Some-Considerations-of-the-Characteristics-of-the-Christian-Walk-v2

QUESTIONS-ON-CHURCH-GOVERNMENT

The assembly not only has the right to decide who should or should not break bread, but has the responsibility to exercise that right according to Scriptural principles.

In the very first mention of the Church in Matthew 16, the Lord says to Peter, thou art Peter (Petros, which means a stone) and upon this Rock (Petra, Peter’s confession, v.16) I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (vv-18, l9).

Peter, whose name means a stone, (piece of a rock) was to become a living stone in the new spiritual building – the church, which the Lord was to build upon Himself. To Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. A key symbolizes the authority to rule, using the “key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52), to administer Scriptural principles to bind or loose, as the the case may be.

Now as the “living stone” is a term not peculiar to Peter (for every believer is a living stone in the building of the Church, as we read in 1 Peter 2:5), just so the keys are not peculiar to him. Every living stone in the Church is a Peter and addressed as such through him. Therefore, the assembly of living stones has been placed in responsibility to exercise authority in the affairs of the Lord in His assembly in the kingdom of heaven here on earth.

The binding and loosing spoken of is the action of the assembly on a case calling for excluding one or including one in its fellowship. This action, when righteously taken, is recognized by heaven, being either bound or loosed there, the case may be. The 2 or 3 gathered unto the Lord’s Name, with the Lord in the midst, according to His promise as given in Matthew 18:20, constitutes an assembly, representative of the whole church, and is authorized to so act.  In verses 17 and 18, for instance, when the brother dealt with refuses all approaches for restoration, the assembly is called upon to refuse him. It is then we also read the Lord speaking to the nucleus of the assembly to be formed. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

An illustration of this principle in action is seen in 1 Corinthians 5. The church at Corinth needed instruction as to how to deal with the man living in sin. Divine instruction was given through the apostle Paul.  It was written to the assembly: “IN the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:4,5). This instruction, I repeat, was given to the assembly; not to one man, nor to a group of men, nor to the elders to take the action. Here the assembly put away the man living in sin from amongst them. This action excluded him from the Lord’s supper, and from all their fellowship. This action was bound in heaven, for it was a righteous act.

In 2 Corinthians, after a period of time, the man showed signs of genuine repentance with much sorrow. Here again instruction was needed from the Lord through the apostle. The assembly is called upon to forgive the man and receive him back into the fellowship. Here again, it was the assembly that received upon a review of the man’s restored condition. 

I believe these two portions illustrate the assembly responsibility to exclude or include into fellowship as the case was seen to be.

Scripture says nothing as to the elders of the assembly receiving or putting away. Elders, however, have an important place to fill in assembly action. Elders and bishops refer to the same thing. Elders are men of maturity in the Christian life, not novices; bishops, which means overseers, suggest the work of oversight taken up by older and spiritual men in the affairs of the assembly. The qualifications for such are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The JND translation clarifies the first verse, namely: “If a man aspires to oversight, he aspires to a good work.” It is not an office he has been appointed to, but a work laid on his heart by the Holy Spirit. Acts 20:25 gives light as to this, as Paul speaks to the elders of Ephesus: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.”

Furthermore, though not appointed by the assembly, elders are to be recognized as they do the work of oversight. And as Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 13. “Know them” (or, recognize them) which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.” Also in Hebrews 13:7, 17 and 24, They are referred to as “guides” (marginal reading), to be remembered, obeyed and saluted.

Now a word as to the practical working of the guides in matters of reception to fellowship, in order to maintain Godly order for the good of the assembly, and for the one who expresses a desire to break bread.

Let us say a person expresses his desire to remember the Lord to someone in the meeting. I believe that the Scriptural procedure would be that his desire would be made known to one of the older brethren recognized as an overseer, or guide, in the assembly. This brother would lovingly speak to the one desiring fellowship to seek to ascertain that he is saved, ’seeking to please the Lord and not in any unscriptural association. This overseer may consult with another brother or two, and, if all is clear, the assembly should be informed of the exercise. This will enable the assembly to be knowledgeable as to the proposed reception, and give anyone the opportunity to voice to the guides any Scriptural objection he may have to the reception. This is vitally important in order to preserve the unity of the assembly, which Satan is always on the alert to break down. If the guides discern all is clear, the one desiring fellowship should be informed that his name will be announced at the close of the meeting for breaking of bread, to be received into fellowship the following Lord’s day. This will give time for the various ones in the assembly to express their joy and encourage the one taking the step of faith in response to the Lord’s desire. This will require more time, of course, in larger assemblies than in smaller ones. But the main point is that the assembly takes the action. Situations may vary as to the ones requesting fellowship, for instance: some may be quite unknown, others well known; some may be young but showing true devotion; but the Lord will give wisdom and grace in each case as it is sought for from Him.

Breaking of bread is not a single or isolated act_ It is an act of faith on the part of the one being received. As well as being a response to the Lord’s request to remember Him in His death. it is also an expression of his membership in the body of Christ, and involves a commitment to the fellowship which God has called him into, namely, “the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord” (1 Cor. 1:9). This should be put before the one coming to break bread. This would happily result in what Paul writes of in Romans 15:7: “Wherefore, receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”

These few thoughts present principles to guide the assembly so that Godly order may be enacted for the Glory of the Lord, for the testimony of the assembly, and for the blessing of the one being received. Should there be questions, as I am sure there will and should be because of the brief treatment of the subject, please ask them and I will seek, as enabled of the Lord, to be of further help. God will not leave us in the darkness of uncertainty if we have a sincere desire to not only know His will, but to carry it out in practice.

Answered-Questions-on-the-Guarded-table-and-a-Circle-of-Fellowship

TheAssemblyAndItsGuidingPrinciplesTLF3

PROLOGUE

“Remember your leaders who have spoken to you t he Word of God; and considering the issue of their conversation, imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7, N.T.).

The author of the following letter, Mr. B. C. Greenman, needs little introduction to most into whose hands this paper comes.

Known to many over a period of years, our brother was faithful in his stewardship, and in the words of the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, (Acts 20:27) did not shun to declare “all the counsel of God.”

We esteem it a privilege to set forth the Scriptural principles which are outlined in this letter; and in bringing this most precious and important line of things before others, our brother, still greatly beloved and highly esteemed for his work’s sake, though “being dead, yet speaketh” (Hebrews 11:4).

May God graciously bless this ministry to His own and grant to those who waver, or who have been misled by the enemy into “popular” and unscriptural associations, the faith that would step out boldly “unto HIM, without  the Camp, bearing His reproach” (Hebrews 13:13).                     F. B. T.

