The Christadelphian October 1953, John Carter

“The Ecclesia and Ecclesias”

Twice during his ministry Jesus referred to his ecclesia: the first, after Peter’s confession, when Jesus said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18); and the second when he was dealing with offences, when he said that if a man who is an offender will not listen to those who seek his reform, then the matter must be told to “the church”. “The church” is here used in two senses; in the first case it refers to the whole congregation of the redeemed, “the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:23); “the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb. 12:23). The second occurrence concerns the “ecclesia” in the local sense, which has to deal with offending members; for Jesus does not mean that ecclesias everywhere must be informed of an offending brother and that ecclesias everywhere must decide upon the merits of every case. There are matters which belong to the local ecclesia and yet the local ecclesia is not disconnected with the larger ecclesia. Because of this it is at once evident that there is need for the exercise of wise and good judgment should an unusual difficulty arise in a local ecclesia.

Ecclesias are autonomous, and it is a principle to be jealously guarded that ecclesias manage their own affairs. But that does not mean that an ecclesia can tolerate or eschew any belief or conduct without regard to other ecclesias. Individuals have free wills, but that does not mean they can do as they wish. To live in society imposes limitations, and when a man joins any society there inevitably follow restrictions on personal freedom. In city life the pedestrian has the security of appointed street crossings only by accepting the restriction that he shall cross when the “lights” permit, and the motorist limits his freedom and honours the restriction to “stop”. On a moorland path a solitary walker moves as he will, but restraints are inevitable in social life. It is not less so in ecclesial life.

The basis of fellowship is the common acceptance of certain beliefs which are called “The Truth” or “The Faith”; but these beliefs need definition to ensure that understanding is sufficiently uniform. Hence we must have a Statement of Faith; and while it would be within the province of each ecclesia to draw up its own, it is obvious that some brethren have greater skill than others in formulating a doctrine. There is something to be said for a uniform statement, widely accepted, even on the grounds of the efficient formulation of the things believed. There may, too, be circumstances when a well-recognized Statement may be used as a touchstone to establish that two ecclesias hold identical views, particularly when there has been recognized divergence on the part of one ecclesia or even doubt about its position. the use of a Statement in this way implies no exaltation of a Statement above the Scriptures, but a wise use of it as an instrument for a special purpose.

It is sometimes said in support of an unregulated freedom for every individual ecclesia that the Lord dealt with the faults and virtues of each in his letters to the churches. This is true, but it is sometimes overlooked that the seven letters were sent as one document to all the churches, and not as separate letters to each church, and each contained the counsel that “if a man have ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches”. The letter to Smyrna, while dealing with Smyrna’s affairs, had lessons for the other six; and so with each letter. While there was individual responsibility on the part of each ecclesia, this was a collective responsibility of its members (“if any man have ears to hear”); and the individual ecclesia was not without some relationship to the ecclesias as a whole (“hear what the Spirit saith to the churches”).

In many things there is no specific guidance in Scripture. There can be no fixed rule about ecclesial appointments—how many arranging brethren, how many speaking brethren, nor yet how they should be appointed. We have general instructions concerning the qualifications of brethren responsible for guiding ecclesial matters. Instructions to meet the needs of all the centuries with their changing circumstances and conditions must of necessity be expressed in general terms. In many things, then, believers are left to their own ability to devise and arrange, always guided by the principles of Scripture teaching.

One matter fraught with grave danger arises from the differing judgments of men. There are many circumstances where a person’s behaviour is unsatisfactory and where there may be a wide difference of judgment concerning what disciplinary action is called for. To illustrate from an experience that goes back two generations. A prominent brother developed a taste for alcoholic drink: clearly it was growing into a weakness. First there was remonstrance, entreaty, exhortation. But the habit grew. He was removed from speaking duties. Still the lesson was not learned and no rigorous self-discipline undertaken. At last the matter became so bad that further ecclesial action was called for. We can imagine how varied could be the thoughts of brethren exercised on what should be done. A brother who had knowledge of home wrecked and children neglected through drinking might feel it necessary to adopt a very strong attitude that only withdrawal meets the case. A rigorous abstainer might take either an extremely strong line, or, out of sympathy for the brother’s weakness, a very tolerant line. A brother who has inherited from dipsomaniac parents a weakness for alcohol might say, “I know what a powerful appeal wines can have: I myself therefore abstain altogether, but because I know what it means I am careful how I condemn”. “How can we assess the interplay of heredity and environment? Who can say what effort has been made?” another says, in an effort to see issues broadly. In no case is the judgment on the offender entirely objective. When we add the factor of likes and dislikes, temperamental affinities and antipathies, we might well despair of just judgment. Yet decisions have to be made and careful consideration should be given to reach a wise decision; and the approval of the majority should settle the matter. Now suppose after a time the brother asks to return: and all the emotional reactions operate again with the new factor—has the man repented, and does he show fruits of repentance?—to be judged.

Differing judgments are thus revealed in one’s own ecclesia; but suppose a brother withdrawn from seeks fellowship of another ecclesia. He might get a more dispassionate hearing, but one less informed than in his former ecclesia. But should the second ecclesia ignore the decisions of the first? That would not show a brotherly spirit. What should be done? In such a situation the suggestions of bro. Roberts in The Ecclesial Guide are modelled on Christian principles. Let the two meetings have a joint investigation, in some way ensuring a balance of voting power, and let the joint decision decide for both ecclesias. Generally such a joint decision should close the discussion. Yet there may be situations where even then there might be dissatisfaction. Suppose that a big majority of the first meeting insist on maintaining withdrawal but an equally big majority of the second meeting vote for accepting to fellowship; the brethren of the second meeting might feel that their majority vote should rule for their own ecclesia. What then? Well, clearly there is a real difference of judgment, and for each ecclesia then the majority decision must hold. But it should not divide the two ecclesias since they are agreed on principle but differ in the application of the principle to a particular case.

These issues are carefully weighed in The Ecclesial Guide—a booklet which all Arranging Brethren should possess. It is full of sound scriptural guidance for ecclesial life, and is an elaboration of the reasons for the Clauses of the Constitution which bro. Roberts helped to frame, which relate to this matter.

These wise provisions of the Constitution, based on the principles bro. Roberts explains, apply and can only apply where there is agreement on principle: they presume there is agreement on principle and are only operative where such agreement exists. They could not be applied, for example, if one ecclesia made any action the ground of irrevocable withdrawal. If one withdrawn from in such cases should apply to another ecclesia, there could be no joint investigation with a collective vote of two ecclesias to decide whether a brother should be accepted or not. The one ecclesia’s rules automatically exclude from fellowship in the case, and no investigation could alter the position for them without the alteration of their rule.

Such being the case for collective association, there should be agreement on principle by all ecclesias and for any one ecclesia to introduce any new ground for withdrawal which is not accepted by others, provides the conditions for disruptive differences. Such addition, it would follow, should not be made by individual ecclesias, for as bro. Roberts says: “There ought to be no interference of one ecclesia with another. At the same time they have reciprocal rights”. The first clause provides independence; the other is restrictive—restrictive to a recognition of the same principles by all ecclesias.

The above comments arise from a review of Clauses 34 and 35 of the Constitution and of Clauses 41 and 42 of The Ecclesial Guide.