 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars of Christianity:
312
The Church Ethic
Unity and Excommunication
Introduction: Unity, Excommunication, and Essentials Only
Excommunication: Historical Context, the Gospels (Part 1)
Excommunication: the Gospels (Part 2)
Excommunication: Acts and Romans
Excommunication: Corinthians
Excommunication: Galatians
Excommun.: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians
Excommunication: Paul’s Letters to Timothy
Excommunication: Titus, Hebrews, James, Peter’s Epistles
Excommunication: John’s Epistles, Jude, and Revelation
Excommunication: Biblical Assessment
Excommunication: Historical, Logical Assessments, Conclusions
Part One:
Introduction The Realities of
Christian Separation and Division
As Christians in the modern church we must face the
unpleasant reality that we are separated from other Christians. This separation
may take one of several forms, some of which are more common than others. The least common form of separation that most Christians
encounter in the church today is excommunication, which is the formal act of refusing
fellowship. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines excommunication as follows. excommunication –
1: an ecclesiastical censure depriving a person of the rights of church membership 2: exclusion from
fellowship in a group or community - Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, merriam-webster.com The English word “excommunicate” is a compound word formed
from the prefix “ex” and the word “communicate.” In the New Testament communion
meal gatherings constituted the cornerstone and central act of Christian
fellowship. (For more on this topic please see our study on Church Gatherings
and Leadership.) By gathering together for the sharing of this meal, Christians
expressed and exhibited their communion with Christ, with each other, and with
the church universally. To excommunicate someone was to cut them off from the
fellowship gathering, community, and communion meal of the church. In past eras of the church, excommunication may have been
more commonplace. But today it is rare for a church organization, denomination,
or group of Christians to actually enact a process of excommunication and
officially refuse fellowship and communion to other Christians. Excommunication – Formal expulsion from the communion of the
faithful, from sacraments and from rites of a religious body. Largely abandoned by Protestants, excommunication
has been retained by Jewish congregations and by the Roman Catholic Church. –
World Encyclopedia Perhaps the closest thing to modern excommunication is seen
in the exclusion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Oneness
Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians, and Mormons. While these
groups all identify themselves as Christians, most denominations separate from
them for doctrinal reasons and label them as cults or heretics or both. The most common form of separation that most Christians
experience today is denominational separation. Denominational differences over
doctrine and practice separate Christians of one denomination from those of
another. This denominational division may or may not involve or imply a formal
declaration that other denominations are false Christians to be refused
fellowship (excommunicated.) Nevertheless, one significant result of denominational
division is that Christians do not share the fellowship of the communal meal
with Christians of other denominations. Furthermore, this lack of communion and
fellowship is formally established. It is intentional and based entirely on the
doctrinal disagreements that separate one denomination from another. So, while
the formal act of excommunication has become something of a rarity, a sort of
default, passive separation from fellowship between one denomination and
another along doctrinal lines is somewhat universal today. Another form of separation that some Christians today may
have dealt with is of a more personal nature. Many of us may be familiar with
situations where we ourselves or someone we know has decided not to associate
with other Christians out of an objection to their lifestyle or behavior. (We
may even have been recipient of such separating action.) In some cases the persons
who are refused social contact may sincerely consider themselves to be
followers of Christ. Maybe someone explained to them that they were being
disassociated from and why. Maybe they were given a chance to change first. Or,
maybe nothing was said to them. Whatever the case may be, this kind of
separation from other Christians does occur. And while in most cases it does
not include any declaration that the outcast is being excommunicated for
violating Christ’s teachings, the result is the same. There is a display of
disapproval expressed most prominently by ending personal contact and no longer
sharing fellowship and communion. The point we are making is that all Christians today
participate in some form of separation from others who call themselves
Christians. This separation may not be intentional or the result of direct
action. But it does occur for reasons related to beliefs, behaviors, and
practices. Closely related to this is the fact that the modern church exhibits
a wide variety of doctrinal disagreements and differences on a host of biblical
issues. This study will explore the biblical teaching on the
relevant and related topics of doctrinal unity and Christians separating from
other Christians. Of chief concern will be determining when separation is biblically
required and when it is biblically prohibited. Along the way we will gain some
important biblical and historical insight into what caused the denominational
and doctrinal diversity that we see in the modern church today. As we examine this subject, we will be assessing the
biblical legitimacy of the common, modern view that we can and should only
separate from other Christians over differences related to essential Christian
teachings. For the purposes of our study we will call this position the
Essentials Only View. Our study will proceed through the course of three major
sections: 1.
