Theological Separation and Cultural Separatism: Delineating between Necessary Separation and Unnecessary Separatism for the Good of the Church and Individual Conscience
This is a research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course DR37305, Theology and Culture at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO) on October 28, 2024.
This article may be published, after which it will be removed from this website per copyright instructions.
Introduction
Christians for over two thousand years have interacted with the surrounding world and culture with varying views on how they ought to do so. Throughout church history, Christians have taken several different approaches concerning the relationship between Christianity and culture with H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic work Christ and Culture providing terminology to define different approaches.[1] Of course the reasoning to categorize how Christians interact with the surrounding culture is because culture itself is not identical to a Christian worldview in every way; and thus, it is necessary for churches to consider a Christian’s place within culture.[2] Churches have historically taken different approaches with many Christians, churches, organizations, and even denominations fitting between different styles of engagement and, of course, Christians, churches, organizations, and even denominations have changed their positions concerning cultural engagement as well. [3]
In this paper, the focus is the Christ against culture mindset as prevalently taught in the Fundamentalist movement with the intent of proving that the Christ against culture methodology found in many Fundamentalist churches has resulted in Christians with stunted or even seared consciences, who struggle with the issue of Christian liberty because they were taught to view culture and the world around them only dualistically assuming antagonism from alternate worldviews and secular culture.[4] This paper argues that many within the Fundamentalist movement have been detrimentally influenced by unbiblical cultural separatism that has infiltrated local churches in lieu of the theological separation actually required in the Bible.
A Brief Survey of Separation and Separatism
When dealing with topics such as cultural separatism and theological separation, it is beneficial to start by first defining the terminology and then surveying the historical data. Defining the terminology in advance removes any preconceived notions with the intent of preventing confusion or misunderstanding. Surveying the historical data proves that the issue of cultural separatism in lieu of theological separation is not a new phenomenon.
Defining Terminology
Due to the misuse of different terminologies utilized in this paper, it is wise to start by defining certain words that are essential to understand the argument given. In this paper, the terms separation and separatism carry two differing definitions to clarify the intended meaning.[5] Separation in the context of Scripture refers to a person intentionally avoiding sin within their own life (2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 1 John 2:15-17; Jas 4:4)[6] or intentionally removing someone from their group or church (Rom 16:17; 2 Thess 3:6-15; 2 John 9-11; 2 Cor 6:14-18) due to false teaching or persistent sinful behavior. It is important to realize that the concept of separation really is intended to deal with sin and not cultural ideas or issues of religious liberty. Separatism is closely connected to the idea of separation but takes the concept of separation to an extreme usually involving a schism, secession, or segregation between entities or people.[7] In ecclesiastical settings, separatism often leads to church splits, denominational discord, and at worst, individuals leaving their faith traditions.
In addition, it is important to note that this paper speaks of the modern-day Fundamentalism movement and delineates between cultural Fundamentalism and historical Fundamentalism. When speaking of historical Fundamentalism, this paper intends to speak about the movement that concerned itself with the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.[8] When speaking of cultural Fundamentalism, this paper is referring to the aspects of Fundamentalist churches in which personal preference or opinion become binding for everyone and then results in cultural separatist actions.[9]
The final terminologies that need to be defined are that of Christian liberty and that of conscience. When speaking of Christian liberty, it is vital to realize that these issues do not concern sin-related problems that are clear in Scripture. If the Bible teaches something to be sin, it is not a matter of Christian liberty, but rather that of obedience. When speaking of conscience concerning a believer, the conscience is “a God-given capacity present in all reasonable creatures, and its purpose is to serve as an arbitrator between God and man” as a witness and occasionally as a personal judge.[10] If the Bible does not call something sin directly or indirectly, the issue at hand is that of conscience and Christian liberty (1 Cor 8:1-13). When dealing with issues of Christian liberty, it is the believer’s conscience that determines whether the issue is that of sin or not.[11] However, if the Bible has already condemned something to be sinful, it is sinful regardless of whether a Christian’s conscience witnesses to the fact of its sinfulness or convicts the individual for the sin. Again, Christian liberty concerns issues that are not condemned directly or indirectly in Scripture and require the Christian to utilize their own conscience to determine whether the issue is sinful or not.
