banks on paul on unity

Robert Banks writes:

Unity in the local church is a reality to be acknowledged, not a potential to be worked towards. Paul frequently appeals for such unity to be maintained in the face of possible or existing dissensions ... Rather than referring to divisions between churches, schism for Paul designates division within a single community. It results, he says, either from a lack of agreement with one another or from a lack of care for one another (1 Cor 1.12; 11.21) and is one of the works of the "flesh" (Gal 5.20).

This does not mean that all differences of opinion within the church are to be avoided. As Paul says, "there must be different views (haireseis) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (1 Cor 11.19). Only when such differences are combined with a lack of acceptance of others, so that a section of the church hardens itself against the rest and behaves as if it were self-contained, does disagreement rend the body. Even doctrinal differences, e.g., whether or not the resurrection has yet taken place (15.12-58), or divergent lifestyles, e.g., the extent to which one may participate in some of the practices of the surrounding society (10.23-31), do not lead to schism within the community unless accompanied by coercive or careless attitudes on the part of some members towards others. But when something at the heart of the gospel is affected, such as insistence on an additional requirement for salvation (Gal 1.9), the infiltration of idolatrous ideas (1 Cor 10.14-22), or the exhibition of flagrantly immoral behavior (5.1-7), the controversy created by such actions must lead the church to disassociate itself from the persons involved, in order to avoid unnecessary schism. Paul does not require subscription to a detailed doctrinal confession or comprehensive moral code so much as members expression of their common acceptance by God and their quest for a unity of purpose and love.