‘Am I My Brother’s Keeper?’
Undoubtedly! But, mark you, his keeper, not his loser! Moses’ law directed, “Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother … thou shalt not see thy brother’s ass or his ox fall down by the way, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt surely help him to lift them up again” (Dent. 22:1, 4). “Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written.” (1 Cor. 9:9). Christ himself came as a shepherd, a restorer, a keeper, to sheep that were lost. Can any brother of Christ, then, see his brother ‘go astray’ and not exert himself to bring him back? See him `fall down’ and not strive to lift him up? We bear a solemn responsibility one to another.
Paul’s counsel is well to the point:
“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).
Our first duty to our brother is to ‘consider’ ourselves. Not only is it useless, but hypocritical, to try to extract the mote from our brother’s eye with our vision obscured by the beam in our own (Matt. 7:3-5). The advice of James (5:19, 20) regarding the saving of those who ‘err from the truth’ is also well worth notice. The restoration of the wanderer is one of the noblest avenues of service in which any brother can occupy himself. It is one we have sadly neglected!
One has said,
“If, as you contend, the act of remembering Christ at the same table does not make you responsible for the opinions of all who eat and drink thereat, why the law of Matthew 18:15-17?”
Those who know Christ will know that his object in prescribing this law was not, as many seem to suppose, to eliminate the unfit. Rather was it: to reconcile his estranged brethren; to reclaim his erring ones; and to prevent the advertisement of wrongdoing.
Three appeals (or less) may yield the desired result: ‘thou hast gained thy brother.’ Yet how often have we fulfilled (?) this law in love for self rather than in love for the erring. I feel I may justly go further. How often have we applied it with no other end in view than the ultimate segregation of the party to whom it is applied; and even when all three stages have proved negative, have we not gone from our brother’s presence with satisfaction, caring not a rush what became of the exile? Brethren, ‘we have not so learned Christ’! The publicans may go into the Kingdom of God before those who ‘trust in themselves that they are righteous and despise others’ (Luke 18:9; Matt. 21:31). It is well to take heed, even when we think we stand (1 Cor. 10:12).
A Time to Withdraw
Overt disobedience of divine command, or forthright denial of fundamental principles of truth, are cases that call for withdrawal of fellowship, when efforts at rectification are unavailing. This sad duty is undertaken not so much to prevent the ‘implication of others in the offence’ or ‘to preserve the Lord’s table from contamination’, as for the sake of the errorist himself. “That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5); “that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Tim. 1:20); “that they may recover themselves” (2 Tim. 2:18, 26); such are the reasons given in some first century eases.
The quotation is prefaced by the following:—
In his “appeal to Christadelphians” Bro. Collyer aptly writes:
“The Word shows us that there are times when to cut off certain members from our fellowship is the kindest thing we can do for them. The unpleasant duty must be undertaken in this spirit. It brings him (the offender) to a realisation of the gravity of his offence. He repents with a godly sorrow, and is received back before the grief becomes too great.
“In the same way, if brethren insistently leach doctrines which menace the saving faith of the Gospel, the kindest thing we can do is to put them away from our fellowship..
“Is there anything in Christ’s fellowship of his disciples to suggest that we have not been drastic enough in these last times in withdrawing from the unworthy? Or, if it is argued that the Church was not organised when Christ was on earth, is there anything in the teaching of the apostles to suggest that we have not been severe enough in dealing with those who in word or deed have offended? Take the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians. Many errors are mentioned, and in one case they were commanded to withdraw from an offender. Does a careful perusal of those letters suggest that our salvation is in danger because we have not been severe enough? Surely no one could say yes to this question. Now read 1 Tim. 6:4; Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 2:3; James 3:14-16; 2 Cor. 12:20; 2 Tim. 2:23. Then ask whether there is the possibility that we may be in danger through having caused unnecessary strife.”
Is Salvation Ecclesial or Individual?