Cultural Separatism in the Bible
The Bible is clear on the need for Christians and churches to practice what is often called biblical separation, which is the requirement for believers to separate themselves from the sins of the world.[12] This concept is often viewed in light of personal separation and ecclesial separation—that not only the individual himself needs to separate himself from sinfulness (2 Cor 6:14-7:1; 1 John 2:15-17; Jas 4:4), but also, churches need to separate themselves from other churches who either teach false doctrine or subvert the Gospel (Rom 16:17; 2 Thess 3:6-15; 2 John 9-11; 2 Cor 6:14-18). Even the Old Testament insists on the separation of God’s people from the corrupting influences of pagan nations in God’s exhortation for Israel to eliminate the people in Canaan (Deut 7:1-6). However, in Scripture, the idea of cultural separatism is not really seen.[13]
Rather, the evidence for separatist groups within the Bible, particularly the New Testament stems from extra-biblical sources such as Josephus, who describes the Essenes as a philosophical sect among the Jews, who “reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue,”[14] and Philo, who describes the Essenes as aloof from everything that could tempt or induce them to sin.[15] Even in the descriptions given concerning the Essenes, it appears that their separatist ideology goes beyond biblical warrant. For instance, Josephus mentions that the Essenes had eschewed marriage because of the “lascivious behavior of women” and a belief that no woman “[preserves] their fidelity to one man.”[16] And to prevent any sort of covetousness or even the appearance of covetousness, the Essenes lived communal lives with no personal wealth.[17] Though most Essenes did not necessarily separate themselves to the extent of living apart from society like modern-day Anabaptists, the manner of life for Essenes differed enough that Josephus and Philo both comment on the differences of the Essenes from those around them.[18]
While Scripture is clear that theological separation from those who subvert the Gospel or teach false doctrine and separation from sinful behavior are necessary, cultural separatism as practiced by the Essenes goes beyond the commands of Scripture itself because the Essenes utilize their own preconceived notions to dictate what exactly they must separate from to the extent that they separated from even an appearance of wrongdoing rather than wrongdoing itself. Utilizing biblical data, one can assume that this separation from even the appearance of wrongdoing and the willingness to separate oneself from the culture as a whole was not intended. For instance, despite the Essenian desire to reject marriage in an attempt to eliminate the supposed continual tricks of womanhood to mislead man,[19] Scripture teaches the opposite in passages such as Genesis 2:18, Matthew 19:4-6, and Hebrews 13:4, which not just approve marriage, but even encourage marriage. The Essene rejection of personal wealth, belief that oil is a defilement, and desire to wear white clothing are all aspects of their separatist mindset that again reject Scriptural precedence.[20] Cultural separatism is certainly not a new phenomenon.
Cultural Separatism in Church History
In early church history, the idea of cultural separatism still existed and appealed to minority groups such as the Montanists in 172AD, who practiced a life of monastic ascetism as they sought cultural separatism.[21] The ideology of cultural separatism traces through some of the desires of the Donatists to implement local customs into Christianity, which caused separatism with orthodox Christianity;[22] and the ideas of cultural separatism found solace in certain elements of Monasticism as the universal church spread and grew.[23]
Of course, it is important to differentiate between doctrinal separation and cultural separatism because church history is a history of the church dividing over doctrinal concerns, which forced the church to evaluate and re-evaluate what it believed in terms of doctrine.[24] The resulting evaluations as heretical teachings grew was the church councils that brought forth the ecumenical creeds. This evaluation of doctrine occasionally resulted in sects seeking cultural separatism as well, but often did not require adherents to separate culturally from other people or other Christians—at least, not on the basis of culture. In fact, the theological separations that resulted from the church councils and ecumenical creeds as well as during instances like the Reformation, were the result of actively choosing to obey the biblical command to separate when dealing with issues of unrepentant sin and false teaching.
As church history continued, there were always minorities within Christendom who sought to live culturally separated in a separatist way, but they were often overshadowed by the various groups of Christians who were dividing over doctrinal error or differences that were sufficient enough to make unity impossible. Occasionally, groups like the Anabaptists, who were known to be radical in their ideas concerning separation from the Roman Catholic Church as well as Protestantism, made a significant impact in society despite their separatist ideology, but it could be argued that the Anabaptists separated due to doctrinal rather than cultural issues.[25]
In modern church history, the group of Christians most known for cultural separatism is that of the Fundamentalists. It is notable that Fundamentalism as a movement was not always as militantly separatist as many Fundamentalist movements are today. In fact, the calls for ecclesiastical separation were nonexistent initially, but the outworking of separation when not checked became cultural separatism.[26] As noted above, there is a delineation between historical Fundamentalism and cultural Fundamentalism in which historical Fundamentalists emphasize and focus on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, whereas cultural Fundamentalists have argued for the inclusion of issues of Christian liberty—issues that are not sin-related issues, but about which good Christians differ—as part of the fundamentals.[27] When dealing with issues of the true fundamentals of the Christian faith, Fundamentalists are right in their assertions that separation ought to occur as a result of differences of teaching, but when dealing with issues of cultural preference, Fundamentalists are absolutely wrong in culturally separatist tendencies; because, in their desire to elevate human opinion concerning cultural preferences, they disregard what the Bible actually commands concerning theological or biblical separation.[28]
What Does the Bible Actually Command?
