Must a Church Be Perfect?

There are many religious people who are extremely lax in their view of God's commandments, taking the position that so long as a person has faith and "good intentions," they are heaven-bound. And then there are other religious people who are quite strict in their approach to the commandments of God, arguing that we must strive to obey God's will completely and totally. Of course, one's attitude towards personal faith and obedience usually impacts their attitude towards churches as well. In other words, those who have a lax view of what an individual must do to be pleasing to God usually have a lax view of what a church must do to be pleasing to God, and vise versa.

If you are acquainted with me at all, or if you have read my past blog posts, then you know that I tend to be more conservative in my approach to the scriptures. While some would accuse me of being overly demanding and overly stringent, I would contend that I am where I should be. After all, the epistle of James teaches us that faith in and of itself is insufficient; without obedience, our faith is "dead" (James 2:17, 26). Earlier in James 2, the inspired writer is clear that partial obedience is not good enough. "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). That sounds strict, doesn't it? Yes, we must have faith, but in order to be truly pleasing to God, we must have an obedient faith, and we must make it our aim to do just what the law authorizes us to do. Of course, the apostle John adds that when we act apart from the authority of God's word, we sin (1 John 3:4), and sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2) and results in spiritual death (Romans 6:23). In 2 John 9, these points are all summarized perfectly: "Whoever transgresses (sins) and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

So when it comes to an individual's salvation, the stricter, more conservative approach, is the right one. These and other scriptures make that abundantly clear.

Now, here's the question: does this strict approach apply ALSO to the local church? To put it another way, must the local church strive for complete and total obedience to ALL of God's word? What if a church is weak in one area, or lacking in an area? Must a church be perfect?

Two points...

The Corinthian church was rife with problems. There was a sectarian mindset among many of the members, culminating in division and strife (1:10-13; 3-4). They were beginning to embrace human wisdom over the wisdom of God (2:1-5). There were individuals in the church that were living double-lives, such as the Christian man who was committing fornication with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5), and the church was apparently doing nothing about the situation. In chapter six, we learn that some of the members were actually suing one another. There were misundertandings about marriage and sexual immorality (ch. 7). There was little compassion and patience for the weaker Christians (ch. 8). There were apparently some rebellious women in the church as well (11:1-16; 14:34). The Lord's supper was turned into a common meal...a selfish and disorganized meal at that (11:22-34). They were not acting like a "body" of Christ (12). They were not loving each other as they should (13). They were perverting spiritual gifts and turning the worship service into a talent show, rather than using their assemblies as an opportunity to praise God and edify one another (14). Finally, there were misunderstandings about the resurrection, a core doctrine of Christianity (15).

How would you view the Corinthian church? Faithful or unfaithful? Right or wrong? If you had lived during the first century, would you have felt comfortable assembling with the Corinthian church?

Interestingly enough, Paul called them the "church of God which is at Corinth" (1:2). He thanked God for the brethren in Corinth (1:4). And Paul actually planned on assembling with the church when he arrived there in Corinth (16:3). In fact, he planned to "stay a while" with them (16:7).

So it looks like we can have a more lax view of the local church, doesn't it? After all, the Corinthian church was far from perfect. Not only did the church have many, many problems, the problems they had were quite serious according to our standards. Sectarianism? Suing one another? Women speaking out in the church assembly? A total perversion of something as holy and special as the Lord's supper? And yet, despite all of these issues, Paul accepted the church and planned on assembling with them while he was in Corinth.

On the other hand...

Look at Revelation 2-3. Jesus addressed seven churches in Asia, and we learn that five of the seven churches, much like Corinth, were afflicted with problems and imperfections. Ephesus had left its first love (Rev. 2:4), just as Corinth had abandoned love (1 Cor. 13). Pergamos was tolerating false doctrines within the church (2:14-15), just as Corinth had (1 Cor. 15). Thyatira was tolerating a wicked woman who made many false claims, promoted sexual immorality, and misled other church members (2:20-21), just as Corinth tolerated the wicked man who was sleeping with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5). Sardis was a dead church (3:2). The Laodiceans were half-hearted in their devotion to God, instead placing more emphasis on material wealth (3:15-17). 

