I enjoyed Charles Scobie’s comments on the “higher standard of judgment” which comes from being part of the elect people of God:

Being God’s chosen people does not mean that he will judge them less severely. On the contrary, since God’s will has been more clearly revealed to them and they have been chosen to serve God in a special way, their failures will bring greater condemnation.  The prototypical rebellion of Israel against God through the worship of the golden calf (Exod 32) resulted in the slaughter of three thousand of the people (v. 28) and in the sending of a plague (v. 35).  In Num 21 the Israelite’s rebellious complaints resulted in an attack by poisonous serpents as a result of which many died (v. 6).

Israel is not spared divine judgment because they are God’s people; indeed, it is precisely because they are the covenant community that God disciplines them. This pattern continues throughout the OT: as already noted, God’s dealings with his people constitute not only a history of salvation (Heilsgeschichte) but also a history of judgment.  Election and covenant are the basic presuppositions of the prophets’ messages of judgment.  Nowhere is this more forcefully put than in Amos 3:2, where God says to Israel:

You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

“The Election is the often unexpressed but always evident basis of every prophecy of judgment; it heightens the claim on Israel, and results in a correspondingly harder punishment” (quote from G. A. Dannell, “The Idea of God’s People in the Bible,” in The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, ed. A. Fridrichsen New York: Philosophical Library, 1953], 31)

Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Eerdmans, 2003), 472-73.

My wife and I sang this song yesterday in our morning service.  An excellent text by Johann Franck, and translated by the incomparable Catherine Winkworth.

“Jesus, Priceless Treasure”

Jesus, priceless treasure, fount of purest pleasure,
truest Friend to me:
Ah, how long in anguish shall my spirit languish,
yearning, Lord, for thee?
Thine I am, O spotless Lamb!
I will suffer naught to hide thee,
Naught I ask beside thee.

In thine arms I rest me; foes who would molest me
cannot reach me here.
Though the earth be shaking, ev’ry heart be quaking,
Jesus calms my fear.
Lightnings flash and thunders crash;
Yet, though sin and hell assail me,
Jesus will not fail me.

Satan, I defy thee; death, I now decry thee;
fear, I bid thee cease.
World, thou shalt not harm me nor thy threats alarm me
while I sing of peace.
God’s great pow’r guards ev’ry hour;
Earth and all its depths adore him,
Silent bow before him.

Hence with earthly treasure! Thou art all my pleasure,
Jesus, all my choice.
Hence, thou empty glory! Naught to me thy story
told with tempting voice.
Pain or loss or shame or cross
Shall not from my Savior move me,
Since he deigns to love me.

Hence, all fear and sadness! For the Lord of gladness,
Jesus, enters in.
Those who love the Father, though the storms may gather,
Still have peace within.
Yea, whate’er I here must bear,
Thou art my still my purest pleasure,
Jesus, priceless treasure.

One can argue (rightly, I opine) that a person leaving a church for doctrinal / ethical issues is a species of ecclesiastical separation — which is, as Kevin Bauder notes, is about “separation within the boundaries of the professing church” (original emphasis).  John Calvin has some interesting things to say in the Institutes (Book 4, Chapter 12) about this practice, given his own history as a reformer.

…private individuals must not, when they see vices less carefully corrected by the Council of Elders, immediately separate themselves from the Church; nor must pastors themselves, when unable to reform all things which need correction to the extent which they could wish, cast up their ministry, or by unwonted severity throw the whole Church into confusion.  What Augustine says is perfectly true: “Whoever corrects what he can, by rebuking it, or without violating the bond of peace, excludes what he cannot correct, or unjustly condemns while he patiently tolerates what he is unable to exclude without violating the bond of peace, is free and exempted from the curse.”  He elsewhere gives the reason. “Every pious reason and mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought always to have regard to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.  This the apostle commands us to keep by bearing mutually with each other.  If it is not kept, the medicine of discipline begins to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious, and therefore ceases to be medicine.

He [Augustine] confesses, indeed, that pastors ought not only to exert themselves in removing every defect from the Church, but that every individual ought to his utmost to do so; nor does he disguise the fact, that he who neglects to admonish, accuse, and correct the bad, although he neither favours them, nor sins with them, is guilty before the Lord; and if he conducts himself so that though he can exclude them from partaking of the Supper, he does it not, then the sin is no longer that of other men, but his own. Only he would have that prudence used which our Lord also requires, “lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.”

