The Christadelphian February 1892, Frank Jannaway

“Ecclesial Fellowship”

By Brother G. Jannaway, London.

The following argumentative conversation arose out of a private verbal discussion between W. and F. as to whether a particular doctrine had to be believed before immersion, and as a condition of fellowship. W. seemed distressed at the idea of separation on a single doctrine (while agreed on all others), and groundlessly charged the Christadelphians with teaching that all brethren out of fellowship with them were practically regarded as without hope; hence F. replied that W. should keep in mind the proposition stated below, and which proposition called forth the discussion that follows thereon. All the paragraphs headed “W” are the very words of the essay written by W., and which essay has been divided into sections so that the arguments contained therein might be the more thoroughly dealt with.

Proposition to be Remembered

“That in many cases we have to refuse fellowship to those we hope to see accepted by and bye through the mercy of God, but that it would not be Scriptural to allow this hope to be the ground of fellowship; otherwise, fellowship would vary with the amount of hope a man possessed.”

1. W.—I cannot agree to remember this, as I have never learned it. The only book I rely upon for my ideas of fellowship is the Bible, and I find nothing in its pages requiring any such thing. . . . I only hope to see men in the Kingdom when I believe there is some possibility of them being there; and when I could see no reason for hoping, there I should refuse fellowship, but nowhere else. . . . . It is a principle that I have plainly taught in the meetings, and my teaching has never been challenged. I take the liberty of enclosing an address that I once delivered upon the subject.

2. F.—The real drift of a theory is seldom gathered from an address that is read. Perhaps this is the reason your teaching was not challenged, for your address contains ideas totally subversive of the unity of the faith which Christ’s brethren have to maintain. Your contention that in fellowshipping others we incur no responsibility for their actions or beliefs is quite opposed to Bible teaching, and some of your admissions will help to make such manifest.

3. W.—Search the Scriptures and measure all I have said by the rule you will find there, and if you find any discrepancy, discard it and shew me where I am wrong.

4. F.—Just so; that is our intention, but we would ask you to confine yourself to points on which you are at issue with us, as there are many statements in your essay which we do not question, and therefore to repeat them will only unnecessarily occupy time. Now for your first complaint.

5. W.—I believe fellowship is a subject that has really received very little consideration, and, consequently, is but imperfectly understood.

6. F.—By whom, yourself or others?

7. W.—I have thought carefully and long upon what I am about to lay before you.

8. F.—So you mean it is your brethren who are ignorant on the matter! What leads you to that conclusion?

9. W.—Is is a significant fact, that among the voluminous literature that has sprung into existence dealing with almost every phrase of the Truth, the doctrine of fellowship has been given little or no place.

10. F.—But that is no evidence that the subject has not been carefully thought out by the brethren. Speaking of the ecclesias in London with which we have been connected for nearly 17 years, we can truly say that “fellowship” has repeatedly been most critically discussed, as much if not more so, than any other doctrine. But further, your assertion respecting our literature is not true. The doctrine alluded to has been given a large place, by bro. Roberts, in the pages of the “Christadelphian,” especially so when false brethren have introduced heresy into our midst. So that what you ought to have said was—“Not having heard or read much on the subject, I have concluded that little or nothing has been said or written thereon, and that all others are no better informed than myself.” But this way of expressing the fact you will not endorse; for you profess even greater progress than others. This self-confidence is distastefully manifest throughout your address (to wit, your first paragraph—pronoun, first person singular, 13 times).

11. W.—It is now nearly two years since I came to the conclusion that our understanding of the doctrine of fellowship was radically unsound, and since that time, I have been looking for some brother to come forward and instruct us more perfectly upon this subject.

12. F.—Two years looking for instruction! Surely that cannot strike you as a commendable attitude for a servant of Deity. You must have been doing something in the meantime.

13. W.—Meanwhile, the cogitations of my own mind, assisted by the experiences through which our Church has passed, and also by the exchange of thought with other brethren, have compelled me to a conclusion with which I am pleased to know many agree.

