The Christadelphian December 1950, John Carter

“Fellowship (Part 2)”

(Concluded from page 328)

The basis of ecclesial fellowship is the apostles’ doctrine. The apostles were the first preachers after the ascension, and guided by the Spirit they set forth with authority the word of life. When their teaching was believed from the heart, obedience was rendered in baptism, and the believers formed the church. Luke’s summary is very instructive: “They continued steadfastly”, he records of the converts of Pentecost, “in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers” (Acts 2:42). The foundation was the doctrine preached by the apostles; upon it was based a fellowship into which believers entered by baptism; but the fellowship was vital and corporate, for those of the fellowship shared together their hope and joy and expressed their union in the one saving faith by the breaking of bread and prayers together. They worshipped together, and the one ritual act enjoined by the Lord in addition to baptism was the communal one of breaking bread together. Their united prayer was an act of worship; the breaking of bread an act of obedience and a symbol of their fellowship with Christ and one with another. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion (fellowship) of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:16, 17). Such partaking was inclusive and exclusive; inclusive of those who, being of one mind, sought to share their mutual faith, but exclusive in that those of other “communions” could not share with them: in the words of Paul as he draws out this lesson, “Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24).

John, the last survivor of the apostles, reaffirms these basic ideas of Christian fellowship in the present age. “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). The “we” are those who “saw” and “handled” the Word of Life, who had been raised from the dead and had become the Prince of life. They “bore witness” and “declared” the gospel of the risen Lord; those to whom John wrote had heard the apostolic message, and formed the “you” who had fellowship thereby with the “us”, apostles.

This exalted association was the result of coming to the light. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness”. Fellowship with God is contingent upon walking in the light; and all walking in light have fellowship one with another. The light of God is that mediated through the apostle’s ministry in the message of life.

“To walk in darkness” is, in John’s phrase, to do not the truth, for “truth” is not only things believed but also things done in harmony with that belief. The two—conviction and conduct—are related as two aspects of one thing. When Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having their understanding darkened,  they are alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them (Eph. 4:17, 18). Into their darkened mind, through the apostles’ labours, there had shone the “light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). The “truth in Jesus”, like the truth of God—for it is divine truth which is in Jesus—operates on mind and action. So men believe the truth, and do the truth; men do not believe the truth and men do not do the truth. The two aspects are necessary to be well pleasing to God and radical failure in either breaks the fellowship.

We have already indicated that when there was grievous lapse from the moral standard or denial of essential truth the ecclesia had to take the drastic step of separation.

There has been a general recognition of the Scriptural rules concerning withdrawal since the truth was revived and “the disciples were separated” from the followers of Alexander Campbell. There have, however, been occasions when other views have been upheld. In 1867 some in Edinburgh were willing to tolerate the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Dr. Thomas would have none of this, and after some initial doubts bro. Roberts recognized the duty of separation. He had critics, and gives his reasons in his Autobiography. These are stated clearly and comprehensively; they are here reproduced.

“I contended that we were called upon on our own behalf to decide where fellowship should be given and where it should be withheld. I asked: If this is not a true principle, whence arises the true distinction between the ecclesia and the world? We come out of the world; we separate from the Apostasy; we withdraw from the fellowship of both, and would one and all refuse to resume that fellowship by admitting parties belonging to either class into the ecclesia, and we would even, without dispute, refuse to countenance a disobedient brother. Paul says to the Corinthians (1 Cor 5:11) ‘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 an one no not to eat’. Again, to the Thessalonians he says (2 Thess 3:14), ‘If anyone obey not our word by this epistle, have no company with him that he may be ashamed’. Again, verse 6, same chapter, ‘withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions he received of us’. Again (1 Tim. 6:3), ‘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 thyself’. Here are plain Apostolic injunctions which cannot be carried out without forming a judgment on the matters involved. For how shall we know when to withdraw from another, unless we concluded that a state of things justifying it exists? And how can we come to this conclusion without observing and considering the matters relating to it? The mental act is the very basis of the withdrawal enjoined.

“I pointed out that if these things were not so, the . . . brethren themselves have committed the very crime of which they accused me; they were guilty of schism. Why had they left the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Morisonians and the others? Were not all these respectable, well-behaved people, plentiful, many of them, in gracious looks, kindly words, and good deeds? On what principle could they defend separation from them? Did not the orthodox communities believe the Bible, and profess the name of Christ? Why had they come away from them? Were they not guilty of having ‘judged’ these ‘sincere’ professors of religion? They had done quite right, for they are commanded to judge of themselves what is right, and act accordingly. John had said (2 John 9, 10), ‘If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine (that is, the truth concerning Christ’s manifestation in the flesh), receive him not into your house neither bid him Godspeed: for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds’. Paul indicates the same duty in several places. He speaks of certain ‘false brethren brought in’. He says, ‘to whom we gave place by subjection no not for an hour’. Judaistical believers who taught the necessity for Paul being circumcised and observing the law—he says of them, ‘a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I would they were even cut off which trouble you’ (Gal. 6:9–12). There is nothing more conspicuous in Paul’s letters to Timothy, than his jealousy of those in the ecclesia, whose influence was detrimental to the truth. He says, ‘hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus . . . The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also . . . Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness, and their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus . . . having a form of godliness, but denying the power; from such turn away. . . . Preach the word; be instant in season out of season; reprove, rebuke with all long suffering and doctrine, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables’ (2 Tim. 1:13; 2 :15–17; 3 :5–8, 13, 14; 4:2, 4).

“The same anxiety about preserving the truth in its purity from the corrupting influence of its loose professors is manifest in his letters to Titus. Defining the qualifications of an elder, he says he must be a man ‘holding fast the faithful word’ as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers. ‘For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped . . . a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject’ (Titus 1: 9, 11; 3:10). To the same purpose are the words of Jude, ‘It was needful for me to write to you that ye should contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints; for there are certain men crept in unawares’, etc. (Jude 3, 4).”

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. This has been on occasion disputed. Thus, in 1892 a thesis advocating toleration on this matter was disposed of in The Christadelphian paragraph by paragraph; the thesis contained the following:

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

“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.

“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.”

Once again such a view is being advocated. It is claimed that “avoiding” and “separating” should be individual actions, taking the form of “shunning” a person whose views or ways are not approved, and so making it evident that they are not welcome in the ecclesia. It is claimed that the shunned one will leave the meeting as a consequence. Fellowship is made an entirely individual matter instead of depending upon collective action by the ecclesia. When the ecclesia takes the step of withdrawal it in effect says that there are not the conditions for walking together; but while that is said, there is still scope for obeying the injunction to admonish as a brother. The method of personal “shunning” can only be productive of the opposite frame of mind to that which should exist at the meeting for worship. Ecclesial gatherings would quickly degenerate into occasions when the spirit of the flesh would be paramount. In the absence of collective decision there would be uncertainty. Following out the theory of individual action in fellowship issues, even when there has been an ecclesial decision the freedom is claimed to break bread, if thought good, with one the ecclesia has withdrawn from. The same freedom is claimed to break bread with ecclesias not in fellowship. Such defiance of ecclesial decisions would be anarchy. In another respect the advocates of this view want it both ways. When it is pointed out that their theory of fellowship is contrary to the recognized basis of fellowship, the same idea of individual action leads them to say that it is a duty for them to stay to proclaim the truth. Men’s perception varies, and the propounder of error must be given credit for thinking he is setting forth truth. He, too, might refuse to be “shunned” until he departs, and where does the theory end but in confusion?

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.