Dear Brother Don,
An article published in the June, 1994 “Tidings” suggested that the existence of various Christadelphian fellowships was wrong, and that just as Paul urged the disputing factions in Corinth to break bread together, so we should not bar fellowship at the table of the Lord to those who are believers — only to those who are in “the unbelieving world.” To do so, it was argued, is to elevate our views of what is doctrinally right at the expense of the rightness of unity.
Surely every Christadelphian would agree that the existence of different fellowships is unhelpful. But we must ask ourselves, “What is the basis of our fellowship?” Either we practice an open table, at which any person who chooses to do so may break bread with us, or we meet on the basis of an agreed understanding of scriptural teaching.
Right doctrine
The apostle Paul insisted on right doctrine. He continued steadfastly in what his great friend Luke described as “the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).
These doctrines included, of course, practical considerations. He had to tell the Corinthians “not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner” (I Cor. 5:11). Earlier he had written to the Thessalonians, urging them to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (II Thess. 3:6). So there is no doubt that there were circumstances in which believers were denying the faith by their actions and could not continue to be in fellowship.
Could such circumstances also include wrong understanding of other issues of belief? Paul was well aware that in time, “from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” (Acts. 20:30). The only way to counter this was to hold fast to “the word of his grace, which is able to build you up” (Acts 20:32). As in Israel, a failure to remember the words which God had commanded them would lead to a falling away (cf Deut. 6:6-15).
Dealing with error
Later in his life, when Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave an example of some brethren who had gone astray in their beliefs, one of whom, Hymenaeus, is mentioned twice (I Tim. 1:20 and II Tim. 2:17). His error was to depart from the Truth by saying that the resurrection was a thing of the past; and by his views, he was upsetting people’ s faith.
Hymenaeus’ view was probably well argued and he could no doubt quote scripture to support it. He may not have intended to deny the resurrection of Jesus, but his views had that effect. What is most likely is that he was emphasizing that we are now raised to “newness of life” (cf. Rom. 6:1-11; Eph. 2:5-6; Col. 3:1), and therefore the physical resurrection of the future was only a figure. He might have quoted the very words of the Lord: “Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 6:26). It is not difficult to construct scriptural arguments which support just about every shade of wrong doctrine, from belief in a personal devil to immortal emergence. When he wrote to the Romans, Paul referred to the “good words” and “fair speeches” of those who “deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:19).
But Paul saw such error as a cancer that would gradually destroy the body. He wanted a brotherhood based on a firm foundation, that opposed error and upheld truth. Those who did not were to be “delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (I Tim. 1:20). Earlier, he had written, “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17).
The firm foundation
So we do in fact have to exercise our judgment about those people with whom we can be in fellowship, and those with whom we cannot. And the basis of that judgment must be our understanding of what “the firm foundation” or “the apostle’s doctrine” truly is.
Of course, we are fallible. Of course, we cannot know or understand everything. But that does not mean that we should simply leave it to every individual to decide for himself if he wishes to break bread with us. Paul did not put forward such a policy, but rather called upon the ecclesias to exercise sound judgment and leadership in matters of fellowship. If we were to allow ourselves to break bread with anybody at all, we could hardly justify proclaiming distinctive doctrines in our witness. We would have no reason to exist — since we could simply join up with other churches who did not mind about people’s beliefs.
Therefore the brotherhood worldwide has come to exist on the basis of the scriptural teachings which we believe are set out in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. This includes truths to be received, doctrines to be rejected and the commandments of Christ. For a detailed exposition of this, readers are commended to read, “Studies in the Statement of Faith” published by the Christadelphian office.
In fact, this statement has been a great unifying factor, enabling brethren and sisters all over the world to meet together in the knowledge that they are truly breaking bread on the basis of a common understanding of essentials. There have been no major divisions in the brotherhood for a very long time. There was a major reunion in 1957 based on the BASF. From time to time, it is a delight to read of individuals or ecclesias in other fellowships who come to join us on our common basis.
Those who remain separate
If brethren and sisters in other fellowships do not wish to do this, it must be because, for whatever reason, they cannot bring themselves to be in fellowship with us on that basis. We must respect their position, continue to offer them the opportunity to join us, but not alter the basis on which we meet. To do so would be to create major division and chaos throughout the ecclesial world. No longer would the wonderful freedom to travel the world and break bread on a common basis exist and we would be driven into isolated communities.
Always a leading edge
If we did change the basis of our fellowship (which I am not at all advocating), the practical reality is that even then there would always be individuals and groups who believed nearly, but not quite the same things, about whose position we would agonize.
No doubt there were those who thought Paul was narrow-minded and too insistent that only his way was right. That presumably was the view of many in Corinth.
It grieved Paul greatly that they were so ready to tolerate those who preached another Jesus and a different gospel from the one he had preached (II Cor. 11:4). But his desire was that they should be “of the same mind” (II Cor. 13:11 RV). Either we believe that those things set out in our Statement of Faith are true scriptural teachings, or if we do not, we are not “of the same mind” as those who do. It may still be a matter of grief that this is so, but that is in the nature of standing for something distinctive that separates us from others. “Can two walk together unless they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).
What must we do
We should surely do all we can to understand the scriptural basis of those doctrines summarized in our Statement of Faith, that we may abide in the things we have learned and are assured of, which will be the basis of our walk to the kingdom and of our fellowship with those who are like-minded. For it is not just a matter of us accepting the statement of faith as a matter of expedience, treating it simply as a man-made formula on which our fellowship is presently based. We should wholeheartedly believe in the first principles it summarizes, because they are founded in scripture.
This is not to be proud or arrogant. Our first responsibility is humility before God. The poor and contrite in spirit, says the Lord, “trembleth at my word” (Isa. 66:2). It is because that word directs us to the doctrines we uphold that we cannot set them on one side. They are the basis of our faith. And in the same spirit of humility and love we shall continue to invite all who would meet with us on that same basis to do so, so that we can walk together in the true bonds of love and of unity.
Bro. Michael adds some useful points to the article by Bro. Alan Hayward. It is clear that sometimes the ecclesia of Christ must take the initiative in making fellowship decisions. Those who openly walk in sin or reject the fundamentals of the Truth must not be welcomed by the ecclesia.
We are sure Bro. Michael does not mean that, by being of “the same mind,” we must all agree on every Bible point. Any brother who has followed that line of thinking to its logical conclusion has ended up in a fellowship of one. We are to agree on the first principles but allow for latitude of thinking in other areas (cf. Rom. 14; I Cor. 8 and 10, etc.).
There is an essential point of difference between the positions expressed by Bre. Hayward and Owen that we feel needs discussion. Bro. Hayward wrote that the appropriate form of separation is between the one body of Christ and the world. This assumes that there is an identifiable and wide gulf between the two. Bro. Owen writes that there will always be groups who believe nearly the same as ourselves. The implication is that no matter where we draw a line of fellowship there will always be those just beyond that line. In other words, there is no point at which a great gulf exists between the body of Christ and the world.
Bro. Hayward would illustrate his point with a wide gap between two positions one labeled “the body of Christ” and the other “the world,” We should, therefore, try to arrive at the scriptural definition of the body of Christ and define our basis of fellowship to include all who are in it. On the other hand, Bro. Owen would present a continuum extending from “exactly-right body” to “almost-right” and on through a series of gradations until we arrive at “totally wrong.”
Which position is correct?
Strong’s Concordance