It is worth noting that whenever the Bible speaks of separation, separation is never based on cultural ideology or opinion, but rather in issues of sin. Examples of this are found when dealing with the issues of pagan societies and nations in the Old Testament. Israel was told to eliminate the pagan nations as they received the Promised Land; not just as an act of God’s judgment against the pagan nations, but to prevent the pagan nations from being a thorn in Israel’s side and the pagan gods from being a snare to Israel (Judg 2:1-3). In the subsequent history of Israel, it seems clear that part of the thorn and snare to Israel is the temptation to succumb to sin, particularly that of idolatry. If Israel had obeyed and separated themselves from the pagan influences of the surrounding nations, their temptation for idolatry could have been lessened.
In the New Testament, there are several commands concerning the issue of separation, but unlike the Old Testament, the church is not commanded to eliminate those people, but rather, to deal with the issue at hand through church discipline and possible separation (Matt 18:15-20). It is through the process of church discipline that the church calls believers to repentance and if the individual refuses to repent, then the church is to separate the unrepentant person from the body of Christ (1 Cor 5:1-13). Likewise, churches are taught throughout the New Testament to not tolerate the teaching of false doctrine, but to remove the false teacher from the church—to not even welcome false teachers into the home (2 John 1:10). Jesus Himself warns against false teachers (Matt 7:15), and Paul declares false teachers to be accursed (Gal 1:8). It is clear from the New Testament that believers in the church ought to confront brethren accused of sin, call them to repentance, or remove them if they refuse to repent. And it is clear from the New Testament that the church ought to confront false teachers, call them to repentance, or remove them if they refuse to repent.
And while it may seem counter-cultural in our modern society to firmly respond to sin and false teaching by confronting them and removing them, it ought not surprise us when Jesus says to deal with our offending bodily members who sin by cutting them off and throwing them away (Matt 5:29-30). Of course, there is a level of love, respect, and honor that ought to be shown while handling these sorts of issues in the local church, but separation itself is to occur when the offending party refuses to repent, whether that concerns sin or false teaching.
The Bible absolutely teaches and commands separation concerning sin and theology. What the Bible does not command is cultural separatism in which a Christian is to remove himself completely from the surrounding culture or the idea of adding extra safeguards or guardrails for the protection of a believer from even the appearance of sin.[29] In fact, Scripture is abundantly clear that adding human ideas into the commands of Scripture disobeys God’s Word (Deut 4:2, 12:32; Prov 30:5-6; Gal 1:6-9), and the adding of man’s rules and commands to God’s rules and commands is condemned throughout Scripture (Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:37-54). Scripture is also clear that though the world is opposed in worldview towards Christianity and ultimately towards God, it is not the role of the believer to utterly abandon the world. Rather, the Great Commission emphatically shows the mission of the universal church and believers individually as that of going into the surrounding world and making disciples (Matt 28:16-20). The idea is adequately described colloquially as being in the world, but not of the world. Christians cannot sequester themselves from the surrounding cultures and the world if they are actively participating in the Great Commission.
Differences Between Cultural Separatism and Separation
There is a fine line between separation from sin and false teaching and separatism; and yet, it is easy to see in the brief survey above of church history that separatism is a temptation for many different people groups and Christian sects. Likewise, there is a fine line between emphasizing the fundamentals of the Christian faith as historic fundamentalists and emphasizing the opinions of man as cultural fundamentalists tend towards. Though there is no singular instance in which Fundamentalism shifted from dealing with issues of doctrinal concern to that of cultural opinion, Fundamentalists cross the line from right behaviors concerning separation from sin and false teaching to wrong behaviors concerning separatism from culture as a whole when human opinion becomes “fundamental.”[30] And once the line is crossed, separatism, in which one separates from everything disagreed upon in the culture, becomes an issue that causes significant harm to both the individual believer and whole local churches—particularly concerning an individual’s conscience and how he deals with issues of Christian liberty.
