“I Will Remove Thy Candlestick”

More and more brethren and sisters, in the various sections of the brotherhood, are becoming interested in, and sympathetic towards the movement for reunion. Many misunderstandings have been cleared up, and in several directions a much better spirit has been established. There is, however, more to be done before a unity of spirit throughout the brotherhood can be expected.

First of all, before a CURE for our troubles can be found, we must understand the CAUSE of the various divisions. Very briefly, it can be stated in one word:

Usurpation.

This is not a pleasant word to use in reference to our brethren, but we shall see that it is, nevertheless, true.

The present position has been caused mainly by an innocent mistake in the early history of the brotherhood. Once this mistake is seen and rectified, we can yet look forward to our Lord returning to a united household. Let me explain.

In the Revelation, chapters 2 and 3, we have the letters to the churches. The letters reveal that in most of the churches there was serious heresy. How did Christ deal with it? First he reminded them that HE walked in their midst. Then he proceeded to tell them that HE would deal with them if they did not repent. In the case of Ephesus HE threatened to (as we should call it) “disfellowship” them, for he said, “Repent and do the first works, or else I will come unto you and will remove thy candlestick out of his place”.

Let us notice particularly, that whilst he makes the elders responsible for the individuals and for the conduct of their respective ecclesias, he does not make them responsible for what goes on in the other ecclesias. Let us notice that throughout the letters it is the Lord Jesus who claims the prerogative to deal with ecclesias.

Any brother or body of brethren who claims the right to disfellowship another ecclesia is thereby USURPING A RIGHT OF OUR LORD, WHICH BELONGS TO HIM AND HIM ALONE.

The same thought can be gathered from the epistles. Paul, in exceptional cases, allowed the withdrawal from individuals by the ecclesias concerned, but never once did he attempt to usurp the right of his Master by cutting off a whole ecclesia. Yet Paul was an apostle (there are none such today) and the ecclesias were much further astray from essentials (as we understand them) than any ecclesia known by the name Christadelphian.

Christ’s letters to the churches make it abundantly clear — and in careful reading one must notice the frequency with which “I” occurs, as if to emphasise the fact — that dealing with ecclesias is Christ’s special province.

The Papacy was built upon the usurpation of the prerogatives of Christ, and started by one church claiming the right to dictate to other churches, as to what they should or should not do, on pain of disfellowship if they disobeyed.

How The Evil Has Worked

As we look around in the brotherhood today, we see the appalling results of these wrong ideas concerning fellowship. We see a household divided into six or more parts, and several of the parts claiming that they are the only ones standing for the purity of the Truth.

Here is a typical example of what occurs: In an overseas country there are (let us say) six ecclesias all happy and united. In one of the meetings a case arises which looks like false doctrine. The arranging brethren of the ecclesia concerned, having the full facts of the case, and after personal questioning of the brother, deckle that it is not a case for withdrawal, although they could not endorse the views he has expressed. The matter should be left there for the judgment of the Master as to whether they are right or wrong.

Instead of that, what happens? Certain brethren in England, on hearing of the case, decide that the erring brother should have been disfellowshipped. Nobody would dispute the right of any brethren so to think. The matter could be covered, so far as the English ecclesias are concerned, by deciding that if the erring brother should visit their ecclesia at any time, they would not receive him. But this is not sufficient. The English ecclesia decides that the overseas ecclesia must disfellowship the brother concerned, or else it will be disfellowshipped by the English ecclesia.

Unfortunately it does not stop there. Other ecclesias in the same overseas country which have not been troubled by the question, are also threatened that unless they disfellowship the ecclesia which has not disfellowshipped the defaulting brother, they also will be disfellowshipped.

It is equivalent to saying, “We in England have decided what you should have done. Although you are on the spot and know more about the brother and the circumstances than we do, we cannot trust your judgment, or the judgment of the other ecclesias who have not disfellowshipped you, and so WE have decided to remove you out of your place, and all others who are in fellowship with you.”

A position, therefore, arises as follows:—

A brother comes from the aforesaid overseas country to an English ecclesia, and although they may be quite satisfied that the brother himself is a sound and sincere servant of the Master, they cannot receive him. If they do they will be disfellowshipped for receiving a brother who belongs to an ecclesia (also holding the Truth) which has refused to disfellowship another ecclesia which has refused to disfellowship an erring brother.