My Dear Brother,  Staples, Minn., June 17, 1908

Agreeable to your request I give you some Scripture for my Church principles as a so-called “Exclusive Brother.” Thus, I make the claim to the exact opposite of what you credit Bro. A. with — that I have Scripture for it, which to me, is as plain as “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

1. My first plank is that all true Christian gathering is unto Christ’s name, as we read, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together” (1 Corinthians 5:4). This presents a Divine, not human center of gathering.

Our exclusivism is that we take this ground, we own Christ as our Lord, and in obedience to Him, gather to His name as our Divine Centerjust as we first trusted Him as our Divine Saviour. This excludes all else.

In proof of this, while we look for our Lord’s coming, we are not Adventists; while we own baptism, we are not Baptists, and while we own the guidance and liberty of the Holy Spirit, we are not Friends. In other words, our Center is not a doctrine, however important; not an ordinance, however precious; not a principle, however blessed, but a Person even our Lord Jesus, Who yet teaches us to look for His coming, to be baptized in His name; and to be guided by His Spirit. This is the teaching of Exclusivism that as to our Center, it is Christ our Lord, we can Scripturally own no other (1 Corinthians 8:5,6).

2. We own the Sovereignty and guidance of the Holy Spirit, according to the Word: All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will” (1 Corinthians 12:11).

In obedience to this truth, then, we resolutely refuse all human ordination for Christian ministry or priesthood. “We believe in the Holy Ghost” thus, as being truly a part of the apostles’ creed, and seek God’s grace to honor this truth by giving Him His true place in our assemblies, as setting aside all human regulations, or ordering of our worship to God or service to men. This truth is to govern our ‘coming together’ in the same way that His indwelling is to govern our individual lives.

3. We own the Word of God as fully and entirely inspired, and as all-sufficient for both our faith and practice. Thus in our assemblies we seek to keep “the commandments of the Lord” as laid down in 1 Corinthians 11-14, as to the Lord’s supper, liberty of ministry by the Spirit, edifying of one another and Church order. In this, we make no pretension (as often charged) to infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, for while He is an infallible Person “we have this treasure in earthen vessels.” But heartily and humbly, in the consciousness of folly and failure on our part, we cleave to this important truth in the face of an apostate Christendom— That God’s Word is all-sufficient, that neither time not change can render it obsolete, and that this Word teaches our Exclusive Church position, as it does our Exclusivesalvation by Christ alone.

4. “We believe in the communion of saints” in the Church of God.

This communion of saints to us involves the truth of the one Body of Christ. This, in turn, involves “holding the Head,” which means both dependence upon and obedience to Him. This, in the early days, involved “receiving one another to the glory of God, ” and “following the things that make for peace” on the one side. And on the other side it also involved holiness and truth, in putting away of evil doers, the refusal of unsound teachers, and the marking and avoiding of those who cause divisions, contrary to the doctrine of Scripture. And finally, that this “communion of saints” means the maintenance of godly order, both in and between the assemblies, so that no one can be owned as independent of the others. This we believe, the very nature of the one Body, and of owning its living Head, forbids.

Paul taught as to this: (1) That what he wrote to the Church of Corinth, as to Church order, he wrote also to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” Thus he believed in but one Church fellowship in all this dispensation of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:1,2).

Paul taught: (2) That what the assembly did at Corinth, in maintaining godly order he also did in concert with them. When charging them to judge an evil doer, he says, “I have judged already as though I were present” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). This evil doer, he owned, might be a Christian, and the sequel proved that he was such (1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 2: 6-11).

Paul taught (3) one common and exclusive church order. “As the Lord hath called everyone, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches” (1 Corinthians 7:17).

He had not one order for saints in corrupt Corinth, and another for more intellectual Athens. The Church of God is but one, its charter but one, its principles but one, and its order should be but one also.

(4) Paul taught that the bread and cup of the Lord’s Supper were expressions of the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

“For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread’. (1 Corinthians 10:16,17). The fact that a saint with, alas, the bad ways of a sinner was put away in 1 Corinthians 5, leaves this truth untouched. The sad fact of many since “forsaking God’s ground and truth yet claims still that we should act upon it.

(5) In delivering to the Corinthians the ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11, etc., the Apostle Paul shows that they are both absolute and exclusive, saying: “If any man seem to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16). That is, the man who refuses the control of the Word of God and to act on the sound principles of the Church of God, only puts himself in his self-will and folly against both the apostles and all the churches of God. To us it means this, or nothing at all, an Exclusive because Divine order.

(6) The apostle taught that each local assembly was a distinct expression of the whole assembly of God, each and all believing its teachings, acting upon its principles, and maintaining its common order. There is no such thing, then, to be owned in the House of God, as independency of gathering. It may invade us, distress us, divide and defile us, but by the grace of God, it must be warred with to the end. .’There is no discharge in this war.” “Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular” (1 Corinthians 12:27), This teaches the unity of assemblies, not at all as independent, either of Christ as the living Head, or of others, who, gathered by the same grace, seek to cleave to Christ as their center, the Holy Spirit as their power, the Word of God as their Guide, and the practical fellowship of saints, as being according to truth and righteousness. Each individual in a local assembly has a divinely-given relation to all the rest, and each assembly has the same relation to every other assembly in the wide world. Such is the teaching of Scriptural exclusivism.

Now, brother, I have in my judgment, given you Scripture for an Exclusive Church position. Ifyou say, you do not see it, I cannot help your sight. It needs no penny candle to enable a man to see the sun if his face is turned to that glorious orb, and ten thousand of them will not enable him to, if his back is upon it. My Bible, as I believe, teaches me to be an Exclusive brother, great as the reproach of it may be; and in this conviction, I preach an exclusive Saviour, an exclusive Bible, an exclusive Church, an exclusive Holy Spirit, and exclusive principles also to govern our lives in this evil day, when men say: “Speak unto us smooth things.”

As to why we cannot receive a brother, whose general doctrines are sound, and his conduct godly, who yet refuses to act on Scriptural lines as to Church order and fellowship, the word is “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints.” This order means that in reception, the received should have some definite Scripture reason for their coming, and the firm conviction that the path they come into is of God, and thus claims their obedience. On the other hand, as to the receivers no one should be received by us that we cannot believe is thus taking a step of faith, and in obedience to God, or else we are encouraging souls in what is merely human will, or the choice of their own hearts. Such is not of God, and it is no true service to His people to help them into a path they do not take intelligently for Him.

