MAINTAINING THE LIGHTSTAND
This is the fourth and last article of this series and it deals with the very important topic of fellowship and its relation to maintaining the Lightstand. We cannot deny that it is complex with many ramifications. We very much doubt if any individual has the wisdom and the ability to determine, even in his own mind, what is the proper course to persue or adopt in solving all the many fellowship problems that present themselves. Therefore, to claim to have a panacea [cure-all] for them, would be fool-hardy indeed. But these problems can neither be dismissed nor ignored, but rather they present a challenge which must be met. It is our endeavor, then, to offer some thoughts for the purpose of stimulating the minds of the brotherhood to searching out what the Scriptures have revealed on the subject.
First, we should have an understanding of the meaning of the word "fellowship", for it is often misused. Broadly speaking, it refers to a state of being in agreement; unanimity of thought; holding the same beliefs, convictions and purpose. Applied to spiritual matters, it can be said that if there is agreement between individuals or between groups of individuals, on the fundamentals, and what constitutes the fundamentals of our Faith (both in doctrine and conduct), then fellowship exists. But if disagreement on these occurs, fellowship ends — it is destroyed, it no longer exists. Expressed in a different way, fellowship is terminated, not by any withdrawal action or separation, but when brethren disagree. One of the earliest such instances recorded, was when the apostles Paul and Peter had a "falling out" because the latter "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" in requiring Gentile believers to live in accordance with the Law of Moses (Gal. 2).
Strictly speaking, then, we cannot "disfellowship" another by refusing him the emblems at the Lord's Table. It was for this reason that Dr. Thomas was prompted to say, "We do not regard the breaking of bread as a test of fellowship, but the walking in light as God is in light" (The Christadelphian, 1869). When one is refused participation in the Memorial Supper, it is not disfellowship but more correctly a withdrawal or disassociation. Withdrawal may be said to be effect- not cause, and is a step that should never be taken until it is proved that fellowship has ceased. It might be said that an act of withdrawal is a legal recognition that fellowship no longer exists.
To the Word of God we now turn to discover if withdrawal can be justified; and there we find that it is of apostolic prescription. For in the Scriptures we find numerous instances where withdrawal or separation is not only permitted, but is commanded. It is not our purpose to discuss these in detail, but only to generalize as to their intent. They are all in the New Testament and found in Matthew 18: 15-17; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; 1 Corinthians 5:11, 13; 1 Timothy 1:20 and 6:3-5; 2 John 10:11; and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15. Examination of these passages, I think will show that those to be withdrawn from are rejectors of the Truth, those with dead consciences, unrepentant sinners, the rebellious, factionists, the immoral (given to the works of the flesh), blasphemers, anti-Christs (opposed to Christ and His teachings), busy-bodies (the idle, the gossip, and the tale-bearer).
Lacking specific approval for withdrawal on grounds other than those revealed, such withdrawal would seem to be a dangerous procedure, and difficult to justify. We must remember that perfect fellowship does not now exist between God and any of us, and therefore withdrawal for every sin, weakness, or mistake would result in no two brethren being able to meet together around the Table of the Lord, for, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). We must avoid at all costs the legalistic and compassionless Pharisaical state of mind, devoid of justice, mercy, and faith, which was anathema to Jesus. We have escaped the Mosaic rules and regulations which were so stifling, and which the Apostle termed a "ministration of death", and we are, or should be, "able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. 3:6)
On this subject, we would like to quote Brother Roberts in The Christadelphian for May 1886. He said, "It is well to be zealous for ecclesial purity, but if we are to abstain from ecclesial association till we find an ecclesia that is perfect, we shall never have ecclesial association at all. We must have compassion as well as zeal. We are all imperfect, and unless we practice some of the charity that 'hides a multitude of sins', we shall hinder and destroy instead of helping one another."
Dr. Thomas, too, had much to say on the mixed condition of the ecclesias, in Eureka, volume 3, pages 444 to 446. He points out that in our generation, as in Apostolic times, the ecclesias are composed of heterogeneous materials, "fish of all sorts, good, bad, and indifferent.... vessels of all sorts, some to honor and some to dishonor". He then goes on to point out that such conditions arouse "the flagging energies of sterling and faithful men, 'who are able to teach others' (2 Tim. 2:2). It sets them to contending more earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 2) which manifests them as the approved, who are grounded and settled in the faith, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel."
Returning now to the matter of withdrawal, we found that such was justified for certain specific reasons. That principle having been established, it would seem rather foolish to speculate as to whether or not it applies only to individuals. If one, or if many are guilty of any of those acts for which separation is commanded, isn't it both just and right that the Scriptural penalty be invoked in either case? Careful examination of those passages to which we have referred, will, I believe, show that they are applicable in either the individual or collective sense. As a matter of fact, the plural forms (they and them) are used in several instances, and we cannot escape the force of Paul's injunction to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly..." (2 Thess. 3:6.)
