• Home
  
  
• Origins of IFBs
  
  
• About Me
  
  
• Whats New?
  
  
• Articles by Topic
  
  
• IFB Church Directory
  
  
• Links
  
  
• Comments
  
  
• Email Me

What is Biblical Separation?

by Larry Harriman

As a Christian, after the Gospel and other such fundamentals of the faith, there is perhaps no greater doctrine that we need to understand than the doctrine of Biblical Separation.

The doctrine of Separation vitally effects our lives. What we believe in this area affects what Church we attend, how we raise our children and such practical things as what clothing we wear, what music we listen to, what things we buy at the store and many other every day things.

I believe misunderstandings and even false teachings in this area of Biblical Separation have robbed many Christians of joy in their salvation that they could have experienced had they understood the truth in this all too critical area of their lives.

I wanted to write an article on this before I wrote any more 'standards' articles as I belief this the foundation for how we come to the standards we have.

Before I get into what I believe Biblical Separation is I want to give you this example of the differing views of Separation. I am not much good at short story writing, so you will have to forgive my style. And it does get a little repetitious, but the length is needed to illustrate the point.

One day a Christian man named John, decided to get together for some Christian fellowship with one of his friends. He called his friend, Tom, and asked him if he would like to go to see a war movie on Friday night at the local cinema and afterwards go to a near bye Bar and Grille restaurant for dinner and a drink.

His friend, responding to the invitation replied "Sure, I would love to see that war movie with you. But I don't drink anymore at all, because I went to another friends church and the Pastor said that drinking any alcohol, not just getting drunk is a sin. So I will go with you to the restaurant, but I will not be drinking."

Then Tom asked John if he could invite another friend of his to join them. John said "Sure, go ahead and invite him.". So Tom calls his friend Ed and invites him out. Ed replied to his friend Tom, "Tom I would love to go see that war movie with you and your friend John, but as far as that restaurant I just can't go there. You see, I was in a friend's church last week and their Pastor taught that is was a sin for a Christian, not only to get drunk, or even drink at all, but that it was a sin for a Christian to even enter a restaurant that sells alcohol. Can we go to this other restaurant that I know is by the theater?". Tom replied "Sure, I am sure my friend John won't mind a bit".

Ed then asked Tom, "Can I invite another friend to join us? He is the one I went with to his church last week, and I am quite sure he would like to go see this war movie with us". Tom said, "Sure Ed, go ahead and invite him." So Ed phoned his friend, Tim and invited him out.

Tim replied "Ed, I would have loved to go see that movie with you, but last week I was invited to a Bible study with a group of some other friends and their Pastor. Well, during the study their Pastor said it was a sin for a Christian to watch movies with violence in them. Can we see a different movie? How about this Disney show, it looks really funny and it won't have any violence?" Ed replied, "I suppose that would be fine, I am sure the other guys won't mind seeing that film."

Tim then asked Ed, "Do you mind if I bring another friend of mine, I am sure he will love this movie and he would enjoy the fellowship." Ed, replied "Thats fine." So Tim called his friend Matt and invited him out.

Matt replied, "I would have loved to go see that Disney movie with you. But last week I heard a preacher on the radio say it is a sin for Christians to watch Disney movies, even the family friendly ones. He said it was because they approve of gay rights for their employees and they produce other movies that are filled with filth. There is another movie playing that is not by Disney, and its not violent, do you think your friends would like to see this one instead?"

Tim said "I am sure they won't mind a bit. It will just be fun to get together." Then Matt asked Tim, "Do you mind if I invite another friend to go with us?" Tim replied "Sure, why not?"

So Matt called his friend Bob and invited him out. Bob replied, "I would love to see that movie with you guys. But last week I was listening to a radio preacher who said Christians should not go to movie theaters at all, even to see movies like that. So how about you guys come over to my house and we can go rent a movie and my wife can cook us dinner?"

Matt replied, "Well, ok, I am sure the other guys won't mind." Bob then asked, "Do you mind if I invite another friend of mind to join us?". Matt said, "Sure go right ahead". So Bob phoned his friend Todd and invited him out.

