It is different under the law which governs the
society of God's people. Whether a man be rich or poor, great or small, in the
worldly sense, is entirely outside the question of fellowship under the law of
the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The foundation of fellowship here is upon
the solid rock of truth and righteousness, giving no scope to fleshly pride and
human haughtiness. The power of the gospel brings down the mighty from their
seats and exalts those of low degree, so that they come into the relationship
and status expressed in the words, "One is your master, even Christ, and
all ye are brethren".
God is righteous, good and wise; man is unrighteous,
bad and foolish. In view of which the Psalmist exclaims. "Shall the throne
of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" (Psa.
94: 20). Instead of there being any fellowship between God and men in the
iniquitous and mischievous state in which the world is found, His righteousness
demands the destruction of all thrones of human government. Since there never
can be fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, darkness and
light, God has condescended to set in operation a plan whose work is to take out a people for his name, between
whom and Himself will obtain that true fellowship which is based upon truth,
justice, righteousness and love.
Man having by sin broken off that sweet communion
and fellowship with God he enjoyed when created, he descended to such a depth
that he could not possibly lift himself back to the plane from which he by
transgression fell. He wandered away so far from the way of understanding that
he became lost in the labyrinth of ignorance and folly and could not of himself
return. No man could "redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for
him" (Psa. 49: 7). To meet the necessities of this deplorable and helpless
condition God's plan was all-sufficient. He reached down the tender yet
powerful hand of love, and helped poor, fallen humanity by begetting His
well-beloved Son, and investing Him with such mental and moral proclivities as
enabled faithfulness to ransom man back into communion and fellowship with God.
Adam carried all his posterity away from God and left them in exile; Christ
restores all in Him to the sweet communion with the Father, which enables our
hearts to fill with a gratitude that finds expression in the exclamation,
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God!"
In order that men might come into fellowship with
each other, with Christ and through and in Him with God, the gospel is sent to
visit them and take out of them a people for His name (Acts XV: 14). The gospel
believed and obeyed restores the mind to a oneness with God, and by the act of
baptism we are inducted into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, a complete oneness in the whole family in heaven and in earth. Here
is a "family circle". A circle is drawn by the truth, inside of which
there is fellowship; but no fellowship with any or anything outside. The church
is thus the pillar and ground of the Truth and refuses to support, allow room
for or to compromise with the unfruitful works of darkness in the outer world.
Now, brethren, we cannot help seeing from this that
by accepting such a privilege as that of admittance into the family circle of
the God of heaven and earth we incur great responsibilities. We are no longer
isolated individuals, who have simply our individual self to consider, but we
have to remember that fellowship brings us together and lawfully imposes
obligations to respect each other, to bear with each other, to help, comfort,
console, correct, reprove, and with all to love each other, love Christ and
love God.
Having thus come into the exalted relationship of
sons and daughters of the Lord
God Almighty, we may consider ourselves wise men and women in the true sense,
while regarded as foolish by those inflated with the wisdom of this world. Hence
the Apostle Paul says, "I speak as to wise men: judge ye what I say. The
cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we
being many are one bread, and one body, for we are all partakers of that one
bread. . . . But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God, and I would not that ye should have
fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of
devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of
devils" (I. Cor. 10: 15-21).
Now fellowship is not simply partaking of the bread
and the cup. These may be partaken of by one who is not of the body, one who
may be acting the part of a hypocrite; but he would not thereby be in
fellowship. On the other hand, it is not necessary to partake of the bread and
the cup with those who are either not in the Truth at all or hold the Truth in
unrighteousness in order to fellowship them. If our minds and hearts are with
them we are in fellowship with them, though we may hide the fact from our
brethren by refraining from the act that gives expression to fellowship. To do
this, however, is to act the part of a deceiver, for which the person alone is
responsible who is guilty of such hypocrisy; for mental reservation and inward
thoughts of others we may not judge and are therefore not responsible for them.
But let us remember that "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of
the living God" .