Some examples of how cultural ideas are elevated beyond where they ought to be include the issues of Bible translation—particularly that of KJV-Onlyism,[31] clothing beyond requesting modesty (1 Tim 2:9-10) in church settings,[32] and musical style during musical worship.[33] When these sorts of issues, which are not sin issues, are elevated to the level of sin issues rather than Christian liberty issues in which Christians can disagree, it causes a level of searing to young and immature believer’s consciences. In extreme situations, when cultural Fundamentalism leads to a church or institutional culture in which questioning the opinions of the local leadership is condemned, it can lead into issues where sinful ideology is passed on as biblical and accepted as biblical despite contrary evidence—again, another situation in which a believer’s conscience is seared due to cultural ideas and cultural separatism rather than theological truth.[34]While it is not sinful for churches, pastors, and Christians to have preferences concerning Bible translation, clothing, musical style, or whatever else, it is inappropriate and often sinful to enforce personal preferences concerning issues of Christian liberty as supposed Scriptural mandates or as issues of sin themselves.
Consequences of a Lack of Separation and a Preference for Separatism in Fundamentalism
Again, it is important to note that this paper is not condemning the need to separate from sin and false teaching. Rather, the issues concerning separation from sin and false teaching are paramount to keep the purity of the local church (1 Cor 5:1-8). Historically, when local churches neglect the teachings concerning separation, the church itself moves closer to destruction (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9). When sin is tolerated and false teaching affirmed, the local church is in active disobedience;[35] and it is the toleration of sin as a result of a disregard of right doctrine that has caused the issue of liberal Christianity; and whole formerly theologically conservative denominations leaving orthodox Christianity in a vain attempt to better reach the surrounding culture.[36] The lack of theological separation found in many churches today results in impure churches functioning outside of the bounds prescribed for churches in Scripture.
Likewise, when churches develop a preference for separatism as seen in modern-day cultural Fundamentalism, man’s opinion is elevated to that of Scripture.[37] And the teaching of a local church that has developed cultural Fundamentalist ideas ultimately subverts the Gospel as the church elevates fallible man and his opinions. For instance, the moment a church seeped in cultural Fundamentalism insists on extra-biblical commands in the name of cultural separatism—the need for a certain translation, preferred musical style, or whatever else is cultural alone or concerns issues of Christian liberty, the Gospel itself is subverted due to the church’s own legalistic ideology. This is the biggest issue concerning cultural separatism in churches—once anything is added to the Gospel itself, the Gospel becomes a different gospel (Gal 1:6-8). In terms of separation and separatism, when issues of Christian liberty are elevated to primary issues and treated as primary issues, the church’s unity dissipates. If cultural ideas and opinions necessitate separation, then very little will unify a local body of Christ and even less will unify different local churches. The moment that personal preference and opinion become the standard of truth or orthodoxy is the moment where true biblical unity on the Gospel is lost amongst brothers and sisters in churches (Phil 2:1-4).
From an individual standpoint, another issue concerning cultural separatism within church contexts is that for many people who spent their childhood or even adulthood in churches that practiced legalistic, cultural separatism, there is a level of damage to their individual conscience that either never heals or takes a significant amount of time to heal. When a believer is taught to simply obey regardless of whether the issue is that of sin or Christian liberty enough, the believer’s ability to discern what is right from what is wrong diminishes. And as the believer relies more on man’s opinion and ideas rather than Scripture alone, their conscience is stunted and might even become seared through lack of use or misuse. Much like how a person’s conscience can be seared from indulging in unrepentant sin, a person’s conscience can be misled by cultural separatism. And the issue of a damaged conscience as the result of unnecessary cultural separatism in churches is the focus for the rest of this paper—it is only after seeing the problem can one then focus on fixing the problem of a seared or diminished conscience.[38] Naselli explains this need of fixing the problem of a diminished conscience when explaining his own experience as someone who left a fundamentalist context and entered into a conservative evangelical context. In Naselli’s experience, both sides of Christendom painted each other with a broad brush that lacked nuance, but “a key cause of the divide between these two groups of Christians has to do with the conscience” and how the conscience had been influenced by separation and separatism.[39]
How Does Cultural Separatism Denigrate the Conscience?