Todd replied "Sure I would love to join you guys. But as far as renting that movie I could not go along with that. Last week I heard a preacher say that we should not even go into video rental stores because of all the bad movies that are there - even if we are going to rent a clean movie. Can we play a card game like UNO instead? That would be a blast! Do you think your other friends would mind?"

Bob replied, "I don't think that would be a problem, after all we just wanted to get together for fellowship." Todd replied, "Thats great! Do you mind if I invite another friend?"

Bob said "Sure, the more the better." Todd called his friend Andy and invited him out. Andy replied "Sure I would love to come over your house with your other friends. But last week I heard a radio preacher saying we should not play cards at all, even UNO because cards are associated with gambling. Can we play a board game like monopoly instead?"

Todd replied "Sure, I am sure the others won't mind." Andy said "Thats great!, do you mind if I invite another friend?" Todd said, "I don't see why not!" So Andy called his friend Wil and invited him out.

Wil replied,"I would love to get together with you and your friends. But last week I heard a preacher say Christians should not be playing games at all. It is a waste of the time God has given us and we should be using all our spare time for Bible Study, prayer and evangelism. How about you and your friends come over to my house for a Bible Study and my wife can cook dinner?" Todd replied, "Thats fine, I am sure that will be ok with the other guys, it did not matter what we were doing, we just wanted to get together for some fellowship." Todd then told Wil, "Can you call these other guys whose phone numbers I got passed down and let them know where you are and what time". Wil said "Sure thing!".

Wil called John and said "Hi John, my name is Wil. I am a friend of a friend. I hear you wanted to get together Friday night. Well I volunteered to have the Bible Study at my house at 6:00, here are the directions....

Wherever you may fall in the spectrum of separation, it can sometimes be humorous if we stand back and look at the different views we sometimes have. This story kind of reminds me of when we were in school and would play the game where we all get in a big circle and whisper something to the guy next to us. By the time it gets back to the first person it has completely changed.

The above story illustrates the fact that we can sometimes be very different in how we view and apply the doctrine of Separation. Now I will go into what I believe Biblical Separation is.

There are two main kinds of Separation taught in the Scriptures. It will be demonstrated throughout this article though that these are broken down into several parts. The first main kind of separation is called Ecclesiastical Separation. The other is called Personal Separation. In this article I will seek to explain what Separation is from both of these perspectives from a Biblical point of view.

So what is Ecclesiastical Separation. Well, in short the word Ecclesiastical Separation refers to "Church" separation. This is the reason there is separation among churches. This has two parts, one in that Christian Churches are commanded in the scripture to separate from non-Christian churches. The other part of this refers to the separation among Christian Churches from each other. This is sometimes call "secondary separation".

Lets first look at the clear commands of the New Testament regarding Christian Churches intermingling with non-Christian Churches:

2 Corinthians 6:15-16(NIV)
"15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?..."

We will be exploring 2 Corinthians 6 in much more detail in other articles relating to this topic. This passage is perhaps the centerpiece of Christian Separation in the New Testament. Many misapplications of the passage have lead to false teaching. But clearly this passage teaches that as Christians, on a corporate level, we are not to intermingle or work with non-Christian churches. This is only one of many applications of this passage we will make in this article.

So practically speaking, this means the ABC Baptist Church may not send out missionaries with or corporately work together with the Muslim church down the street. They may not exchange ministers in their pulpits. It is an unfortunate reality than many churches, including some Baptist churches have completely set aside the Scriptural teaching of Ecclesiastical Separation and have entered into unbiblical unities even with non-Christian groups.

An example of this is the advent of "multi-faith prayer meetings" where ministers in an area get together to pray. This would not be so bad if they were all Christian ministers from Gospel preaching churches, but these meetings have Baptist or Lutheran ministers praying beside Muslim and Buddhist ministers. This is a blatant slap in the face to our God.

When you as a minister sit down to pray with a Muslim or Buddhist cleric you are saying to the world that you are praying to the same God. You by your action of praying with him tell him that his faith is just as correct as yours - this is completely wrong for any Christian minister or for that matter lay person to do.