Your statement that such a cause is also contrary to teaching of Mr. Darby, F. W. Grant and others from whose writings we have received so much blessing, I unqualifiedly deny. They taught me these exclusive principles, equally with the doctrines of God’s grace that rejoice my soul from day to day, and I esteem these, while certainly the less pleasant of the two, to be none the less important. These men, then, taught exclusive principles and themselves walked in obedience to them, as being not only consistent with the truth of the One Body, but as being the only way in which that blessed truth could be practically maintained. So Paul taught the “purging out of leaven,” and a holy fellowship, side by side with the oneness of the Body of Christ, and “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (1 Corinthians 5-14; Ephesians 4).

That these teachers by their exclusive course nullified their own teachings, you may avow, as many, and as they are not here to defend themselves, we must leave ituntil we meet above. But that they did not both teach and practice a holy and exclusive fellowship, no one can honorably read their writings and deny. On our being converted, we became “followers of them and of the Lord,” and we now after forty-three years are assured that we have made no mistake in this, many such as we are conscious of in other ways, and on other lines (1 Thessalonians 1:6). From these men instrumentally then, and from the Word of God authoritatively, we believe we learned the truth of exclusive principles, and in this firm conviction we continue to walk in them.

Your servant for Jesus’ sake,

B. C. GREENMAN

When Jesus first appeared on the scene, He chose 12 disciples to follow Him.  They were of varying backgrounds and political persuasions.  Some may have been known among the elite of the religious world but none were of the religious elite.  They had some issues with pride, they struggled with anger and faith and confidence in the Lord, but the Lord was with them and seemed to nip in the bud their temptation to sin.  After all, he knew their thoughts and they had the distinct advantage of being physically in His presence every day.  They were a tight knit group and in spite of their differences they seemed to live fairly harmoniously.  In Matthew 10:34-39 the Lord tells his followers that He has come to bring division.  He isn’t referring to division between the disciples, instead it is a division between those who believe on Him and those who do not.  This section of verses seems harsh and unloving but what it is really showing is that following the Lord wholeheartedly has a price.  True discipleship often involves pain, loss and separation from sin and those who practice sin.

Later on, after the Lord ascends back into glory to go to His Father’s right hand, (on the day of Pentecost) the disciples are filled with the Spirit but they now must go on without Him physically in their presence.  The Lord’s statements in Matthew 18 regarding how the church is supposed to function and the new power that He will give to those in the church when He is no longer with them bodily, the right to judge in the assembly and have their decisions binding not only on earth but also in heaven must have come back to them in force at this time.  The new leader of the disciples and the church in general would be the Holy Spirit.  This brand new entity (the Church) would now have the Spirit in them both collectively and individually, the Spirit would now speak through the actions of this new entity.

The new church goes on at first through the book of Acts with few issues, but then in the 5th chapter of Acts Ananias and Sapphire lie to the Holy Spirit and are killed by God.  There was no need for the assembly to act because God Himself stepped in and removed the sinful person from the assembly.

As the young church moved on and became larger and larger, as the Lord added more and more believers to His church, the assemblies began to divide based on who they were following; this kind of division was not the division the Lord had in mind.  Also we have the first mention of moral sin coming into the assembly in a very defiling way, a man had his father’s wife.  This time the Lord does not step in. He wants his people, the ones He died for, the ones He “ever liveth to make intercession” for, to do the job of judging this man and Paul asks them to do so.  In the last verse of chapter 5 Paul tells them, “But those without God judges. Remove the wicked person from amongst yourselves.”  It was now time for the church to step up to the plate and do the work of judging and making the decision that would be bound in heaven.  The church at this time was one body  both spiritually and in reality.  It would be the last days this wonderful truth would be seen in a tangible way.  As with most great movements in history, the church was soon to be corrupted by its continued splintering and more bad doctrine and moral sin that would continue to pop up its ugly head.  Even with all the disunity and divisiveness in the church in the days of Paul, he says to the Ephesians:

“*I*, the prisoner in [the] Lord, exhort you therefore to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, bearing with one another in love;

using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace. [There is] one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all.”

The body was fractured but the church was still responsible to “keep the unity of the Spirit”.  So even with all her splitting, He still wants His church to function in a unified way as much as it is possible to do so.  Later on in the same chapter he speaks of gifts, the function of which is to “edify the body of Christ”, to build it up.  Verse 13 tells us that the result should be for us to become more unified in thought as we become more like our Head, Jesus Christ.  At that point we are less likely to be thrown off by bad doctrine.  We have words like “cunning craftiness” and “blown about by every wind of doctrine” in these verses.  The church had moved from a situation where all were of one mind and shared everything to a point where more care needed to be taken in who was being listened to and taken into their company.

In Galatians chapter 5 we read of another bad teaching that had come into the church, that of adding keeping the law to being saved by grace.  This was not a minor disagreement; this teaching made the work of Christ on the cross of no value.  This is an example of a denial of the efficacy of the Lord’s death on the cross in other words the “work of Christ”.  The Galatian believers were warned that to allow this wrong teaching in their assembly would “leaven the whole lump”.  In other words, it would affect every person in that assembly.  It was the same result as the moral sin condemned in 1 Corinthians 5. In fact both sections of Scripture use the same statement: “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”.  (Gal. 5:9 and 1 Cor. 5:6).  The moral sin and the doctrinal sin result in the same thing, both defile the people in the assembly if the assembly does not deal with the sin.  That is the warning in these two sections.  The people in the church need to separate themselves from unholy behavior or teaching, keeping in mind Matthew 18 and other scriptures that tells that all sin needs to be handled in a loving but firm way.  The desire is always to turn the one who has sinned into the arms of the Savior.

In 2 Timothy chapter 2, Paul speaking to his son in the faith, Timothy, starts out in verses 1 and 2 with the exhortation:  “You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

The need to hold to what the apostle had presented in the epistles was becoming more and more necessary.  The apostasy that had been warned of in other epistles had become more prevalent necessitating a more careful watchfulness.  Later in the chapter we are introduced to a pair of men who were in the assembly at one time (maybe still were) who had let their thoughts go to places they shouldn’t have and got to the point where they were denying the resurrection.  Paul warns Timothy not to put up with this kind of teaching because it was overthrowing the faith of some.  The statement in verse 19 seems to indicate that it is not our place to say if a person is saved or not (the Lord knows), instead we are to make our decisions regarding fellowship based on the actions of a person.  If they are bringing in wrong teaching, we should depart from these men.  If we don’t, the result is the same as we saw in Galatians 5:9, we become a leavened lump.

