Ecclesial Division

Does there exist in Bible teaching any justification for a division within an ecclesia? We have been asked this question by a sister and this article will undertake to answer in the affirmative. To consider the alternative that a division is wrong in every circumstance forces the members of an ecclesia to be bound to false doctrines or wrong conduct with no release. Their conscience is not allowed to have any exercise of deciding whether or not to abide with serious error. If we believe an ecclesial division is wrong under all circumstances, then we are taking the position that once we are baptized, we are stuck irrevocably in an ecclesia with brethren who may promote and partake of false teaching concerning fundamental principles or serious departures from proper behavior.

The only way out in such a case would be to relocate to another area without making any protest concerning the bothersome difficulties. This hardly seems reasonable and it is very impractical. On the other hand it is possible for those who are led by the flesh to manufacture causes that lead to division in order to satisfy some crotchet or ambition. Experience has shown that false teaching has led to division as has ultra-strict opinion about doctrine or conduct

We are going to look at two particular portions of The Ecclesial Guide and some Biblical testimony in an effort to analyze the subject. As we will see, division is the last resort and should not occur if all members are concerned with maintaining proper standards and caring attitudes toward each other. If there is a defined difference of opinion or interpretation in matters of serious consequence, and all avenues of reason have been explored, then it is the part of discretion for disagreeing members to go their separate ways.

In serious matters affecting fellowship in the ecclesia there is the opportunity of the deceitfulness of the flesh manifesting itself on both sides of the disagreement. It is possible for one side to wish for division in order to get away from those who provide the opposition, regardless of which side may be right. Issues are likely to be minimized in favor of human friendship. In doctrinal matters the false teachers will gloss over their teaching with couched language. It is a matter in which the exercise of the spirit of Christ is needed by as many brethren as can be rallied.

The Ecclesial Guide tells us how to get along in the conduct of the affairs of our meeting. It must be tested against Scriptural teaching. The improvement of the spiritual climate and the uplifting of each individual is the goal when this goal is not recognized and the machinery breaks down. The Ecclesial Guide gives certain practical as well as certain Biblical instructions which can help. As we consider only two sections of The Ecclesial Guide, we hope that our readers will pay attention to other sections such as (12) Objects of Ecclesial Work, (17) Exercise of Authority, (35) Disputes, (36) Individual Offences, (38) Dissatisfied Minority, and (43) The True Secret of Success.

We are first going to look at Section 32, "Cases of Sin and Withdrawal" The question posed is whether or not splits are approved under any circumstances by Scripture. We are not going to quote Section 32 in its entirety due to its length. Here are the pertinent parts: "Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not to be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of procedure have been exhausted." Then follows a paragraph outlining the rule laid down by Christ in Matthew 18:15-17 dealing with personal offences. Let us state here that all of us have the duty to forgive our brother for any offense committed against us, even suffering ourselves to be defrauded, but we do not have the right to forgive him of sins against God. Many believers consider it mercy on their part to overlook serious misconduct, feeling that this will stand them in good favor at the Judgment Seat. In reality this is not mercy, but a lack of courage to uphold and promote the Lord's commands.

Continuing, and after analysis of the steps to be taken in Matthew 18:15-17, "It is then the ecclesia's part to bring their whole influence to bear upon the offender to forsake his evil ways. Only when this has failed are we at liberty to withdraw. Nothing is so effectual as this rule for stopping evil speaking and ensuring merciful help to those who stumble, or the proper and timely treatment of incorrigible sin. Each brother then becomes a seeing eye and protecting hand of the ecclesia.

"Withdrawal, too, when it comes (it must be noted), is not expulsion. It is the apostolic form of separation which, though practically equivalent to expulsion in its effects on the separated, is more in harmony with the spirit enjoined by Christ upon his house than the form in vogue among professing bodies of all sorts. Withdrawal means that those withdrawing do modestly and sorrowfully step aside from the offender for fear of implication in his offence. Expulsion means thrusting out, which is a different thing, and implies and generates the arrogant attitude of ecclesiastical excommunication. The careful preservation of right forms in these things is a help to the preservation of the right spirit."

