A Defense of Separation from Erring Brothers

Pastor and I had the opportunity yesterday to attend the Mid-America Conference on Preaching hosted by Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, Michigan. This year's conference theme was "Guarding the Gospel." We attended some great workshops, but the highlight of the day yesterday was the evening general session. Dr. Mark Minnick, pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC, proposed to bring a defense of separation from erring brothers from 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. I want to attempt to reconstruct his argumentation.

Does 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 Refer Only to Idle Believers?
Minnick began discussing 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, a key text in regard to so-called "secondary separation"; that is, separation from erring brothers.

"If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother" (2 Thess 3:14-15).

The basic meaning of the text is clear, but the debate centers on whether this command is restricted to those who have become idle and refuse to work, or whether the command to separate also applies to any brother who is continuing in any disobedience.

He attempted to outline the argumentation of those who hold the more restrictive position: they would contend that the Greek word translated "idle" (ESV), "unruly" (KJV), or "disorderly" (NASB) in verses six, seven, and eleven refers only to those who refuse to work. He explained this argument along three lines:

• The grammatical argument: this position holds that the phrases following the word (Greek: ataktos) in verses seven and eleven are appositional. Therefore, the word refers to those who "eat anyone's bread without paying" (vv. 7-8) and are "not busy at work, but busybodies" (v. 11).
• The contextual argument: they also contend that the context of the passage (vv. 6-15) deals with a specific historical situation, namely, believers who refuse to work.
• The translation: The New International Version (along with the ESV) translates the word simply "idle," while the New American Standard Bible and the King James use more ambiguous terms ("disorderly" and "unruly," respectively). Someone reading the NIV would infer that the command is only to separate from idle Christians. "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us" (v. 6, NIV).

In response to these arguments, Minnick offered five arguments for applying the passage to any erring brother.

• The lexical argument: the meaning of ataktos is not necessarily restricted to idleness. The word is the negative of tasso, which means to put in order. If the negative means only "idle," we would expect the positive form to be "diligent" or hard-working." However, it is never translated that way. It seems therefore, that ataktos is better understood to mean "disorderly" or "unruly."
• The grammatical argument: building on the argument that the phrases following the word ataktos help us understand what is in view, Minnick pointed to the usage in verse six. Here the word is defined by the phrase "not in accord with the tradition you received." What are the "traditions"? This leads to the next argument.
• The contextual argument: these "traditions" that must be obeyed are defined a few verses earlier as what was taught orally or written by the apostles (cf. 2:15). Therefore, to "walk disorderly" refers to disobedience to any apostolic command and Paul is commanding the Thessalonians to withdraw fellowship from any erring brother.
• The logical argument: Minnick proposed this a fortiori argument: if Paul commands the believers to withdraw fellowship from a believer who refuses to work, what would he command regarding a believer who has compromised the testimony of Christ by his association with unbelievers?
• The argument from the broader scriptural context: turning to 2 John 9-11, Minnick stated that if we only had the passage from 2 John, we might conclude that someone who partners with unbelievers, sharing in their evil works, is simply not a believer. So what should one do when someone who clearly is a believer partners with unbelievers? Minnick replied, "The beauty of 2 Thessalonians 3 is that it gives us a passage that doesn't call into question the person's salvation."

What Does It Look Like to Admonish a Brother?
If we are to avoid fellowship with an erring brother and "admonish" him instead (2 Thess 3:15), how is this done? Galatians 2:11-14 gives us a biblical example of a Christian admonishing a disobedient brother.

First, Minnick pointed out that Paul considered this confrontation part of preserving the truth of the Gospel (v. 14; cf. v 5). However, the issue over which Paul confronted Peter was not about the content of the Gospel (vv. 11-14) or even the necessary response to the Gospel (vv. 2, 9). Peter was solid on those things. Rather, this was an issue of table fellowship!

Peter had been eating with the Gentiles, but when other Jewish Christians arrived, he withdrew and refused to eat with the Gentile Christians any longer. Minnick asked, if someone could "stand condemned" for not having fellowship with the right people, then could they not stand condemned for having fellowship with the wrong people?

He also pointed out that the effects of Peter's hypocrisy were detrimental to others who were watching. By his confrontation of a brother, Paul aided many others, including even Barnabas (v. 13), who was harmed by Peter's incorrect table fellowship. Minnick asked how someone who knows better can sin continually? Verse twelve says that Peter withdrew from the Gentile Christians for fear of others.

What Would It Take for Fundamentalists and Evangelicals to Get Back Together?
This understanding of separation from erring brothers, Minnick said, is what distinguishes Fundamentalists from evangelicals. Some conservative evangelicals have hinted that perhaps there should be an alliance between themselves and Fundamentalists. Minnick said that he would be happy for those evangelicals to join him. However, in order for that to happen, several things would need to take place.

• First, there would need to be a willingness to acknowledge that the change of direction evangelicalism made fifty years ago when it departed from Fundamentalism was wrong.
• Second, there would need to be a willingness to admit a broader application of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 than simply idle believers.
• Third, he would like to see these evangelicals "postured toward" separation from disobedient brothers.
• Fourth, he would expect that these evangelicals would desire to fellowship with Fundamentalists and not with unbelievers.

I have done my best to summarize Dr. Minnick's words accurately. I highly recommend you listen to the sermon yourself. To get a copy of this sermon, request more information at macp@dbts.edu.