Often people who spend significant amounts of time within churches who hold to culturally Fundamentalist ideas or even just cultural separatism ideology will find themselves in a position in which their understanding of sin has been affected.[40] For instance, when considering Fundamentalist positions on Christian liberty issues, those from Fundamentalist backgrounds in which cultural opinions and ideology were elevated beyond their proper position often equate those opinions and ideology with their understanding of sin.[41] This conflation of human opinion and ideology concerning Christian liberty issues is then often applied to the idea of cultural separatism in the name of theological separation; and this application of cultural separatism in the name of theological separation directly influences a believer’s conscience by binding the believer with cultural preferences not directly or indirectly spoken about in Scripture. Strikingly, this confusion of human ideology and opinion with Scripture is directly spoken about throughout the Bible, which warns against equating human tradition, rules, and ideas with Scripture repeatedly. In adding to Scripture human ideas, Christians essentially act just like the Pharisees who equated the Targums and Mishnah with the Old Testament (Matt 15:1-2) and the Sadducees who allowed their presuppositions to reject the resurrection of the body (Acts 23:8).
As the individual conflates human ideas and opinions with that of Scripture, they not only bind their consciences to those extra-biblical ideas, but they diminish their own understanding of Scripture.[42] Essentially by elevating the ideas and opinions of humans they diminish Scripture to the extent that someone seeking to aid that individual in understanding Christian liberty-related issues will find that human tradition had already taken the place of God’s Word to the extent that any well-argued reasoning against the individual’s understanding influenced by human opinion or idea tend to be ignored.
For instance, often when dealing with issues concerning KJV-Onlyism, the arguments for the King James Version (KJV) tend to be subjectively based on human opinion.[43] Mark Ward who has taken on the KJV-Onlyism issue lists ten objections to reading vernacular Bible translations that he often hears as he confronts KJV-Onlyism—eight out of ten objections are based on human opinion rather than theological truth. KJV-Only adherents argue that (1) utilizing a vernacular translation is dumbing down the Bible, (2) the KJV sounds like the word of God, (3) the KJV translators utilized timeless language, (4) modern English is a debasement of English and ought not be used for Scripture, (5) words added in italics for words supplied by translators are dishonest, (6) the KJV is easier to memorize, (7) the modern versions are based on corrupt text, and (8) the problem of incoherency concerning the KJV is overstated.[44] KJV-Onlyists have diminished the Bible itself by arguing for a position that Scripture itself does not. KJV-Onlyism then binds the hearts and consciences of those who are taught it in a way that adherents believe anything short of their own opinion is sinful.
Likewise, when dealing with other areas of Christian liberty, whether that is the use of alcohol, the issue of clothing, style of musical worship, or whatever else could be argued for in this realm of liberty; when Christians elevate human opinion beyond Scripture, they argue for positions that Scripture itself does not argue for. For example, when the use of alcohol is taught from a complete abstinence perspective, the argument tends to rely on illogical statements rather than Scripture itself. Those who claim the alcoholic abstinence perspective will argue that Jesus did not turn water into alcoholic wine in Cana despite the Bible not saying that the wine was nonalcoholic and despite the fact that the master of the feast called Jesus’ wine the best wine in an implicated statement that usually the worst wine is served last due to the inebriated nature of the guests by the end of the feast (John 2:1-12). What results from a complete abstinence position is often several interesting hermeneutical decisions in multiple passages of Scripture because the person’s conscience is bound to their opinion concerning alcohol rather than Scripture’s command for moderation in alcohol use.[45]
The misuse of Scripture and illogical thinking as seen in the issues of alcohol and Bible translation can be seen in every instance in which a person elevates his own opinion or idea concerning Christian liberty to the level of Scripture or anytime in which the individual utilizes their own opinion or idea as a test for orthodoxy within the Christian faith. It results in warped worldviews that diminishes the conscience of the individual and ultimately warps the worldview of Christianity to suit the individual.[46] Essentially, anytime a human idea or opinion is elevated to that of Scripture, the result is hermeneutical eisegesis as the individual seeks to validate their own opinions through the use of Scripture. And in utilizing eisegesis as their means of biblical interpretation, they can use whatever passage that they desire to elicit the response that they desire in themselves and in other people, which results in faulty consciences devoid of spiritual maturity.