Calvin goes on to note the Donatists (in Augustine’s time) and the Anabaptists (in his own) as what he sees as examples of over-zealous separation:

when [the Donatists] saw faults in the Church which the bishops indeed rebuked verbally, but did not punish with excommunication (because they did not think that anything would be gained in this way), bitterly inveighed against the bishops as traitors to discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of Christ.  Similar, in the present day, is the conduct of the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no assembly of Christ unless conspicuous in all respects for angelic perfection, under pretence of zeal overthrow everything which tends to edification. 

A friend and I sang this as a duet not long ago.  What a text!

“Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands,” Martin Luther, trans. Richard Massie.

Christ Jesus lay in death’s strong bands,
For our offenses given;
But now at God’s right hand He stands,
And brings us life from Heaven.
Wherefore let us joyful be,
And sing to God right thankfully
Loud songs of Alleluia! Alleluia!

No son of man could conquer Death,
Such mischief sin had wrought us,
For innocence dwelt not on earth,
And therefore Death had brought us
Into thralldom from of old
And ever grew more strong and bold
And kept us in his bondage. Alleluia!

But Jesus Christ, God’s only Son,
To our low state descended,
The cause of Death He has undone,
His power forever ended,
Ruined all his right and claim
And left him nothing but the name,
His sting is lost forever. Alleluia!

It was a strange and dreadful strife
When life and death contended;
The victory remained with life;
The reign of death was ended.
Stripped of power, no more it reigns,
An empty form alone remains
Death’s sting is lost forever! Alleluia!

Here the true Paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong His love!—to save us.
See, His blood doth mark our door;
Faith points to it, Death passes over,
And Satan cannot harm us. Alleluia!

So let us keep the festival
Where to the Lord invites us;
Christ is Himself the joy of all,
The Sun that warms and lights us.
By His grace He doth impart
Eternal sunshine to the heart;
The night of sin is ended! Alleluia!

Then let us feast this Easter day
On the true Bread of Heaven;
The Word of grace hath purged away
The old and wicked leaven.
Christ alone our souls will feed;
He is our Meat and Drink indeed;
Faith lives upon no other! Alleluia!

Some quotes from Institutes, Book 4, chapter 12: “Of the discipline of the church, and its principal use in censures and excommunication.”

…as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews; for to it it is owing that the members of the body adhere together, each in its own place.

For what will be the result if every one is allowed to do as he pleases?  But this must happen if to the preaching of the gospel are not added private admonition, correction, and similar methods of maintaining doctrine, and not allowing it to become lethargic. Discipline, therefore, is a kind of curb to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ, or it is a kind of stimulus by which the indifferent are aroused; sometimes, also, it is a kind of fatherly rod, by which those who have made some more grievous lapse are chastised in mercy with the meekness of the spirit of Christ.

[Calvin's opinion on how the excommunicated ought to be treated:]  Such as have, therefore, been expelled from the church, it belongs not to us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of, as if they were already lost.  We may lawfully judge them aliens from the Church, and so aliens from Christ, but only during the time of their excommunication.  If then, also, they give greater evidence of petulance than of humility, still let us commit them to the judgment of the Lord, hoping better of them in future than we see at present, and not ceasing to pray to God for them.

Here is a very nice link page: “Free Books in Biblical Studies and Related Fields”  (Google Books, Archive.org, & web-based content)

A very interesting essay: “Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for ‘Generalist’ Scholars in Biblical Scholarship,” by Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener (HT: Nijay Gupta).  Ever hear the joke about the two surgeons meeting in the break room? “Whew! That last operation was a close one — an inch either way and I would have been out of my specialty!”  The same sort of situation holds true in the realm of academic biblical studies. The absolute flood of secondary literature in the field of biblical studies made it impossible a long time ago to keep up in any meaningful sense with what is published overall.  This has led to specialties and sub-specialties in the field.  An academician may devote his career to, say, the mastery of the NT pseudepigrapha or a single book of Scripture.  On the latter, I’ll never forget Gordon Fee’s comment in his 1 Corinthians commentary that the point had been reached (in 1987!) where one person could not really master all the literature on the Corinthian epistles (although one could argue that Anthony Thiselton has come pretty close in his magisterial NIGTC 1 Corinthians!).  The article by Bird and Keener makes a case for “generalists” who seek to have a broad, interdisciplinary scope to their work, while relying on the research of specialists, and gives a number of ways to promote such a breadth in one’s reading and research.  A good read.