Part One – Introduction: Explaining and defining the basic issues and questions
involved in this study. There are several sections to Part One of our study.
The Realities of
Christian Separation and Division Defining an Essentials
Only View Considering Doctrinal
Unity: An Exercise The Canon and Sola
Scriptura
2.
Part Two –
Biblical Study: A comprehensive and in-depth look at New Testament teaching
on doctrinal unity and excommunication from the Gospels to Revelation. There
are several sections to Part Two of our study.
Historical Context:
The First Century Jewish Practice of Excommunication The Gospels: Jesus’
Teaching on Separation and Excommunication The Gospels: Jesus’
Instructions Regarding Doctrinal Unity and Doctrinal Tolerance Acts: Requirements for
Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Romans: Requirements
for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Corinthians: Requirements
for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Corinthians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity Galatians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Ephesians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Philippians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Colossians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Thessalonians:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Paul’s Letters to
Timothy: Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Titus: Requirements
for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Hebrews: Requirements
for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication James: Requirements
for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Peter’s Epistles:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication John’s Epistles:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Jude: Requirements for
Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication Revelation:
Requirements for Doctrinal Unity and Excommunication
3.
Part Three –
Conclusions: An assessment of an Essentials Only View using biblical,
historical, and logical criteria. The biblical assessment will include a
summary of the results of Part Two. There are several sections to Part Three of
our study.
A Biblical Assessment
of an Essentials Only View A Historical
Assessment of an Essentials Only View A Logical Assessment
of an Essentials Only View Study Conclusions Defining an Essentials
Only View The Christian Research Institute (CRI) is a well-known
evangelical Christian organization that today is headed by author and apologist
Hank Hanegraaff. On their website equip.org,
CRI reproduces a two-part article called “The Essential Doctrines of the
Christian Faith” written by the renowned bible scholar and author Dr. Norman L.
Geisler. As its title reports, the article provides an explanation and listing
of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith and an explanation of what it
means for these doctrines to be essential. Both Dr. Geisler and equip.org are widely
known among Christians today and are generally considered to be reputable and dependable
authorities on Christian theology and history. Their conception of which
doctrines can be separated over and which cannot is a reliable representation
of the Essentials Only View. In the first part of this article Dr. Geisler uses an old maxim
which states that Christians need to have a unified agreement and understanding
on essential doctrines, but are permitted liberty regarding their view on nonessential
doctrines. He uses this maxim to articulate why we need to identify the
essentials of the Christian faith. And most importantly, Dr. Geisler explains
what it means for a doctrine to be essential.
“The ancient dictum ‘In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all
things, charity resonates’ with practically everyone. The question is, What are the essentials? There are three main reasons for seeking the
answer to this. First, the essential doctrines are the basis for our unity,
since true unity is unity in the truth,
and these doctrines are the essential truths. Second, the essential doctrines distinguish cults of Christianity from
true Christianity, since these groups claim to be Christian but deny one or
more of the essential doctrines of the historic Christian Church. It is not
possible to identify these cults, however, unless we know what the essentials
are. Third, the essential doctrines are
the only truths over which we rightly can divide (i.e., break fellowship). It
is better to be divided over truth than to be united in error where essentials
are concerned (e.g., Gal. 1:69 ; 2:1114 ; 1 Tim. 1:1920 ; Titus 1:9; 1 John
2:19), but it is a great error for those
who hold the truth to be divided where nonessentials are concerned (e.g.,
Eph. 4:3). It behooves us, therefore, to
know the difference; otherwise, we may find ourselves dividing from those with
whom we should be united and uniting with those from whom we should be
divided.” – Norman L. Geisler, The Essential Doctrines of the Christian
Faith (Part One), A Historical Approach, http://equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-one-
As we can see, Dr. Geisler (and CRI) define essential
doctrines in relation to uniting in fellowship and dividing (or breaking
fellowship.) According to Dr. Geisler and CRI, the essential doctrines are “the
only truths over which we can rightly divide (i.e., break fellowship.)” If,
