The Christadelphian March 1892, Frank Jannaway

“Ecclesial Fellowship”

By Brother G. Jannaway, London.

(Continued from page 63.)

75. W.—We cannot fellowship the evil deeds of another without being in agreement with them and doing the same things.

76. F.—The remarks made in paragraph 74 will apply to this—but further; John in his 2nd epistle calls false teaching concerning Christ an “evil deed,” and he says if we bid the man with this false doctrine “God speed,” we become partakers of his evil deeds. It is quite clear he is not referring to those who believed or were doing the same things, for he says it is the bidding him God speed that creates the participation. Now what is meant by “God speed?” Reference to its use in the New Testament soon enlightens us. The word (original) is found 74 times, and while only rendered “God speed” twice, is translated—hail, rejoice, rejoicing, greeting, joy, glad and farewell 72 times—so that evidently the primary meaning is “welcome.” Not to welcome a holder of false doctrine. Not to welcome him where? At our homes or at the table? Why at the table of the Lord, for surely you cannot contend that we ought to welcome a person there when we cannot welcome him at our house.

77. W.—The idea of responsibility for the beliefs and doings of others being transferred to us by the breaking of bread is a false idea.

78. F.—Your ideas on this “transference of responsibility” are entirely without foundation, and we would recommend you to study paragraphs 23 to 26.

79. W.—The principle taught throughout the Bible is that declared in Ezekiel’s prophecy, “The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

80. F.—Yes, and everytrue Christadelphian heartily endorses that testimony. In no way does it militate against their belief that God will not hold him guiltless who presumes to “hail” or bid “God speed” to those who fail to respect the “holy,” “separate,” or peculiar position to which He calls them.

81. W.—This was said by God in reply to a statement made by the Israelites to the effect that His way is not equal because they believed that the evil doings of an individual should be visited upon another.

82. F.—What then?

83. W.—Let us be careful how we make this same accusation against God.

84. F.—Nay; rather let us refrain from making it at all. The accusation is certainly not to be found in the Christadelphian doctrine of fellowship, one of the principles of which is that each member is responsible to God for the company he keeps.

85. W.—It is as true in the 19th century after Christ’s death as it was five centuries before he was born that “the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

86. F.—Yes, quite as true. And that man who bids erroneous teachers and evildoers “God speed” or “joy” by partaking of the emblems with them will not suffer for the “evil deeds” of his companions, but for his own unfaithfulness in holding fellowship where God has forbidden it.

87. W.—There are many other considerations that plainly shew the fallacy of the idea that the breaking of bread is a medium for the transference of evil.

88. F.—No doubt—but such a thing as “transference of evil” is not believed by the Christadelphians, hence there is no need to go into “other considerations.” But while the “breaking of bread” cannot be the medium for the “transference of evil,” it can be the means of making a man an “evildoer” by partaking with evil doers, as we have most clearly proved from the epistles of Paul and John.

89. W.—We constantly see brethren and sisters do things of which we disapprove and would not practise ourselves. We constantly hear of some item of belief that we consider out of harmony with Scripture teaching—but do you think for a moment that we become responsible for those actions and beliefs because we partake of the emblems with those that practise them?

90. F.—Firstly, we again have to deny that any such responsibility is created (see paragraph 26). Secondly, God has allowed liberty in many matters in which conscience must guide us—hence, what is sin to one may not be to another. You yourself have introduced the word “essentials” (paragraph 71), and by that we presume you mean “first principles.” Only errors which multiply those “essentials” or “first principles” should bar our fellowship.

91. W.—If we break bread with a brother whose idea upon some doctrinal subject is different from our own, does that act make us believe the same as he?

92. F.—Of course not. The question is too ridiculous to think you seriously ask it.

93. W.—Then we have no agreement with such belief, and consequently do not fellowship it.

94. F.—You have made that last statement before (paragraph 73), and we have shown the unscriptural character of it (paragraphs 74, 76).

95. W.—If evil be thus transferred, then upon the same principle, the good would also.

96. F.—Certainly; but as “evil” is not transferred, on the same principle “the good” is not. It would be better if you kept to the word “partake” or “fellowship” instead of coining the word “transfer” for us.

97. W.—Why should we become partakers of a brother’s sin by breaking bread with him, and not be partakers in another brother’s well-doing by the same means?

98. F.—Just as we “partake” of sin in bidding “God speed” to evil-doers, so we “partake” of good in doing likewise with “well-doers” (Mal. 3:16).

99. W.—If every time we break bread in the same company with a righteous and a wicked brother, we have fellowship with their righteousness and iniquity respectively, then both righteousness and wickedness would be imputed to us as a consequence?

100. F.—With regard to the typical uncleanliness under the law of Moses, created by contact with unclean persons (to which you have referred), it distinctly states, “When he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty” (Lev. 5:3). In like manner, under Christ’s law, iniquity is not imputed where we unwittingly “sacrifice” or “break bread” with a “wicked brother.” We only, knowingly, fellowship righteous brethren, and therefore only righteousness is imputed to us.