A quote from the above article: “A New Testament scholar who understands the New Testament alone cannot rightly understand it at all.” (quoting Martin Hengel)

You all subscribe to Mark Goodacre’s NT Gateway blog, right? (not to mention his more general academic blog)  If not, you’re missing goodies like reminders about updated link pages…

NT Bibliographies

Major book series on the NT

A link page to link pages for NT studies

Biblioblog link pages

 No competent NT scholar has BDAG far from his desk and/or computer.  Ever wish you could put faces to the familiar names of Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich?

I’ve been trying to come up with a standard definition of ecclesiastical separation, and have collected the following definitions / descriptions.  I’m compiling them here for the sake of comparison / contrast.

Biblical separation is not grounded in anti-culturalism or anti-intellectualism.  For that matter, it is not grounded in Dispensationalism, gathered-church polity, or even the biblical doctrine of holiness.  It is rooted in a proper understanding of the nature of the church.  That is why it is called ecclesiastical separation–not because it is about separating from churches, but because it is about separation within the bounds of the professing church.

The rule of thumb is that ecclesiastical separation must be applied to all Christian endeavors, but not to the ordinary situations of life.

Kevin Bauder, “Fundamentalists and Scholarship, Part Ten: Scholarship and Separatism,” In the Nick of Time, electronic publication of Central Baptist Theological Seminary (14 March 2008), available online at http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick158.html.

 

Here we are speaking of “ecclesiastical” not “personal” separation. That is, we are dealing with church alliances and support, not with an individual Christian’s personal separation from the things of the world. Ecclesiastical separation consists of a believer or an organized church not joining or helping an apostate church; or, if he or she is in one, they are to come out of it. This also implies that believing churches and organizations will not join, remain in, or assist denominations or groups who are not true to the Christ of the Bible. 

Gary Cohen, “The Bible Presbyterian Position on Ecclesiastical Separation,” available online at http://www.bpc.org/resources/reading/articles/history/separation1.html

 

Ecclesiastical separation is the exercising of personal separation on an organizational level involving the local church, its membership, and its relationship to other individuals and organizations.  As with personal separation, ecclesiastical separation encompasses the two issues of doctrinal integrity and moral purity.  In other words, the local church and its members are to know, proclaim, and conform to the truths of God’s Word and are to defend these truths against any and all defections, whether in content or conduct. 

R. Bruce Compton, “2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and Second-Degree Separation,” unpublished paper presented at the Mid-America Conference for Preaching, October 18-19, 2001 (Allen Park, MI), 2.

 

Ecclesiastical separation is the decision by a local church or by an association of local churches not to engage in cooperative ministry endeavors at an organizational level that are deemed as inconsistent in doctrinal position.

General Assocation of Regular Baptist Churches, “Ecclesiastical Separation and Its Associational Applications,” available online at http://www.garbc.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/council18onseparation.pdf

 

Ecclesiastical separation— the determination to make a definite break in relationship and refuse to work together with those who deny, disobey, and dilute the Scriptures.

Dan Greenfield, “Ecclesiastical Separation,” Ohio Bible Fellowship Visitor (9 May 2007), available online at http://obfvisitor.wordpress.com/2007/05/09/ecclesiastical-separation/

 

Ecclesiastical separation has to do with church separation or being involved in an ecumentical organization that promotes cooperation with unbelievers or backslidden brethren in any form.

E. Robert Jordan, Chief (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2004), 52.

 

Broadly, ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate in, or the withdrawal from, a working relationship with an organization or religious leader that does not obey the Word of God in doctrine and practice.

Rolland McCune, “A Heart for Separation,” available online at http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/shortarticles/separation.pdf

Broadly speaking, ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to collaborate with or the withdrawal of a working relationship from an ecclesiastical organization or religious leader that deviates from the standard of Scripture or that does not believe and obey the word of God in doctrine or practice.

