Separation or Divorce?

Anyone who reads my stuff at all knows that I'm not shy about taking on controversial topics. I've dealt with such things as Reformed theology, homosexuality, "same-sex marriage", abortion, patriarchy, gender compementarianism, and even the president. So it shouldn't be a surprise if I take on another controversy. However, the title up there is just meant to be eye-catching. The controversial topic today will not be about separation or divorce. Just separation.

Before we start, I need to set down a couple of ... disclaimers. First, this is to Christians. Unbelievers need not concern themselves. Second, the arguments in this discussion (aimed, remember, at Christians) will come from the Bible. If you classify yourself as a Christian but don't find the Bible particularly compelling, there's no point in bothering with this. Now, for the rest, I'd like you to establish one thing in your minds. Will you decide to do what the Word says regardless of what the world says, or will you determine what to do based on ... feelings, culture, experience, some other source than Scripture? Well, let's see.

The government of the United States is based on the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers. So we have an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, each having specific tasks and limitations. In Christianity we have our own Doctrine of Separation. This one is a little different. This doctrine starts with the relatively clear command, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers" (2 Cor 6:14). No, we don't remove ourselves from the world, but we are not to be immersed in it either. You know, in the world, not of the world. But it doesn't stop there. So maybe I should just deluge you with Scripture.

Can two walk together except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3).

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (Matt 18:15-17).

Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness ..." (Eph 5:11).

I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one (1 Cor 5:11).

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these (2 Tim 3:1-5).

As for a person who stirs up division¹, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned (Titus 3:10-11).

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds (2 John 1:10-11).

You know, after awhile it starts to seem like a theme, a message, a clear statement. Over and over the Bible seems to tell Christians that, in the case of false teachers or self-professed brothers involved in unrepentant sin, the appropriate, godly, even obedient response is ... separation. That's right. Leave them alone. Don't associate with them. Don't eat with them. Don't even give them a greeting.

Now, you may say, "Okay, Stan, so ... where's the controversy?" Well, look around you. How many Christians make a practice of this apparently clear and continuous teaching and command from Scripture? How many Christians do you know who would advise you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person or some such? When have you ever heard these days of someone being regarded as "a Gentile and a tax collector" for being unrepentant? When was the last time someone turned a sinning Christian over to Satan (1 Cor 5:1-5; 1 Tim 1:20)? More to the point, do you agree and practice such separation?

It is biblical, even if it's not popular. Indeed, it is God's very practice. Hosea warned Israel, "My God will reject them because they have not listened to Him" (Hosea 9:17). God's rejection of sinners is a given. Further, the purpose of this seemingly harsh practice is to cause sufficient distress in the sinning Christian so as to bring them to repentance. And the failure of Christians to practice this very clear principle has resulted in muddied waters in the Church -- obscured doctrine, immoral practices, continued unrepentance, and outright sin accepted and embraced. It is God's command. Perhaps we should consider putting into better practice.
________
¹ This is an interesting word. In the ESV here it refers to someone who stirs up division. In the King James it uses the term, "heretic" (spelled with an additional "k" at the end, of course). The New American Standard calls him "a factious man". Young's Literal Translation calls him "a sectarian man". The Greek is αἱρετικός -- aihretikos. The Greek word is "heretic". It is derived from a word meaning "to choose" and refers to forcing a choice, to causing division, to being schismatic. I suppose, then, that all the translations appear to be correct.