Maybe it’s too intuitive, but the first rule to prevent division in the churches ought to be to stop dividing. Overly simplistic? Maybe not.
Provided our brother hasn’t departed from the gospel, is not engaged in immoral conduct or character, and is not being divisive (advocating division), there is no reason that brotherly love can’t overcome all other scruples.
1 Corinthians 12:24-25 – But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. (NIV)
I can now live peaceably with those whose consciences have reached different conclusions than mine. Can you? I’d suggest that you already are. There are not two people in a congregation that share the exact same scruples. So let’s just take what we’re already doing and apply it to brothers we haven’t yet met.
But above all, let’s not divide the people of God or reject any one of them over his “error arising from weakness of mind“:
Romans 15:1 – We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
Admirable desire, though not new. Sort of like getting Sunnis and Shias together. How do you see 1 Cr. 11:19 fitting in to your theology of unity?
“For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident[or manifest] among you.”
Well brother, I can’t transmit the whole flavor of what I think about unity in one post, but I’ll try to elaborate a little.
I do recognize that there are reasons for “factionalizing” or dividing, as Paul points out. But the reasons for doing so better not be partisanship, pride of heritage, differences of opinion on speculative theology, etc. My working hypothesis (and I’d be glad to discuss it further on the discussion group I just set up yesterday: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gospelunion/join) is that there are four scriptural reasons for dissociating ourselves from a brother.
Those would be: (a) departure from the gospel; (b) immoral conduct and character; (c) divisiveness; and (d) rejection of the Word as authoritative/inspired.
I think we both would agree that factions, even according to Paul, are unfortunate and something to work to avoid and to mend. But I think the situation in Corinth fits neatly into (b), immoral conduct and character. Consider the context of Paul’s instruction:
1 Corinthians 11:17-22 – “Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.”
In the process of failing to honor the Lord’s Supper as a memorial distinct from a common meal, they were getting drunk, despising their brethren, and shaming those who didn’t have much food or drink. Hence the appropriateness of “avoiding” such brethren.
The bottom line is that the faction was not justified by Paul over a sincerely held difference of opinion. It was unbrotherly behavior that justified the faction.
That’s just my take on it.