What Is Secondary Separation?

Yesterday, in adult Bible class, the topic of "secondary separation" came up, as we talked about Evangelical Free Church values. The EFCA believes in separated living, but we are not a separatist denomination. That term "separatist" historically is connected, in part, to the doctrine of secondary separation. 

Part of living as a Christian is to guard the spiritual integrity of our hearts, and to maintain ethical purity of conduct. With that ethic in mind, the apostle Paul told the Corinthian Christians that they shouldn't socialize with rebellious Christians (see 1 Cor. 5:9-13). Christians should avoid people who are divisive or throw spiritual stumbling-blocks into people's ways (Romans 16:17). We should note and avoid quarrelsome Christians (Titus 3:10-11). Of course we don't support or yoke ourselves together with false teachers (1 John 4:1).

This ethic has been called "separated" living, and it's one part of following the Lord. There is more to living as a Christian disciple, but this is one aspect of it. 

But second-degree separation says we (individuals as well as entire organizations) must separate from Christians who don't separate. For instance, imagine three Christian guys: college friends Joe, Ted, and Bill.  

Joe is friends with Ted. Ted is a carnal Christian, and because he lacks a mature conscience he sells a little pot on the side. Joe does not participate in Ted's sin. In fact, Joe often exhorts Ted to stop, but Ted is immature and won't listen. 

How does the separation ethic apply here? As long as Ted is willfully rebelling against the Lord, Joe shouldn't hang out with him. It doesn't mean that Joe should hate Ted. But he shouldn't "pal around" with Ted. That's ethical separation. It protects Joe from temptation, and it keeps Joe from looking to others like he (and through him, Christianity) is okay with Ted's sinful antics.

But in our example Joe, for whatever reason, doesn't curtail the friendship. Now comes along a third Christian, Bill. Bill learns about Ted's behavior. Bill steers clear of Ted. But should Bill avoid Joe because Joe hasn't cut himself off from Ted? This would be an example of secondary, or second-degree, separation.    

Joe is definitely being too tolerant. Maybe he's trying to "reach" Ted, or maybe Ted is a childhood buddy and Joe just can't bring himself to pull back from him. But in our scenario, Bill is not forced to socialize with Ted. Maybe Bill doesn't even know Ted. Let's say that Bill just knows that the situation exists.

The New Testament does speak to Bill's stance toward Ted. Bill should pray for Ted, encourage him to repent (should he ever have opportunity to speak with him), and not hang around with him. But the New Testament is also specific about what sins merit pulling back. Paul names immorality, covetousness, idol-worship, reviling, drunkenness, swindling (1 Cor. 5:11), divisiveness, opposition to sound Bible teaching (Romans 16:17), and foolish argumentativeness (Titus 3:9-11). Misjudging separation isn't named. 

Bill can maintain his friendship with Joe, all the time using wisdom along the way. He can encourage Joe to take a stronger stand toward Ted. Ted may be using Joe's soft heart as Novocaine for his conscience. If Joe toughens up, the Lord could bring conviction to Ted's under-sensitive soul.

Another, somewhat similar scenario: Can a Bible-believing preacher be friends with another Bible-believing preacher who happens to serve in a liberal denomination? Preacher #1 thinks his friend ought to leave that denomination. He isn't going to join forces with that denomination. Their friendship is entirely personal. Preacher #1 isn't compromising himself by being friends with Preacher #2.


Secondary separation has a history of eating the churches that adopt it. It's like the "song that doesn't end": churches start separating from those who don't separate from those who don't separate (I know that sounds like a joke, but historically this is a real phenomenon). The EFCA wanted to avoid this trap. So the founders taught that we teach separated living, but are not a "separatist" organization.