What really is "dividing the body of Christ"??

[Delvianna]

People use this phrase a lot when there are arguments but for the most part, it looks like people are using it incorrectly, so I thought I'd start off this discussion by expounding on what is, and isn't "dividing the body of Christ".

1. First, let's define the word "dividing".
Dividing means to separate. I mean, that's as plain as it can get lol. If you divide an apple in half, you are cutting into two pieces. It is no longer whole, it is divided.

2. Now, what is the body of Christ?
It's a metaphor used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to describe the Church as a whole. All believers in Jesus, united under one head of leadership. We can get more nuanced with this but let's just leave it as, anyone who follows Christ in faith. So regardless of denomination, race, or background.

3. Dividing the Body of Christ
So instead of unity (one body) all following Christ, you have division. Examples of this are:

• A) Breaking unity over non-essentials like: "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos" (1 Corinthians 3:4).
• B) Promoting False Doctrine (Galatians 5:7-10, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10)
• Gossip or slander (Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 16:28, 2 Corinthians 12:20) But there is a difference between "quarreling" and debate. The motive for quarreling is often pride (James 4:1) and can be over arguments that are "foolish" in nature (Titus 3:9) because the outcome ruins "good hearers" (2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Timothy 2:23). The Motive for a debate is restoration by correction which can have a fruitful outcome when someone is corrected.

4. So if promoting false doctrine is considered dividing the body, what is NOT dividing the body?

Rebuke: Correcting a person in error by holding them accountable, correcting behavior and correcting scripture. (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, 2 Timothy 4:2, 1 Timothy 5:20, Titus 1:13)

If someone is preaching something false, that's already divided, but debating someone or even getting into a heated debate, isn't dividing, it's actually an attempt at becoming whole again where both people can agree. THAT is unity. So I think people need to be careful that just because 2 people are having an argument/debate, doesn't necessarily mean division, when scripturally speaking its a step towards unity (depending on context of course).

Denominations are already scripturally divided and we should duke it out more often so we can come together in unity of belief instead of attempting to pacify the debate with a chastisement of "dividing the body of Christ" which is only preventing us from actually being whole and keeping us divided with "you interpret it this way, I interpret it this way" and leaving it in that divided state. That's not helping, thats encouraging continued true division.

So within this context, can we stop throwing that phrase around and continue debating so we can become a unified front instead of a fractured one?

Now, within that spirit, feel free to debate me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What really is "dividing the body of Christ"??​

That's a good question. I tend to think it's all the stuff that St. Jude warned us about.

 

[PloverWing]

My global church community, the Anglican Communion, is currently wrestling with this, as there have been some splinterings in the last century, and another schism may be in progress. I agree that argument does not have to mean division, that argument can be a healthy part of living together as a community.

Humility is part of the picture, recognizing that I may be wrong. Respect, too: recognizing that the other person is genuinely trying to follow God, to do what is right, and to believe what is true.

I think often of some words from our baptismal liturgy, based on words from Ephesians: "There is one hope in God's call to us." Ultimately, I think our union is in that common call from God. How to live that out well is a tougher thing.

 

[Yarddog]

People use this phrase a lot when there are arguments but for the most part, it looks like people are using it incorrectly, so I thought I'd start off this discussion by expounding on what is, and isn't "dividing the body of Christ".

1. First, let's define the word "dividing".
Dividing means to separate. I mean, that's as plain as it can get lol. If you divide an apple in half, you are cutting into two pieces. It is no longer whole, it is divided.

2. Now, what is the body of Christ?
It's a metaphor used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to describe the Church as a whole. All believers in Jesus, united under one head of leadership. We can get more nuanced with this but let's just leave it as, anyone who follows Christ in faith. So regardless of denomination, race, or background.

3. Dividing the Body of Christ
So instead of unity (one body) all following Christ, you have division. Examples of this are:

• A) Breaking unity over non-essentials like: "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos" (1 Corinthians 3:4).
• B) Promoting False Doctrine (Galatians 5:7-10, Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10)
• Gossip or slander (Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 16:28, 2 Corinthians 12:20) But there is a difference between "quarreling" and debate. The motive for quarreling is often pride (James 4:1) and can be over arguments that are "foolish" in nature (Titus 3:9) because the outcome ruins "good hearers" (2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Timothy 2:23). The Motive for a debate is restoration by correction which can have a fruitful outcome when someone is corrected.

4. So if promoting false doctrine is considered dividing the body, what is NOT dividing the body?

Rebuke: Correcting a person in error by holding them accountable, correcting behavior and correcting scripture. (Matthew 18:15, Luke 17:3, 2 Timothy 4:2, 1 Timothy 5:20, Titus 1:13)

If someone is preaching something false, that's already divided, but debating someone or even getting into a heated debate, isn't dividing, it's actually an attempt at becoming whole again where both people can agree. THAT is unity. So I think people need to be careful that just because 2 people are having an argument/debate, doesn't necessarily mean division, when scripturally speaking its a step towards unity (depending on context of course).

