The Central Position on Fellowship and Withdrawal

Website Article

This article explains the Central position and practice on fellowship as embodied in “The Ecclesial Guide” and “Constitution” and expounded by the first three editors of The Christadelphian magazine in its first 100 years.

“The Central Position on Fellowship and Withdrawal”

The Central Position on Fellowship Defined

The Central position and practice on fellowship and withdrawal has been set out from the beginning before any of the major divisions took place, in “The Ecclesial Guide” and the “Constitution” as well as in subsequent writings of our brethren in the first 100 years of The Christadelphian magazine.

Bro John Carter wrote in “Fellowship and Withdrawal” (The Christadelphian, March 1948)

“With the modern revival of the truth and the organization of believers into ecclesias, a responsibility for maintaining the truth has been recognized and the method of dealing with teachers of error as set forth in the epistles followed. The members of any worldly organization have the right to draw up conditions of membership, but the communities of believers are founded upon the gospel of God revealed in His word, and the conditions of membership are laid down in the teaching of the apostles. In an endeavour faithfully to interpret these commandments, the Constitution of the Central ecclesia, which is generally followed in all ecclesias in Central fellowship, sets forth the condition of fellowship in Rules 2 and 3, which read:

That we accept and profess the doctrines and precepts of Christ, as taught in the apostolic writings, and defined (positively and negatively) in the annexed Statement of Faith and Epitome of the Commandments of Christ.

That we recognize as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship, all who have been immersed (by whomsoever) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts.

This positive declaration has its counterpart in Rule 30:

That any brother departing from any element of the One Faith, as defined by us in our Statement of Faith appended, shall, on proof of the fact being given to the satisfaction of the arranging brethren, cease to be in fellowship, without a formal vote of withdrawal, on the fact being announced to the ecclesia.

These rules set out the positive and negative aspects of the basis of fellowship. Individual recognition and acceptance of these rules is implied in retaining association with ecclesias who subscribe to the Constitution.

The brethren of the Central fellowship believe that obedience to the commandments of God require that they impose these conditions upon themselves. The conditions were accepted before the first of the major divisions occurred. Wise men have always recognized that the first duty is to instruct, and if possible reclaim any in error; only when efforts to do this have failed is the sorrowful duty of withdrawal to be performed.”

Bro Roberts outlined the Central position and practice on fellowship in the first major division over the Partial Inspiration of the Bible, in “The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship” (The Christadelphian September 1885)

“It is one of the narrownesses of the truth that it demands of those who receive it that they “contend earnestly for it,” even if an angel from heaven oppose it or corrupt it (Jude 3; Gal 1:8-9), and that they maintain it intact and unsullied among themselves as the basis and association among those who profess it, refusing to walk with a brother who either disobeys its precepts (2 Thes 3:14; Rom 16:17), or refuses consent to its teachings in vital matters (2 John 10; 1 Tim 6:3-5). This policy is so contrary to natural friendliness that it is easy to drift away from it, and to invent theories that will relieve us from its unpleasant obligations.

But the association of those separated by the truth, is governed by conditions, that sometimes interrupt that association. Hence, “Have no company:” “withdraw:” “turn away”are apostolic commands concerning some who have been actually separated by the truth.
The conditions of association relate to two departments of our standing in Christ which may be expressed as conviction and character . . . Unity of conviction and mutuality of conformity to a certain standard of action, are the two conditions out of which association and fellowship grow, and by rupture of which, it is necessarily interfered with.
This rupture may be only partial in either department and yet be sufficient to cause suspension of association in fellowship. Apostolic examples:

Refusal to recognise that Christ had come in the flesh was made a reason for not receiving men who believed in God and the Kingdom, and a number of other elements of truth.
Idleness was declared a ground of disfellowship where men had otherwise submitted to the commandments of Christ.

That the first condition of association is the belief of the truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.
That the truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements, that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.
That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the truth.
That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.
A man himself believing the truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship:“He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
That it is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.
Paul commands withdrawal from “any man” who “obeys not his word,” “delivered by epistle.” He commands the brethren to hold fast the traditions taught by him, “whether by word or epistle.”

The Basis of Fellowship and a Statement of Faith

The basis of fellowship between brethren and ecclesias is the Apostles doctrine Acts 2:41-42, I John 1:1-3. A statement of faith is a definition of the Apostles doctrine. A statement of faith is not the basis of fellowship itself, but rather a definition of the Scriptural doctrines that are the basis of our fellowship.

There is no universal “Christadelphian Statement of Faith” and no universal governing body to authorise one. Because each ecclesia is autonomous and manages its own affairs, each eccleaia adopts it’s own statement of faith and recognises fellowship with other ecclesias on that basis. Most ecclesias have adopted the statement of faith used by the Birmingham ecclesia (B.A.S.F.) as their own.

This common use and acceptance of the B.A.S.F. is useful for establishing that common beliefs are held by ecclesias, especially when there has been controversy.

Bro John Carter wrote in “Statements of Faith” (The Christadelphian, November 1955)

“What is the purpose of a Statement? It is to define the doctrines believed by a community. We speak of it as a basis of faith, but in so doing we are in danger of obscuring a vital truth. The first principles of Bible teaching are the basis upon which brethren and sisters have fellowship with each other; and it is important that this be kept firmly in mind. A Statement is necessary to set forth those first principles as commonly understood by the members of the community, in order that the conditions of association are well defined and that the testimony to those truths may be consistently exhibited to others…

To the outstanding personal influence of bro. Roberts; to the size and importance of the Birmingham ecclesia in the earlier days when most ecclesias were very small; and to the fact that the Birmingham Statement was available in printed form, is doubtless due to the general adoption of the Birmingham Statement by other ecclesias…

The majority of ecclesias thus use the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith and this in increasing proportion as new ecclesias adopt it. Some would insist on all ecclesias using the same Statement. There may be good arguments for this, but they are not conclusive. For one thing, we cannot maintain ecclesial autonomy and at the same time demand the adoption of a particular Statement. In any case, who has the right to demand it? Again and again in The Christadelphian it has been pointed out that “The Christadelphian Statement” does not exist; there is no universal Statement. The Birmingham Statement becomes that of others as and when they adopt it. In 1903 bro. C. C. Walker had some comments which we reproduce below.”

It is desirable in such discussions for Reunion as those which have led to these remarks, to have one widely recognized Statement established as a touchstone, and the Statement for Reunion before the English ecclesias makes, for the first time, the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith to be such a touchstone.

We should, however, always remember that it is the gospel that is the power of God to salvation. Those who believe the gospel in its various elements find in the gospel itself the basis upon which they share in the hope of salvation. A Statement of Faith, absolutely essential in a religious group whether large or small as a definition of things believed, is not the gospel but the gospel defined in a particular way for a particular purpose.

We feel that there is a danger of exalting a Statement of Faith above the gospel itself: it is the Truth that makes free, and only when Statements are recognized as defining that Truth are they being rightly used.”