If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. As it is, it is enough to make the angels weep, to think that those who claim to be brethren in Christ should be so foolish.

This is why, when trouble arises at one meeting, it often spreads all over the world. In the natural body, when one part is poisoned, we at once try to localize the poison, but not so with the body of Christ; what we do in that case is to agitate the affected part until the whole body is affected.

So we have the spectacle of a divided house, most sections believing alike, having the same hope, worshipping the same God, and meeting at the same Lord’s table; and yet remaining divided, because of an initial mistake regarding fellowship. While this is persisted in, it robs Christ of his true position, and works havoc among the brotherhood.

Here is another example of this sad state of affairs. Brethren of the various sections of the brotherhood have been brought together, say on a farm, or on some other work of national importance, as conscientious objectors. As the result of conversation, they find they all believe exactly alike, and although they are all making the same sacrifice for their faith, yet they dare not meet to break bread. If they do, they will run the risk of rebuke, or still harsher treatment from the ecclesia to which they belong.

Yet of what crime are they guilty? Is it misconduct, or actions unworthy of Christ’s name? No, all they have done is to perform an act of obedience together, namely, to remember their same Lord and Saviour by breaking bread and drinking wine. And so they are debarred from this great privilege and blessing, on account of certain quarrels which happened many years ago, and of which some of them would not even know the cause.

All they know is that their ecclesias are not in fellowship with one another.

Withdrawal

That withdrawal is commanded in certain cases is undisputed, but it is always applied to individuals (I Cor. v. 11; 2 John 10; Rom. 16 v. 17). The ecclesia concerned is solely responsible, and is bound by certain rules laid down by Christ (Matt. 18 v. 15) .

We can never be sure that each ecclesia would act alike. But unless we are continually to have division, we must let each ecclesia act as it thinks right, and as accountable to Christ, and not to another ecclesia. We can see that it is possible to deal with individuals, whom we know, and with whom we associate.

On the other hand, what ecclesia can justly judge another ecclesia? Christ removed an ecclesia because it “had left its first love”. Could any ecclesia today so act? Would anybody like to decide when an ecclesia is “rich and increased in goods” and so deserving to be disfellowshipped? No, brethren, the responsibility is too great for us, and so we have made a great mistake in trying to do that for which we have no authority or qualification.

Headship

In nearly all communities, both religious and secular, there is what is known as headquarters. The one body of Christ is unique in that although it is world-wide, it has no earthly headquarters.

The divisions have been caused by attempts to make one. Our headquarters are in heaven, and Christ is our head. To him we are answerable as ecclesias, without any interference from other ecclesias. In an ecclesia we elect a body of men, after asking God’s guidance upon our judgment in so doing, to manage and serve the ecclesia. Thus far we are responsible to them, and they to Christ, for our conduct and faith.

Beyond that we have no higher authority ON EARTH. If, therefore, any other ecclesia, or group of ecclesias, tries to dictate to our own ecclesia, or to act in an arbitrary manner to any other ecclesia, it is taking upon itself a responsibility which neither Christ nor man has committed to it.

ECCLESIAL AUTONOMY IS THEREFORE THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN POSITION.

If only the brotherhood would recognize this, divisions would soon become a thing of the past. A more healthy spirit would prevail throughout, Brethren would be held together by “the more excellent way”, instead of by fear and domination.

Basis Of Fellowship

Is a basis of faith necessary? Probably it is, but which basis? The “Temperance Hall” would say theirs, the “Bereans” theirs; “Suffolk Street” would in most cases prefer the old unamended Birmingham one. There are several different forms of wording among the “Temperance Hall” ecclesias.

There is this great fact, however, that all the statements teach the same principles essential for salvation.

Let, therefore, each ecclesia have its own basis, but treat it first of all, in its main elements, as a statement of faith; beyond that to use its own prerogative as to how far it treats it also as a basis of fellowship. On these lines, any ecclesia can be as strict as it thinks necessary. Or, it might be prepared to follow the exhortation, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to judge his doubtful thoughts.”

In any case, a brother or sister should not be refused the Lord’s table on account of the ecclesia from which they come.

