Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

B. B. Warfield and Separation

by

A common objection against the practice of separation from brothers in Christ is that separation implies the brother is in sin and no true Christian can remain in sin. If the fundamentalist (here defined as an orthodox Christian who practices the doctrines of separation from both false teachers and persistently disobedient brothers both within and beyond the local church) grants this objection, he is forced either to concede that his evangelical brothers’ failure to practice separation is not sinful or he is forced to conclude that evangelicals are, in fact, not truly brothers at all.

While this objection must be (and can be) met on exegetical and theological grounds, parallel situations in church history often helpfully shed light on present debates.

An example of this may be found in the discussions about unification between the northern and southern Presbyterian churches after the Civil War. In these discussions B. B. Warfield recognized both that different sins required differing levels of responses and that in certain situations a sin may require ecclesiastical separation without casting doubt on the professed salvation of those separated from.

Note this letter from Warfield to a fellow Presbyterian pastor in 1887:

I must confess to you that I am one of those whom you perhaps consider grossly inconsistent, who heartily accord with both the deliverances of 1818 & 1845. I do think slavery a gigantic evil & entirely inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel & a sin in the slave holders: & I do not think it a disciplinable offense or a fit test of communion. It is possible ‘to sin against Christ’ & yet not be subject to exclusion from his table (1 Cor. viii. 12, compared with the context & the parallel in Romans xiv, e.g. Ro xiv 3). . . .
. . . That the Southern Church has not repented of its sin in regard to slavery would be no bar to my union with it: I could unite with it in a free conscience tomorrow. But that it is not awake to its duty to the Freedman & that organic union with it would injure if not destroy our work among them makes me deprecate & pray against reunion in any near future.

Cited in Bradley J. Gundlach, “Warfield, Biblical Authority, and Jim Crow,” in B. B. Warfield: Essays on His Life and Thought, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson (P&R, 2007), 163.

In other words, Warfield insisted on remaining ecclesiastically separate from R. L. Dabney, but he was not casting doubt on the intransigent Dabney’s regeneration.

Comments

  1. What do you do with Warfield’s statement, “I could unite with it in a free conscience tomorrow”? The fundamentalist couldn’t say that. I don’t think this support’s the fundamentalist’s position. Warfield’s separation was fundamentally different from the fundamantalist’s separation.

  2. Phil,

    Good to hear from you, and thanks for the plug over on your blog.

    I’m not claiming that Warfield’s separation precisely parallels the fundamentalist position. I’m not even claiming that he nailed all the issues in relation to slavery correctly. I’m making the more modest point that in Warfield we have a historical example of ecclesiastical separation over a sin issue and that Warfield did not think this separation cast doubt on the salvation of those separated from.

    Of course exegesis is necessary to determine whether or not Warfield was correct on this point. Nevertheless, as far as it goes, I thought this was an interesting historical illustration.

  3. Fascinating that Warfield did not (if I understand the excerpt correctly) consider slavery to be a “disciplinable offense.” When I first read that, my presuppositional grid caused me to say “What?!”, thinking of the evils of slavery. Then, previously read discussions of the NT and slavery came to mind, reminding me that Paul did not directly condemn the practice in his day (although I certainly grant that the practice in Paul’s day and the typical American manifestation of slavery were not identical).

    So that I may understand the context, what were “the deliverences of 1818 and 1845” mentioned by Warfield?

    Since you have read this excerpt in its context, could you post in a subsequent comment your take on the principle of separation which Warfield is applying here? Granting Phil’s point that it is not entirely parallel to the fundamentalist position(s?), how would you articulate it in a summary statement?

    Enjoying your blog, by the way (HT Andy!) and have added it to my reader.

    Thanks!

  4. I think the deliverances of 1818 and 1845 concerned dividing the northern and southern churches over the issue of slavery. Warfield said that he opposed the division over that issue, but he now opposes the reunion because of the issue of segregation.

    Even though the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn slavery per se, there is enough wrong with the way it was being practiced by many in the South for it to fall under Biblical condemnation. In the quote above, Warfield was willing to condemn it as a “sin,” “a gigantic evil,” and “inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel.”

    As to what principle of separation led him to separate when it came to segregation but not over slavery, I’m not sure.

    My best guess is that the complexities of the slave situation led Warfield to oppose denominational division based on that issue. For instance, though Warfield’s extended family included many members who opposed slavery, some of those who opposed slavery also own slaves. If my memory serves me correctly, they inherited them when a slave-owning family member died. They did not think it would be just to free them into a society for which they were not ready, so they kept them.

    The segregation issue was clearer. Warfield believed segregation in the church clearly violated Col 3:11. Perhaps because the issue was clearer Warfield thought it demanded separation. This, however, is simply my guess.

    As to the differences between Warfield’s separation and modern fundamentalism separation, I’m not entirely sure. Warfield in the paragraphs above is specifically talking about denominational unity. I don’t know what kinds of informal or trans-denominational cooperation he would have supported.