It should be noted that the B.A.S.F. is an Ammended statement of faith. While the true doctrines of Scripture never change, our definition of them may need to be ammended to counter unforeseen false doctrines.

The argument that a false doctrine cannot be rejected because it is not specifically precluded in the B.A.S.F. is to give the statement of faith the authority that belongs to Scripture and to treat it like a legal document in order to find a loophole.

Not all errors in doctrine or conduct could be foreseen when the B.A.S.F. was written and errors can arise which are not included in the B.A.S.F. but which vitally affect the truth.

Bro John Carter wrote “The Statement of Faith” (The Christadelphian, November 1958)

“Much has been made about accepting the Statement of Faith without reservation. But the Statement of Faith can be given the authority that belongs to the Scriptures. … (Regarding) the errors of J. J. Andrew … if the line had been taken then (that is, in the 1890s) that his views did not contravene the B.A.S.F. they would not have been rebutted. There can be errors which are not included in the B.A.S.F. but which vitally affect the truth.

It will be seen that we base our case on the Scriptures as the ultimate authority. ..The Statement of Faith is a worthy effort to define what we believe the Scriptures teach. It necessarily reflects the emphases of the time when it was compiled. It could not anticipate errors that might arise. …

In the same way an error could arise not foreseen when the B.A.S.F. was formulated. Are we thus to be restricted in our contentions for the faith to the definitions of the Statement of Faith, and allow error on the ground that a man claims that his teaching does not deny the Statement of Faith; or do we attribute a foreknowledge to those who formulated it concerning every possible error? Or is the authority for our faith the inspired Word of God? The Statement of Faith is a necessary definition of our Faith, but behind it is the divine Scripture as the ultimate seat of authority in matters of doctrine and of morals.”

Fellowship Responsibilities of Each Ecclesia

The ecclesia has been ordained by God as the organisational structure of the Truth, and the primary responsibility for upholding the Truth lies with each ecclesia. It is the ecclesia who administers the principles of fellowship and withdrawal with its members and those whom it will receive and not receive in fellowship.

In Matt 18:15-20 Jesus gives instruction on how to handle problems of wrong doctrine or conduct that may arise with our brethren. Matt 18:15 is about sin in general, not merely sins against us personally. The best manuscripts omit the words “against thee” so that the passage reads, “If thy brother shall trespass”, which is consistent with other passages such as Gal 6:1, 1 Tim 5:20, 1 John 5:16. In the Ecclesial Guide 32, Cases of Sin and Withdrawal, bro Roberts says,

“The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Matthew 18:15-17) is doubtless applicable to sin in general. Sin of any kind on the part of a brother, becoming known to another brother, is a sin against that brother—more heinous, indeed, when Scripturally estimated, than a mere offence against himself. He is, therefore, bound to take the course Jesus prescribes, as John plainly indicates in the words, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask”, etc.”

Jesus’ instructions involve a three stage process of trying to recover the brother or sister involved by appealing to them to repent and turn from their sin. The whole context of Matt 18 is about recovering and restoring those who are lost, Matt 18:11, 12-14, 21-22, 23-35.

Exhaustive efforts must be made in each stage before proceeding to the next stage. The appeal is to be made first of all individually, then with two or three others, then by the ecclesia. If "he neglect to hear the ecclesia" he is to be withdrawn from by the ecclesia, which could hardly be applicable to a sin against us personally.

Matt 18:15: "if he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother". The object of the process is at all times the recovery of the brother or sister involved, to gain them who are lost.
Matt 18:11: The spirit of Jesus teaching is that there must be exhaustive efforts in all three stages before withdrawal is contemplated. Fellowship is still extended to the brother or sister involved while the process to recover them is carried out.
Matt 18:16, 20: The facts and circumstances of the offence must be clearly identified, defined and demonstrated by witness.
Matt 18:15-17: "if he shall hear thee". The process involves sufficient time spent in personal contact with the brother or sister involved.
Matt 18:17: "if he neglect to hear the ecclesia" but persists unrepentantly in his sin despite every effort being made to recover them, "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" i.e. someone who is lost and in need of saving, who we must continue to seek to recover but not fellowship. The object of withdrawal is the recovery of the brother or sister involved and the preservation of true doctrine in the ecclesia, I Cor 5:4-5,7-8; II Cor 2:5-8; II Thess 3:6,14-15; Eph 5:11; I Tim 1:18-20; II Tim 2:15-18,23-26; Rom 16:17-18; Tit 3:10-11; I Tim 6:3-5; II Tim 3:1-5.

The Ecclesial Guide 36. Individual Offences, says;

“The ecclesia is then to admonish the offender if he be found in the fault. If the offender refuse to hear them, it is their duty to separate him from their fellowship by withdrawal.”

The Ecclesial Guide 32. Sin and Withdrawal stresses that withdrawal is not expulsion or excommunication.

“Withdrawal means that those withdrawing do modestly and sorrowfully step aside from the offender for fear of implication in his offence. Expulsion means thrusting out, which is a different thing, and implies and generates the arrogant attitude of ecclesiastical excommunication. The careful preservation of right forms in these things is a help to the preservation of the right spirit.”

Withdrawal of fellowship is a continuation of the process of recovery of the brother or sister involved who is lost. Withdrawal of fellowship should be done in the right spirit, which is very different to expulsion and excommunication, John 6:37; 9:34-35. The objective of the process in Matt 18 is not withdrawal of fellowship, but the recovery of the brother or sister involved, II Thess 3:14-15, I Cor 5:5, II Cor 2:6-8.

If the brother or sister involved cannot be won over by the ecclesia to be recovered to the Truth, then Scriptures require that they must be withdrawn from. It is not an option to retain them in fellowship and co-exist with their error, even if they agree not to promulgate it.

It is the ecclesia that makes any decision to withdraw fellowship if efforts to recover and restore brethren with wrong doctrine or conduct have failed, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” Matt 18:17.

In I Cor 4:4-5 we have an instruction from Paul for the Corinthian ecclesia to withdraw fellowship from a brother committing incest. It appears to be framed in the formal language of a resolution to be put to the ecclesia for adoption. In II Cor 2:6 Paul speaks of a censure that was passed by a majority, indicating that the ecclesial decision may not have been unanimous. The word punishment means censure and the word “inflicted” is not in the original Greek text. Withdrawal of fellowship is not a punishment but a censure in the continuation of the effort to recover an erring brother or sister. In II Cor 2:6-8 the censure of withdrawal of fellowship appears to have had its desired effect because Paul exhorts the Corinthian ecclesia to reaffirm their love to the repentant brother by forgiving and comforting him.