Verses 20-26 introduce us to something completely foreign to the church that began at Pentecost.  In these verses, sadly, the church is compared to a “great house” with good and bad in it, useful and not useful, all mixed together.  In 1 Corinthians when speaking of members of the body, everyone is useful, we can’t say we have no need of anyone.  In these verses we are introduced to people who, although in the great house, need to be separated from. 

In the 3rd chapter Paul warns “perilous times” will come.  This apostasy in the church was just beginning at the time this was written.  It is prevalent in the church today.  Verse 5 gives instruction to us to turn away from some people who are part of this “great house”.   Are these people true believers?  We don’t know and we can’t positively know (see 2:19); all we can do is go by how the person acts morally and who they are linked with doctrinally.  Whether they are a believer or not, we need to turn away from them because of their actions or who they are associated with in the “great house”.  Verse 13 informs us that things will grow worse and worse.  Is there any doubt this has happened?  How should we respond?  Should we show less care in the reception of people into our assemblies or should we be taking a step back and be even more careful as these imposters grow worse and worse?  As a side note, it seems like as the apostasy grows worse, our teaching of faithful men (2 Tim 2:2) should become a priority in our assemblies.  We should not be separated from our brothers any more than is absolutely necessary.  How are we supposed to teach faithful men if those men are not with us and if they don’t want to hear what we have to say about the Word of God, are they truly “faithful men”?   As we move along in this world, Satan is going to test us on the truths we have learned. He wants us to question everything we have learned and he will attempt to take it from us.  Is it good to question things?  Yes, to an extent but at some point those things we have been taught that are indeed truths need to be taught to faithful men and we disqualify ourselves as teachers of those truths when we have doubts as to their validity in our minds.  We need to stop being children who are blown about by every wind of doctrine and hold to those things we know from scripture.  Evil men and deceivers are growing worse and worse; the line between the follower of truths and those who are “always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” should be more clear today than it has ever been before.  Truths that we have learned, that have become a part of us need to be held to more firmly than ever.  We need to be teaching them to others because of the apostasy that is so prevalent today.  Also, our practice of reception needs to be handled even more carefully than it ever has in the past.

Paul wrote about 2000 years ago that the apostasy was growing worse and worse.  Where is the Christian church today?  Rainbow flags, women pastors, saying scripture is time bound, picking and choosing what passages of scripture we can stand by and which are just too difficult to keep, men putting themselves in the place of the Holy Spirit, people “heaping to themselves teachers” that give them what they want to hear so the pastor won’t lose his income, Hymenaeus’s and Philetus’s by the scores. In fact Christian colleges are dominated by people who overthink the Word of God (ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth has become institutionalized).  We don’t need to be paranoid, God is still able to protect us but He has given us a responsibility to guard His assembly from sin and to gather with people who are calling on Him out of a pure (undivided) heart.  Shouldn’t we be careful to carry out what He has asked us to do after all He has done for us?

Calling-Upon-the-Lord-Out-of-a-Pure-Heart

How Would God Have Christians Worship?

Once a person has acknowledged their sins and trusted that the penalty for them has been paid in full by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross, the next step for a Christian is to give his/her life in service to the Lord[1] (see Mark 8:34).  Part of this life of service includes worship of the Lord as He has requested.  However, with so many different branches of Christendom today, a person naturally asks, “If they are all ‘Christian,’ why are there so many differences?” and “Which ‘church’ should I attend?”  These are good questions that every earnest Christian must answer.  Another question which should also be asked is, “How would the Lord Jesus want me to worship Him?”

The best place to begin to look for answers to these questions is simply the Biblical record itself.  Rather than listening to the speculations of men, it is best to allow the Lord to speak for Himself through His written Word with regard to the order of the church and worship.  Through the New Testament, the Lord teaches principles of Christian conduct and gives glimpses into the functioning of the early churches during the apostolic days.  Even these early churches had problems (most of which still arise within the church today).  Fortunately, God saw fit to record and address many of these problems in the New Testament epistles; therefore, if we are willing to read and study, the Bible will provide guidance for recognizing and dealing with problems within the church.

While studying the Scriptures in order to know how we should meet for worship, we should be observant regarding the forms and practices of worship services of various groups today and then compare these to what is set forth in the Bible.  A careful study of Scripture, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, will gradually reveal that there are at least two common practices in most conservative Christian congregations today which are not consistent with Scripture.  These are the use of a clergy system and the lack of discipline within the church.

This paper will cite and discuss verses from the Bible which address these issues.  Additionally, related Biblical definitions and issues which require clarification for a proper understanding of worship and discipline will be briefly addressed.  (For the sake of using modern English, the New American Standard Bible translation will be quoted unless noted otherwise, although the King James Version or Darby Translation are just as suitable). 

What does the Bible teach about the Church?

To answer the question, “Which ‘church’ should I attend?” it will be helpful to understand what the word ‘church’ means when it is used in the Bible.  The word translated as ‘church’ in the English translations of the Bible is the Greek word ekklesia, which is a combination of the Greek word ek meaning ‘from’ or ‘out’ and the Greek word kaleo meaning ‘to call.’  Therefore the Greek word ekklesia means ‘called out from.’  This is characteristic of every believer who is called out from the world by the Holy Spirit to repent of his/her sins and follow the Lord Jesus.  The word ‘church’ is often used in the New Testament to designate all persons since the day of Pentecost who are truly trusting in the blood shed by Jesus Christ as propitiation for their sins.  Even though many believers today are divided along ‘denominational’ lines, the use of the word ‘church’ to signify all believers in Christ  is still Biblically proper.  Examples of such usage of the word ‘church’ in Scripture may be found in Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Galatians 1:13; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 3:15; and numerous other portions.

The other Biblical use of the word ‘church’ designates a set of believers in a geographical region who assemble together for worship, prayer, and fellowship.  Because great distance separated believers in one region or city from another, each local assembly was referred to as a ‘church’ (e.g., the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, etc.)  This use of the word ‘church’ denotes all the believers in that particular region which form a subset of the entire church (i.e., all believers) as spoken of in the preceding paragraph.  Examples of such usage of the word ‘church’ in  Scripture may be found in Acts 14:23; 1Corinthians 1:2 & 11:16; Galatians 1:2; 1Thessalonians 1:1; Revelation 1,2,3; and other portions.