If, as is often contended, we partake of a brother’s ideas or practices by the mere fact of remembering Christ in his company, do we not tend to destroy the truth that salvation is worked out individually, not collectively? Do we not virtually imply that we are saved or lost as ecclesias? Yet who can confute the fact that it is the personal aspect that is so constantly emphasised in the Word? “Let a man examine himself” (1 Cor. 11:28); “Work out your own salvation” (Phil. 2:12); “Keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). As pointed out, it is obvious that John did not imply (in 2nd Epistle vv. 10, 11) that if one brother believes that it is not improper to smoke, and does smoke, therefore all members of the ecclesia are smokers; that if one sister frequents places of worldly entertainment, all do; that if one member entertains an opinion that can be shown to be contrary to revealed truth, all members are partakers of that opinion! Such a principle is utterly untenable, and is contrary to the spirit of divine teaching.
In this connection, many consider that if they are out of fellowship with any one member of an assembly, they must perforce to be out of fellowship with the entire ecclesia, basing that notion again on 2 John 10, 11. Bro Roberts, in the Ecclesial Guide’, under the section ‘Ecclesias in relation to one another’, allows for the possibility of a brother being withdrawn from by his own ecclesia and yet received, after investigation of his case, by another ecclesia, but strongly deprecates the idea that these two ecclesias should sever their fellowship because of this variance in judgment. Now, if that can be the case where the third party is an individual, may it not likewise be the case when the third party is an ecclesia? Alas, we have so far lapsed from the sound attitude advocated by Bro. Roberts that today, in many quarters, it seems just unthinkable that X Ecclesia could withdraw fellowship from the Y Ecclesia (or brother) and Ecclesia retain fellowship with Y; and X and Z at the same time retain fellowship with each other.
The Bond of the Covenant
Some will certainly ask, ‘If assembling with a body of people is not an endorsement of their entire doctrinal position, personal and collective, why, then, did we leave the churches of the apostacy?’ Such a question shows how low a price some brethren place upon ‘the Hope of Israel’, for that is the great distinguishing mark between Rome and Zion; that is the unifying bond in the brotherhood of Israel’s King! It is the one ‘hope of the gospel’, the ‘one hope of our calling’ (Ephes. 4:4). To the churches of Christendom it is totally unknown. Search where you will under the ecclesiastical heavens, and where do you find it? Not one of the moons or stars of the vast religious firmament shows the faintest glimmer of it. Ask ‘Israel after the flesh’ who are their friends! Ask Jacob’s sons what people among the ‘Gentiles’ show any real sympathy with their national hope!
Perhaps Israel natural can show Israel spiritual why they should not be divided. Have not all Christadelphians entered within the bond of the Covenant? Then let no man despise it, or even hold it in light esteem, lest he be found at last to have “counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing” and to have “done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29). For has not the same covenant blood (shed by the Son) and the same Spirit of grace (extended by the Father) sanctified also the brother whose fellowship is spurned? Let brethren consider it well. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Ibid, v.31). True, there were some in Smyrna and Philadelphia who said they were Jews and were not (Rev. 2:9), but will any brother dare to take the ground that those ‘out of fellowship’ with him are not ‘Jews’ (Rom. 2:29), but do lie?
‘Ye Are All The Children Of God’
To the (temporarily) ‘foolish’ and ‘bewitched’ Galatians Paul wrote:
“Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus … baptised into Christ … Christ’s … Abraham’s seed … heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:26-29).
How will either side contend that when division came forty years ago the other side ceased to be `heirs’, ceased to be ‘Christ’s’, ceased to be ‘Abraham’s seed’? Will those who withdrew fellowship in 1904 maintain that the other side had not sufficient of ‘the Truth’ to enable it to introduce others, by baptism, to joint-heirship with Christ? If the knowledge of first principles possessed by the B ecclesias was insufficient, does it not follow that the hundreds immersed by them during the past forty years are still “without Christ … aliens … strangers … having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12? Is any brother so audacious or unreasonable as to dare to take that position? Then what of the alternative? That measure of knowledge of divine truth which is sufficient to constitute an obedient believer thereof an ‘heir according to the promise’, and therefore a child of God —implying fellowship with God — is also sufficient, so far as belief is concerned, to maintain fellowship with the Father, Son, and brethren!