Bro John Carter wrote in “Fellowship and Withdrawal” (The Christadelphian, March 1948)

“The foundation of ecclesial association was the apostles’ doctrine, belief of which introduced believers into the apostles’ fellowship. The preservation of the gospel in Gentile times became the responsibility of the individuals and communities who had heard the good news. Human nature being what it is, it might be expected that false teachers would arise, reviving the old flesh-pleasing ideas of previous apostasies, and proclaiming a message which contradicted the word of God. That such would happen the apostles continually foretold. Such a course being foreseen, was any provision made in the apostles’ doctrine for dealing with false teachers? The answer is clear. “Faithful men able to teach others” to whom the “good deposit” had been placed in trust, had by sound doctrine to correct error, to contend for the faith, and when men persisted in teaching error they had to be excluded from the assemblies of true believers. The commandments are clear; those who caused divisions had to be “marked” and “avoided” (Rom. 16: 17); a heretic had to be rejected after the first and second admonition (Tit. 3: 10); men of perverse and corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, had to be withdrawn from (1 Tim. 6 : 3–5); while one who brought not the true doctrine had not to be received (2 John 10 : 11).

In the case of immorality at Corinth it would appear that we have the formal language of the resolution of withdrawal which Paul enjoined should be adopted by the ecclesia (1 Cor. 5 : 4, 5). With the modern revival of the truth and the organization of believers into ecclesias, a responsibility for maintaining the truth has been recognized and the method of dealing with teachers of error as set forth in the epistles followed. The members of any worldly organization have the right to draw up conditions of membership, but the communities of believers are founded upon the gospel of God revealed in His word, and the conditions of membership are laid down in the teaching of the apostles. In an endeavour faithfully to interpret these commandments, the Constitution of the Central ecclesia, which is generally followed in all ecclesias in Central fellowship, sets forth the condition of fellowship in Rules 2 and 3, which read:

That we recognize as brethren, and welcome to our fellowship, all who have been immersed (by whomsoever) after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts.

This positive declaration has its counterpart in Rule 30:

That any brother departing from any element of the One Faith, as defined by us in our Statement of Faith appended, shall, on proof of the fact being given to the satisfaction of the arranging brethren, cease to be in fellowship, without a formal vote of withdrawal, on the fact being announced to the ecclesia.

Bro John Carter wrote in “Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, November 1950)

“Speaking with great seriousness of offences, because of the “hell fire” of which those who offended were in danger, he required the one who knew of the offence to seek out his brother in order that he might be led to realize his trespass, repent and be forgiven. The effort had to be persevering; first alone, then with one or two more, and if the offender would not hear then, said Jesus, “tell it to the church”. Whatever meaning his hearers attached to his words at the time, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus was thinking of that “church” to which he had made earlier reference. If the offender would not hear the church he had to be “unto thee as a heathen man and a publican”.

The heathen man and the publican were men who were regarded as outside the fraternity of Israel: and the man who will not recognize and admit his sin, the incorrigible man, has to be so regarded by the brethren of Christ. But this position is reached after a decision of the church that a man is not amenable to spiritual influence. The decision of the church binds the member who has initiated the efforts of reclamation: “let him be to thee a heathen man”; and will therefore bind all members of the church.

This method laid down by the Lord is workable; it emphasizes the spiritual aims of the community, its duties to members who err; but it places an offender who is perverse outside the community, thus restricting his power to influence others. The Lord’s instruction is given in connection with personal offence, but the method is not restricted to that sin; from the epistles we find it is extended to others. The decision of the church is “binding”, Jesus said; and he added words which make the duty of obedience a grave one, but which are at the same time an encouragement to righteous judgment by the church, for whatsoever is so “bound” is endorsed in heaven. With that consciousness of being in the presence of the Almighty that marks all the thoughts and sayings of Jesus, he here would have his followers act with a like conviction. In such a spirit unjust motives will be closely watched….

What was the discipline of the early church as revealed in the epistles of the inspired apostles? We have seen their warnings against error; we read in the trouble at Antioch about the circumcision of Gentiles which led Peter into fault, that Paul was quick in defence of a vital principle and Peter was wise and sensible enough to accept reproof and large enough to bear no malice (Gal. 2); we learn of the high code of conduct required of the Christian; we also are informed of the steps to be taken when there was grievous lapse from the moral standard or a denial of essential truth.

There must be no fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards or extortionate, in their company (1 Cor 5:11). The blasphemer was delivered to Satan (1 Tim 1:20). A heretic3 must be rejected after the first and second admonition (Titus 3:10), a command which is evidently related to that of Jesus in Matt 18, and this shows the method of Matt 18 is one to be generally followed in all cases of error, whether moral or doctrinal.

In the case of grave immorality in Corinth Paul rebuked the ecclesia for failure to take some action. He, though absent, had already judged what should be done and he instructs them in words which have the ring of a formal resolution which the apostle in putting before the meeting: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor 5:3-5). “When ye are gathered together”: the action was that of the community, and it was a formal decision made in an assembly. We may be certain that the method Paul enjoins in this letter he would have all ecclesias follow. The letter to Corinth copied and read by other ecclesias was no less God’s commandment to them than to those in Corinth. Besides that, oral instruction would be given as required and when Paul confirmed the churches and appointed elders, general ecclesial order would be a subject of instruction. There is evidence that such corporate action was the practice during the first two centuries.”

Bro John Carter also wrote in “Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, December 1950)

“Support is sought for the theory that ecclesial action is not scriptural from allusions in the Letters to the Seven Churches. It is said that false teaching existed in these churches but the Lord did not require the faithful to separate from the unfaithful. This seems a strange argument. We cannot suppose that the Lord would in his own letters require a different course of action from what the Spirit had required through Paul’s letters. But why does the Lord find fault? Was it not because the doctrine of Balaam was tolerated, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes? If the ecclesias had applied the instructions in Paul’s letters they would not be blameworthy. We might note further that the Lord addresses the “angel” of the church on behalf of the churches. The appeal and the rebuke is to the community in each place; and while each church is severally addressed, to each the warning is added that “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. While the faults of Ephesus are particularized in the letter to that church, the warning is for all others.

“The church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” The implications of this reach out in many ways; but where a church exists with a faithful recognition of the truth, the church has a collective responsibility for its members, to help, to comfort, to rebuke, and if necessary to apply the discipline of cancelling ecclesial membership in the hope of reformation and so restoration.”

Bro Graham Pearse wrote in “Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, February 1939)

“Again, Paul, when writing his second epistle to the Thessalonians, commands withdrawal “from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received of us.” Nearly the whole of the third chapter is devoted to this matter, and Paul’s conclusion is: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”

To the Corinthians Paul is equally emphatic as to the steps they should take against worldly behaviour, as shown in the first epistle, chapter 5. If the whole chapter is read the position is clear. His instruction is given in verse 11 (1 Cor 5:11): “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat.”

“Not to eat” clearly refers to the Breaking of Bread, because he has rebuked the Corinthian ecclesia earlier in the chapter for keeping “the feast” with the “old leaven” in their midst. They were tolerating an evildoer in their body, whereas Paul tells them, in verse 12 (1 Cor 5:12), they ought to judge them that are within, and concludes, verse 13 (1 Cor 5:13), “Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Although Paul here, and in the epistle to the Thessalonians, is dealing particularly with wrong behaviour and not wrong teaching, the principle of ecclesial responsibility stands out just as clearly, as expressed in the phrases, “do not ye judge them that are within?” and the counsel “to withdraw,” and “to put away,” and “not to eat.”