Rolland McCune, Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald, 2004), 138.

Ecclesiastical separation is the refusal to join or collaborate with an organization that deviates from the standards of Scripture. It normally involves such things as local churches, other ecclesiastical institutions or bodies, and religious or quasi-religious endeavors of all kinds.

Biblical ecclesiastical separation means the refusal to collaborate with or the withdrawal of fellowship from those who walk contrary to the Word of God. There are at least two elements that make the doctrine.  First, the Bible is clear that Fundamental, Bible-believers can have no fellowship with those who are unbelievers, apostates, or Bible-deniers. . . . Second, the Bible teaches separation from Christians who are doctrinally careless or who are content to walk with those who deny the faith.

Rolland McCune, “An Inside Look at Ecclesiastical Separation,” available online at http://www.dbts.edu/pdf/shortarticles/insidelook.pdf

 

The principle of separation as applied to the nature and associations of the visible churches.  Biblical separation is the implementation of that scriptural teaching which demands repudiation of any conscious or continuing fellowship with those who deny the doctrines of the historic Christian faith, especially as such fellowship finds expression in organized ecclesiastical structures, and which results in the establishment and nurture of local congregations of believers which are free from contaminating alliances.

Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 10.

 

Ecclesiastical separation is that disciplinary measure exercised by a Christian or church against another Christian or church due to doctrinal impurity or positional compromise. 

Charles Seet, “Biblical Separation,” available online at http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sbseet/separate.htm

 

Ecclesiastical separation is in many ways the application of the principles of personal separation practiced on the level of an assembly of believers.  It involves a refusal to align with false doctrine or unbelief and a rejection of the willful practice of disobedience.  Discipline in the church is a form of ecclesiastical separation.

Mark Sidwell, The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1998), 175-76.

 

Ecclesiastical separation is a “group thing” or a “churchly thing” and is about the relationships that pertain between groups; it is not about individuals. Though ecclesiastical separation does obviously affect the lives of individuals, the term ecclesiastical by its very definition, is a term about “churchliness,” churches as groups, not individuals. Ecclesiastical separation happens when churches stand apart from other churches or church groups because of doctrinal differences.

David Warren (Ohio Association of Regular Baptist Churches Representative), “Ecclesiastical Separation — Positioning the Ohio Association of Regular Baptist Churches,” available online at http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=1093

 

 

 

“[One of the Baptist distinctives is] ecclesiastical separation, or the separation of churches from other institutions which do not conform to the New Testament pattern for a church. It is a common belief that this refers to separation from apostasy. While Christians should certainly separate from apostasy, ecclesiastical separation goes much farther than this.

The terms ‘ecclesiastical’ and ‘ecclesiology’ come from the Greek word ekklesia, which means ‘assembly,’ or ‘congregation.’ This is the word behind the English translation ‘church.’ Thus, this separation refers to separation of one ‘assembly’ from other ‘assemblies’ that do not practice New Testament ecclesiology. This obviously implies separation from apostasy. It further implies separation from those who maintain erroneous doctrine, including ‘assemblies’ which do not scripturally practice the ordinances (i.e. infant baptism).

 

David A. West, “What is an Historic Baptist?” available online at http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm

Congregational discipline belongs to the essence of the church as much as evangelism does because both are inescapable implications of the gospel.  It makes no sense to declare the good news of liberation from sin to people outside the church and then refuse to declare it to Christians within the church.  The gospel is not merely the good news which converts the sinner.  It is also the good news by which the Christian can continue to live.

 

In practice also it makes no sense to accept the task of evangelism and then to neglect discipline.  What is the point of adding people to the church through gospel proclamation if membership in that church becomes meaningless because of the failure of discipline?  Evangelism itself is soon undermined if people discover that belonging or not belonging to the church makes no difference.  The result is the absence of ethical integrity in the church’s life.  As one writer says,

The church which neglects to speak the word of judgment will eventually discover that the forgiveness which it speaks is empty and irrelevant to a world which watches the life of the church with discernment.

