Should “your church” care how you conduct your business affairs?

I find, like you, that many professing Christ-followers often opine on matters beyond their immediate sphere of life. An actor in a distant state does something, and a Christian who disagrees may offer an opinion condemning the action. A government official in another state acts contrary to God’s revealed Word and a Christian offers a word of rebuke. [Full disclosure, I just offered an opinion on the actions of Governor Cuomo of New York on his horrific and destructive advocacy of expanded pro-abortion legislation. In my opinion, I suggested that if his church, the Roman Catholic Church, truly desired to demonstrate love toward the Governor and simultaneously clarify their position, they should seek his repentance through the process of church discipline.] Now, I am not part of the Governor’s church nor do I live in the state that he represents. My opinion, however informed or otherwise, is simply that. It is an opinion. I do not believe it is in any way unbiblical to share this opinion, since the Governor trumpets his faith, is a public figure, and is acting in a manner clearly at odds with Holy Scripture and the authority of the Catholic church.

What if, however, the Governor had been a member of a church that I attended…or led? Should his actions come under scrutiny by the congregation and should the church seek to assert any authoritative role in the conduct of the church member? My answer is…Yes. While that may shock or even provoke opposition from some, please allow me to briefly state my reasons.

1. To be a member of a church is to affirm agreement with the doctrinal positions of that church. The only (so called) church I know of that doesn’t require adherence to a doctrinal covenant is the Unitarian Universalist church, which is utterly inclusive. They are quite dogmatic about refusing to elevate one doctrine over another. [But this is, in itself, also a doctrinal assertion…and if you joined such an organization and sought to change it, you would likely have to separate from fellowship.]
2. For a Christian, there are no walls of separation between your faith, your personal life, and your professional life. One cannot separate faith from all other areas of life without becoming unfaithful. For instance, I once had the opportunity to open a gambling business and was promised an obscene amount of money to do so. The business was at odds with the faith position of my church (which I shared). To have aligned with the business would have placed me necessarily at odds with my church and my faith. In my free-choice, I chose to affirm my faith and forego the lucrative income.
3. The church has an obligation to act biblically and faithfully toward its membership. When a person joins a faith community, a covenant relationship is affirmed. There is a mutual obligation. The faith community MUST love its membership and be faithful to its covenant obligation in rescuing members who stray into sin…in both word and deed. If I believe or act contrary to closely-held doctrinal views, the only loving act the church can exercise is to seek my repentance and reconciliation (Matthew 18:15-20; Galatians 6:1-2, et.al.).
4. Not all doctrines are primary or essential to fellowship; therefore, there must be room for honest biblical disagreement within a church community. At the church I serve, we hold some doctrines as essential. In these matters, there must be unreserved agreement as a condition of the community. If a person, for instance, wished to join our church without agreeing that Jesus is the unique Son of God and that Salvation is only available through Jesus by grace through faith, and that this is true in every place and among every people at all times, their formal connection to the church would necessarily be refused, since this is a closely held and essential doctrine. At the same time, there may be disagreement on some biblical teachings (what we might refer to as secondary or tertiary doctrines), and membership NOT be refused. These doctrines may be recognized as being sufficiently mysterious, requiring more liberty within the fellowship.
5. Finally, if a member acts in a manner contrary to his faith assertion (actual or implied due to association with his church) all loving efforts should be employed to reconcile the dissonance and restore the member to a position of harmony with the doctrinal position of the church. To ignore the incompatibility is to demonstrate an unbiblical and unloving rejection of the member. Stated differently, to allow the disagreement to persist is to demonstrate that either the member or the church does not believe the doctrine to be essential to the faith.

I would suggest that it is time for communities of faith to act like communities. Church members deserve accountable communities that provide guidance and oversight, consistent with agreed upon doctrines, in their member’s lives. Churches deserve to have members that desire to live a consistent witness of the community’s doctrine and mission. This is the Lord’s desire and design for the church.

Much discussion occurs today on the “relevance” of the church. I think that the relevance of a like-minded and like-missioned community is self-evident. Therefore, every activity: personal, professional, or otherwise is connected to the community and should seek to further the community’s (church’s) mission and witness to its neighbors and the nations.