Trying to process and make sense
This is not an "attack ad". Please, I am not trying to attack or fight anything. I am however, trying to explain what I am beginning to, at least I think, understand. I am referring to the word "separate". I understand the word "separate" to refer to an action, that is, something or someone separating from something or someone else. I also am beginning to understand the word separate to refer to an "ideology". That is, when I say that "I am not a "separatist" the reply cannot simply be "everyone separates from someone" thus making me seem self-contradictory. While that is certainly true in an orthodox context that is not a proper response to the statement being made. That type of response is using the word separate in its "action" sense while trying to underscore its "ideological" reference.
When I say that I do practice "separation" that is not a cause to say "see I told you" or "good I am glad". The reason being that, again, there is a difference between practicing separation and being a "separatist". Being a "separatist" is committing to an "ideology" that supports the strict use of separating (typically along ecclesiological lines)from other conservatives, with many political, theological, and institutional irons in the fire. Whereas practicing "separation" can simply refer to the action of keeping careful watch over yourself and those who have been entrusted to your care.
Again, as often times is true basic vocabulary is the point of confusion. Perhaps, this is helping me process the denotations and connotations of the word thus arriving at a usable "meaning". I am not trying to sound more post-modern than I perhaps am by being born in a pomo culture. I hope this helps. Its late, I imagine it won't. I'll read it again in the morning.
When I say that I do practice "separation" that is not a cause to say "see I told you" or "good I am glad". The reason being that, again, there is a difference between practicing separation and being a "separatist". Being a "separatist" is committing to an "ideology" that supports the strict use of separating (typically along ecclesiological lines)from other conservatives, with many political, theological, and institutional irons in the fire. Whereas practicing "separation" can simply refer to the action of keeping careful watch over yourself and those who have been entrusted to your care.
Again, as often times is true basic vocabulary is the point of confusion. Perhaps, this is helping me process the denotations and connotations of the word thus arriving at a usable "meaning". I am not trying to sound more post-modern than I perhaps am by being born in a pomo culture. I hope this helps. Its late, I imagine it won't. I'll read it again in the morning.
posted by adam at 5:27 PM
2 Comments:
Thomas, I think one of the issues that challenges Fundamentalism is to associate the concept of "defending the faith" too exclusively with separation. Thus, one who does not always separate (e.g. Piper) can be considered one who is not adequately defending the faith.
I am with you -- I believe that separating can be a means of defending the faith, but it is neither the only nor the primary means of doing so.
The connection that you make between "defending" and "separating" is true. John Piper practicing separation (theological)does not make him into a "separatist" (ideological). Rather, he is defending the faith by way of separating when necessary but not exclusively (as you said). In fact, as rarely as possible for the sake being eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit. Thus, he tries to "defend the faith" through many channels prior to severing relationships and influence.
thanks Baylor
Post a Comment
<< Home