Robert Roberts, 1883

“The Ecclesial Guide”

32. Cases of Sin and Withdrawal

Withdrawal is a serious step, and ought not to be lightly taken against any brother. It erects a barrier and inflicts a stain not easily removed. It ought never to be taken until all the resources of the Scriptural rule of procedure have been exhausted.

The rule laid down by Christ for the treatment of personal offences (Matthew 18:15–17) is doubtless applicable to sin in general. Sin of any kind on the part of a brother, becoming known to another brother, is a sin against that brother—more heinous, indeed, when Scripturally estimated, than a mere offence against himself. He is, therefore, bound to take the course Jesus prescribes, as John plainly indicates in the words, “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask”, etc. It is usual with some not to act upon this rule at all. The usual way is to speak of the fault, whatever it is, to a third party. This itself is sin. A brother’s part (if the case be serious enough to speak of at all), is to be silent to all but the brother himself: first, to go himself and discuss the matter between the two alone. If this is successful, a brother is gained and saved, and the matter is not to be mentioned to anyone else. If not successful, Christ commands the interview to be repeated with the assistance of one or two others; and only in the event of these failing is the matter to be mentioned to the ecclesia, or those representing it. It is then the ecclesia’s part to bring their whole influence to bear upon the offender to forsake his evil ways. Only when this has failed are we at liberty to withdraw. Nothing is so effectual as this rule for stopping evil speaking and ensuring merciful help to those who stumble, or the proper and timely treatment of incorrigible sin. Each brother then becomes a seeing eye and protecting hand of the ecclesia. There should be a stringent refusal to hear an evil report concerning anyone until the reporter has taken the Scriptural course.

Withdrawal, too, when it comes (it must be noted), is not expulsion. It is the apostolic form of separation which, though practically equivalent to expulsion in its effects on the separated, is more in harmony with the spirit enjoined by Christ upon his house than the form in vogue among professing bodies of all sorts. Withdrawal means that those withdrawing do modestly and sorrowfully step aside from the offender for fear of implication in his offence. Expulsion means thrusting out, which is a different thing, and implies and generates the arrogant attitude of ecclesiastical excommunication. The careful preservation of right forms in these things is a help to the preservation of the right spirit.

34. Basis of Fellowship

Examination implies a recognised basis of fellowship; that is, a definition of the doctrines that are recognised as the truth. Examination would be objectless if there were no such definition recognised, whether written or understood. It is necessary to have the truth defined. It is not enough for an applicant to say he believes the Bible, or the testimony of the apostles. Multitudes would profess belief in this form who we know are ignorant or unbelieving of the truth, and, therefore, unqualified for union with the brethren of Christ. The question for applicants is, do they believe what the Scriptures teach? To test this, the teaching requires definition. This definition agreed to forms the basis of fellowship among believers, whether expressed in spoken or written words.

The history of creeds, which have supplanted the Scriptures in past ages, naturally leads some to feel an objection to this basis in a written form, but it is obvious that there are advantages in connection with a written form that outweigh the sentimental repugnance inspired by ecclesiastical precedents. A mere understanding as to the definitions of truth to be received is apt to become dim and indefinite, and the way is open to the gradual setting in of corruption. So long as it is understood that the written definition is not an authority, but merely the written expression of our identical convictions, there is not only no disadvantage, but the reverse, in reducing the faith to a form that shuts the door against misunderstanding.

Such a basis of faith will be found at the end of this book.

35. Disputes

There ought to be no murmurings and disputings among the brethren of Christ. It is forbidden. Nevertheless, in the mixed state allowed to prevail in all ecclesias during probation, they are sure to arise. Wisdom, therefore, requires that we be prepared to deal with them in a proper manner when they arise. There is a way of dealing with them that heals them, and a way that has just the opposite effect. There is no more dangerous and prolific cause of distress and ruin in an ecclesia than the wrong treatment of causes of dispute. This must be the excuse for giving the subject lengthy attention.

There are two sorts, both different, and yet both related as regards the spirit and aim with which they ought to be treated: (1) Individual offences; (2) Ecclesial differences.

No time ought to be lost in dealing with either one or the other. The longer time that elapses in the application of a remedy, the more difficult does the application of the remedy become. Individual misunderstandings spread coldness beyond the persons affected; and ecclesial differences are liable to settle into chronic alienations, which blight every good work.