From the ecclesia at Rome, Paul required the same standard, and exhorts them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom 16:17).

In writing to Timothy, who was particularly associated with the ecclesia at Ephesus, Paul exhorts him no less than six times to stand firmly against false teaching. One of these exhortations is as follows: “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing … from such withdraw yourself” (1 Tim 6:3-5).”

Fellowship Responsibilities with Nearby Ecclesia's

While the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles regarding this process in its context applies to individuals, the same principles apply to ecclesias in relation to each other since an ecclesia is a group or community of believers.

The Ecclesial Guide 37. Ecclesial Differences, says

“These (ecclesial differences) are different from individual offences, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them.”

The principles taught by Jesus and the Apostles regarding this process are drawn from the treatment of idolaters in the Mosaic Law, where communities were to be dealt with on the same principles as individuals.

Compare Deut 17:2-7, 13 which is about individuals, and Deut 13:1-18 which is about individuals and communities, with the application of the same principles in the New Testament, Matt 18:16,20, I Cor 5:13, I Tim 5:20, Titus 3:10-11, II Pet 2:1, Gal 6:1, Rom 15:4, I Cor 10:11.

These passages use common expressions;

If there be found any among you that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of God; Deut 17:2-3, 13:5, 13, Matt 18:15.
At the mouth of two or three witnesses; Deut 17:4, 6-7, Deut 13:14, Matt 18:16, 20
So shalt thou shalt put away the evil from among you; Deut 17:7, 13:5, I Cor 5:13 (direct quote from Deut 17:7).
All Israel shall hear and fear; Deut 17:13, 13:11, I Tim 5:20

Bro John Carter demonstrates that this is the Central position in his article “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945).

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.

Bro Roberts wrote on this matter as follows; (from "So-Called ‘Heresy Hunting’ A Duty" The Christadelphian, July 1886)

“… The spirit in Peter writing of Israel says, “But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1). How were such false prophets to be treated? Moses says they “shall be put to death” (Deut.13:5). Even a “brother,” “son,” “daughter,” “wife,” or “friend,” who attempted to introduce idolatry was not to be spared (Deut.13:6-11). The object was that Israel might be purged of evil. Communities were to be dealt with on the same principle as individuals. If it were reported that any one city had commenced to “serve other gods” (Deut.13:12,13) “then,” said Moses, “shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein” (Deut.13:14,15).

The comparison drawn in Peter’s epistle between false teachers in fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel is evidence that this Mosaic enactment contains a lesson for us. The use of sword or anything destructive is out of the question; a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil."

That this is the Central Christadelphian practice for inter-ecclesial issues with a practical application is seen in “So Do Unto Them” (The Christadelphian, October 1924) in the context of the controversy surrounding the writings of bro A.D. Strickler at the time.

“... The following remarks, introduced by brother Sulley, may be taken as the joint brotherly suggestions of the four brethren named. - Ed.

Brother Fidler, of Philadelphia, U.S.A., on the occasion of a visit to Britain, invited brethren Lake, of London, and Sulley, of Nottingham, to confer with brother C. C. Walker in order to see if anything could be done to mitigate the disorder now existing in ecclesial inter-relations. After consultation they agreed that if brethren generally would act on the following suggestions, a better state of things might arise.

That imputations against brethren affecting their fidelity to the faith ought not to be made except as commanded by Christ.
That the same rule applies to ecclesias - especially as affecting inter-ecclesial co-operation.
So, if a brother is convinced that a brother or brethren in an ecclesia of which he is not a member is advocating heresy, or otherwise in danger of rejection at the judgment seat of Christ, the proper course for such a brother to adopt is:—

First to see that brother “and tell him his fault with him alone.”
If unable to adjust the matter, then it is his duty to ask the help of one or two more members of the ecclesia to whom the erring brother belongs, “that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”
Failing agreement, the case may then be considered by the ecclesia to whom the erring brother belongs, in which case the brother originally moving in the matter shall have the opportunity of being present with full liberty of speech.
If the matter cannot be adjusted in harmony with the wishes of the brother who has endeavoured to help an erring one on his way to the Kingdom of God, he is then at liberty to consider whether he shall refuse co-operation with them in their labours and shall respectfully notify his intention to the said brother and ecclesia in question.
In case no further attempt is made by the ecclesia thus notified to adjust the matter, he may now ask the ecclesia to which he belongs to join him in refusal of co-operation.

The above rules may not be possible of observance in detail where ecclesias are so far separated as to make a personal interview unfeasible, but in any case, an opportunity should be given for those who are associated with one who teaches error, to repudiate the same before exclusion from fellowship.”

The process in Matt 18 can only be fully applied in practice to individuals and ecclesias that are close enough for us to have time for ongoing personal contact with, i.e. within our orbit of influence. All New Testament passages regarding withdrawal of fellowship are in the context of local situations where these requirements are met.

Withdrawal of fellowship from an ecclesia when applying the principles of Matt 18 is very different to what is known as “Block Disfellowship". This is when whole blocks of ecclesias are indiscriminately and unilaterally withdrawn from with no application of the principles in Matt 18 as outlined in the Ecclesial Guide.

Bro Alfred Nicholls points this out in “Comment Upon Inter-Ecclesial Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, September 1982)

“It has happened more than once that a group of brethren or ecclesias has withdrawn from another ecclesia over what is in their opinion some error of doctrine or more usually of practice and then withdrawn from all other ecclesias who do not support that judgement, on the ground that the latter are involved in the sin of the first ecclesia. This is sometimes known as “block disfellowship” and clearly has no sanction in Scripture.

However, sometimes the circumstances are such as to challenge the judgement of other ecclesias and require their decision. To put the matter in perspective we offer the following extract from an Editorial Note on “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945): “… ecclesias have a duty to make rules regulating their procedure in harmony with the principles of ecclesial life laid down by the apostles. And ecclesias are related to each other as members of the body of Christ. While the Lord rebuked each of the seven Churches for its faults, he added to each of the letters to the Churches that he that hath an ear should hear what he said, for what he said was intended for all to hear. The rebuke of one was a warning to all to avoid the evil rebuked. If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has a duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognised among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth: when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.”

Fellowship Responsibilities with Ecclesia's at a Distance

Where we are too far away to adequately apply the principles of Matt 18:15-20, the principles of II John 7-11 apply “if there come any unto you.” The instructions are to “look to yourselves” and not receive into the house (i.e. the ecclesia) nor bid God speed, (or welcome with a fellowship greeting, see Scriptural Fellowship), to any who come to us who bring not the doctrine of Christ lest we be a partaker, or fellowshipper, of their evil deeds.