These five churches, much like Corinth, were FAR from perfect, but instead of finding Christ's acceptance and tolerance of these imperfect, struggling churches, we see REBUKE, ADMONITION, and WARNING. They were commanded to repent, to change, to get back on track, and if they didn't, these churces would be rejected by the Lord; their status as "churches OF (belonging to) Christ" would be removed (1:20 --> 2:5).

Now this is confusing. On one hand, Paul embraced the Corinthian church in spite of their imperfections, but on the other hand, Jesus told these five imperfect churches in Asia that if they didn't straighten up, they'd be rejected. A contradiction? Of course not. All we have to do is tell the other half of the story.

Did Paul truly embrace the Corinthian church? Sure, he referred to this struggling church as a "church of God." He called them brethren. He planned on assembling with them, in spite of their many, many VERY SERIOUS problems. And yet did he approve of the church and embrace them unconditionally? Not at all! Throughout the book, the apostle Paul, as he emphasized their problems, rebuked them, chastized them, warned them, and basically wrote over and over again, "CHANGE NOW!" just as Jesus did to the churches in Asia in Revelation 2-3.

Thankfully, as we learn in 2 Corinthians, not long after receiving the first epistle, the church was already doing much better. But what if they had refused to change? Would they too have lost their status as a "church OF Christ?" I think so. I think that we MUST answer with a "yes."

Conversely, in spite of the many charges leveled against the five churches in Asia, they were, at that time, "churches OF Christ." There were many positive attributes that were praised, and faithful members that were doing God's word in spite of the controversy surrounding them. Again, these churches weren't told, "You have been rejected," but, "You will be rejected...if you don't straighten up."

So actually, in the end, we see that the Corinthian church was given the same basic warnings that were given to the five imperiled churches in Asia. Likewise, the five churches in Asia were just as accepted by Jesus as the Corinthian church was by the apostle Paul. These were all imperfect churches, and while they were accepted by God, they were not approved, and soon, if they didn't change, they would be both unapproved and unaccepted. Today, if a faithful church begins to have problems and struggles - even if we deem the problems to be quite serious - we don't immediately reject that church. Instead, we should exhibit patience and extend fellowship while working to correct the problems that are there, just as Paul worked with Corinth and just as Jesus worked with the five churches in Asia.

Must a church be perfect? Well, I'll say this: a church must strive to be perfect. If there are imperfections (whether they be unfortunate situations or false doctrines), we need to make it a priority to address those imperfections ASAP. I think that there is a sense in which conservative brethren need to exhibit more patience (and acceptance) towards weak and struggling churches - but patience doesn't mean "approval." May I assemble with a church and support a church that has some serious issues? Yes...so long as I recognize those issues and am making serious efforts to help correct (not ignore) the problems.

In closing, let me offer two clarifications:

1. This doesn't apply to churches that have never been faithful, or to churches that consist of folks that have not obeyed the gospel plan of salvation. As stated in the article above, this applies to churches that have been faithful, but are facing problems now.
2. I also want to clarify that, just as those churches of the first century were warned that their "church-hood" would be removed, the same can occur today. Therefore, while we ought to exhibit patience and acceptance towards struggling churches, if a church rejects all admonitions and warnings and continues down the path of apostasy, there comes a point where we must leave. The exact point at which we leave and sever ties is, I suppose, left up to personal judgment, but that doesn't change the fact that the decision may very well need to be made at some point.

I take the more conservative approach to the work of individual Christians as well as local churches, and I believe that this "strict" approach is the right approach. However, as I deal with weak and struggling Christians, so I also deal with weak and struggling churches - accept, but not approve; admonish and encourage rather than ignore and tolerate.

Do you agree or disagree? Feel free to comment below...