14. F.—No wonder at your unscriptural conclusions. Your guide has been your “own mind,” assisted by certain “experiences,” and “the thoughts” of others with a similar mind. It looks almost as though you had forgotten that Book wherein alone is to be found infallible guidance which should be used as a “lamp” for our feet and a “guide” for our path, and which Book warns us that “it is not in man to direct his steps.” But there, let us proceed with the subject of fellowship. Go on.

15. W.—First of all, and in order that its bearings may be fully appreciated, it will be better to give some sort of a definition of fellowship as it is generally understood by us. It is usually believed to consist of the act of breaking bread and drinking wine in memory of the death of our Lord, and in recognition of our adoption into the family of God.

16. F.—Nonsense. That “fellowship consists of this act” is not usually believed by us. In fact, you are the only person we ever heard had such an idea, and a moment’s reflection will make manifest your error; for if fellowship “consists of this act,” then fellowship only exists between those who have actually met together, and thus we should have no fellowship with our brethren abroad. You must know we do not so believe or teach. We also have fellowship with God and with Christ without the act of breaking of bread (see I. John 1–3). We would recommend you to again read paragraph 10, and reflect on the moral.

17. W.—It is usually believed that in this act of fellowship we bid God-speed to all with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems.

18. F.—True, we do so believe, and when you give reasons for believing otherwise, we will deal with such and give you testimony to support our belief. We shall also have something to say of our belief that breaking of bread is simply an act of fellowship, and not its sum total. But go on.

19. W.—It is usually believed that we involve ourselves in the responsibility of errors of belief that may be held by them or unrighteous conduct that they may practise.

20. F.—True also; provided (a) that the errors affect first principles; (b) that the unrighteous conduct had not been repented of, and (c) that we are cognisant of such errors of belief and conduct.

21. W.—And we have refused to break bread with brethren, whose faith we know to be identically our own, because they are not prepared to disconnect themselves from others who hold an error of belief upon some point or other.

22. F.—If by “some point or other,” you mean errors referred to in paragraph 20, we are justified in so refusing, and the grounds for such refusal will be manifest as we proceed with our arguments.

23. W.—Our fear has been that the responsibility of error would be transmitted to us through the medium of one, who had himself become subject to that responsibility through the act of fellowship.

24. F.—What do you mean by “responsibility transmitted?”

25. W.—To make myself clear by using a simile that has been quoted before to convey the same thought—that evil either of faith or practice is conveyed from one to another by the act of breaking bread, much in the same way as uncleanness was conveyed from the leper, through another who came into personal contact with him, to a third person, a fourth, and so on.

26. F.—Then your understanding of the matter is not correct. As to responsibility being transmitted through mediums, we have never held any such idea. A man is only responsible for his own errors (and quite enough too). We believe that if he knowingly fellowships false teachers, he is responsible for so doing, but that is a very different thing to having the particular evil of such teachers transmitted to him. By careful reading, you will observe that “knowing” was an important element in the law to which you refer. (Lev. 5:3.)

27. W.—Now if this principle be a true one, it———

28. F.—But we have not contended it is, and, therefore, there is no need to speculate as to where it leads, or what the results may be of the application of such principle.

29. W.—It has led to the severing of the brotherhood.

30. F.—As the principle has no existence with us, it cannot lead us to anything. What has led to the severance of the brotherhood is the fact of certain ones bringing into its midst ideas contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10) thus causing division, which has been ended by the earnest contenders of the Faith withdrawing themselves (2 Thess. 3:6), marking those who have been the cause of the division (Rom. 16:17).

31. W.—It is continually troubling us with questions of an aggravating character that prevents us occupying our whole time in building ourselves up in the Faith.

32. F.—Surely you fail to recognise what is included in that “building up.” A “scamping” builder is not particular as to what material he uses. A wise builder uses only that which will meet with the architect’s approval. And so a faithful workman in assisting to build up the Spiritual temple (2 Cor. 6:16) will scrupulously avoid compromising the work by using what he believes the Divine Architect does not approve of. The work is not ours but His and must be done according to His specifications. Wind and water-proof (Matt. 7:24–29). As to the disastrous effect a little bad material will have on even a large building, you will do well to read 1 Cor. 5:1–11, and such like testimony.