I want to stop and take a moment here and call attention to a word I have been using and this is 'corporate'.What I mean by the use of the word 'corporate' is that while we as a body of believers cannot intermingle with or exchange pulpits with a non-Christian church that does not mean that I as and individual may have no contact with the Muslim living next door to me. In fact I must do that if I am to have a chance of winning him to Christ. Certainly I might have him and his family for dinner and then have opportunity to share my faith. Paul talks about this in I Corinthians 5:

1 Corinthians 5:9-11(NIV)
"9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

Paul makes it clear that he does not want us to separate from the people of the world as individuals, else "you would have to leave this world". Many Christians in the past have made the mistake of doing just that. They set up compounds or whole communities where they may "separate themselves from the world". In fact many cults have used this passage to justify there seclutionist behavior. Paul's teaching makes it clear that this is not what Christian separation is about.

I do want to clarify one thing here regarding individual contact and relationships with non-believers. We must always remember that the central reason and focus for our contact with them is evangelism. If we loose that focus we can get ourselves into trouble. Remember that the Scriptures say "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."(Proverbs 27:17) This means that we can rub off on our unsaved neighbors or coworkers or they can rub off on us. If we see that someone is not sensitive to the Gospel and that they are becoming a bad influence on us the relationship needs to be severed or altered to avoid that influence.

This arena of Separation has now become a hotbed of contention. When should one Christian church separate from another? If you asked 5 IFB Pastors that question you would probably get 10 answers.

In this area of separation among Christian Churches I see in the Scriptures two kinds of separation. One is separation from Apostate Churches. The other is separation between Christian Churches which finds its basis in denominational distinctives.

An Apostate Church would be one that teaches a different Gospel. An example of this would be the Jehovah's Witnesses. An Apostate church really must be considered a counterfeit Christian Church, they are not a true church in any sense of the word. The Scriptures warn us about such counterfeiters and the penalty God will bring down on them:

2 Corinthians 11 "4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

Galatians 1:6-9(NIV)
"6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

When discussing this topic of Separation, the topics of Modernism, Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism cannot be ignored. The separation in this area is somewhat of a mix between the different type of Ecclesiastical Separation.

It is ironic that in the very place the Reformation was born, it also died. Germany was the heart of the Reformation during the 1500's and in the 1800's it became the heart of Modernism. Modernism questioned all the fundamentals of the faith, from the reality of Biblical miracles to the deity of Christ himself.

European Pastors were now questioning whether Jesus was really God and if he was really born of a virgin. The new theory of evolution was casting doubt on the Biblical Genesis creation account.

In some parts of Europe and mostly in America a new movement was born to counteract this growing tied of Modernism. "Fundamentalists", as they would later be called, arose to defend the faith. They pledged to stand against these modernist Pastors and to separate from and publicly rebuke these men for their false and many times Apostate teachings.

Fundamentalists remained united in their separatist stance against modernists until the 1940s. The term "New Evangelicals" was first used by Harold Ockenga in the late 1940's to refer to himself and a splinter group of fundamentalists. Before this time the term "Evangelical" could be applied to a fundamentalist. But within the fundamentalist movement there were those who thought ecclesiastical (church) separation was wrong. Instead of Bible Believers separating from modernist churches, they proposed a new strategy of "infiltration". The attempt was a miserable failure, for in the past 50 years almost all the churches which took on the "infiltration" approach with the modernist churches have themselves become modernist churches. Unfortunately this includes a large number of the mainline Protestant Churches like the Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans and Anglicans.

So today, Fundamentalists not only must separate from modernist(Apostate) churches, they also must separate from former fundamentalist churches(New Evangelical) that now intermingle with Modernist churches.

Another type of separation among Christian Churches is one based upon differences in interpretation and application of the Scriptures. This refers to separation that is among Bible preaching, Gospel preaching churches. The differences here are not ones in the Gospel, but ones that deal with things like church structure, baptism and prophetical view points.