therefore, someone shares our understanding of the “essential doctrines” we
must unite with them in fellowship even if we disagree about “nonessential
doctrines.” To, divide from other Christians because of disagreement on nonessential
doctrines is, according to Dr. Geisler and CRI, “a great error.” In the article, Dr. Geisler identifies the following
doctrines as “essential doctrines.” Again, according to Dr. Geisler, these are “the
only truths over which we can rightly divide (i.e., break fellowship.)” (1) human depravity, (2) Christ’s virgin birth, (3) Christ’s sinlessness, (4) Christ’s deity, (5) Christ’s humanity, (6) God’s unity, (7) God’s triunity, (8) the necessity of God’s grace, (9) the necessity of faith, (10) Christ’s atoning death, (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection, (12) Christ’s bodily ascension, (13) Christ’s present high priestly service, (14) Christ’s second coming, final judgment, and reign. – Norman L. Geisler, The Essential Doctrines of the
Christian Faith (Part Two), The Logical Approach, http://equip.org/articles/the-essential-doctrines-of-the-christian-faith-part-two-
On its website (equip.org), CRI provides a similar list of
essential Christian teachings. “First, we believe in the
authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible,
and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as
well as the definitive guide for our daily lives. Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in
three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is
self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous,
and loving. God created the universe
from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human
and angelic beings. We also hold
that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But
because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The
extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the
form of cruelty, suffering, and death. By
God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - was sent to save
us from our bondage to sin. We
believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose
from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His
people. Faith in Christ is the only
means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment. Finally,
we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The
church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for
fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and
support, and for evangelizing the world.” – equip.org, The Essentials, What Are
The Essentials? The Essentials of Christianity, http://equip.org/site/essentials
The list of essential doctrines provided by Dr. Geisler in
his article and CRI’s own list are not identical to one another. But they do
strongly correspond to one another. From these lists we can identify the basic doctrines
that an Essentials Only View would typically assert to be “the only truths over
which we can rightly divide (i.e., break fellowship.)” Here is a basic list of the essential doctrines of the
Essentials Only View: 1. The inerrancy and authority of Scripture. 2. The Trinitarian nature of God. 3. God as Creator of the universe out of nothing (ex
nihilo.) 4. God’s sovereignty. 5. Man as a physical and spiritual being created in God’s
image.
6. Man’s sin causes him to lose fellowship with God. 7. Jesus as fully divine and fully human. 8. The virgin birth and sinlessness of Christ. 9. Christ’s death, physical resurrection, and ascension into
heaven. 10. Christ’s return to judge the world and deliver his
people. 11. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. 12. Eternal damnation and judgment of the unsaved. The purpose of this list isn’t to be absolute or precise. It
is simply meant to reflect the basic beliefs that are typically included in an
Essentials Only View of unity and excommunication. In order to determine whether an Essentials Only View is
supported biblically, it is critical to identify the doctrines an Essentials
Only View identifies as nonessential, or in other words, the doctrines which cannot
be divided over. If the New Testament requires separation over doctrines that an
Essentials Only View says can’t be divided over it then the Essentials Only
View will have to be discarded (or at least significantly modified) in order to
avoid violating biblical teaching. Using Geisler’s article and CRI, we have summarized the
essential doctrines of an Essentials Only View. It follows, that any doctrine
not included in this list of essential doctrines, is therefore, a nonessential
doctrine which Christians cannot rightly divide over. The following doctrines are not included on the essential
doctrine lists of Geisler and CRI. Therefore, according to Geisler and CRI the
following doctrines must be considered nonessentials which Christians cannot
rightly break fellowship over: Teaching on Behavioral/Moral
Issues, Repentance from Sin: Note: none of the above lists of essentials includes
“repentance from sin” or compliance with teachings prohibiting sinful behaviors
as a requirement for Christian fellowship. As such an Essentials Only View does
not indicate that Christians can rightly break fellowship with Christians who
persist in: 1. Fornication, homosexuality, adultery, murder, covetousness,
thievery, lying, bearing false witness, abusiveness, drunkenness, etc. 2. Teaching that fornication, homosexuality, adultery,