So much for Section 32. Now let's look at Section 40, "A Time to Separate, and How to Go About It"—Suppose the majority decide upon something that involves the denial of the truth, or the violation of the commandments, the minority might have to consider whether continued fellowship with the majority would not be inconsistent with their duty to Christ. There is a time to separate, as well as a time to hold together. Suppose such a time come, great care must be taken in the mode of action, otherwise the right side may get into the wrong picture, or put it into the power of the wrong to appear the right, to the embarrassment of relations with other ecclesias.

"It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on, —suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias will not have it in their power to decide upon the issue. The only thing they can have officially before them is the fact that a discontented minority have left, which, prima-facie, is itself an offence.

"The minority may feel that formality is superfluous in view of the controversy that may have caused the secession. This feeling may be natural to them, but ought to be set aside; there are others to be considered, and their own subsequent relation to them requires correct action. A course must be taken which will secure the right form of those relations. The course to be taken is undoubtedly this: let the minority reduce their charges to writing, and hand the same to the recording brother, and ask a meeting for the discussion of them, intimating that a question of the continuance of fellowship is involved.

"If the meeting is refused (and the charges be of a sort justifying withdrawal), the minority have no alternative but to withdraw; and let them inform other ecclesias of their act, and send to them a copy of the charges, which will put it into their power to consider whether the minority are entitled to their recognition and sympathy. If, on the other hand, the meeting is granted, as probably it will be, the discussion of the charges may lead to their disproof or to the acknowledgment and the removal of the grounds of them. If the discussion have no such result, but the charges are established and owned to by the majority, and the grounds of them persisted in, the course of the minority is clear: let them withdraw (if the case warrant it) and announce their action to all whom it may concern."

Now some verses and commentary. "Whose mouths [the unruly and vain talkers of vs. 10] must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake . . . Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:11,13). Those who act and teach subversively, by word or practice, as outlined in these verses, must have their mouths stopped. If this cannot be done by reasoning and instruction, withdrawal would be in order. Otherwise the ecclesia deteriorates, sound teaching is not promoted, and the unruly continue in their evil way.

"A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10). Other translations refer to a heretic as a divisive person, one who causes divisions, factious, one who disputes what you teach. To reject such a person, referring to several other translations, is to have nothing more to do with him. Experience has shown that many times, in fact most times, those who oppose improper conduct in the meeting are considered the divisive persons rather than the offending member. A divisive person tries to establish his improper conduct as a norm for the meeting, a conduct which is acquiesced to by those who don't want to be unpopular with men, but do not think about their popularity with God, soon overlooked and forgotten, and subtly recommended to our children as they mature.

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (II John 10-11). The doctrine referred to here is "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (vs. 7). But there are other allusions in the chapter that suggest more than this one item. "Walking in truth . . . love one another . . . walk after his commandments . . . abide in the doctrine of Christ." I doubt if anyone would say that the only reason for not receiving an erring believer into your house was his view that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. What if he believed in the Trinity, or the immortal soul? Would we be obliged to receive him into our house? Receiving him into our house implies agreeing with his erroneous conduct. It does not mean that we should refuse him the opportunity of discussing the problem and its correction with us. One translation says, "If anyone comes to teach you, and he doesn't believe what Christ taught, don't even invite him into your home. Don't encourage him in any way. If you do you will be a partner with him in his wickedness." Another translation says, "Don't even greet him."

"Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim. 1:19-20). What is it to deliver someone to Satan? None of us have this power in the same sense that Paul did. Does it mean that he abandoned these men to their evil ways similar to that described in Romans 1? " Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts . . . For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections" (vss. 24,26). The purpose of this delivering to Satan was "that they might learn not to blaspheme." Withdrawal should be for a purpose of recognition of a wrong and the correction of it. If Hymanaeus and Alexander learned not to blaspheme, it would seem in order to restore them to fellowship. We are not told what happened with them.