Contrary to today’s common colloquialism, the Bible does not use the term ‘church’ to refer to a physical building where Christians gather or where God is present.  Rather, the church is composed of the believers themselves.  To put this in proper perspective, it is good to remember the teaching of the Lord Jesus as recorded in John 4 when He spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well.  She noted the difference between where the Samaritans and the Jews worshipped saying, “Our fathers [the Samaritans] worshipped in this mountain [in Samaria], and you people [the Jews] say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship” (John 4:20).  Notice the response which Jesus gave to her.  “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the Father.  You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews.  But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.  God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth’” (John 4:21-24, italics and boldface added). 

Therefore, a physical building such as a modern cathedral or the Jewish temple (which in pre-Christian times had been inhabited by God) is no longer of any significance to God.  Rather, the Apostles Paul and Peter taught that the church and each member of it is the temple of God: “Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”  (1Corinthians 3:16);  “And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Peter 2:4,5).

Likewise, the word ‘church’ is never used Biblically in connection with a sect or denomination such as the Baptist church, the Lutheran church, the Catholic church, and so on.  In fact, the Bible teaches that we are not to fracture into sects under various denominational names as evidenced by the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians: “For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.  Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’  Has Christ been divided?  Paul was not crucified for you was he?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1Corinthian 1:11-13).  See also 1Corinthians 3:4-8.

Instead of fracturing into camps under various names, the Lord Jesus tells us that: ”For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst” (Matthew 18:20, italics and boldface added).  Therefore, we have Biblical instruction that we are to gather to His name and not to create names (e.g. Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.) with which to divide ourselves.  Note also that the Lord demonstrates the simplest form of a local church when He says “where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst.”  Only two or three believers gathered to His name are needed in order to be recognized as a local church.  (These local churches are not to be independent of one another, but more about that later.)

For What Types of Meetings Did the Early Church Assemble ?

Before discussing the clergy system, it is important to understand the various types of meetings for which a local church should assemble.  We may learn by studying what is recorded of the early churches in the New Testament.  One type of early church gathering was the ‘remembrance meeting’ (or ‘communion’) during which a loaf of bread was broken and a cup of wine was shared to commemorate the death of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  This meeting is of great importance because the Lord Jesus instituted it Himself and requested “this do in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19-20, see also Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, 1 Corinthians 11:24-26).  We know that the early churches convened for this purpose as evidenced in the following verses: Acts 2:42-47, Acts 20:6-7, and 1 Corinthians 11:25-34.  This should be a meeting for the purpose of remembering, honoring, and worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ for His priceless work of love on the cross for each sinner who has trusted in Him as their Savior.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, the Apostle Paul provides instruction for order in another type of church gathering during which each male[2] believer is free to vocally exercise his gift(s) and responsibility and privilege as a priest.  The activities mentioned include psalms, teaching, revelations, speaking in tongues[3], and interpreting tongues.  These activities are not limited to a special class of men, and do not necessarily require gift, but may be “operations” of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, KJV).  An important aspect, as pointed out here by the Apostle Paul, is that these activities are to be carried out with love in an orderly manner for the edification of the church and not for the glorification of the individual.  During a meeting carried out in this way, the Lord may use two or three brothers to bring His messages for the purpose of exhortation or comfort.  Such a meeting openly allows any male believer as led by the Lord to give praise and honor to God or to minister to the church for its edification.  It may be referred to as an ‘open ministry meeting.’

A gathering for the purpose of teaching is revealed in Acts 20:7 : “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.”  In this meeting, one person (the Apostle Paul in the verse cited) conducts teaching for the edification of the church while the others listen.  This type of meeting may be called a ‘ministry meeting’ or a ‘sermon.’

Early churches also gathered for prayer meetings.  One Biblical example displays the concern of the church for the Apostle Peter while he was imprisoned : “So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God” (Acts 12:5).  And, after Peter’s release from prison by an angel of God in response to these prayers, we read that “he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying” (Acts 12:12).  Another example of assembling for prayer is given in Acts 4:24-31 where those assembled prayed for boldness to speak the word of God with confidence.  The ‘prayer meeting’ is an opportunity to jointly bring needs, both physical and spiritual, before the Lord, agreeing together in the requests made.

Finally, we also read of the early church gathering for discipline (see 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, and Matthew 18:15-20).  They were to come together to hear, question, discuss, and judge sinful behavior by church members who were unrepentant and in need of discipline.  This is needed to keep the testimony of the church untainted by gross immorality and maintain the blessing of a proper relationship between the church and the heavenly Father.  (The subject of discipline is discussed in further detail later in this paper).

In summary, there were at least five different types of meetings for which the early church assembled which serve as examples for the present church.  These types may be referred to as the remembrance meeting, the open ministry meeting, the ministry meeting, the prayer meeting, and a disciplinary meeting.  At least three of these meetings are characterized either by worship or edification (e.g., the remembrance meeting, the open ministry meeting, and the ministry meeting).

Worship and Edification and Their Place in Early Church Meetings

Worship gives praise and honor to the Lord for all that He is and all that He has done for us.  Worship goes forth from man up to God.  Worship gives glory to God and should be done with reverence and respect. 

Edification is the ‘building up’ or strengthening of members of a local church or the church as a whole.  Edification comes from God down to man through the exercise of spiritual gifts and through application of the Word of God to each believer by the Holy Spirit.  Edification may come by the means of the following gifts given by the Holy Spirit: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing[4], working of miracles, discernment of spirits, teaching, prophecy[5], tongues[6], interpretation of tongues, a pastoral (or guiding) gift, evangelism, service, exhortation, generosity, mercy, and leadership (see Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11; & Ephesians 4:11-13 for the listing of these gifts).

Examining the purpose of each meeting for which the early churches assembled, we find that the remembrance meeting was strongly characterized by worship as believers remembered the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  A mixture of worship and edification characterized the open ministry meeting as each member shared their gift or a pertinent message or thought consistent with God’s Word as led by the Holy Spirit.  The ministry meeting or sermon was primarily for edification of the church.  The prayer meeting was characterized by expressing concern for fellow Christians and the unsaved or by requesting qualities of character which might lead to the glory of God.  The discipline meeting was characterized by maintaining a purity within the church which represents Christ on this earth.

Leadership and Participation in Church Meetings

Whether for worship or edification, the meetings at almost all churches within Christendom today are presided over by a select group of men or women[7] (i.e., the clergy).  Typically, these persons are considered qualified for this position of leadership after completion of seminary school and ordination by the particular denomination or ‘church’ which they represent.  They are designated by various terms particular to their denomination such as bishop, minister, pastor, reverend, and priest. 

