The Christadelphian August 1955, John Carter

“Fellowship”

We have pointed out on more than one occasion in the past that the issue which was most important and urgent in calling for adjustment as a step towards reunion was the question of ecclesial fellowship. In no spirit of self-justification, but rather of thankfulness and goodwill, we have pointed out that in recent years the revision of the Rules of the Suffolk Street ecclesia has brought their procedure into line with that of Central ecclesias. With this change it became a duty to respond to an approach to explore whether conditions obtained where reunion might take place. There are circumstances in life when to avoid action is not therefore avoiding making a decision. To do nothing involves a decision, and it may be a wrong decision. The Lord poses such a situation when he said “he that is not with me is against me”: a man might at that time have reserved judgment concerning Jesus; he might have sought neutrality, and in so doing sought the unattainable; for a decision of neutrality was still a decision, and since Jesus called for positive allegiance such a decision was one against the Lord. So in this issue—a decision had to be made whether to re-examine the position or to close the door without examination. A similar situation confronts ecclesias. The issue at the moment is relatively simple—Is the Statement one that provides a good basis for co-operation between the two fellowships if it is accepted by the ecclesias? When results are examined the practical application to any difficulties will still have to be made by the two Committees and then a report issued on the results.

Two more points may be added. Generally the word “recognition” has been used among Suffolk Street brethren, and we have been asked if it signifies anything other than reunion. The answer is, No. We think it has arisen to avoid misunderstanding that reunion meant necessarily ecclesial absorption of the smaller group by the larger. If reunion is effected there will be recognition at the Table between ecclesias subscribing; in towns where two ecclesias can each effectively maintain a lightstand then two ecclesias will continue their witness; in towns where a merging of forces will make a more efficient lightstand then those ecclesias will use their best judgment when and how to effect a witness in unison as one ecclesia.

Our second point concerns enquiries about other fellowships in U.S.A.; to which the answer is plainly that the position there is not the same as in Great Britain; and any decision reached here does not affect American and Canadian ecclesias. The difficulties in the States and Canada in our judgment call for quite independent examination in view of certain teaching which has been more actively proclaimed and more widely held there. Some Central ecclesias have been concerned whether any action in Britain would involve them in their relationship to other fellowships in U.S.A. and Canada: it does not do so.

The Biblical teaching on fellowship is set out earnestly and plainly in the July Fraternal Visitor, and we take the liberty of transcribing two or three paragraphs for the information of readers of The Christadelphian. The article has editorial approval, and is a very helpful statement. The writer, bro. P. S. Caudery, reviews broadly the problems of the first century ecclesias, first those arising from the Judaizers, and then those that were more peculiar to the Gentile. Reference is made to the “loafers” in Thessalonica and Paul’s advice how to deal with them. The writer then passes to Corinthian difficulties, as follows:

More serious, however, were affairs at Corinth, some years later. Gross immorality, aggravated by an attempt by some to justify the wickedness, called for strong measures. The full assembly of the Church was to be gathered together, and the guilty member cast out from the body. “Purge out, therefore, the old leaven.” And, when the evil person had been thus dealt with, there was to be no compromise. For the sake of the Church, and to safeguard the good name of the community, the severance was to be complete. “With such a man, I say, you must not so much as eat . . . Is it not your part to judge those that are within? . . . From among yourselves cast out the evil one” (1 Cor. 5). From the second epistle it appears that the ecclesia acted as Paul instructed. By a majority vote (“the many”) the decision was made and put into effect. Subsequently the offender showed signs of repentance, grief and sorrow. If this were genuine, forgiveness by the ecclesia was enjoined, and the repentant would again be welcomed into the fold. We learn from reference in the epistles to Titus and Timothy that similar measures were to be adopted when false teachings—linked sometimes with immoral practices—were introduced (1 Tim. 1:20; Titus 1:13; 3:10–11).

Let us attempt to summarize. First, the weak and erring were to be received with kindness, forbearance, long-suffering and charity. Secondly, the false teacher and evil-doer who did not heed either loving example or firm rebuke, but attempted to justify his errors of teaching or action, was to be expelled by an assembly of the ecclesia, and all intercourse with such a one ceased. Thirdly, repentance, if it were genuine, could bring re-admission into the body.

In what way should we apply these first-century methods to our ecclesial problems today? Can we take upon ourselves the right to brand any as “heretic”, to condemn any behaviour, to cast out the evil-doers, and to bar any such from the breaking of bread? The heresies of our days are somewhat different from those of New Testament times. We have little need to guard against the licence of pagan Greece and Rome, nor do we expect to have to administer Paul’s lesson to loafing busybodies. But we have, surely, a duty to the Truth as we believe it: to those first principles of doctrine and conduct which are common throughout the body; and a duty to the ecclesia. We have used our judgment in accepting and approving these principles. Are we to cease to use that same judgment when they are departed from? These principles of behaviour and belief are the ground of our fellowship together. If, after long patience and much trial, the departure from these standards be obvious, is not the parting of company between the ecclesia and the holder of error but the formal expression of an already established fact—that the earthly aspect of fellowship has ceased (and that is the only aspect upon which we can judge). If the common ground of fellowship—common beliefs and common standards of behaviour—be no longer existent, then fellowship itself has gone, and it is but hypocrisy to pretend its continuance.

We may assent to this, and yet feel uneasy about the idea that the erring member should be debarred from the emblems, since, we may feel, it is not “our table” but “the Lord’s table”. What we have already observed demonstrates that this was not the trend of the Apostle’s teaching. It was precisely because it was “the Lord’s table” that failure to be true to the faith would debar partaking. “Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils (i.e. pagan sacrifices)” (1 Cor. 10:22). This feast is also the symbol of the communion of the body and blood of Christ—a symbol of our common union in him, a union based on common beliefs and common faith. “For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread” (1 Cor. 10:15). We repeat, that if this common basis has ceased, if this fellowship has been broken, it is hypocrisy to maintain that the symbol and semblance of fellowship should continue, around the emblems. Such a claim surely makes mockery of our separateness from other denominations, our careful examinations before baptism, our insistence on re-baptism of once-baptized non-conformists, and our certainty that our first-principle beliefs are essential to salvation.

The disfellowshipping of any member is a serious matter. It most certainly should not be automatically applied, nor be done hastily, in anger or malice. First must come forbearance, patience, teaching, long deliberation, and prayer. But that it is at times a sad but necessary step, and that the ecclesia has the right to enforce it is unmistakable from the Apostolic teaching.