Unity or Separation and Church Discipline

The Church
Post Reply
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Unity or Separation and Church Discipline

Post by steve » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:19 pm

Here is a question I received and answered today in my email (I don't remember if we have a previous thread on this subject):

------------------------------------------------------

Steve,
I have a question I have been thinking about and have heard some lectures relevant to the topic by you namely the unity in Christ series. My question is regarding trying to practically live out a unified view of scripture in regards to two tensions:

1) The call and reality for unity of Christians (Eph. 4:1-6 and John 17:20-23 to name only a couple)
2)
2) The passages for separating oneself from others who claim to follow Christ but do not hold to proper doctrine (romans 16:17-20, 1 Cor. 5:11, 2 Thes. 3:6, and 1 Tim 6:3-6, 2 John 1:9-11 – some of these may not be as relevant as others.

Therefore, how does one practically keep this tension? Perhaps you can point me to a lecture regarding this question if it would be simpler.

In my situation point 2 has been the theological support for a brothers separation from a corporate body of people. Once an elder of these people now he lives a much more isolated life having church with his family only on Sunday mornings in their home.

It is hard to re-establish the fellowship we once shared and I am concerned that he used point 2 as a justification for this separation when maybe his disagreements/issues were more peripheral issues than ones properly justifiable by those verses. (PS I do not accuse him of anything perhaps his convictions and choices were in line with scripture)

I hope that makes sense. Could you maybe clarify when and how it is appropriate or not to use these passages to cut fellowship? (or point me to a lecture that may be appropriate?)
Thanks,
P.


---------------------------------------------------
Hi P.,

Church unity is based upon the shared features described in Ephesians 4:3-6. There are few true Christians who would reject any of those things Paul lists:
—One body (the body of Christ, comprised of those who embrace His headship)
—One Spirit (the Spirit of Christ, or Holy Spirit, the regenerator and occupant of every member of the body)
—One hope of your calling (this probably means the hope of becoming like Christ—sometimes called "the glory of God" Rom.5:2/Col.1:27)
—One Lord (Obviously, Jesus)
—One faith (either "the Christian faith" itself, or else the experience of justifying faith in Christ)
—One baptism (this refers to all being baptized into Christ Himself, rather than, for example, into Paul, Apollos, Cephas, etc. 1 Cor.1:12-13)
—One God and Father (all born again into God's family, and, therefore, brothers and sisters)

No doubt there are hundreds of lesser matters upon which Christians disagree (e.g., Romans 14:1-6), but none of them should separate those who share the common Christian heritage catalogued above.

Most of the scriptures about church discipline, or separation, have to do with sub-Christian behavior (or sins), not wrong opinions. We see this in Matthew 18:15-17 (the first and only passage in the teachings of Jesus on church discipline), as well as 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; 1 Timothy 6:3-6.

There are a few such scriptures which urge separation from those who are "divisive" or teaching wrong "doctrine," or, more properly, wrong "teaching" (e.g., Romans 16:17-20; Titus 3:9-11; Revelation 2:14-15). However, these dangerous "teachings" are not, generally, in the realm of disputed theological opinions, but again, teachings concerning behavioral norms. For example:

The dangerous teaching referred to in Romans 16 may very well be those teachings Paul abhorred earlier in the book: "Let us do evil that good may come"(3:8), "Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound"(6:1), "Let us sin since we are under grace, not law"(6:15). These are teachings that morally corrupt the Christian community.

Titus 3:9-11 is immediately preceded by the exhortation that "those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works"(v.8). Then comes the instructions to practice those who dispute this apostolic mandate.

The "doctrine (or teaching) of the Nicolaitans," which the church at Pergamum wrongfully tolerated, was closely associated with the "doctrine (or teaching) of Balaam," in the previous verse. Jesus describes this error as teachings that lead to fornication and idolatry. It was probably a form of antinomian gnosticism, which taught that one needn't live a holy life because we are saved by grace.