Failure to heed the Spirit's voice in those instances where the conditions warrant is a serious matter. But it is just as serious, and perhaps even more so, to withdraw from or reject a brother unjustifiably, that is, when all the conditions are not fulfilled. First, guilt must be proved. This is a principle of law (God's and men's) that cannot be denied. Every man "must have his day in court". He must have every opportunity to defend himself against his accusers. If he can refute the charges against him, then the matter should proceed no further- it should be dropped, forgotten; for the accused should not suffer double jeopardy. But if the charges are proven, what then?
What is our aim or objective, to cut off or to restore? "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). When the Apostle Paul learned of those in Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead, what did he do? Cut them off? Ignore it? Neither, for he first warned them of their erroneous beliefs, acting in the spirit of Ezekiel 33:8-9, and then set himself to the task of convincing them of the truth of the matter. Here is an example of how every effort should be made to restore a condition of fellowship — to bring about a meeting of minds on the points of issue. "And the servant of the Lord must not strive (engage in bitter and acrimonious debate); but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25). "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds" (2 Cor. 10:3-4). Our only effective weapon to combat error is the "sword of the Spirit", the speaking and teaching of truth from the Word of God.
As every fellowship problem differs, both in respect to the issues and the people involved, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when actual withdrawal becomes necessary, and so it should not be automatic, nor specific time limits set. Neither should it be hasty or precipitate. Rather let circumstances determine the matter, after every possible avenue of approach to a problem has been explored. In a mistaken zeal we sometimes forget that it is required of us to practice patience, forbearance, humility; to be longsuffering, that is, to suffer long the offenses of our brethren; to love our brethren and to be kindly affectioned with them. These are commands which we cannot break with impunity, nor can we violate the spirit of the law of offenses in Matthew 18, without ourselves being guilty of breaking the commandments of Christ.
Can it not be said that infection in the Body of Christ is analogous to infection in the literal or natural body? When infection occurs in one of the members of a natural or human body, the surgeon's first task is to prevent the spreading of the infection to other parts of the body; i.e., to localize it. This done, he sets about to heal it. But sometimes the infection is so virulent, or the physical condition of the body is so debilitated, that, in spite of all endeavors, the infection spreads. The surgeon or doctor exercises every effort and all the combined skills and remedies of the medical profession to check the disease, but perhaps without success. He is then on the horns of a dilemma. Shall he, or shall he not, amputate the infected member (a very drastic step) to save the rest of the body. It is a grave decision; for to amputate too early may mean unnecessarily handicapping or crippling the patient; but to amputate too late may result in the patient's death. This analogy applied to the Body of Christ, seems clear. The responsible elders of the brotherhood may be likened to the surgeon. In case of "infection" they first try to localize the trouble, and at the same time to effect a cure. Perhaps we fail to realize how many such efforts are successful. But occasionally such efforts do fail. They fail perhaps because the "infection" is so deep-seated or virulent in nature, or because the Body of Christ (represented by an ecclesia or ecclesias) is in a debilitated or weakened condition. Then the figurative surgeon is faced with the same problem as his natural counterpart, whether to "amputate" or not. A mistake here can be most serious. An amputation cripples the "Body" — if unnecessary, it must be answered for before the Great Physician and Judge. Conversely, an amputation too long delayed, can result in the "infection" spreading through the whole Body of Christ, so that it first "sickens" and perhaps eventually "dies". Oftentimes the surgeon, having used every skill at his command, can only leave the case in the hands of a Higher Power than his. So with the figurative "surgeon." He (or they) can only use the skills and abilities with which he has been endowed, and then, in prayer and supplication, entrust the matter to the Heavenly Father. Being fallible, the "surgeon" (elders) can make mistakes, as does the natural or literal surgeon, which lends emphasis to the necessity for searching out and selecting the best qualified, according to Scriptural standards, for leaders and elders, as discussed in a previous article.
It would seem that this discussion would be incomplete without mention of how withdrawal should be effected when it becomes clear, as best one can judge, that no other course is possible. First, it should be recognized that withdrawal is not punishment inflicted on a brother or brethren for their misdeeds. Punishment is to be left to an all-wise and just God, and for us to punish our brother is to usurp God's prerogatives. "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves ...for it is written. Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Rom. 12:19). Withdrawal or separation rather should be a sorrowful parting of the ways; recognition that fellowship has ended; for, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" It should be done in compassion and love, and in a manner to spare the feelings and the sensibilities as much as possible; never with a Pharisaical self-righteousness, for we must never forget that we are all "leaky vessels", and it is only by grace, not by works, that any of us will be saved.
When withdrawal becomes necessary, the reasons for it should be thoroughly understood by all concerned. It should never be irrevocable, and the door to reconciliation and re-establishment of fellowship should always be left open. There is a very grave responsibility involved in any case of withdrawal, and so we appeal to all to give their most earnest thought and consideration to these matters which are so vital to the well-being of the Household, and the continuance of the Lightstand. Therefore, "try the spirits whether they are of God" (1 John 4:1). "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). "He (God) hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (Micah 6:8).
P. L. Safford
The Christadelphian Advocate, February 1956, pgs 25-28.