Denominations are already scripturally divided and we should duke it out more often so we can come together in unity of belief instead of attempting to pacify the debate with a chastisement of "dividing the body of Christ" which is only preventing us from actually being whole and keeping us divided with "you interpret it this way, I interpret it this way" and leaving it in that divided state. That's not helping, thats encouraging continued true division.

So within this context, can we stop throwing that phrase around and continue debating so we can become a unified front instead of a fractured one?

Now, within that spirit, feel free to debate me.

Anyone that has the Holy Spirit within them are children of God. Failure to discern that Spirit and embrace those with God's Spirit is keeping us from understanding our call to be One, just as God is One.

 

[Delvianna]

Anyone that has the Holy Spirit within them are children of God. Failure to discern that Spirit and embrace those with God's Spirit is keeping us from understanding our call to be One, just as God is One.

On a foundational level, I agree.

 

[RamiC]

What is the defiinition of "the Body of Christ"? On CF it is belief in the Nicene Creed, but across denominations, never mind sometimes within them, there can be very big differences of thinking about that. I find it hard to apply the verses quoted in the OP without a clear definition of the church.

 

[Hentenza]

What is the defiinition of "the Body of Christ"? On CF it is belief in the Nicene Creed, but across denominations, never mind sometimes within them, there can be very big differences of thinking about that. I find it hard to apply the verses quoted in the OP without a clear definition of the church.

In earth everyone is a human then it breaks down in subsets of humans like male or female, country of birth, city of birth, religion. Etc. But the subsets always adds up to human.

The body of Christ by definition are all that follow Christ. From there the subsets divide into denomination, worship style, views of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology. Etc. But the subsets always adds up to the body of Christ.

So the body of Christ is the subset of humans that believe in Christ. So now that I have made my utilitarian observations some of the Christians here will argue doctrinal purity according to their denomination to exclude some believers in Christ from the body of Christ. So be it.

I know I quoted you RamiC but the last part of my post is general and not directed at you.

 

[Delvianna]

What is the defiinition of "the Body of Christ"? On CF it is belief in the Nicene Creed, but across denominations, never mind sometimes within them, there can be very big differences of thinking about that. I find it hard to apply the verses quoted in the OP without a clear definition of the church.

2. Now, what is the body of Christ?
It's a metaphor used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to describe the Church as a whole. All believers in Jesus, united under one head of leadership. We can get more nuanced with this but let's just leave it as, anyone who follows Christ in faith. So regardless of denomination, race, or background.

The body of Christ = The Church.

 

[Delvianna]

So the body of Christ is the subset of humans that believe in Christ. So now that I have made my utilitarian observations some of the Christians here will argue doctrinal purity according to their denomination to exclude some believers in Christ from the body of Christ. So be it.

See, this one of the issues I talked about. I didn't necessarily spell it out as such, but can be under the umbrella of number 3 with "quarreling". If the only reason someone wants to debate scripture is because of a denominational practice/belief (which is already divided) then that resides under quarreling. We should be debating theology purely to help each other figure out what "truth" is or correcting someone because there is only one truth and that is God's which isn't subjective. Some doctrine DOES exclude people from the body of Christ because it is false. Believing in false doctrine doesn't somehow make you in the body. The Mormons believe you can be EQUAL to God and that is how Jesus gained his status, does that pure blasphemy make them in the body of Christ? Do you consider them brothers and sisters because CF doesn't. What about Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that Jesus is "a" god as a created Michael the Archangel which isn't who Jesus is at all, so if you claim to follow that created person, are you still in the body of Christ because again, CF says no. There has to come to a point where people ARE excluded because "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 7:21) but the better attitude should be to debate scripture to correct, or even find out what the truth is. If it's the truth, it would hold up to scrutiny and shouldn't be based on the confines of denominations.

 

[RamiC]

My global church community, the Anglican Communion,

The thing about Anglicans is that prevention of violence over religious divisions is inherent to our very existence. This is at the origin point of the Elizabethan Settlement, (not as many are taught Henry VIII wanting a divorce). "One thing Elizabeth did insist upon was to reinstate herself as head of the Church. This would help secure her throne in political terms, too. Divisions in religion could so easily lead to a damaging civil war."

"Despite these reactions, and considering the changes made and the violence witnessed in some other European countries, England had overcome a difficult and potentially dangerous hurdle, even if there would be more to come in the following decades as religious matters affected foreign policy and vice-versa." The Elizabethan Religious Settlement

It seems to have left us with a tradition of ending up agreeing to differ, which would be important in a church that started to prevent differences from becoming war, but here in England itself, right now there is very little interest in that. Globally it does seem that a lot of countries do want to stay with the original fold, even while some want their objections noted. We can pray and wait to see what happens, not much else.

