That’s what my wife observed after hearing this story.
(“Second-degree separation means that if you find someone whom you think is theologically or ethically compromised, you must separate from that person, as well as from other people who have not separated from the first individual.” —John Woodbridge)
Andy, couldn’t this just as easily prove that second-degree separation is an illegitimate practice?
That’s not the point of the post. I’m not arguing whether practicing second-degree separation is legitimate or not. I’m simply pointing out a parallel: it’s noteworthy that “fundamentalists” aren’t the only ones who practice it.
I don’t see how it matters whether they practice it in any way. The two are completely unrelated.
I didn’t spell out the parallels in the post (I didn’t think it was necessary), but I’ll sketch them here using Woodbridge’s definition above:
1. “if you find someone whom you think is theologically or ethically compromised”
a. For LGBT-advocates in this case, that is Exodus International.
b. For fundamentalists, that might be a theological liberal who denies the gospel.
2. “you must separate from that person”
a. For LGBT-advocates, they separate from Exodus International.
b. For fundamentalists, they separate from that theological liberal.
3. “as well as from other people who have not separated from the first individual.”
a. For LGBT-advoates, they also separate from Willow Creek for their ties with Exodus International and then put pressure on Howard Schultz (Starbucks Chairman and CEO) to withdraw from speaking at a leadership conference at Willow Creek.
b. For fundamentalists, they might separate from an evangelical who engages in Christian fellowship with that theological liberal.
Andy,
Unfortunately, I must separate with you for even mentioning the LGBT. :)
yes, the irony rolls in like ways. even atheists practice some “degree” of separation:
so I noted a few months ago.
http://aborrowedlight.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/athiests-are-separatists-too/