 

If a church’s aggressive evangelism lacks supporting discipline, the purpose of evangelism shifts.  Rather than incorporating people into the discipled life of the church, such evangelism makes conversion a religious experience for its own sake.   We see this sort of thing in modern revivalism when many people—most of them already members of some church—go through periodic “conversions.”  These conversions carry little meaning beyond a temporary emotional charge.  If persons are already members of a church, what else does conversion mean?

 

Some might still ask, Isn’t revivalism consistent with the thesis that congregational discipline is a function of the gospel?  The answer is that much modern revivalism is organized along parachurch lines.  Since it functions primarily outside the congregation, it fails to take seriously the most basic gospel requirement—namely, the ethically accountable life of the church.  Proclaiming the gospel means calling people into that community which accepts the rule of God. 

 

Marlin Jeschke, Discipling in the Church: Recovering a Ministry of the Gospel, 3d ed. (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1988), 109-10.

I obtained today portions of a pre-publication edition of the forthcoming NICNT commentary on Thessalonians by Gordon Fee, a welcome update to Morris’s NICNT Thessalonians volume of 50-year vintage.

 

I have posted before regarding the translation of the ἄτακτος (ataktos) word group in Thessalonians, and so I was delighted to read Fee acknowledge his complete inability to understand just why in the world the ἄτακτος (ataktos) word group is still being (or ever was!) translated with words related to idleness.  So, in his own words (note that page numbers are from the pre-publication edition and may not be precisely the same in the final edition):

 

the translation “idlers” . . ., even though it correctly points to an aspect of those who are in view here, does not in fact have a lexical leg to stand on. (209)

 

For reasons that are difficult to fathom, [rendering ataktoi as "the idle"] tended to take over among NT scholars, despite total lack of evidence for it. (209 n18)

 

In fact, there is no known evidence of any kind in its [the translation "be idle, lazy"] favor. (209 n19)

 

At some point in the history of English translation it was apparently assumed that the believers who were not working (refusing to work?) in Thessalonica were “out of line” in the sense of being “idle”; so they became “the idlers” instead of “the unruly,” even though there is not a single piece of literary evidence to support such an understanding. (210)

 

(Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009])

 

Regarding the last quotation’s assertion regarding the lack of literary evidence and the “apparent” reconstruction of the cause for the shifting translation of ἀτάκτως, I wonder if Fee is familiar with the papyrological discoveries which caused Milligan, Moulton, Frame, Rutherford, and others to translate ἀτάκτως as “idle” or “lazy” in the early 19th century. Given Fee’s world-class exegetical abilities, I hesitate to suggest that he is unaware of the history of interpretation of  ἀτάκτως in Thessalonians. However, he states in a footnote that “the rendering ‘the idle’ apparently first appeared in the RSV (NT 1948)” (209 n18).  The RSV was the first major English version to utilize such a translation (which may very well be Fee’s point), but forty years earlier W. G. Rutherford published a translation of Thessalonians using “loafer” for ἀτάκτως in Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians and to the Corinthians (London: Macmillan, 1908), 18-19.

 

 

That issue aside, I of course recommend Fee’s forthcoming volume heartily.  (I’ve seen it available for pre-order only on CBD so far.) Anyone who has used his commentaries on 1 Corinthians (NICNT 1987) and Philippians (NICNT 1995) recognizes the value of his work. For the level of commentary that the NIC series produces, Fee is notable for his inclusion of a disproportionately large (but welcome!) amount of information about textual variants and the way the text has been translated in English versions.  From what I’ve read, I do not know that his volume on Thessalonians will rise to the top of the heap over, e.g., Malherbe (Anchor), but I would certainly place it in the “top four” at this point.

Some argue that a church can practice no ecclesiastical fellowship whatsoever with a party that disagrees with what the church understands to be a Scriptural doctrine or practice.(1)  Instead, ecclesiastical separation is seen as “all or nothing”: persistent violation of any “clear teaching” of Scripture is grounds for a complete break of ecclesiastical fellowship.  Is this “all or nothing” position or a “levels of fellowship” position correct?  Combining observations about the clarity and importance of various aspects of the teaching contained in the New Testament will help to provide an answer.