We are not to condone and endorse their error by receiving them in fellowship because if we do, we will become responsible for allowing their error to co-exist in fellowship. If we knowingly receive in fellowship and bid God speed to a brother or sister with error, we are not actually guilty of the error they hold but we are guilty of tolerating their error in fellowship.

On the basis of II John, we recognise in fellowship all those near and far whom we are willing to receive and welcome in fellowship, irrespective of whether we are practically able to or not. Conversely we do not recognise in fellowship all those near and far whom we are not willing to receive or welcome in fellowship, whether we know of them or not.

The Ecclesial Guide "42 Ecclesias in Relation One to Another" states "The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist."

In apostolic times this was implemented in two ways:

A Letter of Commendation or Introduction was accepted as identifying visitors as brethren who came from an ecclesia that to upheld the Apostles doctrine in fellowship. Rom 16:1-2; II Cor 3:1.
If visitors were unknown or there was doubt about their fellowship standing, they were to be interviewed to identify whether their beliefs were of God or the world. I John 4: 1-6 cp II John 7-11. This was necessary because "many false prophets were gone out into the world" deceiving others. Acts 20:30; II Cor 11:13-15.

We are not responsible for the evil deeds of brothers or sisters that we receive in fellowship if;

Their error in doctrine or conduct is not known to us or is hidden from us.
The process of Matt 18:15-20 in their home ecclesia is in progress and has not been completed.
We genuinely do not identify them as having error. If a brother or sister with error deceives in order to have fellowship with us, then the responsibility rests with them, not with us if we receive them in good faith.

It is sometimes argued that II John refers to our private home, “your house” and not the ecclesia. However the definite article is used in II John 10 so it should read “the house”, i.e. not just any private house but the ecclesial house, given that many ecclesias met in a home. The principles of fellowship outlined in II John hardly apply to visitors we receive into our private home but certainly have application to the ecclesia.

Bro Graham Pearse rebuffs this argument in “Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, February 1939)

“Then John writes just as strongly on a similar matter, and involving the same principle of responsibility in fellowship. It is the case of those “Who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (and so had not our nature and its real temptations). Of such he says: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (of Christ), receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed” (2 John 10).

It has been weakly argued that these instructions do not prevent the brother having access to the Lord’s Table, because “receive him not into your house” means a private home and not the church. But even if this were so, how could we refuse to receive him in our own home, and yet go and sit by his side and receive the emblems of our communion together from his hands? Or, how could we refrain from bidding him God speed to avoid partaking—fellowshipping—his evil deeds, and at the same time give him the right hand of fellowship around the table? Impossible! The fact is that we have here the principle we are advocating in a nutshell, and in the words of Scripture: “He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

Toleration of Error in Fellowship Not Permissible

Ecclesias have a responsibility to other ecclesias to preserve the Truth in their midst, so ecclesial autonomy is not licence for an ecclesia to tolerate error. An ecclesia tolerates error when it allows error in doctrine or practice to co-exist in fellowship without applying the principles of Matt 18 or II John.

To tolerate error in fellowship like this is to break the Scriptural principles of fellowship and is itself a matter of fellowship, even though those tolerating the error may not believe or practice it themselves. Even if those with error agree not to promulgate their beliefs, it is against the Scriptural principles of fellowship to tolerate them in fellowship and co-exist with them.

This has been the Central position on fellowship and withdrawal since the beginning, as was evident in the first major division over Partial Inspiration in 1885. This was pointed out by bro John Carter in “Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, December 1950)

“In the Inspiration controversy of 1885 the real issue was whether the doctrine of erring inspiration should be tolerated. It is clear from the discussions in The Christadelphian of that period that those who introduced the doctrine of partial inspiration had supporters of their view, while others (probably the majority) who themselves did not subscribe to it were yet willing to tolerate it. The basic difference of view therefore which caused division concerned fellowship: should those who taught error on such a vitally important subject, remain in fellowship? In this connection bro. Roberts wrote:

“A man himself believing the truth but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship: ‘He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds’. It is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.”

If men refuse to separate when that is a clear duty they become themselves offenders.”

Bro John Carter quoted points 8 and 9 from bro Roberts in “The Nature and Conditions of Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, September 1885) but points 4 to 7 outline the basis of fellowship.

“4. That the first condition of association is the belief of the truth, apart from the perception and reception of which, there is no basis of fellowship.

5. That the truth forming this basis is made up of a number of items or elements, that are each essential to its integrity as a whole.

6. That it is a matter of duty to require the recognition of these at the hands of those claiming association with us in the truth.

7. That we are not at liberty to receive any one who denies or refuses to believe any of them, because the receiving of such would open the way for the currency of their principles among us, with the tendency of leavening the whole community. The elements of the truth are so mutually related that the displacement of one undermines the foundation of the whole.

8. A man himself believing the truth, but willing to wink at its denial among those in fellowship in any of its essential elements, becomes, by this willingness, an offender against the law of Christ, which requires the faithful maintenance of the whole. Faithful servants of Christ cannot unite with such, on the ground that though he hold the truth himself, such a man is responsible for the error of those whom he would admit, and therefore becomes the channel of a similar responsibility to those who may endorse him in fellowship:“He that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

9. That it is the duty of the friends of the truth to uphold it as a basis of union among themselves by refusing to receive either those who deny any part of it, or those who would receive those so denying.”

Bro C.C. Walker quotes bro Roberts from “Season of Comfort” (The Christadelphian, June 1921)

“A brother draws attention to the following extracts from Seasons of Comfort, by the late Brother Roberts.

“It is as well also to recognise the fact that the principle which isolates us from popular communion isolates us also from the fellowship of all who reject any part of the truth. Some accept the truth in part, but are either unable or unwilling to receive it in its entirety. They believe in the kingdom, but reject the Bible doctrine of death; or they hold the mortal nature of man, but do not receive the restoration of the kingdom to Israel; or they accept both, but deny the judgment; or believe in the judgment, but deny the kingdom; or accept all three, but reject the apostolic doctrine of Christ’s nature and death, and so on. Such persons are generally what is called very “charitable”; that is, they are willing to connive at any amount of doctrinal diversity so long as friendliness is maintained. They are lovers of peace. Peace is certainly very desirable when it can be had on a pure foundation; but the charitable people referred to are not particular about the foundation. They will compromise the truth in some one or other of its integral elements for the sake of personal harmony. This is a spurious charity altogether. We are not at liberty to relax the appointments of God. The exercise of charity must be confined to our own affairs. We have no jurisdiction in God’s matters. What God requires is binding on us all; and the faithful man cannot consent to accept any union that requires a jot or tittle to be set aside or treated as unimportant. Such a man cannot consent to form a part of any community that is not the “pillar and ground of the truth.”—Seasons of Comfort, page 12.

“He that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This applies to all without distinction, and erects a barrier to fellowship with even some who hold the truth, for though they may hold the doctrine of Christ themselves, yet if they keep up a “Godspeed” connection with those who do not, by John’s rule, they make themselves partakers with them, and, therefore, cut themselves off from those who stand for the doctrine of Christ.”—Seasons of Comfort, page 114.