We have heard it claimed that one can partake of the
memorials in an ecclesia and yet not fellowship one or more present from whom
he differs on some vital doctrine or against whom he may hold a charge of
wrong-doing. This can only be where the complaint has been made known and
Scripturally acted upon, and after that the person charged intrudes and
defiantly partakes. But to break the bread and drink the wine with a mental
reservation that some present are unsound in doctrine or immoral in practice is
to act the part of a hypocrite. For the act of partaking of the memorials is a
powerful and solemn way of giving expression to true fellowship with those with
whom we partake. If it is not this it is meaningless. To partake with such
inward thoughts is to walk in darkness; of which the Apostle John says,
"If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
and do not the truth ': We do that which is a lie. "But if we
walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another,
and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I. John
I: 6, 7). To outwardly receive one in fellowship whom we believe to be unworthy
is to partake of his supposed or real evil deeds; for by the act of partaking
we virtually say, "I partake with you”.
Others again we have heard say that the table is the
Lord's, not ours, and therefore we have no right to dictate who shall partake. It
is true it is the Lord's table, but it is so by reason of the fact that it is
spread by His command and in accordance with His laws - the laws of His
household. Now the question is, Can we claim the right to spread the table of
the Lord and yet after it is spread allow it to be polluted? Is it that we are
to eat and drink with the drunken at the Lord's table and plead the excuse that
it is His, not ours? What folly some men can be guilty of! Whose are we if we
have been bought with the precious blood of Christ? Are we not the Lord's? That
being the case, is not the table the family table? What respectable family
would think of allowing its house to become a den of thieves? In the world and
in the church men are very particular to guard the sanctity of their homes and
household, but it seems that some lose that concern when the household of God
is in question. There seems to be an idea that much care must be exercised in
protecting our own temporal things, while the things of God may be treated
differently or indifferently as whims may decide. Let us never forget that the
body - the ecclesia - is "the temple of God"; and "if any man
defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy".
In a well-regulated family there are certain
well-known rules that each member recognizes as his duty to observe in order to
hold the family together in peace and good will. Outside of these rules,
however, a certain degree of latitude is allowed - a necessity in this life of
various complexions of mind and thought. The household of God is no exception
in this respect. It is no easy thing to bring a number of men and women
together into real and affectionate communion. The characteristics,
capabilities and idiosyncrasies of humanity are so numerous and varied that
hard indeed is the work of first bringing them together into one compact, and
then of holding them together in one body. The power of the gospel, however, is
equal to the work so far as it was intended to be a success in this evil state
of things. Its work is defeated, though, sometimes, by going beyond the
cardinal rules of the household and using generalities as explosives in
shattering in pieces the body. In some cases brethren of narrow comprehension
and an enviable zeal - if the zeal could be kept in harness - will magnify a
gnat into a camel; and if you do not believe that the gnat is a camel they will
raise a disturbance and force an issue and divide and break up an ecclesia. We
must, as long as we are in this evil state, allow for imperfections. There will
be some strong and some weak; some on the whole consistent and some otherwise. We
haven't got to the perfect state yet. We must do the best we can with the poor
instruments and material we have to work with. But the difficult question is, what
is the best we can do in deciding matters of fellowship?
Now the only answer that our present evil state will
admit of is this: Let fundamental truths
be well defined and accepted as a basis of fellowship. Upon the basis thus
Scripturally defined and understood the body is founded and agrees to stand
steadfastly. Whenever a question is raised that creates contention, ask the
question, does it deny or nullify either or any of the fundamental principles? If
it does it interferes with fellowship; if it does not it interferes not with
fellowship. This, we think, is a safe rule and the only practicable one in the
present state of things. But suppose a question that does not, in and of
itself, affect fundamentals is persistently forced to the extent of continued
disturbance, what then? Then the matter assumes a personal form, not a
doctrinal. The persistent person becomes the disturber and he is the person to
repent of and forsake his evil practice or to be refused fellowship. In such
cases it is our duty to learn to wisely discriminate and judge and deal wisely
and promptly, that the church of God be not destroyed by our neglect of duty. Let
us practice now in these things - for that is what they are for - so that we
may be worthy to share in ruling the world to come.
Upon the question of fellowship we have endeavored
to define what fellowship is in the true sense. We have called attention to the
fact that by a mutual understanding and hearty belief and obedience of the
fundamental principles of the Truth we are brought together into one body as
brethren and sisters in a spiritual sense and as sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty.
