The Christadelphian February 1939, Graham Pearse

"Ecclesial Responsibility in Fellowship"

(Concluded from page 68).

We have looked at the main testimony of Scripture, which in the face of it would seem impossible that any one should deny that individually and ecclesially we are responsible for maintaining correct teaching and behaviour in our fellowship. Strangely some do deny it. Not that they are ignorant of the existence of these Scriptures. Rather they endeavour to explain them away with plausible arguments. One argument is to say that these passages do not apply to the Breaking of Bread (except perhaps 1 Cor. 5). This shows a lack of appreciation of the Breaking of Bread as we have already shown. At the Breaking of Bread our fellowship is greatest and the relationship is quite incompatible with immediately afterwards separating to carry out the instructions to “avoid” and “not to have company” and so on.

Again it is argued that these instructions were only for the times when the Holy Spirit was manifest with its guidance and authority. True, we are now in a less favoured position. We must therefore be very careful in following the procedure Christ laid down. But no reason can be advanced for such action being any less necessary now than then. Such an argument would lead us to say we have no authority to receive anyone into fellowship! Also let us remember that Christ gave instructions which are here applicable at a time before the Holy Spirit was given—instructions for the guidance of his disciples through the whole period of his absence. The matter raised was: “If they brother trespass against thee” (Matt. 18:15). Clearly this is in regard to a serious issue, for in the case of a small personal affront we know Christ would instruct us to pass it by. The final position reached is: “If he will not hear the church let him be as a gentile or publican to thee.” In this position there could be no fellowship between the offender and the church. If then, Christ gives instructions for separation from one who is unrepentant in a matter of “trespass against a brother,” and the church has to judge the matter, surely in the case of one who denies a part of God’s Truth the church has no less responsibility and the act of judgment is no greater.

Notwithstanding these clear instructions of Christ, some would take his words on another occasion to justify not adopting this procedure. Such words are “judge not, that ye be not judged.” This is true in its right application, but it does not alter the instructions to “judge righteous judgment” and “Do ye not judge them that are within?” In any case the fallacy of this plea for non-judging is manifest when we realise that the judgment required in such matters is no greater than that exercised in examining an applicant for baptism. This is an important point which is seldom stressed.

We see then that the bulwark of Scripture cannot be overthrown. The passages are numerous, showing that the subject is important. They are clear in their instruction, and agree with the conclusions we came to earlier regarding the nature of our fellowship in its high character and exacting conditions. They reveal a principle that we must not shrink from putting into action when necessary, remembering, too, that ecclesial responsibility is made up of individual responsibility.

The argument of the Christadelphian Harbinger for general reunion is now the only obstacle to the complete establishment of our proposition. Referring then to the argument as expressed in the four numbered statements, we find a blending of incorrect statement with incorrect logic. In the first place, we cannot say that all who are called have “fellowship with the Father and Son.” We have no authority to say a baptized person thus stands. Nor can we say all in such position continue until the Judgment Seat. Who are in this position at any time is known only to the Father and the Son. We know the basis of standing or not, “walking in the light,” and we can appreciate that some may never attain to this, and yet be baptized; while others may fall therefrom. Christ indicates the first class when he speaks of some to whom he will say: “I never knew you.” And as to the second class, Christ told his disciples when setting forth the illustration of the vine and its branches (John 15) that they could only abide in him while they fulfilled the conditions: “If ye keep my commandments and abide in his love.” John in his second epistle states forcibly the position of the one who brings not the doctrine of Christ: he “hath not God.” Such a person, and class, does not belong to the “higher fellowship.”

As, therefore, it is impossible for us to say who are in the fellowship of the Father and the Son, we see that the second statement of the argument is not correct; the first, though correct, has no force without the second; while the third statement, though correct, is irrelevant, and so the third step of the argument is faulty logic. There is therefore no support for the conclusion, Statement 4, “Therefore the ecclesia cannot withhold Breaking of Bread from any.”

Can we suggest the root of this incorrect reasoning? It seems probable that the rejection of the actual basis, and the endeavour to justify this wrong basis, for the Breaking of Bread arises from overlooking an important factor in fellowship—one that we stressed at the end of the first article. It is this, the Truth establishes fellowship “one with another,” as well as with the Father and the Son” (1 John 55:4). (See also Phil. 1; Acts 2:42; Gal. 2:9). Thus our Breaking of Bread is, as a literal fact, “one with another,” and expresses this fellowship between us—sharers together of Christ. Also our standing together as an ecclesia for the work of the Truth is a fellowship one with another. Moreover, it is not a matter of indifference and without responsibility, but it is subject to the same conditions as our fellowship with the Father. In view of all this we say that it is this “fellowship one with another” that we must concern ourselves with. In other words, “fellowship in the local ecclesia” (see quotation of Statement 7 from the Christadelphian Harbinger Platform) is the practical functioning of fellowship in our present time. This is the boundary for partaking of the Lord’s Table. After baptism a person is given the right hand of fellowship in the name of the ecclesia (not of the Father and Son). And a visitor is welcomed to partake of the emblems because he is in fellowship with an ecclesia having the same foundation.