It is an undeniable fact that many mainline Protestant Churches which once preached the Gospel do not do so any more today because of the effects of modernism and more recently New Evangelicalism. Their churches are no more than glorified social clubs. Having said that, there are bastions of conservative, Bible believing Christians still among these churches. The Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists are just some of these groups that while larges portions of their denominations have stopped preaching the Gospel, they continue to remain faithful. It is a mistake and an error for some Baptist preachers to stand up in their pulpits and proclaim that only the Baptists now teach the true Gospel. There are still faithful remnants left in some of the other Christian denominations.

These differences though among Bible believing Christian denominations, cannot be ignored. For instance, ABC Baptist Church cannot send out Missionaries with ABC Lutheran church down the street (even if they are conservative Bible believing Christians) because of differences in how we would teach church structure and Baptism as well as some other things. The scriptures tells us "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?"(Amos 3:3)

Some would call these churches that still preach the Gospel yet teach and practice things like infant baptism "disobedient churches" rather than Apostate. I have myself used that terminology in the past but am now struggling with whether that is the right label. Certainly I believe practices life infant baptism cannot be supported by the clear teachings of the New Testament. This is an error on their part. Yet some of the greatest Christian leaders of history have held to things like infant baptism and ritualism. This does not make them right, but it does not make them a "disobedient brother". I might use the label "mistaken brethren". But why should we not just drop our differences and exchange Pulpits say, with the Presbyterian church down the street?

Romans 16:17(NIV)
"17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."

Paul teaches us to "Keep away" from those who teach things "contrary to the teaching you have learned.". Some have tried to say Paul is only speaking of the Gospel here. But it is much more than that, or else he would have said the Gospel as he clearly did on other occasions. He is speaking of all the doctrines he delivered. This means if someone teaches a doctrine that we do not see in scripture although they may be correct on other things we must not join in with them by doing things such as exchanging pulpits or doing cooperative evangelism.

Take for instance infant baptism, this is something that we as Baptists believe is "contrary" to the teachings of the New Testament. Therefore we cannot engage in cooperative evangelistic activities with the Presbyterians or Lutherans down the street even if they are preaching the true Gospel.

I just want to give one illustration from the New Testament of two brothers having differences:

Acts 15:36-40(NIV)
"36Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." 37Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39,They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches."

If Paul and Barnabas, two great pillars of the faith, could have "such a sharp disagreement that they parted company" what makes us think we today would be any different? There are honest disagreements that arise between individual Christians as well as Churches which some times leads to separation and the inability to work together. This does not mean we hate one another or that we do not regard one another as fellow Christian brethren. It is simply comes back to Amos's question "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?"(Amos 3:3)

While we may not be able to exchange Pulpits or engage in cooperative evangelistic efforts does this preclude us from defending the faith together? I don't think so. The fathers of the modern day fundamentalist movement did not think so either. In the defense of the true faith we can and must stand together as one. In this sense I don't have a problem with multi denominational fundamentalists colleges and other parachurch organizations which exist to defend and teach students the fundamentals of the faith. Many times these organizations will simply avoid topics having to do with denominational distinctives and that is probably for the best.

Personal Separation is the area of Biblical separation that has the most practical impact on our lives as Christians. There are two arenas that we are commanded in scripture to practice Personal Separation in. One is in the area of separation from disobedient brethren, the other is in the area of separation from worldliness.

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15(NIV)
"14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother."

I Corinthians 5:9-11(NIV)
9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Sometimes we have professing Christians in our churches who decide they don't like this or that portion of Scripture anymore. They decide to live in open blatant sinful rebellion against God, yet they want their church to still accept them.

The Scriptures will not allow us to make any such accommodations. Paul tells us "Do not associate with him". Yet we are always to be willing to reconcile with that person if they will repent of their ways and return to the path of truth. This type of separation is required not only on a corporate level as a church, but even on an individual level so that "that he may feel ashamed" and he may come back to the truth. Paul says to us regarding our treatment of a brother who is in open rebellion against God "With such a man do not even eat". That seems pretty harsh by our modern way of thinking, but it is so that he will feel ashamed and return to the truth of God.

1 John 2:15
"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

This verse is one of the most common verses used to start this important topic of Personal Separation from the world. It is also one of the most misinterpreted and misapplied passages in all the Scriptures.