Since the revival of the
Truth in the nineteenth century we have had a sad, yet, let us hope, a
profitable, experience in deciding matters and doctrines that have arisen in
our midst in their relation to the question of fellowship. What has occurred is
not unlikely to occur again. Evils will continue to arise in our midst so long
as this evil age continues. We are never safe from attack and it is our duty to
always be on the alert. The experience we have had in dealing with such
theories as Immortal Emergence, Free life, Partial Inspiration and Fallible
Inspiration has, no doubt, been for a purpose; for "all things work
together for good to them that love God." The good that can be drawn from
such evils is the profitable experience the ordeal of passing through them
affords - indeed this is the true philosophy of all evil.
To derive real profit, however, we must learn our
lessons well and store them in our memories in a well-defined form, so that we
may readily be able to draw on them when demands spring upon us. If we do not,
as it were, review our lessons and classify them in the store house of the
mind, we may be confused and confounded when we ought to be possessed of a
presence of mind that would make us masters of the situation.
In dealing with tests of fellowship there are two
prerequisites - courage and discretion. We must be careful not to mistake zeal
without knowledge, or recklessness, for the former, nor effeminacy and
indifference for the latter. The one will make us anarchists, the other
neutralists. Anarchism will tear the body in pieces; a spirit of neutrality
will sit with folded arms and indifferently let it decline and die. Where there
is real courage and proper discretion a battle is half won before it has
commenced; and some battles may be won without being fought at all. What I mean
by this is, that troubles on the question of fellowship may sometimes be
prevented instead of suffered.
But how are they to be prevented is the question. An
answer cannot be given that will meet all cases, but an understanding of what
ought to be considered a test of fellowship will go a long way in preventing
unnecessary trouble. As we said in a former address upon this subject, in
matters of belief a safe rule is to ask of any threatening question sprung, does
it deny or nullify any fundamental principle of the Truth? If it does it
affects fellowship; if not, the question of itself does not; but its continued
obtrusion upon the ecclesia may become a personal offense in the one who seeks
to enforce it. I have known of cases where some have taken a different view of
certain portions of Scripture from that commonly held by the brethren, and
mistaken zeal in others who lack discretion has instantly and impetuously
raised the question of fellowship. The ecclesia is asked to form itself into a
tribunal and proceed to withdraw. Ask the parties complained of, Do you deny
any of the fundamental principles of the Faith? and the answer is, No. Subject them, if you please, to the most rigid
examination as to their belief of the Truth and not the least unsoundness can
be discovered. The only ground of conflict is that a view is taken of a certain
portion of Scripture different from that generally held. If withdrawal is to
take place at all in such cases it should be from those who would disturb an
ecclesia by raising the question of fellowship upon such trivial grounds. If no
fellowship could be had till every member agreed upon every text of Scripture,
fellowship would be an impossible thing in this age.
Some have suggested that the habit of smoking be
made a test of fellowship; others would make total abstinence from intoxicating
drinks a test; and others still would include the use of tea and coffee. While
the habit of smoking is a very bad habit, the use of intoxicating liquors as a
beverage far better done without than with, and an extravagant use of tea and
coffee should be avoided, where is there anything in the Scriptures to warrant
us in making such matters tests of fellowship? However objectionable habits of
such a character may be, we go beyond our jurisdiction when we undertake to
make them matters of fellowship. If a brother take a wrong or even an absurd
position upon a certain portion of Scripture, show him his error if possible. If
not possible bear with him. If a brother smoke tobacco, point out to him the
many evils of the habit, and so on with all evils against which we have no
direct law. But we have no right to go beyond the law. We must discriminate
between imperative commands to do or not to do and exhortations to do or not to
do. If we deal with the latter as we should with the former there would be no
scope for exhortation and long-suffering. It would be law, law, and nothing but
law, and law alone would hopelessly condemn us all. Without mercy who can be
saved? Let us not lose the sweet thought that through the goodness and wisdom
of God "mercy and truth have kissed each other."
Now it was a very easy thing for us to see that
Immortal Emergence affected fellowship, because it nullified the doctrine of
judgment and really denied the resurrection; for if the dead are never to
appear in earthy bodies since immortality comes from heaven and not from the
dust - there would be nothing to raise, nothing to come out of the dust and
therefore no resurrection. Immortal Emergence, therefore, affected the
foundation of the one faith, by nullifying one element and denying another.