While not all designations of church positions used by denominations are of Biblical origin, the terms ‘bishop’, ‘elder’, and ‘deacon’ are Biblical.  They designate the roles of particular persons within the early church.  The Bible also uses the term ‘pastor.’  Let us first outline these roles as described in the New Testament and then compare their use in Christendom today against the Biblical record of these roles in the early churches.

The English word ‘bishop’ used in the King James Version of the Bible corresponds to the word episkopos  from the original Greek text.  Episkopos is derived from the Greek words epi, meaning ‘over’, and skopeo, meaning ‘to look or watch’, which combine as ‘watch over.’  Hence, episkopos may be translated more directly and correctly as ‘overseer’ rather than ‘bishop,’ (such is the translation in the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and in the J.N. Darby translation, see Acts 20:28 for an example).

The English word ‘elder’ used in the New Testament corresponds to the Greek word presbuteros.  The term ‘elder’ is frequently used to describe the same function as an overseer within a local church.  This is evidenced by the interchangeable use of these words in Titus 1:5-7 and Acts 20:17,28.  The use of the word ‘elder’ serves to describe and recognize the spiritual maturity and experience possessed by older men who exercise oversight.  Through use of the word ‘elder’ in place of ‘overseer,’ the Lord emphasizes the value of experience that comes with age and which is helpful for exercising proper oversight.  Though an overseer, as defined in 1 Timothy 3, is not required to be an elderly man, instruction teaches that he should keep “his children under control” and should not be a “new convert” (1 Timothy 3:4,6).  These statements manifest that some age and experience is required in addition to the possession of sound doctrine for oversight.  The attributes that overseers or elders must possess are listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

The role of an elder or overseer is to exercise spiritual oversight for the members and doctrine of the church.  Those exercising oversight must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2), though not necessarily gifted at teaching (as spoken of in Ephesians 4:11).  They must “be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict”    (Titus 1:9).  They are to be on guard and shepherd the church of God against wolves from without and false teaching from within (Acts 20:28-31).  They are “to be examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3).  In short, an overseer is to be familiar with sound doctrine, to be a guardian of the truth, and to lead by example.

A careful reading of the Bible also reveals that each early church had several elders or overseers (see Acts 20:17), not just one.  Although the early churches had several overseers, there is no Scriptural evidence supporting a power structure in which a lower level of overseers reported to a head overseer (or bishop) as is commonly practiced in some branches of Christendom today.  Contrary to such hierarchical practice, we read that the Apostle Paul had “encouraged” (not ordered) Apollos to visit the church at Corinth; however, Apollos had declined to do so at the time and delayed a visit to Corinth to a future time when he would have the desire and opportunity (see                   1 Corinthians 16:12).  Through this example, we see that Apollos was not required to follow orders or requests from Paul with regard to his service for the Lord even though Paul was an apostle.  Rather, we find that each Christian must answer directly to the Head of the church who is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23).

The English word ‘deacon’ used in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 is from the Greek word diakanos which is elsewhere also translated as ‘servant’ or ‘minister.’  The role of the deacon (or minister) is to tend to the temporal, non-spiritual needs of the church.  An excellent example is given in Acts 6:1-7.  In this portion, after a dispute had arisen between the Hellenistic Jews and the native Jews within the church at Jerusalem, seven men[8] were chosen to make a fair daily distribution of foodstuffs to the widows within the church.  It is instructive to note that although the task seemed menial (i.e., the serving of food), spiritual men of integrity and wisdom were sought.

Women may also serve as deacons as evidenced by the Apostle Paul’s reference to Phoebe as “a servant (diakanos) of the church which is at Cenchrea” (Romans 16:1).  Another example of a deacon’s role might be the handling of the financial matters of the church.  With so many news reports over the last few years concerning the misuse or embezzlement of church funds for personal gain, the need for God fearing, righteous persons to do the work of a deacon is very evident today.

The word ‘pastor(s)’ appears only once in the New Testament.  It occurs in Ephesians 4:11 as part of a list of gifts which Christ has given to the church.  The Greek word translated in English as ‘pastor’ is from a root of the Greek word poimen which is translated in English as ‘shepherd.’  From this, we can infer that a pastor is gifted with the ability to act as a shepherd to other church members.  A pastor may be especially adept at guiding someone back who has gone astray or may have the ability to comfort and encourage others during difficult times in a very personal way.  This gift undoubtedly belonged to some of the elders of the early church who were instructed to shepherd the church of God (see Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2), but it might also be possessed by others in the church as well.  The gift of a pastor may be used for personal and perhaps private interaction with believers not easily reached by encouragement or admonition delivered during more formal church gatherings.

Contrary to the use of the term ‘pastor’ in modern day Protestantism, it does not necessarily imply that one has a gift of teaching.  In fact, ‘teachers’ are listed immediately after ‘pastors’ in Ephesians 4:11, thereby inferring that these are separate gifts which Christ has given to the church.  Though it may be possible for a single person to be gifted both as a pastor and a teacher, it is commonly assumed by congregations in the denominational systems that such is the case with their ‘pastor.’

Although the roles and gifts outlined above arementioned in the Bible, there is no direction given in Scripture for such persons to form a ‘clergy’ which exclusively conducts meetings.  In fact, the Apostle Peter exhorts elders to “shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock,” (1 Peter 5:2-3, italics and boldface added).  Neither is there Scriptural support for the remaining believers to form the ‘laity’ and passively attend meetings. 

The clearest direction for the form of order in a church meeting is given by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian believers.  In 1 Corinthians 14:23-40, he instructs them concerning their conduct when “the whole church should assemble together” for what we have previously referred to as the open ministry meeting.  The thrust of his instruction is “Let all things be done for edification. … Let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner” (1Corinthians 14:26,40).  Unfortunately, many in the denominational systems use this particular portion in 1 Corinthians as justification for a clergy system.  They argue that a clergy system prevents the disorder described within the Corinthian church.

While it may be true that a clergy system can prevent disorder, notice the solution to disorder given by the Apostle Paul: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn” (1 Corinthians 14:27), and “For you can all prophesy one by one” (1 Corinthians 14:31).  Paul states what should be God’s order as directed by the Holy Spirit.  Although there had been disorder, His solution is not control by one man or a class of men (i.e., a clergy), but rather, subjection of all to God’s order.  The Corinthians were to speak one at a time and wait patiently, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, for a time during which to speak.  While others spoke, they were to listen to the message being delivered for the edification of the church and judge (i.e., discern) what was being taught. 