 

First, it must be observed that various teachings of Scripture have different levels of clarity.  It is too simplistic an approach to say that a given body of Scriptural teachings are “clear” and the rest are by implication “unclear,” drawing a sharp dichotomy between the two categories.  Seeing a sliding scale or continuum of exegetical certainty is more realistic.  Why is this the case?

The New Testament churches enjoyed an advantage over contemporary churches in that they had the potential of authoritative apostolic arbitration regarding questions of interpretation or theology.(2)  This sort of arbitration, in fact, forms a large part of the Pauline letters, as Paul combats false teaching and clarifies deficient understanding.  If it be argued that no such advantage exists because the contemporary church now has that apostolic teaching preserved in Scripture, it may be answered that while the apostolic tradition contained in the New Testament is enormously valuable, it is neither systematic nor exhaustive.(3)  This answer reflects the standard observation in New Testament studies that the canonical writings of Paul and others are occasional as a rule, addressing particular questions ad hoc.(4)  While the New Testament communicates the general contours and many specifics of the apostolic tradition – all that God has chosen to preserve for the church – it is obvious that it does not and cannot contain direct rulings on every possible point of theology or practice.(5)

This limitation is reflected in much of the variety among Christian denominations, the existence of which demonstrates that churches will differ, sometimes considerably, about what Scripture “clearly teaches.”  It is not the case that a correct understanding of any of Scripture is impossible without the direct intervention of an apostle.  However, while not denying that Paul specifies certain issues as adiaphora, other issues which presumably would have been grounds for excommunication in the NT church (once clarified by an apostle) might be better approached as open questions today, as they have not been clarified in the NT documents.  For example, if Paul were present today, he could definitively settle the question of non-salvific infant baptism vs. believer baptism, and presumably disobedience to his clarified teaching would be grounds for excommunication. As it stands, however, the lack of a clear command or prohibition regarding the baptism of infants has led to differing positions on the question, with each side able to recognize the other as Christian while strongly maintaining their distinctive understanding.

 

A second observation is that various teachings of Scripture have different levels of importance.(6)  This is not to say that certain teachings of Scripture are unimportant, for “all Scripture is profitable” (2 Tim 3:16).  However, Paul himself notes in 1 Cor 15:3, using the technical terminology of passing along traditional material, that he “delivered” (παραδίδωμι) to the Corinthians certain teachings inextricably linked to the gospel, and did so ἐν πρώτοις – “as of first importance.”(7)  This passage suggests not only that different levels of importance are attached to various Christian teachings, but that the highest level of importance ought to be attached to doctrines and conduct whose repudiation would invalidate the gospel.(8)  The more closely a differing doctrine or practice is connected to the gospel, therefore, the less fellowship is warranted between two Christian parties.  Further, when a differing doctrine or practice is judged to have invalidated the gospel, no Christian fellowship is warranted because none is possible by the nature of the case.

These observations regarding varying levels of clarity and importance of Scripture suggest that a church may rightly recognize as Christian an external party whose doctrine or practice, while compatible with the gospel, does not precisely match one’s own.  Commonality in the gospel in turn suggests that agreement in every point of doctrine or practice is not necessary for ecclesiastical cooperation at every level.  The “levels of fellowship” approach to ecclesiastical separation would thus seem to be superior to the “all or nothing” approach.(9)

___________________

(1) John F. Brug argues strongly for the model of “unit fellowship” on behalf of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod in Church Fellowship: Working Together for the Truth (Milwaukee: Northwestern, 1996), 33-50.  This model teaches that “all outward expressions of church fellowship should be practiced only among those who agree in all doctrines of Scripture,” and “agreement in all the doctrines of Scripture forms the necessary prerequisite for the joint practice of all expressions of church fellowship” (50).  It should be noted that Brug considers agreement in adiaphora to be unnecessary for fellowship, and in that category includes such things as worship styles, mode of (infant?) baptism, church polity, and the moderate use of beverage alcohol (35).  It should also be noted that Brug differentiates between Christian fellowship ["the spiritual ties that we have with all believers as members of the invisible church"] and church fellowship ["all activities in which Christian join together as members of visible churches"] (19-20).  See also Wilbert R. Gawrisch, “‘Levels of Fellowship’ – Scriptural Principles or Rules of Men?” Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary online essay file, http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GawrischFellowship.pdf .