The first meditation is on “Reproach,” and the second on “Love and Doctrine,” and the connection is obvious.”

Bro John Carter strongly upheld acceptance of the Truth defined in the B.A.S.F. as a basis of fellowship between ecclesias in the reunion agreements he was involved with. He expressed this in the first reunion he was involved in with the Berean group of ecclesias in “A Time To Heal” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

"We believe the Statement of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be maintained.

... It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”.

Bro John Carter also expressed the Central position in his article “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945).

… a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil."

This consistent Central position of acceptance the B.A.S.F. as a definition of the Truth, as a basis of fellowship between ecclesias is reflected in the reunion agreements that bro John Carter was involved in (The Christadelphian, November 1958).

"But a protest must be made at the reckless assertion of the circular (by bro Snelling of Old Paths, UK) that there has been a retreat from the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. This is simply not the case. The proof that it is not true consists in the fact that not only at the Jersey City Conference, whose decisions the circular-writer approved, was the B.A.S.F. defined as a true exposition of the oracles of God, to be believed by us, but in the Final Statement in Britain, and in the Statement for Reunion in Australia, the same affirmation was made. In each case such a statement was made the leading clause in the basis set out for reunion."

Both the Jersey City Resolutions (The Christadelphian, September 1952) and the Australian Unity Agreement (The Christadelphian, March 1958) uphold the “B.A.S.F. defined as a true exposition of the oracles of God, to be believed” as a basis for reunion in fellowship. Both agreements contain similar language to specifically preclude the toleration of error in fellowship.

The Jersey City Resolutions (The Christadelphian, September 1952)

That we agree that the doctrines set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith are a true exposition of the first principles of the oracles of God as set forth in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and that therefore these doctrines are to be believed and taught by us without reservation; the doctrine of the Scriptures on sin and its effects and God’s salvation from sin and death in Christ Jesus being defined in clauses three to twelve of the Statement of Faith.
That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who have been immersed by whomsoever after their acceptance of the same doctrines and precepts, and that any brother departing from any element of the One Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith is to be dealt with according to apostolic precept.
If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching false doctrines, or to retain in fellowship those who do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming fellowship.

The Australian Unity Agreement (The Christadelphian, March 1958). See our article “Fellowship Clauses in the Unity Agreement” for a more detailed explanation of how the Fellowship clauses are consistent with the Central position on Fellowship and Withdrawal.

“(1) GENERAL BELIEFS

(a) We agree that the doctrines to be believed and taught by us, without reservation, are the first principles of the One Faith as revealed in the Scriptures, of which the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith (with positive and negative clauses and the Commandments of Christ) gives a true definition. Clauses 5 and 12 are understood in harmony with the explanations provided by Brethren Carter and Cooper …

(b) Acceptance of this basis would not preclude the use of any other adequate Statement of Faith by an ecclesia, provided this is in harmony with the B.A.S.F. understood as in Clause 1 (a) above.

(2) FELLOWSHIP It is affirmed that:

(a) Where any brethren depart from any element of the One Faith, either in doctrine or practice, they shall be dealt with according to the Apostolic precept and that extreme action would be ecclesial disfellowship of the offender. (Matt 18:15-17; Titus 3:10-11)

(b) If it is established that an ecclesia sets itself out by design to preach and propagate at large, false doctrine, then it would become necessary to dissociate from such an ecclesia.

(c) The course of action necessitated by the above clauses (a) and (b), will be regulated by the principles of the Scripture and follow the spirit of the Ecclesial Guide, Sections 32, 41 and 42.”

The same Central position is evident in The Three Wellington Resolutions” adopted by all New Zealand ecclesias in 1919 as a basis for re-union, in response to the Shield Clean Flesh errors emanating from Sydney. Many New Zealand ecclesias still retain The Three Welington Resolutions in their constitutions in addition to the clauses on fellowship from the Birmingham Ecclesia’s Constitution.

The Three Wellington Resolutions (Ecclesial Intelligence, The Christadelphian, February 1919).

“Wellington.—Victoria Hall, Adelaide Road.—... As a movement has been on foot amongst us for some time for a re-union of the ecclesias at present divided on account of the error emanating from Sydney, we considered that we could best serve the interest of the truth by setting forth a statement of our position, which we have done in the form of three propositions. Only upon the acceptance of these can we receive into fellowship those who have previously accepted the Clean Flesh Heresy, either by active support, or have received in fellowship those who have supported it.

(1) We accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith as our basis of fellowship, believing and endorsing all the doctrines therein set forth, also we repudiate any belief in the “Doctrines to be Rejected” appended thereto.

(2) We refuse to fellowship any who, while accepting the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, have in their fellowship, those who deny any of the truths therein set forth, or receive in fellowship those that deny any of these truths.

(3) We repudiate the doctrine known as the Clean Flesh Theory (i.e., that he “Jesus, was by nature, Holy, Harmless, Undefiled, and separate from sinners. He was ‘undefiled in every sense’”). We believe that Jesus was in the days of his flesh of the selfsame nature as we are, a nature which is of its very constitution at enmity with God, a nature defiled as the result of the transgression of our first parents. That He overcame this nature with all its desires and weaknesses, and thereby overcame the Diabolos, thus setting us an example which we are asked to follow.—T. H. Rosser, Rec.”

Ecclesial Autonomy

Ecclesial autonomy therefore is not a licence for an ecclesia to tolerate error in fellowship. Where an ecclesia knowingly persists in tolerating in their fellowship those in error, they can expect themselves to be subject to investigation and consequent refusal of fellowship by other ecclesias. They have in practice rejected the commandment of II John to not tolerate error in fellowship and are compromising the accepted basis of fellowship. They are therefore failing in their responsibility to other ecclesias to uphold the Truth as a basis of fellowship.

Ecclesial autonomy does not mean that other ecclesias cannot get involved in an ecclesia’s affaird if it fails in its responsibility to uphold the Truth in fellowship. Other ecclesias have a responsibility to enquire and investigate the matter. They should not simply accept the situation and do nothing on a false premise that ecclesial autonomy precludes them from getting involved.

As Bro John Carter wrote in his article “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945).

"If an ecclesia is known to persist in teaching wrong doctrine, or in retaining in fellowship those who so do, other ecclesias can only avoid being involved by disclaiming association. In matters of doubt, where it is a question of judgment of fact, ecclesial decisions must be respected, as the Guide and the Constitution provide. But when there is grave error in doctrine or practice, an ecclesia has the duty of loyalty to the Truth, and it is recognized among us that by the Truth is meant the definition of doctrine in the Statement of Faith. If an ecclesia fail in such loyalty, other ecclesias cannot co-operate without complicity. Harmony in essentials has ceased to exist, and behind a facade of union there is really disunity. Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.