101. W.—John wrote, “Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” Now, we read from the same writer that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,” for “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” But, although we are all sinners, yet “we have fellowship with the Father and the Son.” Does our fellowship of them involve them in our wickedness?

102. F.—If we are “walking in the light” then the “sin” which we have is not imputed to us, but the righteousness of Christ; and clothed with this garment, we have the fellowship of the Father and Son. Without this garment, they will not permit us to have their fellowship. While we have fellowship with them we “are clean every whit,” and thus there is no wickedness for them to be “involved” in.

103. W.—If responsibility for evil is incurred in the case of our brethren, it is also incurred in the cases of the Father and the Son, and that cannot be put negatively.

104. F.—Are you not reducing God and Christ to your own level? Have you never read that the One forgives through the mediumship of the other? Have you omitted to read the next verse to the one you quote from 1 John 1.?—“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” Bearing this in mind, can you not see that we have fellowship with the Father and Son not as sinners but as children “cleansed from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9), and that therefore, there is no sin for the Father and Son to be involved in, Without this forgiveness, there is no fellowship, and that man is not forgiven who unrepentantly continues in sin and whose fellowship therefore we cannot knowingly entertain without separating ourselves from the fellowship of Father and Son.

105. W.—If the Father and Son are not involved in our wrong doings by the fellowship that we are permitted to have with them—then our brethen are not made responsible for our sins by means of that same fellowship they have with us.

106. F.—Firstly, by our previous arguments, you will see there is no longer wrong doing for them to be involved in; and, secondly, responsibility for other men’s sins we do not believe or teach, but that it is for our own sins in knowingly partaking with unrepentent wrong doers that we are held responsible.

107. W.—These few points, if carefully reflected upon, especially bearing in mind the fact that not a tittle of Scripture evidence arrays itself against them, are sufficient to destroy the idea hitherto held by most of us.

108. F.—It ill becomes you to talk about “Scripture evidence,” for, from beginning to end, you quote but seven texts, and those, be it noted, in a long written address in which you profess to have demonstrated the unscriptural nature of what we contend is a Bulwark of the Unity of the household of Christ. Your quotations are: Lev. 6:2, Ps. 94:20, Acts 2:41, 1 Cor. 10:15, 2 Cor. 8:4, Ezek. 18:4, 2 John. We have shown that these do not help you, but us, and we have amply supported them with other quotations. Your assertion about “not a title of evidence” is on a par with your statement about the “subject being imperfectly understood” (see paragraphs 5–10).

109. W.—The idea has gained a place in our minds by being handed from one to another and accepted without examination; and thus it has operated for a considerable time without any feeling called upon to give a reason for it.

110. F.—If the “our minds” consists of your own, we do not object to your assertion, but if you mean the brethren generally, we impugn it, and have already given our reason for so doing.

111. W.—This doctrine has been responsible for most of the awful divisions that have taken place among the brotherhood.

112. F.—But that is no reason, to a student of the Word, for rejecting the doctrine. The beloved Apostle alone informs us of three divisions on account of Christ in the short space of one year (John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19). Christ Himselftells us that obedience to Him would result in division (Luke 12:51). Peter and Paul both speak of Christ as “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence” (1 Pet. 2:8, Rom. 9:33, 1 Cor. 1:23); and upon one occasion, Christ said even “all” His disciples would be “offended” because of Him (Matt. 26:31). But shall we reject Him because He was the reason for all these divisions? Nay, is it not rather to be expected that as Christ was Himself the “fruitful source” of so many divisions, so His doctrines would also, if faithfully contended for?

113. W.—If we are in agreement upon the subject matter of “The One Faith” and mutually strive to walk in harmony with Christ’s commands—our fellowship remains even though we may not “break bread together” till Christ comes.

114. F.—That is true, provided it is not our fault that we do not break bread with others, such as inability to get to the meetings, etc., but if we refuse to break bread when opportunity occurs, then we are wilfully disobedient and cannot expect the fellowship of God and his faithful children.

115. W.—Do not let me be misunderstood . . . We ought not to acknowledge fellowship where there is no agreement upon fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ. That is the basis of our fellowship—of our communion.

116. F.—And a Scriptural basis it is, too, but in the statements you have made, you decline to confine your acknowledgment of this fellowship to those who are in agreement on this question, being willing to extend it to those who do not see the need for such agreement on those fundamental elements, and who thereby destroy unity of mind among the ecclesias on this highly important doctrine of fellowship.

117. W.—If there be agreement among ourselves and others upon the ground of our faith and companionship in our efforts to conform to the spirit of God’s commands, then we ought to be glad and willing to acknowledge the fellowship.