The key to understanding this verse is to how we understand the word 'world'. The word 'world' in this verse is a translation of the Greek word 'Kosmos'. In its most natural meaning this word was referring to the entire universe. We are told in John 3:16 that God loved the 'Kosmos' or 'world':

John 3:16(NIV)
"16"For God so loved the world[Greek Kosmos] that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

We are told in passages like I John 2:15, not to love the world(Kosmos) but in a passage like John 3:16 we are told that God loved the world(Kosmos). So what are we to make of this? We must never forget the most important rule of proper Scriptural interpretation. Scripture interprets Scripture. Many times we may not fully understand what is said in one passage, and another passage will then interpret and help us to understand it. Lets look at a few more passages of Scripture which will help us understand what is meant by 'world' in I John 2:15 and passages like it:

Romans 12:2(NIV)
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is his good, pleasing and perfect will."

2 Peter 1:3-4(NIV)
"3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."

1 Corinthians 3:3(NIV)
"3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?"

According to these passages we are not to love "the pattern of this world". What is the "the pattern of this world"? It is "the corruption in the world caused by evil desires". Paul tells the Corinthians how they are acting worldly because they were doing the evil, corrupt things of the world like being jealous and fighting amongst themselves.

So in summary, to be worldly is to be sinful. Worldliness to sinfulness is like holiness to righteousness. The terms are for all intents and purposes synonymous. When the Bible tells us not to be worldly, it is telling us not to do the sinful deeds of the world. When the Bible tells us to be Holy, it is telling us to do the righteous deeds that God does. So you could say that worldliness is the flip side of holiness, and sinfulness is the flip side of righteousness.

So now that we understand what the "world" is in this sense lets look at some passages that deal with worldliness in this light:

James 1:27(NIV)
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world[the corruption in the world caused by evil desires]."

James 4:4(NIV)
"4You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world [the corruption in the world caused by evil desires] becomes an enemy of God."

To be "a friend of the world" is to approve of or participate in those things the world does that are sinful in and of themselves. To be "polluted by the world" is to be overcome by its sinful desires and sinful ways.

In any discussion of Personal Separation we cannot avoid the topic of legalism in fundamentalist circles. It is interesting how many definitions I have heard of this term. I agree that the original meaning of legalism is different than how we understand it today. But that is the nature of language, it changes and evolves as the years go by.

Edward Fisher, a theologian of the 17th century was the first to use this term. He defined it as "one who bringeth the Law into the case of Justification". This person in his estimation was a legalist. This was saying that someone was a legalist who believed works were a part of justification. Today though this word has taken on a different meaning. It now refers to someone who takes their personal application of Scripture and makes that the standard by which others must be judged. A legalist in today's terminology is one who comes to a standard, and then condemns anyone who does not agree with and live up to that standard.

Here is an instance of legalism. Lets take our man Tom in the story we gave previously. He has come to a new standard in his life that he will not drink any alcohol at all. Now there is nothing wrong with him taking that stance on a personal basis or for his family. He would be acting "legalistic" though, if he told his friend John that for him as well, drinking at all in any amount is sin. So it is not legalistic to make standards for ourselves that we may not find specific Biblical command for, but it is legalistic when we take our personal standards on things which the Bible does not condemn and then make them the standard by which we judge other people.

Where did legalism come from? Well, I believe it was unfortunately a bi-product of fundamentalism. In the fundamentalist movement, Christians rallied together to defend absolute truth. The wanted to defend things like the absolute truth that Jesus was God in the flesh and was born of a virgin. Some fundamentalists though, falsely reasoned that since the deity of Christ is not a disputable belief, nothing is disputable. This gave birth to the "once size fits all" mentality we now see in many IFB churches today. Now Pastors were taking their opinions on social or entertainment issues and preaching them on the same level as the fundamentals of the faith.

In the next few sections we will discuss some tactics as well as legitimate questions sometimes raised by those fundamentalists with legalistic tendencies.

First I want to take on a few mentalities that I believe have caused much error in this area of personal separation. One of these is the "guilt by association" mentality found in many churches today.