36. Individual Offences

Christ has laid down the law very plainly for the curing of these; and it is the duty of the brethren everywhere to see it obeyed. They ought to refuse to countenance those who disobey it. If a brother takes offence at what another has said or done, he is bound to meet that other brother in private interview for the discussion of the grievance between the two alone. In most cases, this course stops alienation at its first stage; it either removes misconceptions, if that has been the cause of the trouble, or it leads to the admission of wrong on the part of the offender, followed by forgiveness on the part of the offended. Of course, there are many matters too trifling to be made the subject of such a process. The man who recognises the infirmity of human nature all round, and the evil nature of the few days we have to live, is able to exercise that magnanimous charity that covers a multitude of sins, heeding not all words that are spoken, and even practising the habit of returning good for evil: blessing always, cursing never, either directly or by implication—as the commandments of the house of Christ require.

But supposing an offence arise which a brother cannot thus overlook, but which he feels to be a barrier between himself and the offender, then he is bound to take the course indicated. He is not at liberty to mention the matter to a third party, and he is not at liberty to stand aside in a state of alienation. If he do either the one or the other, he makes himself as much an offender as he may imagine the cause of his injured feelings to be. A man who disobeys the commandment of Christ on one point is as much a transgressor as the man who disobeys it on another. Consequently, an ecclesia knowing of such a case is bound to persuade the offended brother to see the offender in private, or to withdraw from him in case of refusal.

There is everything to be said in favour of Christ’s commandment in this matter. It is humbling to the offended to have to go and see the man who has offended him (and if he is too proud to submit to this, he is self-condemned: for the proud are an abomination to God); and it gives to the offender the best chance he could possibly have of making any amends the case may call for. The act of the offended brother in coming and seeing him has a conciliatory effect on him: and his personal presence gives him the opportunity of thoroughly discussing every point on the spot.

A communication through a third party (or worse still, a letter) is no fulfilment of the law of Christ; offers none of its opportunities of reconciliation; is rather calculated to prolong and aggravate the irritations of the case; and ought not to be received as a compliance with the law of the case. The brethren, refusing to listen to the merits of the case one way or other, ought to insist upon the offended seeing the offender, or, if he refuses, to dissociate themselves from his company.

The plea that it is of no use ought not to be entertained for one moment. Such an impression ought not to be made a reason for disobeying a plain commandment. Whether of use or of no use, an offended brother is bound either to drop the quarrel or see the offending brother. It is not as if the failure of the interview left him without remedy.

His next step (in case of failure) is to take two or three other brethren with him. Where the interview between the two parties fails, this may succeed, because further influence is brought to bear with fresh and conciliatory minds. The offended brother is bound to take this step, as well as the other: otherwise he is disobedient. It may be of no use, but it must be done. If it succeed, he has his reward. If it fail, he has his remedy: he is to bring the matter before the whole ecclesia. The ecclesia is then to admonish the offender if he be found in the fault. If the offender refuse to hear them, it is their duty to separate him from their fellowship by withdrawal.

Unless individual offences are strictly treated in this way, the community will constantly be in danger of disturbance and even disruption. An offended man, allowed to ventilate his grievance among others, is liable to enlist the feelings of others on his behalf, and the brother against whom the grievance is entertained is liable, in self-defence, to urge his side of the case: and thus bad feeling is diffused, and a state of mind generated that easily leads to division. Let Christ’s wise rule be insisted on and the mischief is stopped at its beginning.

Even in the interests of self-defence, Christ’s rule ought to be insisted on. Who is safe from slander if a brother may pour out his evil thoughts into the ear of a third person? What righteous man would suffer if every complainer were first compelled to make known his complaints to the person against whom they were directed? Nothing will more effectually secure peace in a community than the maintenance of Christ’s rule for dealing with offences, personal or otherwise.

37. Ecclesial Differences

These are different from individual offences, and yet they stand nearly related to these, and are best dealt with by the same general rule that Christ lays down for them. They require most careful treatment, otherwise the peace and well-being of an ecclesia is liable to be destroyed by unwise steps inspired by motives commendable enough. They are of two classes—internal and external.

38. Dissatisfied Minority

In this case, they arise from the dissatisfaction of a minority with something that is done by the majority, or with something that is in the power of the majority to alter. The minority feel strongly. Perhaps the majority have appointed some brother to an office for which the minority consider him unfitted; or some proposal of the minority may have been rejected by the majority, or some measure resolved on by the majority that the minority greatly disapprove of. The impulse of the minority in such a case is to stay away from the meeting, or worse still, form a meeting of their own. Now it is obvious there must be some rule of collective action, permitting of the cooperation of those who differ in judgement on practical details. The law of Christ yields such a rule.