The theory of Free Life denied that Jesus came in
the flesh common to the race. It denied that sin was condemned in the flesh. It
denied the Scripture doctrine of the destruction of the devil, and it ignored
the necessity of Christ's death as the only means by which the covenant or
gospel was brought into force. So there was no question about it being a
heresy.
Partial Inspiration denied that the Scriptures were
the Scriptures of Truth, latter view
have at different times been disposed to force it as a test of fellowship, and
it is not impossible that the question may yet be sprung upon us. In case it
should what should be our attitude? We know of one ecclesia where, by the
advice of men who at one time seemed to be pillars in the body, this question
was for a short time made a cause of withdrawal if not of a division. Upon more
mature consideration, considering that discretion was the better part of valor,
they receded from the position and removed the barriers that a mistaken zeal
had set up.
If either side were really a heresy no alternative
would be left. Courage to do right regardless of present results would be
demanded, and to do right would be for the right side to withdraw from the
wrong, while consistency would require the same attitude on both sides; for
there is such a thing as consistency in a wrong course when once premises are
laid down. On the other hand, if the wrong side - whichever side that may be,
is not a heresy - that is, if it does not destroy or nullify any fundamental
principle of the gospel, then discretion would be very much needed to prevent,
if possible, the bursting forth of a storm; and if failing to prevent the
storm, to help maintain such a degree of presence of mind as would minimize
fatal results.
The question, therefore, in the event of trouble
arising from such a source, would be, Does the belief that during this
dispensation some who have never been baptized into Christ will be raised to
judgment destroy or nullify any fundamental doctrine of the gospel? Or, to put
it the other way, does the belief that only those in our day who have been
baptized into Christ will be raised to judgment affect the gospel? Cannot the
gospel be heartily believed and obeyed regardless of which side of the question
one takes? If one believe in the resurrection and judgment of the just and the
unjust, is not that all that can be asked so far as the question in hand is
concerned? Ask those on either side of the question for their belief in regard
to the gospel as set forth in any of our statements of faith and the same
answers can be given. A hearty belief in every proposition could be confessed
and yet the question of the resurrection or non-resurrection of unbaptized
Gentiles might never be thought of. A candidate is being examined for
immersion, and he is asked, Do you believe that in and through Christ there is
to be a resurrection? Yes. Do you believe that there will be a resurrection
both of the just and the unjust? Yes. Do you believe that they will be judged
and rewarded or punished according to their deeds after they have come forth
from the grave? Yes. These answers given, with others relating to the other
fundamental doctrines, elicit the question, "Can any man forbid
water?" Yes, says one, I want to
know whether the candidate believes in the resurrection of unbaptized Gentiles
who know the Truth; for if he does not he is not fit for baptism; and I, says
another, want to be assured that he does not so believe; for if he does so
believe he is not fit for baptism. What a spectacle this would be! How could
anyone conceive of making such a question a test of a person's candidacy for
either baptism or fellowship? In what possible manner could such a question
affect a man's faith in the gospel? The mistaken zeal that would obtrude such a
question would, from these premises, if consistent, carry the matter of
fellowship to such an absurd extent as would make it impossible for "two
or three" to meet together, or, as Dr. Thomas once said, the ecclesia
would be reduced to dimensions of a corporal's guard.
Now,
brethren and sisters, these are the practical things of our ecclesial life, in
which we are acquiring knowledge and wisdom in an evil state preparatory to the
performance of the important work of ruling the world. Knowledge is an absolute
necessity; but knowledge without wisdom is a very dangerous thing. Wisdom is
the right use of knowledge; and where it is cultivated many troubles may be
prevented that otherwise would rend in pieces the most perfect ecclesia that
this state of things will admit of. It is our duty, therefore, to study to
discern between things that differ, so that we may be able to maintain a status
that will refuse fellowship to doctrines unworthy of it and avoid raising
questions of trivial importance in themselves, but when raised will gender strife
and division. Let us give all diligence to add to our faith virtue, knowledge,
temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and love; so that we may be
individually and ecclesially faithful, virtuous, intelligent, temperate,
patient, godly and loving. Then we shall know that an abundant entrance into
the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be our happy
lot in the day of His glorious appearing, for which we wait and hope and pray.
Thomas Williams, Christadelphian Advocate, January,
1989, p. 32
Excerpted from:
The Life and Works of Thomas Williams
The Christadelphian Advocate Committee 1974