“A Pure Fellowship”

There has been some adverse criticism of a recent remark by the Editor on the subject of fellowship. The Editor pointed out a truth, known to all who are instructed in the Word, that salvation is an individual matter, and that even if an ecclesia was as dead as the Church in Sardis, faithful individual members would not be condemned for the failure of the majority.

The criticism has taken the familiar form of describing an extreme to which no one would assent and suggesting that if we make any deviation from the position of the critic we may as well go to the greatest possible extreme in that direction. As this kind of argument is often used it may be profitable to spend a few minutes in an effort to state the issue fairly.

It is certainly most desirable to have a “pure fellowship.” As Dr. Thomas remarked, it would be excellent to have an ecclesia “without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” Such perfection is unattainable, however, and with faulty mortals as the judges there is grave danger that much harm may be done in the effort to root out imperfections in the pursuit of such an ideal.

A pure fellowship in the absolute sense would mean an ecclesia in which every member was as perfect as human beings can possibly be in both doctrine and practice. It would need the perfect judge to determine who was fit for such an association. It is quite certain that we should be doing very wrong if we tried to play the part of judge.
Perhaps those who have spoken the most about a “pure fellowship” would be rather impatient with this suggestion of perfection. It is in fact the unfair argument of extremes applied the other way. We will try to give a fair definition of what they really mean by a pure fellowship. They mean that an ecclesia should insist that all its members believe the One Faith, that all shall recognise the standard of rectitude set up in the New Testament scriptures as their guide in life, and that the ecclesia in dealing with any faulty members shall act in accordance with scriptural precept and example.

We do not think that it would be easy to find a better definition than this. It is easy to see, however, that every Christadelphian would agree to it, and so we have found nothing to distinguish one section from another. The difference is in the application, and here as in so many other matters, God has left us to apply the precept and example of scripture to our own day as faithfully as we can.

Perhaps some will say, “Well, we are more particular and we draw the line tighter than you do, so we are clearly more faithful.”

We cannot admit that the claim is true or that the conclusion drawn from it is necessarily just. Sometimes men who are extremely strict in some matters are deplorably lax in others. An ecclesia might be a model of virtue in its avoidance of worldly pleasures but sadly lacking in positive virtues. It might be most admirably enthusiastic in contending for the Faith, and yet singularly lacking in the fruits of the spirit. In point of fact it is rare for human beings to be even and consistent.

The question was raised in old time, “Who can understand his errors?” and all men of discernment will admit that such introspection is difficult. The actions and the judgments of an honest man will be equally influenced by the bent of his mind. One who is readily respondent to the great law of love may love the sinner so much that he fails to deal faithfully with the sin. Another equally honest man of different temperament may hate the sin so much that he loses all sympathy with the sinner. It will be difficult for either to understand his errors because the bent of his mind tends to influence his review of his actions, just as it has already influenced the actions themselves. A third man of perhaps inferior quality may perceive the faults of each of the others, but remain blind to his own greater failing. All this is trite and obvious, but it is desirable that it should be stated clearly for sometimes we are very conscious of the faults of our critics even when we find it difficult to perceive any justice in their criticisms. We think that strictness is usually lop-sided and most human beings have serious failings however strong they may be.

If, however, we had to admit that the claims of the critics are true, and that they really are consistently more strict in their fellowship than we are, still it does not necessarily follow that they are more faithful. We want to act as the Lord would have us act. We want to be guided by the precept and example of scripture. The Lord Jesus was not as strict in condemning offenders as were some contemporary sinners. The apostle to the Gentiles revealed extraordinary patience in dealing with faults of both doctrine and practice. With these examples before us it must be admitted that it is possible to err on the side of severity in the matter of withdrawing from those who are accounted weak or faulty. Even in ecclesial life an industrious rooting out of tares may be a mistaken zeal.