… a practical protest by refusing to fellowship is the full extent of permitted action. The command to “enquire” is not at variance with New Testament injunction; it is in harmony with it. When, therefore, it is reported that any brother or ecclesia is following false doctrine, it is not only permitted, but it is obligatory on other brethren and ecclesias, to “enquire and make search, and ask diligently,” to see whether it be true and the thing certain. If it is, the responsibility of their position leaves no option but that of repudiating complicity with the evil."

Regarding a right balance on ecclesial autonomy, Bro John Carter wrote in “The Ecclesia and Ecclesias” (The Christadelphian, October 1953)

“Ecclesias are autonomous, and it is a principle to be jealously guarded that ecclesias manage their own affairs. But that does not mean that an ecclesia can tolerate or eschew any belief or conduct without regard to other ecclesias. Individuals have free wills, but that does not mean they can do as they wish. To live in society imposes limitations, and when a man joins any society there inevitably follow restrictions on personal freedom. … It is not less so in ecclesial life.

The basis of fellowship is the common acceptance of certain beliefs which are called “The Truth” or “The Faith”; but these beliefs need definition to ensure that understanding is sufficiently uniform. Hence we must have a Statement of Faith. …

It is sometimes said in support of an unregulated freedom for every individual ecclesia that the Lord dealt with the faults and virtues of each in his letters to the churches. This is true, but it is sometimes overlooked that the seven letters were sent as one document to all the churches, and not as separate letters to each church, and each contained the counsel that “if a man have ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. The letter to Smyrna, while dealing with Smyrna’s affairs, had lessons for the other six; and so with each letter. While there was individual responsibility on the part of each ecclesia, this was a collective responsibility of its members (“if any man have ears to hear”); and the individual ecclesia was not without some relationship to the ecclesias as a whole (“hear what the Spirit saith to the churches”).”

Bro John Carter also wrote in “Autonomy and Its Limits” (The Christadelphian, October 1956)

“If he cannot accept the first principles of doctrine agreed upon, he cannot expect to retain his membership. The same principles hold good as between ecclesias. As a community we have encouraged the idea of ecclesial autonomy; rightly so, we believe. A central governing body would destroy the responsibility which individuals and ecclesias sustain to God. At the same time, like most ideas, it can be pressed too far. Ecclesias have certain mutual responsibilities as parts of the “body” of Christ.”

Each ecclesia is responsible for handling problems in their midst and their own orbit of influence where they can practically apply the principles of Matt 18:15-20, as they did in apostolic times, I Pet 5:1-2; Acts 14: 23; I Thess 4:9-10.

The withdrawals of other ecclesias should be respected and supported by refusing to recognise in fellowship the individuals or ecclesias withdrawn from, unless the withdrawal is set aside as per the Ecclesial Guide "42 Ecclesias in Relation One to Another". If the matter comes before another ecclesia because the brother or sister withdrawn from has applied to it for fellowship, the second ecclesia should respect the decision of the first ecclesia until set aside. The second ecclesia may consider the matter for themselves and this may result in a joint investigation in conjunction with the first ecclesia, after which both will vote together for a joint decision.

Such a procedure protects ecclesial autonomy, as an ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself, while at the same time requiring agreement between them on the principles involved that are the basis of fellowship between ecclesias.

Ecclesial problems in distant places should be left to the ecclesias in the vicinity to manage, but if a distant ecclesia has any concerns about a situation they should enquire with the ecclesias involved. In cases of doubt, an ecclesia must be alert in applying the principles of II John 7-11, but such cases will be rare if nearby ecclesias fulfil their responsibilities. Usually the Statement of Faith of another ecclesia is accepted as covering an individual visiting from afar.

The ecclesias are to uphold the truth as a basis of union between themselves and only recognise fellowship with other ecclesias who uphold the truth in doctrine and fellowship. Ecclesias who maintain the truth as a basis of fellowship in their midst and in their orbit of influence, and only recognise fellowship with other ecclesias afar on that basis (by only receiving or visiting other ecclesias that do the same) are disclaiming fellowship with any ecclesia that tolerates error.

If all ecclesias applied these principles, then fellowship between ecclesias would be self regulating, being automatically restricted to those upholding the truth as a basis of fellowship. Any ecclesia that tolerated error in doctrine or conduct would find themselves automatically isolated.

As bro Graham Pearse wrote in “Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, March 1939)

“This, then, we have now most firmly established; that each ecclesia is responsible to God for maintaining a proper fellowship in its midst. In practice this requires that the Breaking of Bread, a symbol of our fellowship one with another, must be limited by the right conditions of fellowship. This must apply not only to members of the ecclesia, but also to all who come. In a few cases it should demand individual examination. Usually the Statement of Faith of another ecclesia is accepted as covering the individual…

If each ecclesia resolves to maintain the right standard within, and with all who come, the larger issues will find their own answer.”

Differences in Judgement on Questions of Fact

There may be occasions when two ecclesias who are agreed on the basis of fellowship may disagree about the facts and circumstances of a particular case involving both ecclesias. This may eventuate because a brother or sister withdrawn from by an ecclesia applies for fellowship with another ecclesia.

The Ecclesial Guide "42 Ecclesias in Relation One to Another" states

"The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere…

"Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgement on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result—a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgement: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot.”

If the two ecclesias who are agreed on the basis of fellowship and the principles involved in the particular case, disagree over the facts and circumstances of the case or how the principles should be applied in the case, then each ecclesia should abide by its own decision without disrupting fellowship between them. The one can fellowship the brother or sister concerned, the other cannot.

Fellowship between ecclesias who recognise the same principles and basis of fellowship should not be disrupted by a difference in judgement of the facts, and how the principles should be applied in a particular case.

This does not apply to differences in principles of doctrine and conduct that form the basis of fellowship, as any difference in judgment in such matters is not merely a difference in judgement on a question of fact but a difference on fundamental principles that form the basis of fellowship.

Bro John Carter wrote in “The Ecclesia and Ecclesias” (The Christadelphian, October 1953)

“One matter fraught with grave danger arises from the differing judgments of men. There are many circumstances where a person’s behaviour is unsatisfactory and where there may be a wide difference of judgment concerning what disciplinary action is called for. To illustrate from an experience that goes back two generations. A prominent brother developed a taste for alcoholic drink: clearly it was growing into a weakness. First there was remonstrance, entreaty, exhortation. But the habit grew. He was removed from speaking duties. Still the lesson was not learned and no rigorous self-discipline undertaken. At last the matter became so bad that further ecclesial action was called for. We can imagine how varied could be the thoughts of brethren exercised on what should be done. A brother who had knowledge of home wrecked and children neglected through drinking might feel it necessary to adopt a very strong attitude that only withdrawal meets the case. A rigorous abstainer might take either an extremely strong line, or, out of sympathy for the brother’s weakness, a very tolerant line. A brother who has inherited from dipsomaniac parents a weakness for alcohol might say, “I know what a powerful appeal wines can have: I myself therefore abstain altogether, but because I know what it means I am careful how I condemn”. “How can we assess the interplay of heredity and environment? Who can say what effort has been made?” another says, in an effort to see issues broadly. In no case is the judgment on the offender entirely objective. When we add the factor of likes and dislikes, temperamental affinities and antipathies, we might well despair of just judgment. Yet decisions have to be made and careful consideration should be given to reach a wise decision; and the approval of the majority should settle the matter. Now suppose after a time the brother asks to return: and all the emotional reactions operate again with the new factor—has the man repented, and does he show fruits of repentance?—to be judged.