118. F.—Yes, if! but there is no such agreement if you acknowledge fellowship with those who, while believing with you on the “essentials,” are nevertheless willing to acknowledge fellowship with others who do not see the need for having the same mind on those doctrines.

119. W.—Don’t let us think that perfection of agreement is requisite upon all sorts of recondite matters in connection with the truth in order to the establishment of the fellowship of the Gospel.

120. F.—You must know we have never so believed, and therefore such a remark is not creditable to you.

121. W.—Those things that God has plainly declared are necessary before a man can be truly baptised into Christ are the only essentials of fellowship, and there can be no fellowship without them.

122. F.—True, and that must be the gauge or test to be applied not only to those with whom we personally acknowledge fellowship, but also to those who are acknowledged by them, and so on.

123. W.—Where they are believed and observed, fellowship is established, whether we recognise it or not.

124. F.—Believed and observed! True.

125. W.—It behoves us to act towards each other as we would have Jehovah act towards us.

126. F.—Yes, provided no command of God is thereby violated, for in some cases faithfulness prohibits us so acting.

127. W.—He admits men into His fellowship who are not perfect.

128. F.—That is not true. Only those clothed in His Son’s righteousness (and therefore perfect in him) are so admitted.

129. W.—Not one of us dare say that many brethren who are denied the privilege of sitting with us at the Lord’s table are not the adopted children of God even as we.

130. F.—And neither do we so say, but there are faithful and unfaithful children, and connivance at, or condonation of, unfaithfulness is not permissible.

131. W.—Not one of us dare assert that they are less worthy of the divine approval, or that they are not admitted into the fellowship of the Father and Son.

152. F.—And we have no desire to make such assertions. We leave Christ to do the asserting. We simply say we believe you are dishonouring God and His Son by partaking with those who do not maintain the Unity of the Faith or do not recognise the essentiality of entire separation from the isms of the world, and we decline to participate in unfaithfulness by receiving your fellowship.

133. W.—I say again that there is only one way in which we can fellowship iniquitous conduct, and that is by practising the same things or conniving at their practise.

134. F.—Yes, but you have simply given us such “say,” while we have clearly proved from the Bible that this “say” is unscriptural.

135. W.—Let us require no more on the part of others before we will recognise the fellowship that actually does exist between us, whether we consent or not; let us require no more of them than we are ready to render ourselves.

136. F.—If that means anything at all, it means that you believe we are those “who say and do not” (Matt. 23:3), in fact, “whited sepulchres, hypocrites” (Matt. 23:27). In making such grave charges (by implication or innuendo), it would be as well if you kept yourself to a pronoun of the first person singular instead of plural, as you have proved yourself incompetent to speak for the brethren generally.

137. W.—On the one hand let us continue to refuse to break bread with all who hold not the truth as it is in Jesus.

138. F.—Good. But then you decline to insist on like conditions throughout the brotherhood generally with whom you are in fellowship, maintaining that you are in no way involved in the errors of those whom you may so recognise in fellowship. The logical result can be but one—and that is, you will be compelled to throw in your lot with a community that permits acknowledgment of fellowship with those who do not admit the absolute essentiality of those doctrines you now believe to be fundamental, and your alleged unity of faith will go to the winds and be destroyed by unsound principles.

139. W.—Let us cease to think so much of the responsibility for the actions of others that cannot belong to us.

140. F.—It will be more scriptural to cease to talk in that way and begin to remember “He that biddeth him God-speed is a partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 11). To remember also that Christ threatened the early Churches for keeping in the Church evil thinkers and evil doers (Rev. 2:14, 15), while not charging them with personally believing or doing the same things.

141. W.—Let us spend less time in the unnecessary carefulness to keep ourselves immaculate from the blemishes of others by reason of touching but the border of their garments.

142. F.—A smart sentence: but it is sad to hear it from one who has known the truth. In reply we will simply give you a few texts to think over and which some day you may see inculcate the carefulness you now condemn: Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:6; 15:33; 2 Cor. 6:14, 17; Eph. 5:7, 11; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 5:22; Rev. 18:4.

143. W.—Let us take greater care to keep our own garments unspotted from the world.

144. F.—To do this effectually, we must attend to the counsel given in the texts just quoted.

145. W.—Christ came into direct contact with worldly filth enough, but it did not adhere to his own robe of righteousness.

146. F.—Aye! but although “in the world,” he was not “of the world.” He had “no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reproved them” (Phil. 5:11). We are counselled to “follow his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21).

147. W.—In conclusion . . . If you conclude that the principle I advocate is true, and is taught in the Scriptures, then accept it as you would all divine truth, and let us together act in accordance with the truth we have found, and rejoice to be delivered from the most fruitful sources of disagreement, difficulty and disunion we have ever experienced.

148. F.—But we do not so “conclude,” for the simple reason that the Scriptures do not so teach—therefore we cannot act in accordance, nor rejoice in deliverance from a difficult situation which is of our Heavenly Father’s good providence.

Frank G. Jannaway.