murder, covetousness, thievery, lying, bearing false witness, abusiveness,
drunkenness, etc. are acceptable for Christians to engage in. Teaching on Creation: 3. Whether God created through evolutionary processes taking
billions of years OR in 6 literal, 24-hour days. 4. Whether Adam and Eve and the early biblical figures were
real, historical persons involved in actually historical events or whether
these are just morality tales and illustrations. Teaching on Soteriological
Issues Related to Reformed/Calvinist Theology and Free Will Theology: 5. Whether salvation is the joint result of God’s atoning
work through Jesus Christ and each man’s free choice to believe and repent OR
is solely the result of God’s divine choice without man’s willing involvement
in any respect. 6. Whether man has free will and is capable of choosing to
believe and repent or not OR whether man is totally incapable and belief and
repentance are solely the irresistible work of God without regard for or the
involvement of man’s will. 7. Whether all men are born innocent OR are born guilty
through the sin of Adam. 8. Whether Christ’s atoning work was intended to be
available for any and all men OR only for a select set of men that God unilaterally
chose to save. 9. Whether men can, after believing and repenting, later
discontinue their belief and repentance and forfeit salvation OR whether
salvation is guaranteed because it is not based on anything a man can do, does,
or will do in regards to belief or repentance. 10. Whether man is capable of resisting God’s will in
regards to his own salvation OR not. Teaching on the Kingdom of God: 11. Whether Old Testament and New Testament saints receive
the same salvation in Christ Jesus OR if they receive something different. 12. Whether Old Testament and New Testament saints receive
an eternal inheritance in a real, political kingdom on the earth OR an eternal,
non-earthly (heavenly) inheritance, OR whether one group receives one and the
other group receives the other. 13. Whether Jesus Christ’s physical presence on earth, the
compliance of the nations to his will, and the deliverance of his people from
oppression and injustice are necessary components of the kingdom
of God. 14. Whether the gospel includes an earthly inheritance in
fulfillment of promises made to Abraham and salvation requires belief in those
promises OR if the gospel is simply that through Christ we can be saved and
live forever with God in heaven. Teaching on End Times
Prophecy (Eschatology): 15. Whether Jesus Christ has already returned in fulfillment
of end times prophecy OR has yet to return and will return in the future. 16. Whether end times figures and events are to be
understood as real or figurative. 17. Whether Christ will come back to remove and rapture his
followers several years before he returns to establish his kingdom on earth so
that his followers do not have to experience trials that will occur at that
time OR whether Christ will only return to remove and rapture his followers
before the destruction of the ungodly after the period of tribulation at the
onset of the millennium as he establishes his kingdom on the earth. 18. The nature, relationship, and sequencing of various
end-times events including Christ’s return, the rapture of the living, the
resurrection of dead saints, the coming of the Antichrist, the tribulation, and
the onset of any earthly Messianic kingdom. Other Issues: 19. Whether the soul lives on after the death of the body. 20. Whether the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are
still being distributed to individuals in the church today. 21. Whether water baptism is required for salvation and what
manner it should take. 22. Whether women are allowed to be pastors, teach men, or
speak during church gatherings. 23. Whether men are to be the head of their households OR if
husbands and wives have equal authority over one another and the family. 24. Whether men are permitted to wear head coverings while
they pray and whether women are permitted not to. 25. The nature, format, and context of church services. 26. Whether it is acceptable for Christians to participate
in war, government, and the execution of civil law and justice. 27. Whether Christians are permitted to use pagan religious
customs in their worship of God (i.e., the celebration of Christmas.) 28. Whether Christians must tithe under the New Covenant OR
participate in a system of voluntary sharing to meet each other’s material and financial
needs. 29. Whether permanent, local Christian leaders (pastors) can
make a living solely through the financial support of the church without having
to have another job as a means of income and providing for themselves and their
families. 30. The circumstances under which a Christian can rightly
marry, divorce, or remarry. This list may not be exhaustive. Its purpose is simply to
convey the various types of issues that are labeled as nonessential doctrine
and for which Christians are not allowed to divide over according to an
Essentials Only View. The fact that these doctrinal issues (above) are not
considered essentials by an Essentials Only View is confirmed by the fact that
Essentials Only advocates approves and accepts various churches and
denominations as orthodox no matter what their respective doctrinal
understanding is on these subjects. It is worth noting that some of these denominational
