but he’s talking the same way as MacArthur about separation.
More to Come
John MacArthur and Evangelical Agnosticism About or Over the Biblical Doctrine of Separation
I write on ecclesiastical separation here because the Bible teaches separation in every book and in some, much more than others. Since separation is inherent in God’s attribute of holiness, I see it as a major doctrine. I also believe it is one of the marks of a true church. For this reason, several years ago now Pillarandground Publishing produced A Pure Church: A Biblical Theology of Perfect Preservation, which exegetes key passages on the doctrine. I have found that evangelicals ignore the doctrine of separation despite its prevalence in God’s Word.
Agnosticism about separation is more than not knowing about it. It is staying ignorant on the scriptural teaching of separation. Evangelicals in general do not talk about separation at all. They act like it doesn’t exist as a doctrine of scripture.
John MacArthur Talks About Separation
Seminary Student Asks about Unity and Separation
In a recent Q and A in a Master’s Seminary chapel, John MacArthur answered a question about separation. Here is the question (at 32:18 in the video, goes to 39:07):
My question specifically is on church unity. I’m interested in partnership in ministry. I was wondering from your example specifically with pastors who would agree on the essentials but not necessarily on important doctrines that aren’t essential. What are some biblical passages or references or biblical principles that have helped you navigate that issue in your ministry well?
Alienating People in the Kingdom?
MacArthur answered:
Well, I think the simple one — that’s a good question — the simple one, is, is the person a true believer? And if the person is a true believer, then the Lord allowed him into the kingdom. And if you’re in the Kingdom, I have to figure out a way to work with you. I mean that’s, that is the simple answer.
I don’t want to alienate people who are in the Kingdom, so if they’re, if you’re a heretic, you deny the Trinity or the deity of Christ or you have some heresy of some kind, or your life is, ya know, got some stains of sin and all that, I don’t want to cooperate with somebody like that.
But I basically am bound. I am already one in Christ with everybody else who’s in the Kingdom. He that is joined to the Lord as one Spirit. We’re all one, so we have to figure out how can I minister with, how can I minister to the people of God. It’s, um, I as a pastor; I would never say to a lay person, “Well your theology is bad; you need to go to another church.” So why would I say that to a Bible teacher or a pastor?
Yoking Together
MacArthur continued:
Years ago I decided I wasn’t going to preach only to the people who already believe everything I believe. What’s the point? So, um, I was criticized, because you know I would be at a conference with someone who believed differently about certain things. I mean, they gave me trouble when I started going to Ligonier conferences over baby baptism and covenant theology and all that. Um, but but again, if they’re going to give me a platform, I’ll take it.
And you know RC actually allowed me to have a debate with him on infant baptism, and it’s available. You can listen to it, and I told him: “You shouldn’t do that RC. You have no chance. There’s not, you can’t find a verse in the Bible about infant baptism. So he said, ‘No I think it’ll be great.’ I said, ‘okay I’m gonna go first because I don’t, I don’t want to have to use the Bible to answer a non-biblical argument.”
So I think what is most important is that you establish your own fidelity to the degree that people don’t question your associations. I mean if I if I’m at Ligonier nobody thinks I abandoned what I believe. If I went over to Jack Hayford’s church and did a pastor’s Conference of Foursquare and Charismatics, nobody felt that I had abandoned my non-charismatic view I’ve got too much in print on that. Um, so if there’s not, and he wanted me to speak on the authority of scripture because he thought that was the weakest part of the ministry of these hundreds of pastors.
Lines He Can’t Cross
Furthermore, MacArthur said,
So again I just think you have to make judgments, but you always want to be gracious and loving and unifying and helpful to others who are in the Kingdom. Now there’s a line at which you can’t cross because someone is blatantly disobedient to scripture that would be, you won’t see me on a panoply of speakers that includes women because that is a total violation of scripture when you have men and women preachers. I can’t do that because I, uh, you know your reputation at that point becomes very muddy. So, um, you know that would be, there would be, other aspects of that too.
Um, somebody who’s so tapped into the culture, that, um, they’re viewed as, um, a problem outside tolerable convictions, I wouldn’t be a part of that. I wouldn’t speak on the same place as Bill Hybels or Joel Osteen. I don’t know about him. I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not, but even if I did, nobody would think I had compromised, because they would know by reputation that I’m going to be faithful to the truth, and they would say, “Why did he have MacArthur?”