Throughout this entire portion of 1 Corinthians 14, the Apostle Paul never intimates that the two or three speaking or prophesying are to be limited to those who are elders, overseers, or pastors.  Rather, any might have the opportunity to share with the assembly if they have something from the Lord, be it a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, or an interpretation.  Although they may have been present, there is no mention of elders, overseers, or pastors in this portion at all.  In fact, throughout the New Testament, is there any instruction for elders, overseers, or pastors to lead a church meeting?  They undoubtedly took part in such gatherings but not necessarily in the leading role as do those in the clergy system today.  While it is evident that an evangelist might of necessity lead a church meeting while instructing new believers during the formation stage of a church, there is no Scriptural evidence that such leadership should persist.

In addition to the lack of Scriptural support for the clergy system, its use often stifles the intended functioning of each member of the church.  The ‘laity’ are prevented from offering prayers, hymns, a word of teaching, and the chance to administer the Lord’s supper (breaking bread and sharing the cup of wine at the ‘remembrance meeting’).  This contradicts the teaching of the Apostle Peter who refers to Christian believers “as a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ”          (1 Peter 2:5).  Peter addressed these words to Christians in general, not specifically to overseers, elders, or pastors.  These words teach the priesthood of every believer (see also 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6).  A priesthood that is to “continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that give thanks to His name. And do not neglect doing good and sharing; for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Hebrews 13:15-16).  Even though many claim to understand that all believers are priests, this teaching is effectively denied or limited in practice by those who submit to the clergy system.

The clergy system may also diminish the value of Christ’s work on the cross in the eyes of some by giving a false impression.  Because of the control he yields, the clergyman in some systems may tend to be perceived as an intermediary between man and God (i.e., a priest).  However, Christians no longer need to seek God through an intermediary as in past times when the Jews were required by the Mosaic Law to bring an animal to the priests at the temple in Jerusalem.  The priests would serve as an intermediary and offer the animal as a sacrifice on behalf of the people to make restitution for their sins (for “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness [of sins],” Hebrews 9:22).  Instead, Christ has made the all-sufficient sacrifice (of which the Old Testament sacrifices in the Jewish temple were a foreshadow) by taking God’s judgment of our sins upon Himself and shedding His blood on the cross “that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

When Christ died, “the veil of the [Jewish] temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:51).  Prior to Christ’s crucifixion, God intended that the veil separate the people and the priests of Israel from the holy place in the Jewish temple where He dwelled.  Only the high priest was allowed within the veil and only on one day each year when he was to provide a sin offering for himself and the entire nation of Israel (see Leviticus 16).  The tearing of this veil upon Christ’s death is symbolic of the fact that, because of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, man need no longer be separated from God.  In short, each believer may now approach God directly on the basis of the blood of Christ rather than through the offerings of an intermediary priest.  Again, this expresses the principle of the priesthood of all believers, who now have direct access to God, and thus, ends the need for an intermediary clergy.  No mortal man is now our mediator, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).  The extinction of the need for an intermediary priesthood such as Israel’s is covered in the book of Hebrews chapters 5-10.

The preceding paragraphs may still leave you wondering about the function of elders and overseers within the church.  Perhaps an analogy to an engineering office may be useful at demonstrating the function of elders and overseers within the church.  At the engineering office, the principals and senior engineering associates use their years of experience and accumulated knowledge to oversee the work of less experienced engineers.  Although not as experienced, these young engineers are still permitted to practice engineering (i.e., run calculations, prepare plans, and deal with the architect/client).  If a young engineer makes an error in a calculation or on a drawing which contradicts sound engineering practice, a senior engineer will play a role akin to the elder or overseer in the church and correct him with the hope that he will learn and develop as an engineer.  The young engineer would not be restricted from practicing engineering unless he made repeated mistakes and refused to recognize sound engineering practice, in which case he might be fired (the equivalent of excommunication).

Now let us turn the analogy to demonstrate how the engineering office would be run if it mirrored the clergy system.  It would be akin to placing the entire engineering burden upon the principals and senior engineering associates while restricting the remaining so-called engineers to filing, typing, and non-engineering duties.  This would result in an overburdened and burned-out senior engineering staff and produce underachievement and a waste of talent from the younger engineers.  The full engineering potential of the younger engineers would never be realized.

This brings to mind the admonishment by the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God,” (Hebrews 5:12).  How can one fully grow as a Christian to become a teacher and defender of the faith when restricted by the clergy system?  Instead, God expresses His wishes for the result of the work of those active in the church in Ephesians 4:11-16 : “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.  As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love” (boldface added for emphasis).  This requires that, as believers, we each do our part to grow as Christians in response to Christ’s leading and, in the process, help others to mature also.

As a Scriptural example of the possible consequences of domination by a single man within the church, we have the New Testament record of Diotrephes.  The Apostle John gives his assessment of the actions of this controlling man in one of the early churches: “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.  For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church” (see 3 John 1:9-10). 

Historically, we can look back upon cases where men have used the clergy system within Christendom to first subjugate and then control, manipulate, and financially exploit people and nations.  Many of the actions and false teachings promoted by clerical leaders of the Roman Catholic Church over the centuries serve as an example of this behavior {e.g., the doctrine of Purgatory (593 A.D.), the Inquisition (1184 A.D.), the Sale of Indulgences (1190 A.D.), the Bible forbidden to laymen (placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse 1229 A.D.), requiring confession of sins to a priest, etc.}.  The abuse of authority among clergy within Protestant or Orthodox denominations also exists and is certainly an abomination in the sight of the Lord. 

The dark picture of a tyrannical clergy system painted in the preceding two paragraphs is obviously one brought about by men who have been corrupted by the pursuit of power and money.  In sharp contrast, there is no denying that through the years many persons in the clergy system have sincerely dedicated their lives to the service of the Lord and His church, often at a high personal cost.  There is also no denying the use of such persons by the Lord Jesus to His honor and glory through evangelism, teaching, and exhortation, even today.  A question to be considered is, “Does evidence of the Lord’s work in such a person’s ministry validate the clergy system or does He intervene in spite of the clergy system?”  A thorough study of the Scriptures reveals the latter to be the case for reasons stated in this paper.  The Lord intervenes in spite of the clergy system because He loves His people, just as He can intervene to use every Christian in spite of our faults.  However, when we learn of a practice in our life which is contrary to His will, we should act responsibly and make the necessary changes to be consistent with His will so that we may be more useful for His purposes (see 2 Timothy 2:20-21).

