The Christadelphian March 1939, Graham Pearse

(Continued from The Natue and Conditions of Fellowship)

“Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship”

Let us first summarise our previous considerations. In all fellowships there is a state of oneness, a sharing together upon a common foundation. In the fellowship of the Truth, God and Jesus Christ are the centre, and harmony with God’s will and mind is the condition of fellowship. As John says, we must walk in the light as He is in the light. This condition is very comprehensive and exacting. It requires an understanding and acceptance of the first principles of the oracles of God before fellowship is possible. This knowledge is also styled “The Truth,” an expression showing that the first principles, in character and extent, are such as to fit together to form a whole, a complete picture. The Truth is capable of definition as a set of mutually related propositions, each essential to the whole, and each in harmony with the Scripture. This basis is also the condition of fellowship one with another. Our fellowship, therefore, is necessarily narrow, because of the exacting conditions; yet they are conditions that the privilege of association with such holiness should reasonably demand.

Now the ecclesia, being constituted as a unit of fellowship in the assembling together for the partaking of the emblems and the proclaiming of the Truth, and similar activities, has the responsibility of considering the qualifications of any who seek baptism and fellowship. Representative brethren examine the applicant’s beliefs to see that he agrees with the statement of faith and basis of fellowship, which in these days of widespread error, apparently supported by Scripture, is necessarily detailed in both positive and negative directions. All this is readily recognised by all as proper and essential for both the ecclesia and the one embracing the Truth.

But now, when we seek to extend this principle of ecclesial responsibility to the maintaining of the same standard among the ecclesias, some opposition is encountered. Despite this being a logical requirement, and one also that is frequently expressed in the New Testament, the position is not always accepted. The extent and form of the opposition varies. Perhaps an individual in an ecclesia in a particular case feels unable to withdraw from one who, as he might put it, “has stumbled at just one element of the Truth.” In the Suffolk Street ecclesias, while the principle is not altogether rejected as scriptural teaching, it appears to be largely ignored, and to be a dead letter. While, as a larger issue, some reject the principle itself, arguing that it is not the ecclesia’s responsibility to decide who shall partake of the Lord’s Table, and on this basis, advocate a reunion of all separated fellowships. This is the case with the Christadelphian Harbinger, the organ of the Christadelphian Fellowship League, which has been urging reunion on this basis for several years.

It will be perceived therefore that a very important and practical issue is now before us. We intend to establish this proposition from the Scripture: that each ecclesia is responsible for maintaining in its midst that standard of purity in conduct and doctrine which we have already seen is involved in “walking in the light.” Let us keep in mind that, when established, this proposition carries with it responsibility which extends to each member and must not be put aside in practice.

Some may be surprised that the establishing of such a proposition should be necessary. It will therefore be appropriate, before advancing scriptural proof, to indicate the arguments of those that oppose it, and maintain that all have a right to the Lord’s Table—that is, all who at some time have confessed the gospel in its simplest elements, and were baptized into the name of Christ.

Probably the Christadelphian Harbinger has put this as well as any. Their position was stated at the outset in 1933 as a “Platform” of twelve statements, and all that has been published since has been in the nature of illustrating and amplifying this “Platform.” The twelve statements combine to express their position. But the essential argument may be revealed clearly, by placing together three of these statements.

Statement 9. “The confession of the gospel in its simplest terms, and baptism into the name of Christ, make everyone, so complying, a Christadelphian, or member of the Household of God. This “High Calling” is of God, and can be disannulled by His authority only, at the Judgment Seat of Christ. The Ecclesia has no jurisdiction with respect to this relationship.”

“This relationship” is then presented as relating to a “Higher Fellowship,” of which it says:

Statement 12. . . . “But it (the Christadelphian League) does mean to insist that there is a higher order of Fellowship than that created by any human organisation (which all present day Ecclesias are), and which higher fellowship has precedence at the Table of the Lord, by whomsoever laid, or wheresoever located.” . . .

With these premises the conclusion is obvious—that the Breaking of Bread should not be withheld from anyone. For stating the above argument still more concisely, we have:

1.   The Breaking of Bread is the right of all who are in the higher fellowship.

2.   At baptism all enter the higher fellowship.

3.   The ecclesia has no jurisdiction in the higher fellowship.

4.   Therefore the ecclesia cannot withhold Breaking of Bread from any.

A further quotation is useful; in Statement 7, the distinction between the higher and lower fellowships is expressed thus:

“Fellowship in this ecclesia (defined as the Church of God, or body of Christ in Statement 6) which is fellowship with the Father and the Son, should, therefore, not be confused with fellowship in a local ecclesia.”

Such then is the basis upon which the plea for general reunion is built by the “organ of the Christadelphian Fellowship League,” an organ which is received favourably by the Fraternal Visitor, the magazine of the Suffolk Street fellowship. (See Fraternal Visitor, July, 1935). The analysis of this argument we will leave for the moment. Let us return to our proposition now.

What then is the scriptural evidence on ecclesial responsibility in this matter? First, there are Paul’s strong words when writing to the Galatians: “There be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:7–9).

Accursed or anathema as any lexicon will show has the meaning of “a religious ban,” an “excommunicated thing or person.” Paul uses the same word in Romans 9:3, “I could wish myself accursed (margin — separated) from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” It is an exceptionally strong word, and such a position is not compatible with still being in fellowship. Moreover, the energetic and uncompromising way in which Paul opposed these particular holders of error—“To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you”—cannot be reconciled with toleration of error in fellowship. Paul exhorts us to be followers of him, and like him, we must oppose any perversion of the gospel, small though it be, for, as we have seen, a small error soon undermines the whole structure.

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.”

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: “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, they ought to judge them that are within, and concludes, verse 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).

Nor have we yet marshalled all the testimony to establish our proposition. There are several statements of a more general character, such as those in Ephesians 5, and 2 Corinthians 6, which show there can be no fellowship between “light” and “darkness.” And lastly, though not least in importance, we should remember the view taken by Christ himself of the seven ecclesias in Asia. In some cases he expressed commendation for holding fast the Truth, and “trying” false teachers; in other cases he sent words of rebuke for “suffering” false teachers in their midst.

Graham Pearce.

(To be continued)