disagreements over what are deemed to be “nonessential doctrines” do concern
important doctrinal issues. More importantly, even though Essentials Only advocates
like Geisler and CRI would prohibit Christians from separating over these
“nonessentials,” it is nonetheless absolutely the case that church
denominations are divided and historically have divided from fellowship with
each other precisely over disagreements they have concerning these particular nonessential
doctrines (and perhaps others.) Having become familiar with the limits of an Essentials Only
View we are now ready to determine whether the bible likewise prohibits
Christians from separating over teachings that an Essentials Only View would
identify as nonessential and not to be divided over. If the bible includes a
few items that an Essentials Only View omits it may perhaps only be necessary
to augment the list of essentials to include any additional doctrines. If,
however, the bible includes a host of doctrinal issues that an Essentials Only
View omits, it will be necessary to discard an Essentials Only View entirely. Later in our study we will take a closer look at some of the
reasoning and argumentation that is often used to support an Essentials Only
View. But a crucial evaluation of an Essentials Only View can only come by
first examining biblical teaching on the issues of doctrinal unity and separation
from other Christians. As we turn to our biblical examination of these issues in
Part Two of our study below, we want to keep in mind two main considerations as
we evaluate an Essentials Only View. 1. Division – What issues does the
bible teach Christians to divide over? a) Does the bible teach that Christians can only divide over
the essential doctrines listed by an Essentials Only View? If so, where and how
does the New Testament define or identify doctrinal issues which can and cannot
be divided over? b) Does the bible teach that Christians can and should
divide over doctrines not included among the essentials of an Essentials Only
View? 2. Unity – Which doctrinal issues
does the bible require Christians to have a particular, agreed upon
understanding in order to be allowed into fellowship? a) Does the bible require Christians to be united in a
shared and agreed upon understanding only over those issues that have been
deemed essential doctrines by an Essentials Only View? If so, where and how
does the New Testament list and confirm the set of essential doctrines
articulated by an Essentials Only View? b) Does the bible require Christians to be united in a
shared and agreed upon understanding of doctrines not included among the
essentials of an Essentials Only View? For the purposes of clarity, we wish to be upfront and lay
out the conclusions that were arrived at through this study which will be
presented below. It is our understanding that: 1) An Essentials Only View constitutes an inherent
contradiction of biblical teaching by prohibiting Christians from breaking
fellowship over doctrinal issues that the New Testament itself requires
Christians to excommunicate (break fellowship) over. 2) An Essentials Only View relies on and requires a biased,
highly selective, inadequate, and erroneous view of relevant post-biblical
historical facts and developments and that this erroneous view fundamentally
misunderstands both the problem and the cause of modern denominational and doctrinal
diversity. 3) An Essentials Only View’s list of doctrinal requirements
for fellowship is entirely too limited and omits important doctrinal issues
that the New Testament itself requires for Christian fellowship. 4) Modern church practices of excommunication (breaking
fellowship) are severely deficient and contravene clear biblical teaching. 5) An Essentials Only approach is logically untenable,
circular, and constitutes a self-serving attempt to justify current church
norms. 6) In practice, an Essentials Only approach is a
contradiction in terms. It prohibits division of Christian fellowship on particular
doctrinal issues, but then it approves of a denominational church system that
is both created (and inherently maintained) by a division of fellowship over the
very same nonessential doctrines for which an Essentials Only View says
fellowship cannot be rightly divided. 7) An Essentials Only View effectively side steps the
canonical authority of the New Testament and instead establishes and relies
upon an alternate, unbiblical canon with a more limited doctrinal scope. More generally, an Essentials Only View and a modern
approach to fellowship minimizes the importance of broad doctrinal agreement.
Contrary to this, the New Testament contains approximately 30 passages in at
least 15 different New Testament books on the subject of excommunication alone.
These instructions are provided by Jesus Christ as well as 6 (of the 8 total)
New Testament authors (Matthew, Luke, Paul, James, Peter, and John), 5 of which
were apostles. These requirements to excommunicate are imperative for
Christians and include broad applications to all biblical teachings as well as
specific references to a wider range of doctrinal topics than an Essentials
Only View allows for. These instructions are given to Christians in at least 7
different church communities (Rome, Corinth, Galatia,
Ephesus, Colossae,
Thessalonica, and Crete) showing their
universal necessity.