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself (I Tim. 6:3-5). Here is a specific admonition to withdraw. To engage in evil and not repent is implied teaching of that evil. To endorse or acquiesce to the evil is implied teaching. Some try to disassociate themselves from it, saying that the problem or guilt is not theirs, but their silent approval condemns them. Remember, doctrine is just as much the teaching of the way in which we should walk as it is the academic statement of facts concerning God and His purpose.

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (II Tim. 3:5). Some might apply this chapter to non-believers, but it appears inconsistent for Paul to exhort a disassociation from men who are covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, etc., and in effect not warn that in the household these things could exist. The men of this chapter were lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, they had a misconceived form of godliness, they resisted the truth, they were reprobate concerning the faith. There is an association with expected behavior to which they did not live up. To turn away from such is to disassociate oneself from them.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). Again, this suggests a withdrawal from any who preach another gospel, or consent not to the sound teaching of Christ or Paul. The alternative is to put up with it, acquiesce to it, make no stir in order to be considered a peacemaker, and soon the gospel becomes broad and Christian, making provision for the flesh.

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal. 5:9). This warning is appropriate. Leaven often, but not always, represents sin. Other times it means doctrine, and in this case, false doctrine if allowed to be tolerated, silently endorsed, will work its way into what formerly was sound doctrine. Any mixture of false and true doctrine will result in a hybrid or inferior to the original. There is no specific instruction in this passage to withdraw. But again, the alternative is to allow the leaven or sin to infiltrate more and more. Where does one stop? The leaven or the perpetrator of it will eventually have to be put away.

"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints . . . Be ye not therefore partakers with them . . . And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:3,7,11). These passages may be more exhortative than legislative, but again the suggestion is to not be partakers with or have fellowship with certain modes of conduct. How is this done? By working to correct it if at all possible, and then, failing this, to separate to where the Lord's precepts will be a matter of paramount concern to those separating.

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators . . . But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat . . . But them that are without, God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (I Cor. 5:9,11,13). Keeping continued company with defined violators of God's laws of conduct, which certainly includes meeting at the memorial table, is here forbidden. Brethren of Christ are expected to live a holy life and pay close attention to the letter and spirit of Christ's commands. We have weaknesses and we often fail to do that which we purpose. This means a constant vigil on ourselves and a concerted effort to reform, always asking God's forgiveness. Paul, in this passage, is not talking about daily weaknesses. He refers to habitual evil practices where no effort is made to repent. When the Scriptures state that no murderer shall inherit the Kingdom, it means that no unforgiven murderer will be approved. Otherwise David would not enter. We cannot have the mind or practice of a continuing murderer or a continuing hater or a continuing fornicator and expect to enter the Kingdom.

"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (II Thess. 3:14-15). Here is Scriptural teaching on cutting off company under certain circumstances, but continuing to try to recover the one cut off. With this instruction, we have to admit that there are cases where cutting off is the proper thing to do. We cannot remain silent and represent ourselves as Christ’s brethren in the face of ingrained wrongdoing.

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:3-7). Fellowship with the Father is based upon walking in the light which involves our circumspect obedience as well as the putting away or repudiation of blatant and unrepentant sin when it is performed and allowed in our ecclesia. God is light which means He has holy standards which He cannot lower for the sake of human flesh. We have to reach up to His standards, not expect Him to come down to our wishful thinking and human friendships.

Writing on a subject such as this can leave the impression that brethren should be sought out to see how many can be cut off. We have emphasized that withdrawal is the last resort after all efforts possible have been made to recover an erring brother. But the Scriptures do teach that withdrawal is a divine concept which is to be applied in certain cases of wrong belief and habitual, unrepentant wrong practice. This unpleasant duty is not solely the duty of the arranging brethren of an ecclesia. Each member has a stake in it—his or her personal salvation. Do we lend approval by our failure to act?

James Stanton

The Sanctuary-Keeper. July 1990, pgs. 256-262.