What then shall be the course of the stranger who wants to obey God and to join the Body of Christ, when he finds a number of sections, holding the One Faith, but not in fellowship with each other? Some say that he should go thoroughly into all the controversies that have caused the divisions and judge which is right. It would be a very big task and not at all favourable to growth in spiritual things. Indeed as the newcomer would probably be among those described by the apostle as “weak in the faith,” it would be a direct flouting of apostolic command to receive him to such “doubtful disputations.” If the newcomer were strong enough to pass judgment with confidence, he might find the results wholly negative in his search for the pure fellowship. He might have to agree that all the sections contained some members who were examples of faith and conduct, but that judging the ecclesias as a whole all were faulty. Some, it may be, too easy going in their treatment of offenders, some woefully lacking in the fruits of the Spirit. We cannot believe that such an attempt to judge would be helpful to any babe in Christ, we can easily imagine that some would be destroyed by it. Added to all this we may call to mind the fact that in undertaking such an enterprise there would be grave danger of assuming the prerogatives of the Lord Jesus and of disregarding his warning in the matter of judging.

The new disciple comes into touch with men and women who hold the One Faith and are trying to obey it. He realises that he must associate with those who have the same hope and he also realises that being human, there will be inevitable imperfections in the attempt to apply divine principles to human life. Surely he is not required to survey the whole world in an attempt to find a “purer fellowship.” If he put forth such an effort and found the smallest, strictest and most exclusive body of believers, it might be that in the sight of God they were not as good as the faulty Church at Corinth, and that he, with his zeal for exclusion was not as faithful as the apostle Paul with his long drawn-out patience.

Let the new disciple join those who are near to him if he is satisfied that they hold the Truth, and let him engage in constructive work, rendering all the help he can to fellow weakness. We all need such help and we shall all, even the most severe of critics, stand in much need of divine mercy in the final test.

As we have often pointed out, it is not scriptural to regard every offence as calling for withdrawal. Faults may be treated with patient instruction, entreaty, reproof, rebuke, public rebuke, (“rebuke before all”) and finally in the most serious of offences by withdrawal. The scriptural and only workable method is to be agreed on main principles and to be “subject to one another” in the application of those principles. It is often difficult for human nature to bend, for men love to have their own way, but there are circumstances in which a refusal to submit to the decision of the majority is a deadly sin.

There is utterly a fault among us that there have been so many divisions and that there are still so many sections, in some instances only differing in their judgment as to how certain offences should be treated. Only the Lord can judge as to just where the faults lie and assess the degrees of individual responsibility. We, however, may have intelligence enough to realise that when division has once been effected it is an extremely difficult matter to heal the breach. Well-meaning spiritual physicians who try to effect a cure often make matters worse than they were, like the man who tries to mend an old garment with new cloth. We shall do well to get forward with the work that lies immediately to our hands, trying to cut out all unfairness and bitterness even in our thoughts of those who have separated from us and striving to reach a much higher standard of spirituality in which works of healing may be possible and even easy.

Let us learn from the past and make the resolution that we will never be a cause of division either by faulty conduct, faulty doctrine, or by insisting in having our own way in matters where the will of the majority should rule.
There have been in the past some divisions caused by the introduction of new teaching subversive of some of the first principles of the Truth. For the most part the sponsors of such doctrines have been treated with Christian patience and a genuine effort has been made to reclaim them. When such efforts have failed, division has been almost inevitable and certainly justifiable. Recent troubles have been of a different character. The disputes have been as to the proper method of treating offenders. Whether those guilty of certain offences should be withdrawn from or treated in a milder manner and whether distant ecclesias have “acted faithfully” in the conduct of their affairs. The present writer cannot recognise the slightest justification for division on such issues. The divisions and sub-divisions that have followed the new quest for what is called a “pure fellowship” make an appropriate commentary on the fundamental error.

In an attempt to justify such action it has been suggested recently that although we are not informed of such a move, it may be assumed that after reading the Spirit’s letter, the faithful few in Sardis would withdraw from the dead majority. But even if they did withdraw after hearing the Spirit’s judgment would that justify us in withdrawing before any judgment has been passed?

For our own part we will not venture to judge that any who hold the One Faith are dead or unworthy. If any man sins we will accept the judgment of the majority of his ecclesia as to whether he should be rebuked or cut off from fellowship, but even in the latter extreme we should have his ultimate salvation as a main object and so be most ready to restore him “in the spirit of meekness.” As for wholesale condemnation of an ecclesia as “dead,” we would not venture so to judge even of those which appear most negative. Christ has not yet passed judgment on the brethren of the latter days. When he does give his verdict undoubtedly there will be some dreadful surprises