From an individual standpoint, the push from theological separation to cultural separatism clearly has issues; however, when seen from an ecclesiastical or institutional perspective, where the ecclesiastical or institutional leadership not just teach cultural separatism, but also enforce cultural separatism dogmatically, the result tends to be much greater in terms of individuals with diminished or seared consciouses due to the elevation of opinion or preference to the level of dogma. Consider how culturally Fundamentalist institutions and churches developed within themselves a culture of their own and how culturally Fundamentalist churches and institutions enforce their cultural standards to the extent that Christ against culture became the unwritten or unofficial slogan for these churches and institutions.[47] And the Christians that are attenders and even members of those churches find their consciences weakening because they choose to depend on the teachings of the churches and institutions rather than the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
The Desperate Need to Redevelop Individual Consciences within Christendom
Clearly then, if the ability to determine right from wrong through the individual conscience is affected by cultural separatism, then clearly the individual needs to redevelop their own conscience to better serve God and discern His will (Rom 12:1-2). If a Christian is intended to utilize their conscience in issues of Christian liberty as 1 Corinthians 8 teaches to, then all Christians ought to develop their consciences and seek spiritual maturity in these issues. Of course, those who are steeped within cultural Fundamentalism in which cultural separatism is practiced may find themselves in a situation where they simply do not know how to develop or redevelop their consciences in a healthy manner. It is then to the Word of God and in occasion, extra-biblical resources that come into aid.
From a biblical perspective, a Christian can develop a simple understanding of the conscience. In the New Testament conscience occurs at least thirty times.[48] And despite the fact that the Bible does not give a concrete definition of what the conscience is, a survey of the passages that speak of the conscience in the New Testament reveals what the conscience can do—it can bear witness or confirm (Rom 2:15; 9:1; 2 Cor 1:12, 4:2 5:11), it can judge or try to determine another person’s freedom (1 Cor 10:29), and the conscience can lead people to act a certain way (Rom 2:15, 13:5; 1 Cor 10:25, 27-28).[49] When turning to extra-biblical resources, the answer as to what exactly the conscience is has to do with a person’s inner-dialogue that relates and connects an individual to his sense of morality.[50] As Naselli and Crowley describe it, “the conscience is your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong. Consciousness means awareness or sense.”[51] With this in mind, it is clear that a person’s conscience can be incorrect due to it being seared by sin or weak through lack of discernment whether due to deficient knowledge or lack of use.[52] This would include not utilizing one’s own conscience while relying on what is taught by leadership in culturally Fundamentalist or culturally separatist environments—when cultural separatism is encouraged, the individual no longer uses his own conscience to determine right from wrong; and thus, his conscience weakens.
The question then really concerns whether or not it is possible for someone with a weak conscience to develop or redevelop his conscience. When an individual’s conscience is weak, how should he redevelop his conscience in a way that actually provides the ability to make biblically correct, God-pleasing decisions concerning Christian liberty issues? Naselli and Crowley offer two basic ideas that are derived from Scripture, (1) “calibrate your conscience by educating it with truth”[53] and (2) “calibrate your conscience with due process.”[54] The overall idea is that the conscience is calibrated or developed as the person learns and understands truth better—both truth within Scripture and outside of Scripture—and that as a believer learns and grows in truth their conscience will continue in the process of recalibrating or redeveloping over time. The encouragement is to not become overly dogmatic with any issue of conscience and Christian liberty because as a believer matures, issues of conscience and Christian liberty might change over time.[55] Sproul makes a similar statement concerning the changing nature of the human conscience in his brief booklet How Can I Develop a Christian Conscience? “We see in the New Testament that the conscience is not the final ethical authority for human conduct because the conscience is capable of change. Whereas God’s principles don’t change, our consciences vacillate and develop.”[56]
The human conscience was designed to change and grow as the individual changes and grows. Cultural separatism as seen in movements like in certain circles of the modern-day Fundamentalist movement has done harm by not allowing the consciences of Christians to change and grow as the individual changes and grows. By refusing to allow issues of Christian liberty and conscience to remain issues of Christian liberty and conscience and instead elevating those issues beyond their biblical standing, men and women stuck in cultural Fundamentalism or really any movement of cultural separatism find their consciences to be stunted and perhaps even seared. As the individual redevelops their own conscience, it provides the ability for the church itself to strengthen. Instead of relying on the thoughts or opinions of church leadership to determine right from wrong on issues of Christian liberty, the individual Christians within the church can utilize their God-given consciences directed by the Holy Spirit to determine what is right or wrong for them in any given issue of Christian liberty. When it comes to issues that are not addressed as sin in Scripture, Christian maturity is making decisions concerning Christian liberty based on wisdom, conscience, and the Holy Spirit’s direction while recognizing that not every Christian will agree with the decision made—and yet, will still agree to respect the decision of a differing Christian.[57]
Conclusion
Cultural separatism, particularly in the name of theological separation is utterly dangerous because it binds the hearts and consciences of believers to the fallible ideas and opinions of man rather than the Word of God. While it is acceptable for believers, pastors, Christian leaders, and churches to have opinions and preferences concerning any number of ideas whether that is Bible translations, the use of alcohol, clothing in church settings, musical worship style, or whatever else they might have opinions about, if Scripture does not make a firm statement about the issue, if man makes a firm statement and equates their firm statement with Scripture, it only ever causes consciences to denigrate and people to rely on other people rather than God and the Word of God.