An example of this would be like in our story above how the one man could not see a Disney movie not because the movie itself was wrong, but because it was made by a company that produces other wrong movies and takes wrong stands on things. So the good movie is, in effect, guilty by association with Disney. Instead the proper thing to do would be to judge the movie by its own merits.

Think of this in the realm of our judicial system. Would it be right to condemn a man's son to death because his father is a murder? No, we give the father his just punishment and the son is judged based on his own actions.

This is such a simple concept when we stand back and look at it, but so many, especially in fundamentalists circles fail to see this truth.

Likewise, just because something finds its origins in this sin-cursed world that does not make it wrong, each thing must be judged on it own merits as to whether it violates God's law.

Cars, computers and the Internet all examples of things that find their origins in this world. Cars can be used to transport people to their jobs or they can be used to run someone down and kill them. Computers can be used to make our lives easier and speed up routine processes. Computers can also be used to hack into banks and governments and do illegal actions. The Internet can be used to spread the Gospel of Christ, but it can also be used to spread the filth of pornography.

In the same way, a Hollywood Studio might put out a wonderful film filled with virtue and redeemable qualities, and the same studio a few months later puts out a film filled with pornographic imagery. We must judge each "child" or film in this case on its own merits.

So now that we understand that being worldly means practicing those things the world does that are sinful in and of themselves, and that we cannot use "guilt by association" when looking at things but we must judge each thing on its own merit we are now ready to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Another mentality that has caused confusion and wrong thinking in the area of separation is the "If it can be abused it must be wrong" mentality. Let me give you an example. Many Christians today believe it is wrong to drink because some people are drunkards. They will say "drinking alcohol leads to drunkenness". I will be writing an article in the future dealing with Christians and drinking alcohol. The quick answer is that the Bible never forbids the drinking of alcohol, only the abuse of it (drunkenness).But they do not stand back and look at their statement and see it for how ridiculous that thinking is. That would be like saying eating leads to gluttony and shooting a gun at the range leads to murder. Guns can be used to kill innocent people and that is called murder. Eating can be abused, and when it is it is called gluttony. In fact the Bible compares gluttony to drunkenness in Proverbs 23:

Proverbs 23:19-21(NIV)
"19 Listen, my son, and be wise, and keep your heart on the right path. 20 Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

So clearly, the "if it can be abused it must be wrong" mentality finds no support from the Scriptures.

The King James Version's rendering of 1 Thessalonians:5:22 has been the source of much confusion again in this area of separation:

1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance of evil."

In 1611, people understood what the KJV translators meant by "appearance". You can tell what they meant by "appearance" from how they translated that same Greek word 'eidos' in these passages along with the one you stated:

Luke 3:22(KJV)
"And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape[eidos] like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Luke 9:29(KJV)
"And as he prayed, the fashion[eidos] of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering."

John 5:37
"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape[eidos]."

2 Corinthians 5:7(KJV)
(For we walk by faith, not by sight[eidos]

1 Thessalonians:5:22(KJV)
"Abstain from all appearance[eidos] of evil."

Even from other translations of the Greek word eidos in the King James Version itself we can see that it does not mean "appearance" in the sense that even if it could appear to be evil then avoid it. The Scriptures are telling us here to avoid the actual presence of evil in whatever form it may take. Much bad theology has been made over the years from a misunderstanding of the old English. The NIV and NASB translate in our modern English correctly when they render it as:

Thessalonians 5:22(NASB)
"abstain from every form[eidos] of evil."

1 Thessalonians 5:22(NIV)
"Avoid every kind[eidos] of evil."

So yes I should "avoid every kind of evil". We agree on that completely. What is a kind of evil? I will give some more specific examples in the next section on this but here is one example. A movie at the theater that is filled with filth is "a kind of evil" and I should avoid it. Going to the Movie theater itself is not evil, it is what I see there that makes my actions right or wrong.

Ephesians 5:3(NIV)
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."