Likewise, Paul provides repeated instructions and
commentary on doctrinal requirements and excommunication to Timothy and Titus,
two men who were charged with overseeing and setting in order the religious
affairs of various churches and Christian communities. An Essentials Only View
does not often mention, address, or take these biblical texts and instructions
into account when discussing unity and division. Instead, the Essentials Only
View typically relies entirely upon post-biblical history significantly removed
from the apostles and purely philosophical arguments as if scripture itself did
not greatly touch on the topic in much detail. It is inconceivable that the average Christian today can know
almost nothing of this widely discussed New Testament practice. Just as
troubling is the fact that the modern church system gives virtually no role to
such a well-established New Testament practice. Any teaching that receives the treatment
and prominence that the New Testament gives to doctrinal unity and
excommunication cannot rightly remain ignored, uninvestigated, and passed over.
Rather, it deserves our careful and studious attention and compliance. There is
no way to reconcile the minimalist approach of an Essentials Only View of the
modern church with teachings that are plainly and consistently presented in the
New Testament. We must instead return to the full application of New Testament
requirements for comprehensive doctrinal adherence for fellowship and
excommunication for those who persist in divergent belief, behavior, or
practice. Considering Doctrinal
Unity: An Exercise As we have seen the issue of Christian separation is
inherently connected to the idea of Christian unity. One common perception of the relationship between unity and
separation envisions a tension between these two issues. It is often thought
that more separation will result in less unity. In other words, the more we
separate from other Christians the less unified the church is as a whole. Therefore,
within this conception of unity, greater unity among Christians is generally
conceived of as a matter of less separation. There are several things that must
be realized about this conception of unity and separation. First, we must recognize that this conception presupposes
the existence of a legitimate form of church unity that does not involve total
doctrinal agreement. Second, we must realize that this idea that the church can
be unified despite doctrinal differences is only one view. Other conceptions of
unity and its relationship to separation are available. For instance, it could
be argued that the more we separate from those whose beliefs and practices differ
from our own, the more unified we will be with those we do fellowship with. In
other words, we will have more beliefs in common with those we fellowship with
and therefore, greater unity, even though there are less people sharing that
unity. This alternate view measures the degree of unity by the amount of
agreement rather than the number of people involved. In this way greater unity (doctrinal
unity) is achieved by a greater degree of separation from those with differing
views. Our point here is that there are different ways to conceive
of church unity and its relationship to separating from other Christians. Likewise,
how we conceive of these issues impacts what we consider to be necessary to
achieve whatever notion of unity we value. We must be aware of these issues as
we consider the question of dividing fellowship from other Christians. An Essentials Only View involves a particular concept of
unity and separation in which church unity is a limited kind of unity. By
limiting the number of doctrinal issues required for fellowship, a larger
amount of people will be accepted into fellowship despite disagreement over
certain issues. In this way fellowship will be less limited. However, doctrinal
unity will be more limited in that it pertains only to a smaller, select set of
issues. On issues not deemed essential for fellowship, there is an allowance
for differences of opinion. But, these differences of opinion constitute clear
disunity and discord within the church. Therefore, in an Essentials Only conception
of unity and separation, unity is quite limited. In fact, it is even un-unified.
On the other hand, anyone who requires doctrinal agreement over
a larger set of issues proportionately reduces the number of Christians that
are available to fellowship with. Their fellowship will be more limited. But,
the unity of those in fellowship will be much greater and express a high decree
of harmony and agreement within the church. These observations demonstrate that within Christian circles
unity is not an only child. It is not the only important factor in and of
itself. If unity were our sole priority or our highest priority, we could
easily join in fellowship with Christians (or even non-Christians) of all
kinds. We could fellowship with other persons of monotheistic faiths (Judaism
and Islam) that are associated with biblical tradition. We could gather
together for communion and worship with any organization which teaches Jesus
Christ is divine and the Savior of mankind (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses,
Christadelphians, Seventh Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, and
Mormons.) If unity was our only goal, Christians could be united in
fellowship with as many of these groups as we like. But we do not. The reason we
are not united with such groups is because Christian unity isn’t simply social
unity. It is ideological unity. Our fellowship, our unity, and our social
connections are limited by doctrinal considerations. Our unity is not an