`Our Pioneers’
It was through the labours of our beloved Brethren Thomas and Roberts that that glorious hope, which we mutually rejoice in, was unearthed from “the mountains of ecclesiastical rubbish under which it had been buried for centuries.” We each one owe a debt of gratitude, firstly to God who gave these men their gifts, and, secondly, to these men themselves, for the faithful use they made of their endowments. They elaborated the Hope of Israel; its foundations, in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, its development and confirmation, in the removal of sin and death through the sacrifice and resurrection of Abraham’s Seed and David’s Son, and its concomitant principles: resurrection, immortality, baptism.
It is common to refer to Brethren Thomas and Roberts as ‘our pioneers!’ In the above-indicated sense they were, but in a deeper sense our pioneers were those “holy men of God” who “spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). When obliged at any time to make a choice, it is to the latter we must give `more earnest heed’. Brethren Thomas and Roberts would themselves have been the last to claim infallibility. We are not anxious to prove them wrong in the least detail, yet we can scarcely expect them to have been right in every tittle. In fact, there were certain ‘errors’ (though `few’) in the original edition of ‘Elpis Israel’ which were ‘expunged’ (see ‘Publisher’s Notes’) from the latest editions. In his preface to the fourth edition Bro. Thomas confesses, ‘The most important correction has been that emendatory of allusions to the resurrection.’
These things are not to be wondered at. Our vocation is progressive (Heb. 6:1). The man who says he knows all he wishes to know of the Truth has reached stagnation point. Admittedly, cardinal principles are unalterable, but the truthseeker, long after he has found the salient points, `searches out’ other truths having perhaps an intimate bearing on fundamentals. As the Master well said, “Every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” (Matt. 13:52). So it was with our two worthy brethren. The new things did not destroy the old.
Now when these gifted brethren themselves saw fit to correct, in part, their earlier statements, is it a matter for wonderment if brethren, since their day, cannot subscribe fully to some of their unexpunged assertions? No! In fact, brethren everywhere (in A ecclesias as well as B) do not hesitate to express disagreement with some particular remark, or teaching, in their writings.
But, here is the evil! Can we, with any show of righteousness, withdraw fellowship from one brother (or ecclesia) for holding a certain view, and yet wink at, or, worse still, defend and cover up the same view in the writings of ‘our pioneers’? Here lurks the subtle sin of respect of persons in judgment! I am convinced of its existence, and instances are not wanting. The Scriptures clearly manifest how odious this is in the Eyes of Him ‘with Whom we have to do’. Read 2 Chron. 19:7; Rom. 2:11; Ephes. 6:9: Col. 3:25; James 2:1-9; I Peter 1:17.
I ask, then, can any man afford to parade his `doctrinal purity’ whose heart is stained with this sin of partiality? For “the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy” (James 3: 17).
Points for Consideration
- Reconciliation and restoration are the supreme objects of Christ’s law (Matthew 18)
- Withdrawal of fellowship, where scripturally commanded, is individual, not collective.
- In the one instance where it was enjoined on an ecclesia, it was a ease of wrong conduct, not wrong belief (1 Cor. 5:13).
- Jesus fellowshipped men whom he described as “fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25).
- John Thomas wrote — nearly two years after his last immersion — “Did he (Paul) tell the orthodox Christians to cast their heterodox friends out of the synagogue or to non-fellowship them? No; and further than this, he still fraternised with the Church, although they gave him so much annoyance on this very subject. His object was to enlighten and reclaim, not to cut off..” (Dr. Thomas; His Life and Work, p. 216).
- If X disfellowships Y, and Z will not take the same responsibility, there is no occasion, on these grounds alone, for X and Z to be out of fellowship (`Ecclesial Guide’).
- If men and women have become ‘heirs of the promises’, have they not come into fellowship with Jehovah, Israel’s God, and with His family (Ephes. 3:15)?
- Brethren Thomas and Roberts, though doubtless God-guided men, were, like all uninspired mortals. not entirely without error.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One