33. W.—We spend too much time in considering whom we ought to admit to be in faithful service to Christ.

34. F.—In view of your circumscribed ideas of “building up,” we cannot wonder that you think so.

35. W.—And leave too little time to do our own faithfully and well.

36. F.—We have already seen that to be faithful needs our doing what you condemn.

37. W.—The way out of this difficulty we believe to be through an acknowledgment that this doctrine of fellowship just mentioned (which is responsible for such a lamentable state of things) is a false doctrine.

38. F.—As we are in no difficulty, we have no occasion to seek for a way out. In your desire to avoid unpleasantness, you would purchase peace at the expense of purity. Christ will not countenance this. He would prefer that sword separate father from son than that such a price should be paid. Yea, he predicted that such should be the case (Matt. 10:34–35). When trouble arises, through faithfulness to the doctrines of Christ, it would be an easy “way out of the difficulty” to conclude that the doctrines were false, and thus (but only for the present) avoid a “lamentable state of things.” But, says the Bible, “In all things consider the end.” A wise man will do so, always bearing in mind “that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom.”

39. W.—Actions which have been made upon its basis are steps in the wrong direction, that have brought us into a position that is altogether unjustifiable, and must be displeasing in the sight of God. But it is not enough that we should say this. We must show that this doctrine of fellowship is unscriptural, and also what the Bible really does teach upon the subject.

40. F.—Hear, hear.

41. W.—The word fellowship occurs 17 times in the Bible.

42. F.—Well.

43. W.—But not in one instance is it used as meaning the act of breaking of bread.

44. F.—That is denying what is not affirmed. The converse is what we believe, viz., that breaking of bread is fellowship, one of the highest forms of it in fact; but this is a very different thing from what you are opposing. If you affirmed that an oak was a noble tree, and we began to show you that all noble trees were not oaks, you would conclude that we were ignorant of the most elementary logic. Your denial is on a par with this illustration.

45. W. — The original word translated fellowship is given in a lexicon as “companionship, agreement, or communion.”

46. F.—That is just how we understand it, provided the idea of “distribution” is combined therewith; in fact, the Greek word had been so rendered in 2 Cor. 9:13. This goes to show the permeating character of fellowship.

47. W.—In Acts 2:41–42, we are told “there were added unto the Church about 3,000 souls, and they continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine, and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” This, of itself, is sufficient to show that fellowship is not breaking of bread, for the two things are separately spoken of.

48. F.—Quite so. The converse of your statement is what we impugn.

49. W.—And are as distinct as the two others mentioned—the apostles’ doctrine and prayers.

50. F.—In a sense, yes; but from the Bible point of view, they cannot be separated. They stand or fall together. True fellowship, like true charity, comprises many items, but consists in no individual one. (Cor. 1:13).

51. W.—In the tenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, we are taught the true distinction between the breaking of bread and fellowship, for the apostle plainly declares that the one is the representation or acknowledgment of the other.

52. F.—Quite true; and you will do well to note and bear in mind the two admissions involved in your statement; (a), that we must not separate the breaking of bread from the fellowship which “it represents;” and (b), that when we break bread it is “an acknowledgment” that fellowship exists.

53. W.—The 20th verse confirms this idea, for he wrote that “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to God, and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”

54. F.—That completely overthrows your contention that we do not involve ourselves in the errors (of belief or practice) of those with whom we partake of the sacrificial emblems. Here Paul distinctly counsels them not to fellowship devils by eating and drinking to them.

55. W.—But they could not break bread and drink wine with devils.

56. F.—Just so, and therefore the way in which these Corinthians could fellowship devils was by breaking bread and drinking wine with those who believed in the devils, and in that manner they would involve themselves in the errors of devil worshippers. Thus it is plain from Paul, that to fellowship anything does not necessitate personal communion. A profession of agreement with their votaries is all-sufficient, and such profession you have already admitted is found in the “breaking of bread” (see paragraph 51). Moreover, Paul in the chapter to which you refer — (1 Cor. 10:18.) — plainly declares that those who eat do thereby “fellowship.” (The text reads “partakes,” but the original is the same as translated, “fellowship,” in verse 20).