What is a 'hint' of evil? I think that would be like a drop. That's not much. But is this verse saying that if anything we are watching, reading buying or participating in has a hint of evil in that we are not to be involved with it? Or is it saying that there is not to be "among you" or among us even a hint of evil? Or are these the same thing?

What Paul is saying here is that we are to search ourselves,and that there should we should not find one 'hint' of these things in ourselves. If we do we should ask God for forgiveness and strive to remove these things (through his power) from our lives. It is not saying that if I pick the Detroit News and there is an ad in there that is evil that I must throw out the Detroit News Paper.

I want to clarify something here. I am not saying we can watch anything as long as we do not exhibit those qualities. For surely what a man fills his mind with that is what he will eventually become. But if I am reading something or watching something and there happens to be a scene or some (and some is a relative term here) language I disagree with that does not make that item unredeemable. But we must be careful, and there is no exact science in this area. This is where Biblical discernment must take place and we will all draw lines a little differently.

Now the above paragraph is where a lot of IFBs will attack me. They will say I believe in "situational ethics" and "personal preferences". These labels some legalistic IFBs like to through out. Let me first say that I am guilty as charged here. I do believe in "situational ethics" and "personal preferences". But is all in how you define those labels.

First lets tackle the label of "situational ethics". This basically means that the same activity in one situation is fine, while in another situation it is not. Is this not the case in real life? If I shoot a man and kill him, that same action in one "situation" would be murder and in another "situation" it could be self-defense.

But there are other things, that no matter what the situation they are wrong. An example of this would be stealing. Whether I am stealing to feed my starving self or I am stealing to make a profit, it is still wrong, no matter what the situation.

What about this label "personal preferences". Does the Bible leave room for personal preferences on anything? I don't think anyone could come away from Romans chapter 14 and think otherwise. Paul says "5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."(Rom 14:5). So apparently Paul acknowledged that there would be different standards among believers on some disputable issues.

Romans 14 is all but ignored by most legalists today. Most attempt either to explain it way with saying the one who ate meat is symbolic of the Christian who understands that he needs to be stricter in his life. The one who ate only vegetables did not understand that and had less rules. But this is clearly not what the passage was saying. It clearly is saying that the one who understands he can eat meat that once he could not, is the stronger Christian. The one who eats only vegetables does not believe he has the freedom to do so.

I have recently heard one legalist say Romans 14 only applied to the dietary laws and Jewish Holy days not being required anymore. There can be no broader application than that. Its incredible what they will come up with to dismiss this critically important passage of scripture.

In this area of disputable matters I offer these passages to ponder on:

Romans 14:23(NIV)
"But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

If you are reading something or watching something or listening to a program and you are not doing it in faith that is right, or you have doubts about it then do not do it. But do not take you doubts and make those law for all Christians, this is where legalism comes into play.

"Does it honor God?" This is something important that we must ask ourselves about anything we do. Most people are intimidated by this question because they think the only things that honor God are going to Church, reading their Bibles, praying and evangelism. But other things honor God, like taking care of our families.

When I sit down with my children and play play station I am honoring God. Why? For two reason. One is that as a father I should spend time with and get to know my children. The other is that the activity of playing play station does not dishonor God. Many times we can more easily determine if something honors God by determining if it dishonors God. Could playing play station dishonor God? Certainly if I were playing a game filled with vulgarity or if that was how I spent all my time.

Going to a movie( that is not filled with filth) or going to a baseball game with a Christian brother honors God because we are fellowshiping together. If that is all we did, then those activities might become a dishonor to God. If we did those at the expense of other responsibilities we should have taken care of first then it would dishonor God.

So how do I know that what I am doing honors God? Is the activity you are engaging in sinful? Even if it is not sinful by itself, have you neglected other things you should have done to do this thing?

This is something we must also consider in the area of personal separation. Even if I am clear in my conscience before God I must be considerate of my brother who may have a stricter standard in this area.

Some legalists use this as a last ditch effort if all other arguments fail. If they cannot prove something wrong in and of itself, they will say if another brother is "offended" by it then we should not ever do it. The most common verse they use to support their belief in this area is found in 1 Corinthians 8:

"1 Corinthians 8:13(NIV)
Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."