With the denigration of the individual conscience such a prevalent issue in the modern church, it is only logical for those who have the ability and a position of authority to teach believers not just what the Word of God reveals as sin, but also what the Word of God teaches concerning the individual conscience. It is only when Christians are taught to recognize what is sin versus what is an issue of Christian liberty and when Christians are taught to develop and use their own consciences can they then be mature in their faith. Realistically, until a Christian is able to develop their own conscience, they will always rely on man’s opinions and ideas as to what is morally right or wrong concerning biblically ambiguous issues rather than rely on their own conscience influenced and directed by the Holy Spirit; and they will remain spiritually immature due to their inability to discern the will of God (Rom 12:1-2). It is only when Christians think biblically with the aid of the Holy Spirit that they can then live lives that are not bound by the traditions, philosophies, ideas, and opinions of man, but dictated by God and His Word.
As shown in this paper, cultural separatism in lieu of theological separation though it has existed since the New Testament era, has always had a detrimental effect on the lives of the people within their separatist movements particularly in the realm of conscience where human ideas are elevated to that of Scripture and people within the movements are then bound to issues beyond Scripture’s warrant. While the idea of cultural separatism has resulted in many different splintering groups, separatism is most often seen in modern church history in the Fundamentalist movement, which though initially started for noble causes has often degraded their cause for the purpose of adding man’s only thinking to that of Scripture—a significant detriment for any Christian seeking true spiritual maturity as he develops his own conscience by the direction of the Holy Spirit.
[1] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (1951; repr., New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001), xliii-lv.
[2] Ibid., 1-11.
[3] Daniel V.A. Olson and Paul Perl, “Variations in Strictiness and Religious Commitment Within and Among Five Denominations,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40, no. 4 (December 2001), 757-764.
[4] The Christ against culture mindset is one of five of Niebuhr’s categories of Christian engagement in Christ and Culture. The other categories include the Christ of Culture, Christ above Culture, Christ and Culture in Paradox, and Christ the Transformer of Culture.
[5] It is common to see separation and separatism utilized in ways that remove distinction in scholarship (e.g., Puritans are typically referred to as separatists while dealing with their beliefs concerning separation). This paper intentionally delineates between biblical theological separation and unbiblical cultural separatism.
[6] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this paper are to the English Standard Version (ESV) (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
[7] Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. “separatism,” accessed September 6, 2024.
[8] What exactly the fundamentals are seem to differ depending on the sect itself, but usually include (1) inerrancy, (2) the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, (3) the substitutionary atonement, (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ, and (5) the authenticity of miracles or the second coming of Jesus Christ.
[9] Larry Pettegrew, “A Brief History of Fundamentalism,” VOICE 99, no. 1 (January/February, 2020).
[10] Lucas Sabatier M. Leite, “Conscience Care: An Analysis of William Perkins’ View of the Conscience and His Practice of Soul Care,” Revista Batista Pioneira 12 no. 2, (December 2023), 74-75.
[11] Andrew David Naselli and J.D. Crowley, Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those who Differ, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 45-54.
[12] Mark Sidwell, Set Apart: The Nature & Importance of Biblical Separation (Greenville, SC: JourneyForth Academic, 2016), 1.
[13] See John C. Hutchison for an argument concerning possible cultural separatism in the Bible. John C. Hutchison, “Was John the Baptist an Essene from Qumran?” Bibliotheca Sacra 159, no. 434 (April-June 2002), 187.
[14] Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews: From the Death of Herod Till Vespasian was Sent to Subdue the Jews by Nero 8.2.120.
[15] Philo of Alexandria, Every Good Man is Free XII, 75-87.
[16] Josephus, 8.2.119.
[17] Ibid., 8.2.122.
[18] Ibid., 8.4.124-125.
[19] Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica: Apology for the Jews, 11.14-15.
[20] Josephus, 8.3.122-123.
[21] Tim Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018), 62-63.
[22] Everett Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2013), 187-191.
[23] Ibid., 230-232.
[24] Mark Sidwell, The Communion of Saints: A Thematic History of the Church (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University, 2017), 31-32.