 

[RamiC]

2. Now, what is the body of Christ?
It's a metaphor used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 to describe the Church as a whole. All believers in Jesus, united under one head of leadership. We can get more nuanced with this but let's just leave it as, anyone who follows Christ in faith. So regardless of denomination, race, or background.

The body of Christ = The Church.

Thank you, sorry I missed this, it is right in the OP. My bad. However, if that is the definition, we need an enormous amount of room to differ on various points, because each individual Christian is met by the Lord right where they are at the point of first believing and starting to follow, and that is a lot of different places. I accept the Bible as a unifying element, but the shortest version is 66 books long, and each one of us is reading it from some point in our lives, sometimes before and then after the point of aquiring the faith. We need to allow each other to grow in faith.

 

[Delvianna]

Thank you, sorry I missed this, it is right in the OP. My bad.

lol NP

However, if that is the definition, we need an enormous amount of room to differ on various points, because each individual Christian is met by the Lord right where they are at the point of first believing and starting to follow, and that is a lot of different places. I accept the Bible as a unifying element, but the shortest version is 66 books long, and each one of us is reading it from some point in our lives, sometimes before and then after the point of aquiring the faith. We need to allow each other to grow in faith.

I do agree with this, I just think that we should continue to debate (with the right attitude and motives) instead of essentially using "dividing the body of Christ" as a statement to stop debates so we can unify in theology. Our goal should be unification through Christs truth instead of passively allowing false doctrine to run amok just because someone gets offended when someone claims their belief isn't biblically backed.

There is a wider sense in this with denomination church's at large, but I'm more focusing on the every day person like, our conversations on this forum. I've seen people debate and then someone, somewhere comes out and calls it "dividing the body of Christ" when I think they were doing it correctly and so it just shuts down the conversation like we can't debate at all.

 

[RamiC]

lol NP


I do agree with this, I just think that we should continue to debate (with the right attitude and motives) instead of essentially using "dividing the body of Christ" as a statement to stop debates so we can unify in theology. Our goal should be unification through Christs truth instead of passively allowing false doctrine to run amok just because someone gets offended when someone claims their belief isn't biblically backed.

There is a wider sense in this with denomination church's at large, but I'm more focusing on the every day person like, our conversations on this forum. I've seen people debate and then someone, somewhere comes out and calls it "dividing the body of Christ" when I think they were doing it correctly and so it just shuts down the conversation like we can't debate at all.

We are in Christians-only debate area of CF here, people should be expecting debate.

Some Christians prioritise certain parts of the Bible over others (such as the Gospels over the Epistles), some regard the Bible as a foundation from which they believe a live relationship with God becomes more or equally important, others regard the Bible as everything real, even though computers are real but the Bible will never mention them. Maybe that is why the discussions are unsuccessful, we would need to agree about the Bible?

 

[timothyu]

then that resides under quarreling.

Of course. Christianity has become a team sport

 

[Yarddog]

On a foundational level, I agree.

You cannot be One with God, through baptism, and I cannot be One with God, through baptism, without us also being One with each other, even if we can't understand that.

This was a vision God gave me many years ago.

I accept all who God has revealed himself to as brothers and sister in Christ. I love all as we are called.

 

[Hentenza]

See, this one of the issues I talked about. I didn't necessarily spell it out as such, but can be under the umbrella of number 3 with "quarreling". If the only reason someone wants to debate scripture is because of a denominational practice/belief (which is already divided) then that resides under quarreling. We should be debating theology purely to help each other figure out what "truth" is or correcting someone because there is only one truth and that is God's which isn't subjective. Some doctrine DOES exclude people from the body of Christ because it is false. Believing in false doctrine doesn't somehow make you in the body. The Mormons believe you can be EQUAL to God and that is how Jesus gained his status, does that pure blasphemy make them in the body of Christ? Do you consider them brothers and sisters because CF doesn't. What about Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that Jesus is "a" god as a created Michael the Archangel which isn't who Jesus is at all, so if you claim to follow that created person, are you still in the body of Christ because again, CF says no. There has to come to a point where people ARE excluded because "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 7:21) but the better attitude should be to debate scripture to correct, or even find out what the truth is. If it's the truth, it would hold up to scrutiny and shouldn't be based on the confines of denominations.

I hear you. That’s what I meant in the last part of my post. I was an advisor with CF back when we came out with the statement of faith. I was part of the advisory team that developed it. There was a lot of thought put into it and there was a lot of input from the membership then. CF was a bit different then and was very busy. We even had forums for non Trinitarian churches like the JWs, Mormons, and Christadelphians. Gnostics could even post in that forum. Now we have a watered down version of what it was. With that said, the statement of faith was not intended to define who was a Christian and who was not but merely to determine where they could post. Now is used to determine who can actually post in the Christian sections of the forum.

As far the doctrinal differences, I like to use 2 Timothy to make my point.

“But evil people and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭13‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

bible.com

Evil and impostors will deceive. There are two types of people some evil and some impostors. Some of these are deceiving and some have been deceived. The evil ones we can just rebuke in Jesus name and move on but the ones that have been deceived is a group that we can teach and correct. I remember many Mormons and JWs back then that converted to Trinitarian denominations after realizing the foley of their doctrine.

The basics of the gospel, like Christ dying in the cross for our sins, is based on sound scripture teaching which Paul and the apostles taught. 2 Timothy was written in the mid to late 60’s while Paul was in prison in Rome so he was privy to the arguments against Christianity by groups like the gnostics, Roman philosophers, and other secular philosophies of the time, hence he was warning Timothy and the church to be on the look out. So we are still looking for the same things these days and groups like the Mormons and JWs fit the bill.

Other than the obvious though some denominations judge others that believe in the Jesus of the gospels by what I call non salvific doctrines. Doctrines that have no effect on our salvation. Doctrines like universalism and soul sleep for example do not question the Jesus of the gospel but some will question their Christianity and in CF can only be posted in the controversial theology forum. I believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ so as long as they can define the Christ of the gospel then I am not going to question their Christianity. So the body of Christ in my opinion are those Christians that believe in the Jesus of the gospel.

Sorry for the winded post.

 

[PloverWing]

I do agree with this, I just think that we should continue to debate (with the right attitude and motives) instead of essentially using "dividing the body of Christ" as a statement to stop debates so we can unify in theology.

Ah, I think this language may get used differently in your church than in mine. For me, you haven't "divided" anything until you walk out the door and say "I'm not going to belong to your church any more." If we're still in the same building and we're still arguing, we haven't divided yet.

Is this phrase "dividing the body of Christ" often used in your church community to shut down arguments?

 

[Delvianna]

Ah, I think this language may get used differently in your church than in mine. For me, you haven't "divided" anything until you walk out the door and say "I'm not going to belong to your church any more." If we're still in the same building and we're still arguing, we haven't divided yet.

Is this phrase "dividing the body of Christ" often used in your church community to shut down arguments?

I remember there being a sermon at some point about this and the point was essentially, arguing in general was "division" (in the context of debating scripture). Man, I can't remember where that sermon was but I vaguely remember something about it.

 

[Delvianna]

I hear you. That’s what I meant in the last part of my post. I was an advisor with CF back when we came out with the statement of faith. I was part of the advisory team that developed it. There was a lot of thought put into it and there was a lot of input from the membership then. CF was a bit different then and was very busy. We even had forums for non Trinitarian churches like the JWs, Mormons, and Christadelphians. Gnostics could even post in that forum. Now we have a watered down version of what it was. With that said, the statement of faith was not intended to define who was a Christian and who was not but merely to determine where they could post. Now is used to determine who can actually post in the Christian sections of the forum.

As far the doctrinal differences, I like to use 2 Timothy to make my point.

“But evil people and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭13‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

bible.com

Evil and impostors will deceive. There are two types of people some evil and some impostors. Some of these are deceiving and some have been deceived. The evil ones we can just rebuke in Jesus name and move on but the ones that have been deceived is a group that we can teach and correct. I remember many Mormons and JWs back then that converted to Trinitarian denominations after realizing the foley of their doctrine.

The basics of the gospel, like Christ dying in the cross for our sins, is based on sound scripture teaching which Paul and the apostles taught. 2 Timothy was written in the mid to late 60’s while Paul was in prison in Rome so he was privy to the arguments against Christianity by groups like the gnostics, Roman philosophers, and other secular philosophies of the time, hence he was warning Timothy and the church to be on the look out. So we are still looking for the same things these days and groups like the Mormons and JWs fit the bill.

Other than the obvious though some denominations judge others that believe in the Jesus of the gospels by what I call non salvific doctrines. Doctrines that have no effect on our salvation. Doctrines like universalism and soul sleep for example do not question the Jesus of the gospel but some will question their Christianity and in CF can only be posted in the controversial theology forum. I believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ so as long as they can define the Christ of the gospel then I am not going to question their Christianity. So the body of Christ in my opinion are those Christians that believe in the Jesus of the gospel.

Sorry for the winded post.

Thanks for your response and well thought out reply! I appreciate the explanations and I can agree with this!

 

[timothyu]

I remember there being a sermon at some point about this and the point was essentially, arguing in general was "division"

All those in power use this to maintain leadership. Its rarely about the content. Age old comeback... do not question authourity