No doubt there are theological boundaries across which the believer may not cross without becoming a heretic and requiring discipline. One such doctrine would be the affirmation of the future resurrection (2 Timothy 2:18). However, we are not entitled to define those boundaries according to our theological tastes or fashions. For example, one cannot call another a heretic, and disassociate with him over such controversial differences as Calvinism Vs. Arminianism, or Dispensationalism Vs. Covenant Theology, or Cessationism Vs. Continuationism (of the charismatic gifts), or different views of final judgment. All of these are matters of interpretation which are mainly in the theoretical, not the practical or moral realm. Christians differing of such things need to learn to grow up and love each other.

When a moral infraction or a teaching that undermines holy living is found to be in the church, there is a call for discipline. If the sin is a personal wrong done by one member toward another, the discipline begins with a private confrontation, which could escalate to a public censure by the church and disfellowshiping of the unrepentant offender (Matthew 18:15-17). If it is a public sin, or one committed by a leader, the need for public confrontation cannot be avoided, though nothing should be said to the church without the certainty that wrong has been done, established by at least two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19-20).

In every case, the goal of church discipline is not the ventilate the church's anger, but to lovingly restore, through shame, the offender to repentance and restoration. Thus, delivering a man to Satan is intended to see "his spirit saved in the day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 5:5), or that the offender might "learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). The offending party, if possible, should be reproved "that they may be ashamed"(2 Thessalonians 3:14). In all things, the goal of the church is love, forgiveness and restoration of the offender (2 Corinthians 2:5-8).

Blessings!

Steve

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Unity or Separation and Church Discipline

Post by Paidion » Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:57 pm

Well... I, for one, basically agree with your response, Steve. Our unity in Christ is not based on philosophical and/or theological agreement, but is based on our unity in discipleship of Christ, that is unity in LEARNING from Christ how to live.

The only point upon which I am unsure concerns the teaching of Nicolaitans. I am not sure it was "closely associated with the doctrine (or teaching) of Balaam," at least not in all points.
Jude wrote:Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error. (Jude 1:11)
There is no indication of which I am aware, that the Nicolaitans taught for the sake of money.

However, John, the writer of Revelation (whichever "John" that was) described the teaching of Balaam this way :
John wrote:But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. (Revelation 2:14)
Eusebius, quoting from Clement of Alexandria, relates the history of this teaching of the Nicolaitans:
Eusebius wrote:AT this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him. “They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Savior, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, ‘to abuse the flesh,’ he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Savior, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge.” So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct.
It is interesting how Clement of Alexandria used the word "marry", certainly not in the modern sense, but clearly as a synonym for "swive".

It seems that the teaching of the Nicolaitans was chiefly that concerning the practice of sexual promiscuity (though I don't see that concerning Balaam when I read the OT account of him).
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Unity or Separation and Church Discipline

Post by steve » Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:32 pm

According to Revelation, Balaam "taught" Balak to promote the immorality at Baal Peor (2:14). This agrees with Moses, who said that the Midianite women "by the counsel of Balaam" had trespassed in that matter (Numbers 31:16). It seems that Balaam recommended that Balak send the Moabite and Midianite women to seduce the men of Israel, so as to lure them into idolatry.

There is a parallel to the immoral teaching of "Jezebel," in Thyatira, who taught people to fornicate and become involved with idolatry (Rev.2:20). Thee were probably cases of gnostic antinomianism taught by false teachers in the two churches—the one by male teachers, and the other by a female "prophetess."

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Unity or Separation and Church Discipline

Post by Singalphile » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:46 pm

Paidion wrote:It is interesting how Clement of Alexandria used the word "marry", certainly not in the modern sense, but clearly as a synonym for "swive".
Swive? I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up and it' s a real word (though obsolete). You don't look that old, Paidion! ;)

I like what you wrote, Steve.

I don't know when "doctrine" came to be thought of a synonym for "theology" or theological opinions. That seems to me to be a mistake and it leads to unnecessary division and factions, which is the real heretical behavior, I think.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”