[25] Douglas Jacobson, “The Separatisms of the Past and Modern World,” Brethren in Christ History & Life 12 no. 3, (December 1989), 171-173.
[26] Markku Ruotsila, “Ecumenism and Separatism,” The Oxford Handbook of Christian Fundamentalism, ed. Andrew Atherson and David Ceri Jones (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2023), 292.
[27] George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 4.
[28] Some examples of Fundamentalist tendencies to elevate cultural issues to the level of theological fundamentals include the culture wars of the 40s through 60s where American patriotism was often seen in conjunction with Christianity (see Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture), the push to ban certain styles of music within churches and schools (see the transition of Bob Jone University’s Student Handbook from an outright ban on other musical styles with theological reasoning to the more moderate and nuanced approach taken today with more of a focus of cultural unity within the student body), and the ban for church members to visit movie theatres or go dancing despite within local churches despite no Scriptural support included with the bans. In addition, it is worth noting the racist tendencies of some Fundamentalist groups in which racial separatism was argued for supposed theological reasons (see Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983)).
[29] Though, of course, Christians are to abstain from the appearance of evil according to 1 Thess 5:22.
[30] Marsden, 4.
[31] Mark Ward, “How to Rescue People from the Trap of KJV-Onlyism,” Credo Magazine, October 9, 2020, https://credomag.com/2020/10/how-to-rescue-people-from-the-trap-of-kjv-onlyism/.
[32] These sorts of arguments tend to rely on “dressing your best” for God.
[33] Musical style in musical worship can become legalistic and separatist in nature from all sorts of perspectives—some prefer traditional hymns and will separate from those that use contemporary music and vice versa. Some use style of musical worship as a litmus test of biblical orthodoxy.
[34] Bob Jones University, “Statement about Race at Bob Jones University,” Criswell Theological Review 6 no. 2, (Spring 2009), 63-64.
[35] Sidwell, 64.
[36] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity, Culture, and Liberalism (Louisville, KY: GLH Publishing), 14.
[37] James W. Watts, “Biblical Rhetoric of Separatism and Universalism and Its Intolerant Consequences,” Religions 11 no. 4 (April 2020), 1-10.
[38] Naselli and Crowley, 55-83.
[39] Naselli and Crowley, 16-17.
[40] Marsden, 299-311.
[41] Megan Loumagne, “The Rise of Fundamentalisms and the Concept of Sin,” Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 106 no. 422 (Summer 2017), 187-190.
[42] Michael Reeves, Evangelical Pharisees: The Gospel as Cure for the Church’s Hypocrisy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 11-40.
[43] While many Christians today do not deal with the issue of KJV-Onlyism, it is still seen in areas such as rural America and in the Bible-belt itself. For many seeped in KJV-Onlyism, the modern translations and their users are naïve, at best or evil, at worst.
[44] Mark Ward, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 87-88.
[45] Understandably, many people take an abstinence approach towards alcohol for other reasons without needing to do hermeneutical gymnastics to validate their position. For instance, some take a complete abstinence position due to their job or ministry; or they take a complete abstinence position due to their own familial history or their own struggle with the abuse of alcohol. The difference, however, is that those who take the position of complete abstinence from alcohol for these reasons usually do not need to do the hermeneutical gymnastics of one who attempts to make the argument for abstinence from Scripture.
[46] George Barna, “New Research Reveals the Limitations of Christian Evangelicalism in American Society,” American Worldview Inventory 2024 (Release #4) (Glendale, AZ: Arizona Christian University, 2024), 1-12.
[47] Niebuhr, 45-82.
[48] Naselli and Crowley, 32.
[49] Ibid., 41-42.
[50] Robert W. Wall, “Conscience” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York, NY: Doubleday), 1992.
[51] Naselli and Crowley, 42.
[52] R. C. Sproul, How Can I Develop a Christian Conscience? (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2013), 5.
[53] Naselli and Crowley, 66.
[54] Ibid., 68.
[55] Naselli and Crowley, 81-83.
[56] Sproul, 5.
[57] This level of spiritual maturity, though clearly seen in Scripture as something to strive for is often sorely missed in modern evangelicalism (as seen with the near constant in-fighting concerning issues of Christian liberty) whether that is seen domestically (amongst American evangelicalism) or internationally (amongst church planting efforts). The issue is that due to a lack of people within Christendom with this level of spiritual maturity, most missions, church planting, and evangelistic efforts are stunted. Fighting about human opinion as doctrinal issues causes significant harm in the cause of Christ.