Differing judgments are thus revealed in one’s own ecclesia; but suppose a brother withdrawn from seeks fellowship of another ecclesia. He might get a more dispassionate hearing, but one less informed than in his former ecclesia. But should the second ecclesia ignore the decisions of the first? That would not show a brotherly spirit. What should be done? In such a situation the suggestions of bro. Roberts in The Ecclesial Guide are modelled on Christian principles. Let the two meetings have a joint investigation, in some way ensuring a balance of voting power, and let the joint decision decide for both ecclesias. Generally such a joint decision should close the discussion. Yet there may be situations where even then there might be dissatisfaction. Suppose that a big majority of the first meeting insist on maintaining withdrawal but an equally big majority of the second meeting vote for accepting to fellowship; the brethren of the second meeting might feel that their majority vote should rule for their own ecclesia. What then? Well, clearly there is a real difference of judgment, and for each ecclesia then the majority decision must hold. But it should not divide the two ecclesias since they are agreed on principle but differ in the application of the principle to a particular case.

These issues are carefully weighed in The Ecclesial Guide—a booklet which all Arranging Brethren should possess. It is full of sound scriptural guidance for ecclesial life, and is an elaboration of the reasons for the Clauses of the Constitution which bro. Roberts helped to frame, which relate to this matter.

These wise provisions of the Constitution, based on the principles bro. Roberts explains, apply and can only apply where there is agreement on principle: they presume there is agreement on principle and are only operative where such agreement exists. They could not be applied, for example, if one ecclesia made any action the ground of irrevocable withdrawal. If one withdrawn from in such cases should apply to another ecclesia, there could be no joint investigation with a collective vote of two ecclesias to decide whether a brother should be accepted or not. The one ecclesia’s rules automatically exclude from fellowship in the case, and no investigation could alter the position for them without the alteration of their rule.

Such being the case for collective association, there should be agreement on principle by all ecclesias and for any one ecclesia to introduce any new ground for withdrawal which is not accepted by others, provides the conditions for disruptive differences. Such addition, it would follow, should not be made by individual ecclesias, for as bro. Roberts says: “There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time they have reciprocal rights”. The first clause provides independence; the other is restrictive—restrictive to a recognition of the same principles by all ecclesias.

The above comments arise from a review of Clauses 34 and 35 of the Constitution and of Clauses 41 and 42 of The Ecclesial Guide.”

Maintaining a Balance in the Current Situation

Unfortunately, there are ecclesias in the Central group of ecclesias that compromise the fellowship of other ecclesias by tolerating error in their midst, or by not disclaiming fellowship with ecclesias that tolerate error, per Matt 18 and II John in the Ecclesial Guide. It is a sad truth that not all ecclesias in the Central group of ecclesias uphold the Central position on fellowship and withdrawal as set out by the first three editors of The Christadelphian magazine in its first 100 years.

In particular in Australia, some ecclesias misrepresent the Unity Agreement as allowing the Shield Clean Flesh view in fellowship and they follow the Shield position on fellowship as opposed to the Central position, (see “The Unity Agreement Precludes Clean Flesh and Theistic Evolution from Fellowship as Error”). This has resulted in some ecclesias tolerating not only the Shield Clean Flesh error in fellowship, but also Theistic Evolution which necessarily includes some of the errors of Shield Clean Flesh that cut across the fundamental Scriptural Truth’s on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F.

Other issues in the Central brotherhood include; false beliefs and practice on fellowship including open fellowship, as well as the Christianisation of the Truth including Christian views on Grace and possession of the gift of the holy spirit. Many local ecclesias do not have the will to deal with these ecclesias properly.

What are we to do to maintain a balance in this situation? The dilemma and challenge we face is maintaining the balance between fellowshipping those who uphold the Truth and not fellowshipping those who compromise the Truth. The Scriptures require that we must be careful to extend fellowship to brethren who uphold the Truth while at the same time being careful not to fellowship those who compromise it. This is a difficult balance to maintain when some ecclesias compromise the fellowship of other ecclesias by not upholding the Central position on fellowship and withdrawal.

As bro John Carter wrote in “A Time To Heal” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

"It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend fellowship when “all speak one thing”

And as he also wrote in “Inter-Ecclesial Responsibility” (The Christadelphian, July 1945).

"Division is a sin when there is loyalty to Truth; when there is disagreement on fundamentals it is an evil to be endured with patience.”

Should we leave the Central fellowship group, or remain separate from the Central fellowship group in one of the minority Christadelphian fellowship groups?

Or can we be in the Central fellowship group and uphold the Central position on fellowship and withdrawal as it was originally set out?

By leaving, or being out of fellowship with the Central group of ecclesias, we are practising block disfellowship where we indiscriminately and unilaterally refuse fellowship to a whole fellowship group, many of whom faithfully uphold the Truth in fellowship, with no application of the principles in Matt 18 or II John. This is going too far and is not upholding the Scriptural principles of fellowship reflected in the Central position on fellowship and withdrawal.

Our best opportunity of maintaining a balance in fellowship in the current situation is to be in the Central fellowship group and to faithfully uphold the Truth in fellowship as best we can.

Just because we are in the Central fellowship group, it does not mean we are automatically in fellowship with every ecclesia in the Central fellowship group, especially any ecclesia that does not uphold the Truth in fellowship. We can join an ecclesia that upholds the Central position on fellowship by disclaiming fellowship with any ecclesia in the Central fellowship group that does not uphold the Truth in fellowship.

An ecclesia in the Central fellowship group can uphold the Central position on fellowship by;

Upholding the Truth defined in the B.A.S.F. without reservation as its basis of fellowship and will not tolerate error in doctrine or conduct.
Only recognising fellowship with other Central ecclesias that do the same.
Applying the principles of Matt 18 with any Central ecclesia in its orbit of influence who may tolerate error.
Applying the principles of II John and not receive or bidding God speed to brothers and sisters from any Central ecclesias who tolerate error.

We can exercise our personal conscience to not visit ecclesias that tolerate error or attending combined events where brothers and sisters from ecclesias that tolerate error can freely attend. We may find ourselves compromised in fellowship on occasions, but it is our best opportunity to maintain a balance on fellowship to the best of our ability in the current situation.

If we are in a Central ecclesia that applies the Central position on fellowship we can maintain a balance of extending fellowship to Central ecclesias who uphold the Truth while not extending fellowship to Central ecclesias who compromise it with error.

As bro Graham Pearse wrote in “Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship” (The Christadelphian, March 1939)

If each ecclesia resolves to maintain the right standard within, and with all who come, the larger issues will find their own answer.”