We ought to be clear that “fellowship in the local ecclesia” belongs to the present, and that fellowship with “the One Body” is not a reality now. The elements of the One Body are being prepared for future manifestation. “That he might present it to himself, a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). The One Body will be manifested when Christ partakes of the emblems anew in the Kingdom. But though this “One Body” is not yet an incorporated and visible fellowship, its qualities are revealed in the Scripture, and it is set as the pattern for the “local ecclesia” fellowship. The latter must conform to the standard of the “One Body” as nearly as possible. To this end the ecclesia is required to take action to maintain this standard, whenever its rejection is apparent and without repentance. This is the limit of the ecclesia’s responsibility. It must not, nay it cannot, judge the hearts of men. This Christ will do when gathering together all the elements of the One Body at the Judgment Seat.

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.

This being the true ecclesial position, “reunion” of ecclesias, with its consequent coming and going of brethren between them, is possible only on one basis. There must be real harmony in the “Basis of Fellowship.” There must be the reception of the Truth as a complete thing, without reservations. This completeness of the Truth is a gauge, like the templet of an arch, by which we can test whether a particular matter is vital: “whether it is a principle or whether it is an uncertain detail that does not overthrow a principle,” as brother Roberts puts it. A further rule to apply is this: amongst teachers, those grown to the stature of men, anything taught contrary to the “light” is “darkness,” and there cannot then be a “walking in the light.” To many these conditions may seem very limiting and extreme. But as we have seen, they are God’s conditions. He is calling us to fellowship, and the conditions are in harmony with His own character.

We ask you, then, reader, to view reunion on principles first, and apart from all appeals, however plausible. And may we ask you to consider if reunion is right with a section that will not, in practice at any rate, operate upon this principle of ecclesial responsibility, which we have so fully established from the Scripture. Even if such a section claims identity of belief, laxity in putting this principle into practice must inevitably produce a leavening of fellowship, and general disintegration, instead of a growth to the fulness of Christ.

As we have seen the principles for ecclesial fellowship give us guidance in approaching these more complex matters of “being in fellowship” and “reunion.” But do not let us spend too much time on such questions. The ecclesia is the unit of fellowship. Whether we turn to the Epistles or Christ’s messages to the Seven Ecclesias in Asia, we find that Christ and the Apostles always instructed the ecclesias to whom they were writing to maintain the Truth in their midst, but they are never charged with the affairs of another ecclesia. Christ does not hold Pergamos responsible for Thyatira suffering “that woman Jezebel to teach and seduce,” but he does rebuke them because “thou hast there (in Pergamos) them that hold the doctrine of Balaam.” If each ecclesia resolves to maintain the right standard within, and with all who come, the larger issues will find their own answer.

Let us then carry out faithfully the requirements of Scripture in our own ecclesia. And let our faithfulness be blended with a proper spirit. Only when all that is possible has been done to persuade the erring one, must we resort to withdrawal. And then let us do it in the spirit that Paul required from the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:5) that we may save our brother in the day of our Lord Jesus. In withdrawing there must not be even the suggestion of that arrogant attitude that belongs to ecclesiastical excommunication. Rather it must be a matter of sorrowfully stepping aside from the offender for fear of implication in his offence; joined with the earnest prayer that “God peradventure will give him repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth.”

Let us then strive after the spirit of fellowship in an analytical and demonstrative manner. But our appreciation of fellowship must go beyond this. We must make fellowship a practical, living, manifest thing. Fellowship is the bond of ecclesial life. It makes the ecclesia truly a family of brethren and sisters. Yea, it contains joy and comfort and strength.

Let us then strive after the spirit of fellowship in our ecclesia. Let us give heed to the words of Paul to the Corinthians: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing (so) that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.” And to the Ephesians: “I beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, into all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

So shall we attain to that everlasting joy, that unending fellowship, when the Holy City, New Jerusalem, shall come down from God out of heaven, as a bride prepared for her husband.

Graham Pearce