39. Absence and Separate Meetings Unlawful

It is, in the first place, an imperative law that the brethren must be one body, and that they must submit one to another. It is a law of the house that each brother and sister must meet at the table of the Lord on the first day of the week for the Breaking of Bread. Nothing but denial of the truth in the assembly, or overt disobedience of the Lord’s commandments among them, can justify a brother or sister in absenting himself or herself from the Breaking of Bread. Such will deceive themselves if they think a private Breaking of Bread will be accepted in lieu of Breaking of Bread with the assembly. It is the latter the Lord has required of us, and it is the latter we must render. What is true of one is true of more. Nothing but rejection of the faith or the law of Christ by the assembly can justify the formation of a separate assembly. If the matters of difference inclining to this course do not affect the question of the truth or the commandments, it is the duty of the lesser to submit to the greater number. There is no other practicable rule of action. In such a case the minority will bear their disappointment and conform to the decision of the majority. It is their duty to do so by every law of association—human and divine. They will be enabled to do it the more easily if they remember that it is a matter of apostolic command to submit one to another; to give place to disadvantage; to overcome evil with good; to bless, and curse not. Men of the apostolic stamp will not retort that this is equally binding on the others. Men of the apostolic stamp will be more bent on subjecting themselves to the apostolic law than imposing it on others.

If, instead of submitting, they separate themselves, they put themselves in a false position from which worse things than those they objected to will come. Their action means that the greater number ought to submit to the lesser, or that there should never be submission to the wishes of others, and that a disappointed minority should always leave a meeting where their wishes cannot prevail. Such a doctrine is fraught with confusion and ruin, and is inconsistent with the most elementary commandments of Christ.

40. A Time to Separate, and How to go about it

Suppose, however, the case is more serious than this. Suppose the majority decide upon something that involves the denial of the Truth, or the violation of the commandments, the minority might have to consider whether continued fellowship with the majority would not be inconsistent with their duty to Christ. There is a time to separate, as well as a time to hold together. Suppose such a time come, great care must be taken in the mode of action, otherwise the right side may get into the wrong picture, or put it into the power of the wrong to appear the right, to the embarrassment of relations with other ecclesias.

It is a maxim of universal law (divine included) that no man is to be judged without a hearing. If it is true of one man, it is true of a number of men, and to be applied as scrupulously to an erring ecclesia as to an individual delinquent. Suppose this rule is not acted on—suppose the aggrieved minority simply depart, without formulating their grievances, and without giving the offending majority an opportunity of either justifying or removing the causes of offence, the situation is afterwards embarrassed for the minority as regards other ecclesias. Other ecclesias are in fellowship with the offending majority; and if there be not a correct mode of procedure, those other ecclesias will not have in their power to decide upon the issue. The only thing they can have officially before them is the fact that a discontented minority have left, which, prima facie, is itself an offence.

The minority may feel that formality is superfluous in view of the controversy that may have caused the secession. This feeling may be natural to them, but ought to be set aside; there are others to be considered, and their own subsequent relation to them requires correct action. A course must be taken which will secure the right form of those relations. The course to be taken is undoubtedly this: let the minority reduce their charges to writing, and hand the same to the recording brother, and ask a meeting for the discussion of them, intimating that a question of the continuance of fellowship is involved. If the meeting is refused (and the charges be of a sort justifying withdrawal), the minority have no alternative but to withdraw; and let them inform other ecclesias of their act, and send to them a copy of the charges, which will put it into their power to consider whether the minority are entitled to their recognition and sympathy. If, on the other hand, the meeting is granted, as probably it will be, the discussion of the charges may lead to their disproof or to the acknowledgement and the removal of the grounds of them. If the discussion have no such result, but the charges are established and owned to by the majority, and the grounds of them persisted in, the course of the minority is clear: let them withdraw (if the case warrant it) and announce their action to all whom it may concern.

41. Involved in another Ecclesia's Trouble

An ecclesia may be at peace in itself, but may get involved in the troubles of other ecclesias, through an incorrect mode of action. The simple law of Christ, to do to others as we would be done by, will greatly help us to take the right and wholesome course. Let us suppose, then, that some other ecclesia has withdrawn from a brother on grounds that have seemed just to the majority thereof; is it right that the brother so withdrawn from should be received by you? You can settle this by considering: How would you like the said ecclesia to act towards a brother or sister you have withdrawn from? Would you like them to receive such? There is only one answer—No. And this yields this general rule that no ecclesia ought to receive into fellowship a brother or sister who has been withdrawn from elsewhere.

If you say, “Perhaps the brother or sister is unjustly withdrawn from”, such a case is possible; and the door ought not to be shut against the consideration of such a possibility. But there is a right way of dealing with such a supposition. And the simple rule of Christ aforesaid will again be an all-sufficient help. Would you not like your decision in the case of a brother withdrawn from to be held good until it is proved a wrong one? There is only answer—Yes. We ought, therefore, to respect the withdrawals of other ecclesias until we have proved them unjustifiable.

