God designed the Church on the pattern of his own character. But today that pattern is twisted and distorted, sometimes beyond recognition. What is the character of God? “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4). “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty” (Rev. 4:8). God is one, and he intended his church to be one. “[I pray] that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). God is holy, and he intended his Church to be pure, undefiled in faith and in life. “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:13).
How important is it for the Church to be pure and united? The answer is apparent in another question: How important are these characteristics of God? How important is it that God be holy, separated from all defilement? How important is the righteousness of God to his nature? And how important is the unity of the Trinity? How important is love as a characteristic of God? The Church was designed to be both holy and united in love. When it is unholy or disunited, it denies the character of God.
Furthermore, to the extent that the Church loses this basic character of God it loses its power. When either the unity or the purity is lost, the Body of Christ no longer has a right to expect its ministry to be fruitful. A fighting, bickering, divided church projects an image of God that can be expected to turn people away. It is when men see the love that disciples have for one another that they believe. When the Church compromises and becomes hypocritical either in doctrine or in life, the power is drained off.
But this is not all. A disunited church or a compromising church not only denies the character of God and loses its testimony to the world but cannot adequately fulfill God’s purpose for its own members. For each member to grow into the likeness of Christ, the relations among the members ought to be right. God designed the Church to be a true family; the eternal blood ties of Calvary are even stronger than human blood ties. It is in the context of this koinonia or loving mingling of life that God does his work of building Christians into the likeness of Christ (Eph. 4:11–16). This is no superficial Sunday-club relationship. God intended an intimate sharing of life on the pattern of the character of God, the Trinity. To have such family solidarity, there must be discipline. Fellowship without purity of faith and life is flawed at its core. Unity and purity are interdependent elements of a single relationship. Just as in the family so it is in the Church that where either love or discipline is missing, the children will be greatly handicapped.
And yet, as it is difficult for theologians to balance the justice and mercy of God, and as it is difficult for parents to balance firm discipline and loving acceptance, so it is very difficult for the Church to maintain unity and purity at the same time. It is much easier to go to a consistent extreme than to stay at the center of biblical tension. Whether in the local congregation or in the Church at large, the Church of Jesus Christ seems incapable of having both. The result is that the reflection of God’s image is distorted, the evangelistic thrust of the Church is blunted, and Christians are stunted in spiritual growth. There is a great polarization between the professional unifiers on the one hand and the professional purifiers on the other. It seems that a person must work at uniting all churches no matter how delinquent in doctrine or life or that he must give himself wholly to separating all the wheat from the tares now.
Do not misunderstand. Separation is good—this is the very meaning of the word “holy” or “sanctify.” But there is an unholy separation that begins in the neglect of the complementary characteristic of love, descends quickly into an unlawful judgmental role, and ends in the terrible sin of schism.
Unity is good—it is the ultimate character of God and is his revealed will for the church. But there is an unholy unity that begins by failing in faithfulness, quickly descends to unbiblical compromise and ends in the terrible sin of impurity—defilement of faith or life.
Is there no solution to this great dilemma? Can we have success in one characteristic only at the expense of the other? I believe God intended that we be successful in both at once. Furthermore, I believe he has given clear and rather simple instructions for achieving success in both.
It is significant that the New Testament emphasis on both unity and purity has to do with the local congregation. In contrast, most of the emphasis in the twentieth century, whether on unity or on purity, is on larger interchurch or interdenominational relationships. But it is at the level of the local congregation that both unity and purity are most important. There the presence or absence of unity or purity is most visible. And this is where the battle for unity or purity will be won or lost. The local congregation is also where unity and purity are most difficult to achieve and maintain.
The Bible is very clear in teaching that there should be church discipline and that the ultimate discipline is the breaking of fellowship, or separation. Certain people are to be separated from the church. I take it that those who speak of “separation” base the doctrine on this New Testament principle of church discipline. When one does not have power to put out the person who should be put out, the only way to separate is to leave oneself.
How does one identify a congregation that is guilty of unholy unity, the sin of unbiblical compromise? The New Testament clearly outlines a pattern for church discipline—who is to be disciplined, why he is to be disciplined, and how he is to be disciplined. If for any reason such a person or persons is not disciplined, the congregation is sinning against the revealed will of God.