unrestricted unity, nor is it unity for the purposes of social cohesion. Instead,
it is a unity governed by doctrinal agreement to the teachings of the Christian
faith. Our delineation of the doctrinal requirements necessary for unity and
fellowship is what determines when we, as Christians, separate ourselves from
fellowship with others, whether they call themselves Christian or not. Our goal
is unity, but it is not unity for unity’s sake. It is a unity in Christian
teaching. And if we sacrifice doctrinal integrity for social cohesion then we risk
forfeiting any valid, principled means of excluding anyone from our fellowship
and we invite being criticized as hypocrites. Because unity is a central issue in this study, let us pause
for a moment and consider what unity is. The following definitions from Merriam
Webster’s Dictionary show that the essential notion conveyed by unity is
singleness, agreement, and harmony. Unity – 1a: the quality or state of not being multiple
: oneness…2a: a condition of harmony
: accord 2b: continuity without
deviation or change (as in purpose or action) 3a: the quality or state of being made one: unification – Merriam
Webster’s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com United – 1: made
one: combined, 2: relating to or produced by joint action 3: being in agreement : harmonious –
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com Unison – 1a:
identity in musical pitch; specifically : the interval of a perfect prime 1b:
the state of being so tuned or sounded c : the writing, playing, or singing of
parts in a musical passage at the same pitch or in octaves 2: a harmonious agreement or union –
Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com These definitions suggest that the idea of unity offered by
an Essentials Only View is perhaps an unnatural and uneasy one. An Essentials
Only conception of unity is one which is characterized by multiple divisions,
differences, disagreement, and disharmony on various doctrinal issues. It is a
unity which seeks to preserve social contact by easing doctrinal requirements
for fellowship. Such a conception of unity is very democratic. It resonates
well with our modern political culture in which people of differing
perspectives join together to form a cohesive society. In our contemporary
political world, unity despite differences of opinion seems like a common sense
and comfortable notion. It may even be thought of as gracious in its
willingness to compromise. However, we must remember that the writers of the New
Testament did not live in our modern, post-enlightenment, democratic culture.
We cannot, therefore, assume that their conception of unity would necessarily
reflect one that we find so readily available in our pluralistic world today.
As we turn to the scriptures, we will have to determine whether the biblical
authors’ conception of doctrinal unity in the church was one of complete
harmony on all teachings or a unity which allowed and contained competing doctrinal
divergences for the sake of maintaining a larger sense of social connection. Closely related to this subject is the idea of tolerance for
different doctrinal views. As we will see the New Testament warns about false
teachers who attempt to deceive the church. With this biblical observation in
mind, it is important to consider what means the apostles would have given to
the church to prevent the infiltration of false teaching. Various scenarios are
possible. First, let us consider that the apostles all taught the same
things on all doctrinal issues giving the church a complete and uniform
understanding of the correct teaching on all doctrinal issues. Additionally,
this teaching was preserved in a written record of their teachings that the
church could use as a reference point and standard. In this way, the church
would be able to recognize false teaching simply because it differed from what
the apostles had taught on all topics to all churches. If the apostles
competently endeavored to accomplish this task and left a record of this
teaching to the church it would be a very effective means to combat false
doctrine and prevent it from infiltrating and corrupting the church and the
Christian faith. It would be effective, that is, so long as the church was
intent on remaining faithful to apostolic teaching. Second, let us consider the alternative scenario in which
the apostles did not teach the same things universally to all Christians and
did not give the church a single, particular sound understanding on each and
every doctrinal issue. How effectively would the church be prepared to heed scriptural
warnings about being deceived by false prophets and false teachers? It is a given that false prophets and false teachers will
claim that their novel ideas are the result of either divine revelation,
superior insight into the scriptures, solutions to yet unresolved theological
questions, or all three. But without the correct view having been precisely
determined and made known on any and all topics, the church would not be able
to know whether any seemingly novel teaching constituted a false view or an
improved understanding guided by God. Finally, we must be aware of how we perceive the cause of the
doctrinal disunity we observe in the modern church. Within an Essentials Only
View, ongoing doctrinal disunity is typically understood to result from the
church never having been given a correct understanding of all New Testament teachings.
Therefore, disunity remains as the church continues to be unable to determine
the correct understanding of various doctrinal issues. (For further discussion
of the concept of unresolved doctrinal disagreements please see our article
entitled, “Is Orthodox Doctrine Accumulated Over Time?”)