One wonders if Paul ever told the Ephesians that they could not accept a brother who came from the ecclesia at Corinth, because some of the Corinthians were teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. If they had followed the unscriptural procedure at present in vogue, they would have refused Paul himself, because he broke bread with the Corinthians. Of this we may be quite sure: that when Paul visited the brethren at Corinth, he supplied the necessary correction and right understanding by reasoning with them, out of the scriptures.

“Fellowshipping Error”

This ready-made phrase will come to the minds of certain brethren who feel they must be very strict. Their thought will be, that if they know of an ecclesia which in their view has gone astray, and they do not act, they will be fellowshipping error. Now, brethren, this is not so.

What do we, as Christadelphians, mean by fellowship? In the point at issue, we mean the breaking of bread at the Lord’s table. Well, then, according to this understanding WE cannot disfellowshipped another ecclesia. Dare any of us say that when an ecclesia, against whom we “have acted” meets to break bread, its members are not at the Lord’s table? But if it is the Lord’s table, then they are fellowshipping God and Christ, and so whether we like it or not we are still in fellowship with them.

There is One, and One only, who decides when an ecclesia ceases to be at the Lord’s table.

Now if we view the matter of fellowship scripturally, i.e., as personal contact with the individual, in eating and drinking, the matter has a real meaning.

The separation of ecclesias has done nothing towards preserving the purity of the Truth. It has, instead, caused trouble and scandal.

Rumours and false accusations as to the dreadful things each side is supposed to do and teach, have been rife. If only we were prepared to break down the artificial barriers we have made, and act upon individual contact, we should soon become ashamed of the view we have held concerning those from whom we are separated.

But we hear someone say, “Supposing an ecclesia went so far astray, as definitely to teach a false doctrine, clearly violating one of the first principles, as contained in our various statements. Well, must we act? Is our Master still “walking in the midst of the light-stands?” How would He act? We do not know.

How long would an ecclesia holding such views keep the name “Christadelphian”? What has happened to sections of the brotherhood which have really departed from the faith? Those who taught that Joseph was the father of Jesus soon dropped the name “Christadelphian”.

Our main doctrines are so well consolidated and expressed in the various statements throughout the world, that any section or ecclesia definitely going astray from them would not want to retain our name, and would soon cut themselves off from the one body. “They went out from us because they were not of us” (I John 2 v. 19).

Let us, therefore, remember that our Lord Jesus watches jealously over the spiritual health of his bride, or household. Cannot we leave it to his vigilance to deal with, or cut off any part which is likely to be a danger to the whole? This he will do in his own time and in his own way.

Each ecclesia should, therefore, be very careful to see that it does not usurp his place and his authority. Its responsibility is to its own members, and that, in all conscience, is great enough.

“That They May All Be One”

These words are some of the last which our Master uttered while on earth. He thus expressed in prayer, one of his deepest desires: that his followers might be one. Have we helped? Are we helping? What must be his feelings when he sees his household, all over the world, divided into sections, each viewing the other with suspicion and distrust; all meeting at his table, to remember him in his prayers and his sufferings, yet in many cases trying to justify the divisions, and especially their own attitude in cutting off all but their own section of the brotherhood?

Are we satisfied to meet Christ like this? We cannot be. A few of the larger meetings, self-contained and self-sufficient, may not see the need of moving in the matter, but should that influence our action?

It is a tragedy that responsible brethren, who otherwise are so sound in judgment, are content to suppose that errors of two generations ago are necessarily perpetuated in the present, and are prepared to do little or nothing to remove the stigma which these divisions cast upon our whole brotherhood, or to ascertain what barriers to reunion are real, and what are artificial.

Again, are ecclesias, say in London, doing Christ’s work when they divide and sub-divide themselves and other meetings by reason of something individuals in Birmingham or California (quite unknown to themselves) may have said or done?

The responsibility for the present position is upon each ecclesia separately. If it does nothing, it is justifying an unscriptural position.

There need be no conference or meeting to arrange reunion. The good work can start right away. Each separate ecclesia can decide that as the divisions are man-made, it will no longer recognize them; that although it is part of the one body, it is only answerable to Christ for its own members; and that fellowship shall not be governed by the question of what “section” a brother or sister belongs to, but by the worthiness and soundness of the individual.

This might not at once bring about complete reunion, but would commence the work of healing, and, we believe, have the blessing of Christ and our Heavenly Father.