How does one identify a congregation that is guilty of unholy separation, the sin of schism? Since God has told us who should be disciplined, why he should be disciplined, and how he should be disciplined, if that discipline or separation is of the wrong person, of the right person for the wrong reason, or of the right person for the right reason but in the wrong way, the Christian or congregation is guilty of the sin of schism.
What is this biblical pattern of discipline?
1. Who should be disciplined?
The New Testament teaches that a person must be disciplined if he is guilty of unrepented, overt, moral delinquency (for example, 1 Cor. 5:1, 11) or one who is guilty of teaching heresy (Gal. 1:6–9; 2 John 7–11). It is important to notice that the discipline is not for one who fails in some sin of the spirit or who sins and repents, but for one who sins deliberately and continues without repentance. It is also important to notice that the discipline in matters of faith is not for one who has doubts. Jude 22 says clearly that we should show mercy on those who have doubts and save them. But when one teaches heresy, he must be disciplined.
When a congregation does not discipline in either of these cases, it has an unholy unity and is guilty of the sin of impurity, standing under the judgment of God.
On the other hand, when a congregation or individuals discipline for reasons other than moral dereliction or the teaching of heresy, they are guilty of an unholy separation, the sin of schism, and come under the judgment of God.
In the light of this biblical teaching, it does not take much discernment to see that a great deal of ecumenical promotion is uniting the wrong people and a great deal of separatist agitation is dividing the wrong people.
The only point on which Bible-committed Christians can legitimately differ in this area is the question of what is heresy. Without going into a detailed defense of the position, I suggest that biblical example would seem to limit a definition of disciplinable heresy to a denial of one of the great fundamentals of the faith, those doctrines confessed by the Church at large in all ages. Disciplinary action for teaching deviant doctrines of a lesser kind is schismatic.
2. Why should one discipline?
The primary purpose of discipline in Scripture is to save or restore the person who has sinned (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 2 Thess. 3:13–15). Discipline is designed as a means of grace, not of destruction; as an evidence of love, not of hate or of fear. A secondary legitimate motive is that discipline may serve as a warning to others: it has a deterrent value (1 Tim. 5:20).
We may derive a third legitimate motive from biblical principles in general. Church discipline is useful in protecting the reputation of Christ and of the Church. It is also useful in protecting other believers from defilement. However, it is quite significant that when the New Testament deals with the problem of church discipline it does not use protection as a motive. First John 1:19, 20; First Corinthians 5:6, 7, and Second John 11 may include this concept, but this is obviously not the central thrust of the teaching even in these passages. Jude, who uses stronger words to denounce heretical teaching than any other biblical author, does not end with an injunction to begin disciplinary procedure or to separate from such people but instead exhorts the Christians who were faithful to keep on being faithful (20, 21). He then concludes the passage with these words: “And on some have mercy, who are in doubt; and some save, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (22, 23, ASV). Following this Jude again turns to the faithful ones, assuring them that God is able to guard them from stumbling and to keep them till that day when they will stand in the presence of his glory without blemish in exceeding joy (24).
One could reasonably expect the protection of the reputation of Christ and the protection of the Church to have been the primary motives given for church discipline. But the Bible seems to take a rather nonchalant attitude at this point. Why? Perhaps because the name of Christ and the Church of Christ are strong and quite able to care for themselves. Or is it because if these were the primary motives rather than that of love for the sinner, discipline could quickly degenerate into inquisition? Christ also seemed to be less than careful—“He that is not against us is for us” (Luke 9:50). Paul also rejoices that the Gospel is preached whether in pretense or in truth (Phil. 1:18). He excoriates the heretic, but doesn’t give protection as the reason for church discipline.
Note that one motive is excluded as a motive for discipline or separation. Church discipline is not to be punitive, retributive. God clearly reserves this motivation to himself—“Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom. 12:19). This is different from God’s pattern for relations with governmental authority and in the home. In the Church, only God can be the ultimate judge—“Who art thou that judgest the servant of another?” (Rom. 14:4). We are all in the fellowship of mercy-receivers.
From this brief outline of biblical teaching on motivation for disciplining an errant brother it seems clear that when Christians discipline or separate from motives of legalism, vindictiveness, fear, or pride rather than with the basic motivation of saving the brother, they are guilty of the sin of schism.