But here again we must be careful. There is a right way and a wrong way of trying such a case. Would you like the case of a brother you have withdrawn from to be tried behind your back? There is only answer—You would not. Therefore you ought not to hear the case of a brother who has been withdrawn from, without the presence of those, either actually or by representation, who have withdrawn from him. If a withdrawn-from brother comes to your ecclesia and alleges the injustice of the withdrawal, if you are disposed to listen to the case, your duty is (meanwhile withholding fellowship) to apprise the ecclesia that has withdrawn from him, that he applies for your fellowship on the ground of the withdrawal being unjust, and that you wish to investigate the case concurrently with them. If the withdrawing ecclesia refuse to grant such an investigation, they place themselves in the wrong, and justify you in examining the case for yourselves in their absence. But an enlightened ecclesia would not refuse. They would act on Christ’s rule. They would do as they would like to be done by. If they were the withdrawn-from but demurring brother, or the doubtful ecclesia applying for re-examination, they would like to have the opportunity of judging for themselves, and would, therefore, grant that opportunity thus respectfully applied for. The result would tend to peace. The concurrent re-examination would either manifest the righteousness of the withdrawal, or the uncertainty and perhaps unjustifiableness of it. In either case, the course to be taken by the applying ecclesia would be freed from doubt.

42. Ecclesias in Relation One to Another

If a careful attention is given to these reasonable rules of procedure between one ecclesia and another, there will be little danger of disagreement. The bond of union is the reception of the one faith, and submission to the commandments of the Lord. It is nothing less than a calamity when rupture on secondary issues sets in, where these other conditions of union exist. It is not only calamitous, but sinful somewhere.

There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time, they have reciprocal rights. Ecclesial independence is a principle essential to be maintained. But it is no part of that independence to say that no ecclesia shall consider a matter that another has decided upon, if that matter comes before the first ecclesia, and challenges their judgement, and, in fact, requires a decision. In the example already discussed, if a brother withdrawn from by one ecclesia applies for the fellowship of another, that other ecclesia is bound to consider the application, and it is no infringement of the independence of the first ecclesia that it should be so, subject to the rules and attitudes indicated. It would, in fact, be a renunciation of its own independence, were it to refuse to do so. Respect for the first ecclesia requires that it accept its decision until it sees grounds for a different view; and in the investigation of these grounds it ought to invite its cooperation, as already indicated. But the mere fact of the application imposes upon it the obligation to consider and investigate the matter, if there are prima facie grounds for doing so. The other ecclesia would make a mistake if it considered such a procedure an infringement of its independence. Such a view would, in reality, be a trammelling of the independence of every assembly; for it would then amount to this, that no assembly had the right to judge a case coming before them if that case happen to have already been adjudicated upon by another ecclesia. The judgement of one would thus be set up as a rule for all. An ecclesia has no right to judge except for itself.

This is the independence not to be interfered with; but a similar right to judge must be conceded to all, and the exercise of it, if tempered with a respectful and proper procedure, would never offend an enlightened body anywhere. In the majority of cases the withdrawal of one ecclesia is practically the withdrawal of all, since all will respect it till set aside, and since, in most cases, a concurrent investigation would lead to its ratification. But there may be cases where a reasonable doubt exists, and where a second ecclesia will come to a different conclusion from the rest.

What is to be done then? Are the two ecclesias that are agreed in the basis of fellowship to fall out because they are of a different judgement on a question of fact? This would be a lamentable result—a mistaken course every way. They have each exercised their prerogative of independent judgement: let each abide by its own decision, without interfering with each other. The one can fellowship a certain brother, the other cannot. Are they to aggravate the misery of a perhaps very trumpery and unworthy affair by refusing to recognise each other, because they differ in judgement about one person? What sadder spectacle can there be than to see servants of the Lord Jesus frowning at each other, and denying each other the comfort of mutual friendship and help, because they cannot agree about a given action or speech of perhaps some unworthy person. The course of wisdom in such a case is certainly to agree to differ. An ecclesia acting otherwise—demanding of another ecclesia, as a condition of fellowship, that they shall endorse their decision in a case that has become the business of both—is in reality infringing that principle of ecclesial independence which they desire to have recognised in their own case. It would be to impose what might be an intolerable tyranny upon the brethren; for suppose it were to happen, as it might happen, that a deserving brother or sister were withdrawn from on insufficient grounds by an assembly that might happen to be composed of persons not remarkable for breadth of judgement, to what hopeless injustice such a brother or sister would be subjected if other ecclesias were to be debarred from forming their own judgement in the event of application for their fellowship.