An alternative perspective would suggest that the New
Testament church was given a correct understanding of all doctrinal issues, but
that false views have infiltrated Christian theology over the course of church
history resulting in the doctrinal diversity we see all around us. As we
proceed, we will have to see which of these two scenarios (if any) is expressed
by the authors of the New Testament. Closely related to this is the question of
whether Jesus and the apostles felt that the Christian church would persist in
doctrinal obscurity and misunderstanding for any lengthy period of time (such
as 2000 years of church history.) Obviously, these hypothetical scenarios may be
oversimplified to a certain extent. But the purpose of considering these
matters was to demonstrate how differing understandings of Christian unity and
the development of doctrinal diversity can impact our assessment of which
doctrines are required for fellowship and which doctrines may require
separation for those holding differing views. We must be aware of these issues.
And, we cannot simply assume one particular perspective on unity or the cause
of modern doctrinal diversity and then use that assumed perspective as a criterion
for evaluating whether a particular approach to essential doctrine and breaking
fellowship is biblical or not. The Canon and Sola
Scriptura One of the first steps in identifying the issues that require
excommunication is to determine where we get our standards for fellowship and
separation. Christians have a word that we use to refer to this sort of
standard of faith. That word is canon. The English word canon is often used to
refer to a standard or rule of judgment. canon – 4a: an accepted
principle or rule 4b: a criterion or
standard of judgment 4c: a body of
principles, rules, standards, or norms … Origin of CANON Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from
Latin, ruler, rule, model, standard, from
Greek kanōn - Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com As we can see the English word “canon” originates from a
Greek word “kanon” (Strong’s number 2853) that is used in the New Testament.
Below is the lexical definition of its Greek usage. 2583 kanon from kane (a straight reed, i.e. rod);
TDNT-3:596,414; n m AV-rule 4, line 1; 5 1) a rod or straight
piece of rounded wood to which any thing is fastened to keep it straight 1a) used for various purposes 1a1) a measuring rod,
rule 1a2) a carpenter’s line or
measuring tape 1a3) the measure of a leap, as in the Olympic games 2) a definitely bounded or fixed space within the limits of
which one’s power of influence is confined 2a) the province assigned one 2b) one’s sphere of activity 3) metaph. any rule
or standard, a principle or law of investigating, judging, living, acting These Greek and English words convey the idea of an
authoritative standard or means of judging or measuring something. It is in
this sense that Christians identify the books of the Old and New Testaments as
canons. canon – 3a: an authoritative
list of books accepted as Holy Scripture 3b: the authentic works of a writer 3c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
<the canon of great literature> 4a: an accepted principle or rule 4b: a criterion or standard of judgment 4c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms - Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary,
www.merriam-webster.com Biblical canon – A
Biblical canon, or canon of scripture,[1] is a list of books considered to be authoritative as scripture by a
particular religious community, generally
in Judaism or Christianity. The term itself was first coined by
Christians,[2] but the idea is found in Jewish sources. – wikipedia.org We apply the word canon to the books of the bible in order
to denote that these texts are the authority, the measuring rod, and the
standard for the Christian faith. In other words, beliefs and behaviors that
contradict biblical teaching are unchristian and should be rejected. This
concept of the bible as the sole authority for the Christian faith was one of
the chief principles championed by Reformers and embraced by the Protestant
Reformation as well as Protestant churches today. Sola scriptura –
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by
scripture alone") is the
doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and
holiness. Consequently, sola
scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed
that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction
or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not
a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it
simply demands that all other
authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of
God. Sola scriptura was a
foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the
Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today. – wikipedia.org So, the scripture (and particularly the New Testament) is
the authority for judging, determining, and measuring what is and isn’t
appropriate belief, behavior, and practice for Christians. As the authors of
this paper, we recognize that this authority is vested in the first century
writings of the New Testament which were penned by the apostles and their close
associates. And we reject the idea that later documents, declarations, or
traditions may supersede, improve, override, or truncate the authoritative
standard held by the Old and New Testament texts alone. The recognition of scripture as the sole and final authority
of the Christian faith is important to our study. The New Testament texts are
the record of apostolic teaching on all subjects that they discuss. As such,
the identification of the New Testament as the canon of the Christian faith,
itself goes a long way toward recognizing that the apostles sought to prevent
false teaching by preserving what they taught on various topics in the books of
New Testament. Still, at this point in our study, questions remain about the
extent of doctrinal unity and uniformity that the apostles expected and established
in the early church as well as what doctrine the apostles identified as
excommunicable. The next step in our study will be to investigate the New
Testament as the authority, the standard, and the measure for determining which
doctrinal issues are required for fellowship and, therefore, require separating
from Christians with differing views.
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |