I have been challenged several times to answer the question, “Should Christians ever divide over doctrine?” So, here is a fuller response than ones I have offered previously. Some things I would like to cover in this article: 

• What the question is Not.
• Scriptures often cited to support in-house separation and how they are misunderstood & misapplied. 
• What does Scripture require and emphasize in regards to our relationships with Christians with whom we disagree?
• So should Christians ever divide over doctrine?
• The U.S. Armed Forces

Summary 

This article became longer than I expected, so a summary at the outset may be helpful…

The question is not about whether Christians should separate from the world, from sin, from false brethren, or from brethren walking in unrepentant sin. The question is specifically whether we are ever required by Scripture to separate from faithful, born-again, Bible-believing, balanced Christians? Some say that there are Scriptures that require this, but from what I can tell, every Scripture that is used to support that view is requiring separation from unbelievers, sin, or truly unorthodox doctrine (teaching that would place someone outside the realm of the Christian Faith). The emphasis of Scripture in regards to responding to in-house disagreements with other believers is to passionately seek unity through understanding, patience and whatever kind of cooperation we are able to secure while still maintaining a pure conscience. Christians are not encouraged to separate from other genuine believers, but there are instances that it would seem permissible for the overall health and furtherance of the Gospel. If we decide that parting ways is the best for everyone and for the cause of Christ, then it should be done with a spirit of love, grace and unity. What is not encouraged – and is not pleasing to God – is erroneously labeling other faithful Christians as heretics, or having a hard-line, hyper-separatist, “my way or the highway” approach to Christian ministry in the church. 

The question is NOT…

1. Whether Christians should be separate from the world. The Scriptures are abundantly clear that Christians are a people called out from the world by God to be a different, special, holy people unto Himself (1 Peter 1:16). God has brought us out of Egypt and now it is our duty to keep Egypt out of ourselves. We are not to be yoked together with unbelievers, because light cannot have union with darkness, and as the temple of God we should not be idolaters. Therefore we should come out from among the world and be separate (2 Corinthians 6). We shouldn’t be committing, condoning or excusing any of the sins explicitly listed in the New Testament. We should preach boldly against worldliness and back it up by keeping our lives free from it.  
2. Neither is the question whether Christians should ever separate from others who merely profess Christ. It is clear that there are some who name the name of Christ, but who are not genuinely Chrisitans (Matthew 7:21-23), are actually following a different Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4) and are embracing a different Gospel (Galatians 1): organizations such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), 7th Day Adventism, or Roman Catholicism. They talk about the Bible and Jesus, but they have a different Jesus, a different spirit and a different Gospel. Anyone who wholeheartedly embraces the doctrine of those religions will perish. So as children of the grace of God we should not participate, fellowship and partner with false brethren or false “Christian” organizations in any way that would imply that we agree with their doctrine. Any doctrines which are explicitly stated in Scripture that would damn someone if they believe it must be rejected by believers (such as: denying the deity of Christ; or insisting that we must keep the Old Covenant laws for salvation), and we are to make a clear distinction between ourselves and those who hold to them. 
3. Finally, neither is the question whether we should ever separate from other believers who confess sound theology. The Scriptures are clear that if a fellow brother in Christ begins to walk in open, unrepentant sin and therefore is heaping shame on the reputation of Christ – the church has an obligation to remove them from the fellowship. 1 Corinthians 5 makes it clear that a little leaven (sin) leavens the whole lump, and therefore we should remove that person from the fellowship. Accordingly, Jesus instituted the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18), which should be followed. If a brother hardens his heart in some way, and refuses to walk in humble unity and purity with the church, then the church has the unfortunate responsibility to excommunicate that person from the fellowship.  
4. The question we are focused on answering in this article is – – – Does the Bible ever require genuinely born-again, faithful, humble, balanced evangelical Christians to separate from one another? This clarity has to be made, because it is often asserted against Christians who strive for unity that they don’t believe in separation at all. There are those who seek for an all-inclusive ecumenicism without regards to any doctrinal or lifestyle concern, but this isn’t representative of everyone seeking unity in the Church, and is certainly not the view of the present writer. We want to seek to draw the line where God draws the line – no further and no closer. Truth is absolutely essential, but so is love and unity. Holding both truth & love in tension is not easy, but I don’t think we have the heart and mind of God unless we hold both in equal tension. 

Scriptures often cited to support in-house separation & how they are misunderstood & misapplied. 

By “in-house” separation I mean separating from a genuinely born again, faithful, humble, balanced evangelical Christian (he or she is neither believing or practicing anything that would exclude them from the Christian Faith). 

 Romans 16:17-18, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

These verses have been used to say that God requires us to separate from other Chrstians who hold to different doctrinal positions than our own. But is this what Paul has in mind here? Let’s take a closer look. 

Paul is instructing us to “avoid” (steer clear) anyone who “causes divisions” (διχοστασία – factitious, sedition, dissension) or “offenses” (σκάνδαλον – scandalous, enticement, snare, temptation to sin). The people Paul have in mind here are malicious and divisive – seditious, factitious, scandalous, enticers, etc. – not merely fellow-brethren who have differing doctrinal opinions on debatable, in-house subjects. The goal of these people is to stimulate disagreements that are intended to lead to discord. The word for “division” here is listed in Galatians 5 in the works of the flesh passage, and is translated as “seditions.” Someone committing sedition has a selfish plan to overthrow the authority of another. A fellow brother who simply has a different opinion and disagrees agreeably is not committing “sedition” or “causing division.” 

The other word, “offenses,” is clearly talking about someone who is trying to entice other Christians to sin. It is used in reference to the working of Satan as well as to “the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel (Revelation 2:14).” Balaam encouraged Balak to convince Israel to commit fornication – which was a very evil plan. So, yes if there are other “Christians” who are trying to entice your church members to sin, then they should be marked, rebuked and avoided. Paul did not have in view fellow, faithful Christians who had in-house, debatable doctrinal or lifestyle disagreements. He had in view people who are committed to the destruction of the health of the church: people who were trying to corrupt the church and trying to get the saints to sin and fall from grace.  

What does Paul mean when he says, “contrary to the doctrine which you have learned?” Does he mean, “Avoid anyone who teaches any doctrine on any point that is different from the whole doctrinal system that you hold to?” If Paul meant that, then we would be required to separate from every single Christian in the world – even from those who reared us up in the Faith! It would mean that any time we would disagree with our teachers, or former companions in the faith, we would be required to separate from them. For example: If someone was raised in a Bible-believing church that taught Postmillennialism, but through study came to the conclusion that it wasn’t the best interpretation of the Bible – is this passage requiring this newly formed Premillennialist to “avoid” his former brothers in Christ because the doctrine they hold to by default “causes division” and “offenses?” No. Not at all. Rather, “the doctrine which you have learned” refers, not to particular Christian denominational convictions, but rather to Pauline/Apostolic theology, New Testament theology, or simply the doctrine of the Gospel as a whole. In 1 Timothy 1:10-11, Paul catalogs a list of sins and ends the list by saying, “…and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” Sound doctrine is any belief or practice that can live in harmony with the Gospel. If someone is a Bible-Believer (a born-again Christian), who confesses the same Gospel as Paul, and is striving to live according to the nature of it, then they have not veered from “the doctrine which they have learned” to which Paul is referring to – even if they confess and practice someone differently than other evangelical Christians. 

Another passage often cited to support separation from other faithful brothers in Christ is Titus 3:10-11, “A man that is an heretic (αἱρετικός – factitious, divisive, division-maker) after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” 

Some Christians have a tendency to label any doctrine that is different than their own as heresy. For example: some would say that if another faithful brother or sister in Christ has a different understanding of end times particulars, then they are espousing heresy (which would also follow that they are a heretics) – even though they still confess the 2nd coming of Christ; another example would be that if someone has a different understanding about how certain details of salvation works, then they are also embracing heresy (which again would make them an heretic) – even though they believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Many other examples could be used, but the point is that some people categorize pretty much any opinion that differs from their own understanding of the Bible as heresy. But is this Biblical? 

As far as I can tell, the word for “heretic” used here in Titus doesn’t necessitate anything to do with doctrine at all. It rather speaks of someone with a negative, divisive spirit; whose manner and actions are designed to be factitious. For example: someone who sows seeds of gossip around the church then lies about it, or one who causes unrest in church decisions and tries to force their agenda on the church. Someone can be divisive or heretical and still hold to even their own denominational doctrinal standards. [For a fuller study on what the Bible has to say about “heresy,” take a look at this article: https://bro-lee.com/2022/11/22/heresy-hypocrisy-labeling-others-heretics/%5D 

You can have a difference of opinion without being divisive. For example: in the context of married life, there are lots of differences/preferences that surface continually (how to raise children, what to eat, where to go, how to spend money, etc.). A couple can either appropriately disagree agreeably, or be divisive in their interactions through pride or self assertion, demanding their own way, etc. It is possible to have perfect harmony, fellowship and unity within their disagreements, and it is also possible to have hatred, strife and division, even over everyday things. 

I think the way in which we commonly use the word heresy today adds somewhat to the confusion. The Oxford Dictionary entry for heresy is: a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine. So the modern, English meaning has doctrine being emphasized. But again, even if we take the modern definition, heresy is still beliefs or opinions that are contrary to “orthodox” Christian doctrine. We have to then ask, what is Christian Orthodoxy? We should all be willing to readily admit that Christian Orthodoxy is not equal to our particular denominational opinions on every point. So what is it? How do we define it? I think the safest and wisest approach is to say that Christian Orthodoxy is the core beliefs that can and have been held by all born-again, Bible believing Christians (now and throughout the last 2,000 years of church history). If we accept this definition, then any doctrine that can be held by a Christian that is not in opposition to those core beliefs is not heresy, but rather simply in-house disagreements. It may not be the best teaching, leading to the highest form of Christian excellence, but it still is not heresy – not even by the modern usage of the term.

The fundamental problem with people who are too quick to drop the H-Bomb is that they have wrongly uprooted the boundaries of Christian Orthodoxy, carried the fences to their own denominational circle, dug new holes, and then erected the fences around themselves. Heresy in their minds now becomes anything that falls outside of the boundaries of their own isolated traditions, even if it still falls within the boundaries of Christianity at large. My challenge to people who think this way is to think carefully about what orthodoxy truly is and to make a definitive formulation of it, using strictly the guidelines of Scripture. If someone is dead set into thinking that their personal or denominational doctrinal statement is the definition of Christian Orthodoxy, and the 100% pure, perfect interpretation of Scripture, then I don’t know what to say other than they are the ones bordering on heresy, if not already there.      

The previous two passages are probably the most relevant Scriptures on the subject. Other passages on separation are clearly either talking about separating from the world, from sin or from doctrines which would exclude someone from being a Christian. Passages such as: 

2 Corinthians 6, the “come out from among them” passage. These instructions are clearly dealing with separation from unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). 

 1 Timothy 6:1-6 Paul tells Timothy “from such withdraw thyself,” but he is talking about withdrawing from people who consent not to doctrine which leads to godliness. Stay away from people saying that “gain is godliness.” Again this is a matter of sin, not differing doctrinal opinions. The same can be said for 2 Timothy 3:5.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” Here we are told to not keep company with “believers” who are “walking disorderly,” which means “irresponsible, or lazy.” Again this is not a doctrinal issue, but a sin issue. Disorderly brethren are those who are in the church only to drain the money, resources, time and life out of the church and are therefore detrimental to its health and unity. When Paul says that they are not walking after the “traditions,” he is talking about the custom or practice of hard work (2 Thess. 3:8), which is obvious if you read the passage. What is not being referred to here – which I have heard people say before – is that the “traditions” refer to the “old paths” of one’s own denomination. Therefore, if anyone is beginning to adopt beliefs or practices (traditions) that differ from their particular denominational roots, then they are becoming “disorderly” and should be separated from. This is a very sad interpretation of the passage and couldn’t be farther from the truth. Not all traditions are bad, some are very good, but they become bad when they are elevated to the level of Scripture. When this happens, a Pharisaical, separatist, self-righteous spirit is fostered, which causes needless division in the Body of Christ.

Perhaps some other Scriptures could be listed, but they would still fit into the categories listed above. 

The emphasis of the New Testament in regards to disagreements among brethren is clearly a call for unity, not separation. 

Every healthy family has disagreements, but at the end of the day we “own” one another and are obligated to dwell in peace. A normal part of home life is learning how to understand each other’s differences and figuring out ways that we can work together as a family to serve one another and other people. Family members can certainly get out of hand to the point where they become abusive or dangerous and there of necessity needs to be a separation for the safety of the rest of the family, but this certainly is a rare occasion and should only be exercised when absolutely necessary. In order to take this step we really have to conclude that this person is by default dangerous. 

God’s Church is a family (1 Timothy 5:1-2) – a big, world-wide, very diverse, spiritual family. We are called God’s household: God is our Father; we are the bride of Christ, and he is also called our older brother. This makes every born-again Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. An argument could be made that this family is actually more significant than our own flesh and blood family in the grand scheme of things because it is the eternal family of God. 

Jesus made it clear that “he that is not with me is against me (Mat. 12:30),” and “he that is not against us is on our part (Mark 9:40).” From God’s perspective, every person is either one of his true, precious children, part of the family, valuable as one of his servants. Or, they do not belong to Him, are not a member in the family, are His enemy and the enemy of His people. We ought to view people in the same way God does. Christians that I disagree with (and that would be every one of them) are nevertheless my eternal family members, teammates and co-laborers, whether I like it or not. My success, and the success of the Gospel is dependent upon their success as well. If they fail, I fail as well. If we refuse to pass the ball to our teammates, or kick them while they are down, we are only shooting ourselves in the foot.  

Some Scripture…

1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” God wants “no divisions” in his church and no “schisms” in the body (1 Cor. 12:25). Now of course, there is the unfortunate event that if a member of the body is walking in open, unrepentant sin that is clearly condemned in Scripture, or if damnable heresies are being espoused and not repented of, they should be disciplined and excommunicated (1 Cor. 5 – get rid of the leaven). Otherwise, God wants unity. We are admonished to learn how to work through disagreements with one another with Christian charity (1 Cor. 13) and be willing to minimize our preferences and opinions (whether doctrinal or practical) in our relationships with one another (1 Cor. chapters 8-10; Romans 14) so that others may be saved (1 Cor. 10:33; John 17). 

Ephesians 4:3-6 “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” There is only one true Jesus and one true Gospel. Anyone who has come to God with repentance and faith in Christ has been washed in the same blood and born of the same Spirit. We have been born again by the same Word of God, have the same great commission, and are looking forward to the same Heaven. There are not different heavens for different kinds of Christians, or separate denominational wings in the heavenly mansion. Therefore, we ought to “endeavor” or “do everything in our power,” to maintain a spirit of unity among true believers. Can we have disagreements? Yes, in fact we should. We should debate one another and challenge one another to grow and strive for excellence. If it ever does come to a point where we part ways, it ought to be clear that we are confirming our love towards one another, receiving one another (Romans 14), and still striving to communicate and find possible ways that we can still relate to and colabor with each other. Is it ok to have different churches? Sure, so long as we still consider one another members of the one true Body of Christ and valuable, co-laborers in the Kingdom of God. 

John 17:20-23 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.” This is not a prayer only to be achieved in heaven, but is meant to be fulfilled while the church is still on the earth. The prayer is that we “all may be one (or, unified).” We cannot get around the fact that God passionately desires for all Christians to be unified. Do you share this same passion with God? Part of the achievement of this unity is separation – yes – separation from sin and true heresy. But another part of seeing this prayer answered and unity accomplished is through grace, mercy, patience, and through…wait for it…yes I’ll say it…compromise. Yes – the most dreadful word of all to hyper-separatist brethren! But compromise is neither a good nor an evil thing in and of itself. By definition compromise means: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. What makes it good or evil is what we compromise over. If we make agreements with the devil, with sin, with the flesh, or with damnable heresies, then yes compromise is a slippery slope to destruction, and will only fuel further division among true believers. However, if we hold to our preferences, opinions and traditions so strongly that we refuse to seek cooperation with other believers who don’t share those convictions; then wrongly label them as heretics, and only speak evil of them, we are causing needless divisions among the body of Christ. We then are working against the prayer of Jesus in John 17. We should be people of great personal conviction, but at the same time be people of great acceptance of others in the Faith. Every healthy family compromises continually with one another for peace, unity and the furtherance of the family’s mission. One evidence of being filled with the Spirit is that we “submit to one another in the fear of God (Ephesians 5).” Romans 14 tells us to “receive one another” to the glory of God!

We could list many, many more verses that support the emphasis of Christian unity in the Bible, but these should suffice for now. Our default posture in relating to Christians we disagree with should be understanding, peace, unity and practical collaboration with mutually pure consciences.   

So should Christians ever divide over doctrine? 

Again, assuming we mean genuinely born-again, faithful, humble, balanced, evangelical, Bible-believing Christians – As far as I can tell from the New Testament, there is nothing that mandates or requires separation from other Christians on the basis of differing doctrinal opinions – so long as those opinions still fall within the parameters of Biblical (Christian) Orthodoxy. All of the passages that require separation are either in the context of avoiding (1) “Christians” living in open, unrepentant sin, (2) professing “Christians” who are promoting doctrines that are antithetical to the Gospel, or (3) “Christians” who are not necessarily preaching false doctrine, but are continually being divisive and schismatic among the church (which would be sinful and would really put them back into (1) that I listed here). 

So, if separation is not mandated, is it ever permissible or allowable? 