57. W.—In the second letter to the Corinthians, 8:4, we have the word fellowship used with apparently a still different meaning. Writing of the churches of Macedonia, Paul said—“To their power I bear record—yea, and beyond their power—they were willing of themselves; praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” Here a certain office or capacity appears to be spoken of. . . . . It is manifest that the ordinance of breaking bread can have no reference to Paul’s words.

58. F.—If you would but recognise that breaking of bread is but one of many forms of fellowship, these passages would all become plain to you. The word in the text you quote is, as we have already said, rendered, in verse 13 of the next chapter, “distribution,” which is another form of fellowship among the saints.

59. W.—We have probably adduced sufficient passages to prove the present contention that the word fellowship, as used in the Scriptures, is not an equivalent of the act of breaking bread.

60. F.—You have not adduced a single passage that proves we are wrong in maintaining that to “break bread, and drink wine,” in remembrance of Christ, is a form of fellowship, by reason of being the acknowledgment of such.

61. W.—We admit that the ordinance instituted by Christ is an acknowledgment, or an outward sign of fellowship, but it is not the thing itself.

62. F.—True, the ordinance of “breaking bread” is not the sum total of fellowship, but, nevertheless, it is “an act of fellowship,” as you (no doubt unwittingly) admit (see paragraphs 18 and 23). Paul’s reasoning with regard to the body, and its many members, forcibly applies to your mode of argument (1 Cor. 12:14). Although the whole body be not simply the eye, or the ear, yet both form portions of the body, and so, though fellowship be not simply “breaking of bread,” or “prayers,” yet both form important elements of it.

63. W.—It is a matter entirely beyond our control, and there is no meaning in our words when we will fellowship this brother, and we will not fellowship another.

64. F.—If your statement is true, then we must deprive the early Christians of any merit in continuing “steadfastly in fellowship” for, according to you, to do otherwise was “beyond their control.” Paul says (Heb. 13:16)—“To do good and communicate (original, “fellowship” as in Acts 2:42) forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.” Your statement teaches that we need no reminding to fellowship, as to do otherwise is “beyond our control;” and for the same reason there can be no sacrifice in the matter, and therefore God is simply well pleased with our doing a thing that we cannot help doing as it is “beyond our control” to do otherwise.

65. W.—Brethren who believe the same Gospel and are working in the service of Christ are in fellowship with each other.

66. F.—True.

67. W.—Their common faith and common labour constitute that fellowship and it cannot exist without them.

68. F.—True, always remembering that such common labour includes “Assembling together” and “eating” of the sacrificial emblems when the circumstances admit of it.

69. W.—We cannot be in agreement with any upon the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ without being in fellowship with them.

70. F.—It would be more scriptural if you used the expression “things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12), and “continue in well-doing” (Rom. 11:7). But perhaps you mean such—if so your statement is true

71. W.—Neither can we be in disagreement upon the essentials of that Gospel and yet be in fellowship.

72. F. — That follows as the logical sequence.

73. W.—We cannot fellowship false doctrine concerning the teaching of the Scriptures without being in agreement with it, and therefore believing it.

74. F.—That is not true; the Scriptures declare we can fellowship false doctrine without believing it. One illustration will suffice. In the chapter already referred to (1 Cor 1:10), we have seen that Paul tells his brethren that those who eat of the sacrifices offered to idols are “partakers” (original same as fellowship in verse 20) of the altar, and therefore fellowship all represented there by, which in this case were demons or idols (for all gods but the true one are idols) Now you have admitted that they did not eat with the idols (paragraph 55) but with their worshippers, and the Corinthian believers knew with Paul that an “idol is nothing in the world” (1 Cor., 8:4); therefore it is clear from Paul’s counsel to them that they could fellowship false doctrine without being believers in it themselves.

(To be Continued.)