So was Paul saying he never ate meat again? Of course not. And if he meant it the way they interpret it then why did he write in Romans 14 these words:

Romans 14:6(NIV)
"6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Apparently Paul had no trouble here with one believer eating meat and the other abstaining. So what is Paul trying to communicate? It is that we should not do things directly in front of our brother that we know will offend him. It is not saying that we should never do those things even when we are away from him because he does not believe they are right for him to do.

Let me give an example to illustrate the difference here. If I have a brother over my house who does not have a television then it would probably be best for me not turn on my TV. But does that mean I have to throw out my TV because he does not believe it is right for him to have one in his home? No.

Let me give an example of something that is not offending your brother. This example is often used to say going to the theater is wrong. Someone who believes it is wrong for all Christians, not just themselves, to go to a movie theater will say "but even if you are seeing a good movie, another person might see you and be offended that you are going there."

If I were to take a Christian brother of mine who I know does not go to shows and try and have him go in a movie theater, that would be "offending" my brother. But if that same brother happens to be driving down the road and sees me going in a theater that is not "offending" my brother. I am not intentionally trying to cause him to stumble. If he stumbles it will be in the fact that he has judged me for going in the show. Paul states this concept in Romans 14:10 "You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother?".

In the first part Paul is speaking to the brother who does not believe he should go into a theater at all, when he says "why do you judge your brother" and in this case it would be judge him for going to the show. In the second part Paul is talking to the brother who believes he may enter a show as long as he is seeing an acceptable movie. He is telling that brother not to "look down" on his other brother who does not believe he can enter a theater.

So not offending our brother, is our taking every reasonable precaution not to put our standards in our brother's face. It could be the brother with the stricter standard putting his stricter standards in the face of the brother with less strict standards. It could also be the brother with less strict standards poking fun at the brother with the stricter standards or ignoring them all together.

So what are some practical applications of personal separation? It is one thing to talk in vague unspecific language, it is quite another to talk in specific examples. Many Pastors who may have a correct view of Biblical Separation are afraid to use any examples for fear of offending someone. And there is some good reason for it.

But without practical, real life examples, how are we to fully understand this doctrine. So I will put myself out for there for these examples. Here are some examples:

My children recently wanted to watch the Disney Movie "Finding Nemo". Now this movie is produced by Disney, a company which presents a family friendly face but openly supports gay rights. They have also produced some films in the past through their Dreamworks subsidiary that I would not watch. So do I judge "Finding Nemo" based on its own merit or do I condemn it based on the actions of its parent Disney? The answer is I rented it for my kids and they loved it. It had much redeemable quality.

How about the Movie series "Lord of the Rings"? Do I condemn this movie because it is produced by a movie company that has made movies that were filled with filth that I should not see? Or do I judge it based on its own merits? Ok the movie is filled with war scenes and violence? Now is it wrong? Nope. The Bible does not condemn violence when it has a purpose - only senseless and evil violence. In fact some of the violent acts in the Old and New Testaments if they were put on film (and some have been) would easily compete with anything I would see in Lord of the Rings.

What about Christian Contemporary Music? I love to listen to Michael Cards music (most of it anyway). Lets say I go to by his CD "Unveiled Hope"(which I actually did by and it is one of my favorites). Now Christian Contemporary Music mimics in many ways the musical styles of non-Christian singers. So since the style finds its origins in sinful world does that make it wrong? Or do we judge the style in and of itself.

Lets say I am looking at book by Bruce Metzger, who is an expert in the area of history and Bible translation. He does not hold to a high view of scripture as I do but he is very knowledgeable in this area of history. Do I buy his books and glean the historical facts while dismissing his philosophy and interpretations of these facts? Or do I dismiss all his factual work because of his bad philosophies?

I could go on with examples, and on many of these topics I have just scratched the surface. In the coming months I will be dedicating whole articles to topics affected by this such as drinking, card playing, movies, music and more. But my hope is that you will come away from this study with a clearer understanding of the Biblical doctrine of separation. I was not able at this time to hit on some other relevant areas of separation but as time permits I will add additional articles to address those areas.