One other passage that comes to mind would be Galatians 2:11-13, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

It could be said, “See, here is an instance where Paul was rebuking another brother by name (Peter) and distancing himself from him.” However, I think this passage actually serves to support the opposite position of calling for Christian unity, not separation. Peter was the one who was wrong in this encounter. What was he doing that was wrong? “He withdrew and separated himself” from other genuine believers, and he did so because he was afraid of what his circle of believers would think about him. So Paul did the right thing in rebuking him. Paul was passionate for the unification of Jew and Gentile in the church, and Peter was serving to undermine the Gospel’s purity and power by maintaining separation where it was unnecessary. Peter was at best supporting class-distinctions in the church, and at worst was lending support to the false gospel of the Judaizers. What happened in the end? The outcome isn’t told, but we have every reason to believe that Peter yielded to Paul’s admonition, based on how he surrendered to God in the story of Cornelius, as well as how Peter in his older age praised the unity of Jew & Gentile in his letters as well as categorizing Paul’s letters (which would presumably include Galatians) as Scripture. So this passage is not mandating separation from other Christians. If anything it serves to show that we should be striving to maintain the unity of the church, and also that there are times when it is appropriate for us to challenge one another over our stances. 

Another passage that comes to mind is the account of Paul and Barnabas parting ways for their second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-). They disagreed so strongly about whether to take Mark with them that they decided it would be best to part ways – Paul would take Silas, and Barnabas would take Mark. A few things to mention here: (1) This was not a doctrinal dispute, but rather a preference of how to operate the ministry, so it wouldn’t support the view of brothers in Christ dividing over doctrine. (2) This instance is neither put in a positive or negative light by Luke. He doesn’t state whether either of them were sinning in this disagreement, or who was right and who was wrong. The story is just stated as it happened. Therefore, this isn’t necessarily a good passage to point to as our example if we are going to use it to support separating from other believers. (3) However, I do think that it serves to show that there may be times when fellow believers will disagree about something so strongly, that the best course of action for the present moment would be to part ways and do ministry in a different context. It would be better for Paul & Barnabas to both be at peace and doing what they believed God wanted them to be doing, than to be arguing and not wholehearted in their missionary endeavor. That being said, a few cautions: (1) There is absolutely no indication that Paul or Barnabas thought the other was a “heretic” or being “displeasing” to God or “causing division,” etc. (2) They still considered themselves co-laborers in the Gospel. There is no indication that they eventually departed with hard feelings or being offended. If they would have by providence crossed paths at some town during their journeys, they would have embraced one another, identified with each other and perhaps even ministered in that same area with one another. We have no account of that happening, but the passage does say that they “were recommended by the grace of God,” suggesting their efforts were being blessed by the church. Also, everything else we have from the New Testament about Paul and Barnabas suggests that would have been the outcome. 

So, it seems from a passage like this that there may arise times when we are faced with situations as fellow believers where we feel so strongly about a particular issue that we decide to part ways, not because we are required to, or because we think that the other party is “unclean,” but rather because we think that there is perhaps a more perfect way, and we feel like we need to follow our convictions. Additionally, there may just be practical outcomes of our convictions that would make it difficult or impossible to operate a ministry with clarity alongside of others who have different convictions. That being said, if those decisions are made to part ways, it should be crystal clear to the parties involved, and to any other believers who observe it, that you are both confirming your love towards one another; that no one is being kicked out of the kingdom; and that people are not inappropriately being called heretics if they truly are not. 

The U.S. Armed Forces

A very helpful illustration to me for how division should or could work properly in the context of the Christian church is to observe the United States Armed Forces. The military is ultimately only one unit – one body – with one leader (the president). However, there are six distinct branches of service (the Army, Marines, Navy, Space, Air Force, and Coast Guard) and inside of each of those major branches there are all kinds of various divisions according to the many needs that exist in defending a nation. Why not just have one military, with one branch, one training, all doing the same thing? Because the divisions actually help facilitate more specialized training and strategic placement than if everything was all bunched in together. But even though each branch is different (even has a different ethos to them, oftentimes you can see a brotherly rivalry amongst them) they all serve under that one flag of the United States and under the commander in Chief. When it comes time to fight they all fight and live or die together. 

It doesn’t seem to me that uncooperative division from other faithful Christians is ever mandated or encouraged in Scripture. Instead I see the opposite: a plea for the unity of the Faithful, since we are in a war – the greatest war of all! There is only one Christian Nation, one Christian army, and we are all under the leadership of our One Commander-in-Chief, the Lord Jesus Christ. If another brother or denomination is teaching or doing something that you really just cannot get and you think it is detrimental to the progress of the Gospel – to his own master he standeth or falleth. That brother is under authority and God will deal with him. Our responsibility is to do our best to still work together with them to the best of our ability. Those other Christians that you disagree with – where do you see them on the battlefield? Do they have enemy uniforms on, or do they just have on a uniform from a different branch of the military? Deep down they hate the Devil and want to rescue others from his prison as well.