(2) Of course, the Roman Catholic Church looks to the Magisterium (Dei Verbum 10) to settle questions of doctrine or practice, but independent churches have no such contemporary teaching authority, a point emphasized in Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 41-42.

(3) It is likely that systematic and organized teaching was provided to new catechumens, and Paul probably refers to this at various points in his writings (e.g., 1 Thess 4:2; 2 Thess 2:15).  If such a body of teaching was set down in writing, however, it apparently is not included wholesale in the New Testament.

(4) See, e.g., Gordon D. Fee, “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” JETS 28:2 (1985): 141-51.  The ad hoc nature of Scripture should not, however, be overemphasized, a point brought out in George W. Knight III, “The Scriptures Were Written for Our Instruction,” JETS 39:1 (1996): 3-13.

(5) This statement is not meant to support the extreme postmodern stance that knowledge of a text is impossible.  It must be acknowledged, however, that all readers of a text approach it from a particular cultural perspective which may bring misunderstanding of that text.  Nor is this statement an attempt to undermine the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.  Any particular question of belief or practice can be informed by the teaching contained in the NT.  It seems obvious, however, that some aspects of the apostolic tradition are more clearly elucidated in the NT than others.

(6) This observation is reflected in various schemas of levels of doctrine and practice which have been proposed.  Calvin (Institutes 4.1.12) contrasts doctrines which are necessary to be known with others which do not destroy the unity of the faith but are matters of opinion.  Olson (Mosaic, 44-45) delineates among “dogmas” (Christian essentials), “doctrines” (denominational distinctives), and “opinions.”  See also A. Philip Brown II, “Categories of Truth vs. Categories of Exegetical Certainty: What Really Matters and How Much Does It Matter?” paper presented at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit, August, 2005, online: http://www.apbrown2.net/web/CategoriesOfTruth_DBTS.pdf ; Kevin T. Bauder, “Separation from Professing Brethren: Notes Toward an Understanding,” workshop notes at 2006 National Leadership Convention, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Lansdale, Penn., online: http://sharperiron.org/2006/07/01/separation-from-professing-brethren-notes- toward-an-understanding/#more-452; Al Mohler, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” Dr. Mohler’s Blog, entry posted 20 May 2004, online: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-05-20.  Of note, Mohler avers that “the misjudgment of true fundamentalism is the belief that all disagreements concern first-order doctrines”; this is not true, however, within the present fundamentalist milieu, much less of early fundamentalism which was interdenominational in composition, insisting on the “first-order doctrines” (the “fundamentals”) while allowing some degree of latitude regarding “second-order doctrines.”

(7) For a defense of this understanding of ἐν πρότοις against a temporal one, see Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 722; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1186. For the notion that the gospel defines the boundaries of the Christian faith, see Kevin T. Bauder, “Thinking About the Gospel, Part Five: The Gospel and Christian Fellowship,” In the Nick of Time (13 July 2007), http://www.centralseminary.edu/publications/Nick/Nick125.html .

(8) That the denial of certain doctrines (heterodoxy) invalidates the gospel is indicated in, e.g., Gal 1:6-9; 1 John 2:22-23; 2 John 9.  That the persistent practice of certain sins (heteropraxy) invalidates the gospel is indicated most directly in 1 Tim 5:8.  It should be noted as well that the absence of certain affections (heteropathy) also points to a denial of the gospel, as indicated in 1 John 2:9; 3:14; 4:8, 20.

(9) For articulations of the “levels of fellowship” idea in fundamentalism, see Bauder, “Separation from Professing Brethren”; Rolland McCune, Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism (Greenville: Ambassador,  154; Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 218-19.  The “levels of fellowship” model also solves the challenge posed by Michael M. Canham (”Ecclesiastical Separation: Towards a Biblical Balance” [Th.M. thesis, The Master’s Seminary, 1995], 112-13, original emphasis): “anything that is regarded by believers as a matter of ‘apostolic tradition’ becomes grounds for separation whenever another believer does not follow it. . . . The practical effect of this is that there is no room for godly believers to disagree on Biblical matters and still have fellowship.  This would render the interdenominational character of historic fundamentalism impossible.”