An Example
MacArthur finished:
So if you establish your fidelity to scripture it puts you in a position where you can be in a lot of places. If you compromise along the way then, and people are questioning you. I had that conversation with James McDonald one day. It was not a happy one, but I said you just betrayed all the people who have been listening to you for years, but what you did you basically, said to them, “I’m not who you think I am.”
You don’t live long enough to fix that. You don’t get to go back to square one. You don’t hit a reset button. You didn’t like that but it was true so you you get one life at and one shot at this and you don’t want to try to hit a reset button down the road, so it, you have to be very diligent in maintaining your integrity.
Analysis of the Answer
Incoherence
That was pretty much verbatim what MacArthur answered to that question. It was a question about unity and really about separation. Every question about separation or unity is also about the other, unity or separation. The young male seminary student wanted MacArthur to give scriptural support. He did allude to scripture, but he in no way gave a scriptural answer. The answer really sounded like MacArthur had no clue on what the Bible taught about separation.
The only guidance from scripture I heard was the allusion to, a loose paraphrase of, the short sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:17, which says, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” I don’t think that’s a good verse to use. It’s in the context of sexual sin, and Paul is saying that fornicators are bringing God into the activity. Since they are one with God, joined unto Him, their sin associates Him with whatever the sin is or worse. Should John MacArthur bring God to the Charismatic strange fire location? This is a separation passage that shows that we should keep God out of situations. We bring Him when we go.
When MacArthur was done answering, I can’t think that the young man knew what he said. It was incoherent and contradictory as an answer. If I was to interpret it, it was something like, play it by ear with little to no objective standard. Evangelicals cannot, will not, and do not answer questions on separation. The instinct is, don’t separate. Stay together. Look to keep working together, even with doctrinal differences. If MacArthur’s answer was an answer, I don’t think it could stand as legitimate because it was so meandering.
Excuses
I know what MacArthur believes. He’s public on it. That doesn’t give him a pass to associate with and work with whoever He wants. By doing so, He is accommodating someone else’s false teaching. Even if it doesn’t have anything to do with MacArthur, it does have something to do with the one with whom he fellowships. That’s the message of 2 Thessalonians 3:14, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” That is a command to separate from a professing believer. MacArthur doesn’t mention it.
MacArthur excuses not separating by saying there is no point to preaching to people who believe just like you do. Where he preaches the most, his church, believes just like he does. Everyone should preach to people who don’t believe like them. They should do it in evangelism and in doing spiritual warfare with professing Christians. Discipleship requires this. This is entirely different than fellowship with a disobedient brother or yoking together with unbelievers for a common work, like Billy Graham did in his crusades.
Strange Fire
Not long ago, MacArthur said that Charismatics offered strange fire to the Lord. That means they are false worshipers, who imagine a false god. In this answer, MacArthur says, you can go and work with Jack Hayford, the Charismatic, as long as people know who you are. You can speak on a specific topic that Hayford wants and give Hayford authentication while you’re at it. God seeks for true worshipers. That offense to God isn’t enough for MacArthur.
Why is infant sprinkling a lesser deal than women preachers? How much less obvious is infant sprinkling than women preachers? MacArthur says, women preachers, that’s “blatantly disobedient.” He can’t cross that line. Yet, he can cross the line of infant sprinkling. Is it because that’s not blatantly disobedient? Where did infant sprinkling come from? I’m using that as an example. I would be scratching my head if I were a woman preacher.
Not About You
From his answer, John MacArthur sounds like separating is about you, about how well you’ll do in life. In his case, it’s about him. If he associates with someone, will it taint him in some way, so that he will lose effectiveness or opportunity as a servant of God? Separation is not mainly about you. It is first and foremost about God.
Does what God says about separation apply to John MacArthur? God teaches on it. In part two, I’m going to come back and take scripture and apply it to John MacArthur’s terrible answer about unity and separation.
More to Come
John MacArthur: A Conservative Evangelical Preaches on Separation
A sermon popped up in the notifications on my phone late last week and it said, “Come Out from Their Midst and Be Ye Separate (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)” by John MacArthur. Apparently it was something preached earlier in March at his Shepherd’s Conference, but only posted three days before. I was very surprised to see the text and especially the title with the word “separate” in it.
Recent Comments