3. How is church discipline to be administered?
Before any thought of discipline, of course, there must be prayer and self-examination (Gal. 6:1; Matt. 7:1–5). If a person has not given himself to prayer for the brother and if he has not carefully examined his own life, he is disqualified because he does not have the love and humility necessary to be God’s agent in discipline.
The biblical pattern is outlined clearly in Matthew 18:15–18:
a. The first stage is to go to the brother in personal counsel (Gal. 6:1, 2; Rom. 15:1). It is schismatic to go to anyone else first.
b. The second state is to take others and counsel with the brother (Titus 3:10, 11 and First Timothy 5:19 seem to imply adherence to the pattern set in Matthew 18:15–18).
c. Church discipline then follows as the final step (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14, 15). (Note that this is church discipline. Before a person appoints himself as the disciplinarian, he must be very sure that he is the one responsible for this disciplinary activity at whatever stage. It is very dangerous to assume the responsibility for administering discipline outside the responsible relationships of the congregation.)
From this brief outline of the biblical pattern for the exercise of discipline, it is plain that one who goes to others, to the church, or to the general public with a brother’s failure before seeking in humility and love to restore the brother on an individual and private basis has violated the biblical pattern and is guilty of the sin of schism. Furthermore, those who separate a brother through means other than official church action are guilty of the sin of schism. There are many ways to break fellowship, to separate a brother, to separate from him, to hurt, discipline, or punish him. It can be done through critical talk, through political activity in the church, through pressures from the pulpit or the pen, and in other ways. But these ways are not biblical ways, and those who employ them are guilty of the sin of schism. God does not view lightly the sin of schism—“Now the works of the flesh are manifest … enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings … of which I forewarn you even as I did forewarn you, that they who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19–21, ASV).
With this brief overview of the biblical doctrine of discipline, it becomes quite possible to identify the sin of impurity and the sin of schism. If a church leaves undisciplined one who is guilty of moral dereliction or of the teaching of heresy it may preserve or create unity among Christians. But such unity is unholy and not the unity of the character of God. It is a mixture of pure and impure, and lacks the cement of truth. Sooner or later it will come apart. Purity is essential to true, lasting unity.
On the other hand, to discipline in any way—through word or action—one who is not biblically guilty; to discipline one who is guilty without the primary motivation of restoring him; to discipline without first seeking to restore the brother on a personal, private level; or to discipline him in ways other than official, responsible action of the congregation may give the appearance of purifying the Church, but it will be an unholy separation, not partaking of the character of God. Such an action cannot be called a means of prescribing purity, because it is impure at the core—failing to reflect the loving character of God. The true biblical purity of doctrine includes purity of life, which above all else is solidarity in love with the rest of God’s family.
In this latter half of the twentieth century the purifiers who are weak on love and the unifiers who are weak on faithfulness are wreaking havoc with the image of God seen by the lost world. Furthermore, they are creating a climate that makes growth to spiritual maturity exceedingly hard. Amid this strong polarization, is biblical balance possible?
Imbalance does not come from an over-emphasis. It is impossible to have too much love or too much faithfulness. However, it is quite possible to have unfaithfulness masquerading as love. When God’s people compromise through sentimentality or self-love or for some other reason are unwilling to exercise church discipline, they are unfaithful though they speak much of love. Again, it is quite possible to have unlove masquerading as faithfulness. When God’s people create schism by disciplining the wrong person, or with the wrong motive, or in the wrong way, they are unloving though they speak much of faithfulness. I do not ask the ecumenist to be less loving. I urge him to be more faithful. I do not ask the separatist to be less faithful. I urge him to be more loving.
“Depart from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14). This is God’s balance. God’s Holy Spirit will give us the ability to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).
Righteousness and peace embraced at Calvary. May they embrace again in the Church of Jesus Christ in this last quarter of the twentieth century, lest the King return and find us compromised and polluted or dismembered, grotesque and impotent. And yet, since there was no way for righteousness and peace to meet except on the cross, no doubt they will meet in our day only where there are those willing to be crucified. When God’s people fill up that which is lacking in the suffering of Christ (Col. 1:24) through choosing the way of personal sacrifice, His character will shine through again as it did at Calvary. The way of the cross is to exercise discipline faithfully and with love that chooses to act for the welfare of another even at personal sacrifice.