Though not the intention of many of those within its ranks, the clergy system (as evidenced in many congregations today) manages to conquer or defeat the people of God whom it purports to serve, even in churches where the ‘pastor’ or ‘minister’ is sincerely serving the Lord.  In many instances, contrary to the desire of the clergyman, this conquering is the byproduct of a system indifferent to the slothfulness of laymen.  Unfortunately, many Christians feel that they are too busy to spend the time necessary to read, study, and understand the Bible.  Instead, they rely on the ‘pastor’ or ‘minister,’ whom they financially support, to devote himself to the full-time study and teaching of the Word of God.  The ‘pastor’ or ‘minister’ is then to transmit this knowledge to the ‘laity’ each Sunday.  No ‘pastor’ or ‘minister,’ regardless of how gifted or well intentioned, can provide a one hour sermon which will substitute for a week’s worth of personal study and meditation upon the Bible.

Reliance upon the ‘pastor’ or ‘minister’ frequently results in a ‘laity’ which is spiritually malnourished, not well grounded in Scripture, and susceptible to false teaching either from within or without the church.  This is exactly what the Apostle Paul warned against in Ephesians 4:14: “we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.”  Instead, we are to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).  We are to be active in our reception of the Word and testing what is taught by others as was said of the Bereans when taught by Paul and Silas : “for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so”  (Acts 17:11).  What were the results of this personal examination by the Bereans?  “Many of them therefore believed” (Acts 17:12).  As a consequence of their diligent study, we can be sure that the Berean’s spiritual experience was not based purely on emotion, but rather on the firm foundation of God’s promises revealed through His written Word and ingrained in their minds.  We might also recall that, when asked by the Pharisees to name the greatest commandment, the Lord Jesus said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37, boldface and italics added).  Therefore, personal study and understanding are important.

Additionally, the Bible teaches that as believers we are to “be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear,” (1^st Peter 3:15, KJV).  This applies to all believers, not just the ‘pastor.’  How can we confidently give Scriptural responses to the questions of others if we are relying upon the ‘pastor’ to do our studying for us?  Unfortunately, the clergyman frequently becomes a convenient means of excusing ourselves from living for Christ in order to pursue our own interests.  In this way, the clergy system may retard the spiritual growth of the people of Christ who choose not to seek the full potential which God desires for them in their service to Him.

Recognition of Elders, Overseers, Deacons, and Pastors

After reading the preceding portion, a perfectly sensible question might be: “How are elders, overseers, deacons, and pastors to be selected in a local church?”  The New Testament record of the early church gives several examples of the selection of men for various responsibilities. 

Elders and Overseers (i.e., Bishops)

As to the ordination of elders and overseers, we have several Scriptures to which we can refer:

1. During the missionary journey of the Apostle Paul and Barnabas in the regions of Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium, the Bible states that “after they [Paul, Barnabas, and their disciples] had preached the gospel to that city [Derbe] and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying ‘Through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom of God.’  And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they believed.”  (Acts 14:23)

• When the Apostle Paul called upon the elders of the church in Ephesus to bid them farewell, he warned them, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”  (Acts 20:28)

• The Apostle Paul instructed Titus, a trusted disciple, to “appoint elders in every city [in Crete] as I directed you.” (Titus 1:5)

• Relating to the recognition of overseers is 1 Timothy 3 where qualifications or characteristics of an overseer are listed.  Here the Bible states that “It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work which he desires to do.”  (1 Timothy 3:1)

Of the four verses listed, two give examples of appointment by an apostle or apostolic delegate (i.e., Titus), another gives an example of appointment by the Holy Spirit, and the last gives desire as one of the needed attributes.

At the time of the early church, many within the church were propagating false doctrine and advocating a return to the Mosaic law.  (Sadly, such is still the case today.)  The fact that God desires righteous men to serve as overseers in the churches and guard against such false teaching was not yet established.  The Old Testament gave no direction for the conduct or order of the church and they did not yet have the complete written record of the New Testament to consult.  Thus, they needed direction from God through the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the apostles. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the apostles and disciples under their direction to point out godly men for recognition as overseers at some churches as evidenced in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1.  At other churches, the Holy Spirit revealed the need for some to act as overseers as was the case of the Ephesian elders spoken of in Acts 20:28.

Notice that the local church did not have a hand in the selection of its overseers.  In fact, instruction regarding the selection of overseers is not provided in any of the epistles addressed to the churches.  Rather, a list of attributes which overseers must possess is given in epistles addressed to specific disciples (Timothy and Titus) who were helping the Apostle Paul.  In the case of Titus, he was instructed to appoint elders who had these attributes in the churches of Crete.  With regards to Timothy, no instruction is given for him to appoint overseers at Ephesus.  Rather, he is instructed to “point out these things [among which are attributes of overseers] to the brethren” and to “prescribe and teach these things” (1 Timothy 4:6,11).  Therefore, it appears that the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Timothy were given to stir up those already qualified to function in the needed role of an overseer and to encourage those who should aspire to exercise oversight.  No appointment by men within the church is listed as necessary to perform this role.

When the New Testament was written, the Holy Spirit chose to include 1 Timothy and Titus as part of Scripture.  These epistles demonstrate the lives that Christian men and women should desire to live.  The attributes of overseers given in these epistles also provide the church with a description by which  they may recognize those men who are worthy of acting as overseers.  Now that we have the written revelation of God’s order for the church, godly men simply need to recognize the need for overseers in the church, desire to conduct their life in an upright manner consistent with the attributes presented in 1 Timothy and Titus, study the Scriptures to know how to rightly divide the Word of God, and act responsibly as an overseer if so led by the Holy Spirit as they advance in their spiritual maturity and age.

It is the responsibility of the individuals  who comprise the church:

1. To recognize qualified men acting as overseers: “But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13);

• To follow their example: “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.” (Hebrews 13:7);

• To listen and comply with their advice and guidance: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17).

When appropriate men (whose lives are in accordance with the aforementioned attributes) act as overseers, the church should recognize them as overseers without need of giving them an official title.  In fact, Jesus discourages the use of titles to distinguish among brethren, as can be seen in Matthew 23:8-10: “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.  And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.  And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”

Deacons (i.e., Servants or Ministers)

With regard to the selection of deacons, the Bible provides attributes which deacons (or ministers) must possess in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.  Additionally, Acts 6:1-6 tells of a difficulty within the early church regarding the serving of tables which required the selection of deacons (or ministers):  “Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.  And the twelve [apostles] summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, ‘It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.  But select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.  But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.’  And the statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.  And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.”  Notice that the entire congregation selected these servants (i.e., deacons or ministers) and then brought them before the apostles.  We can conclude then, that everybody in a local church should have the opportunity for input concerning the selection of deacons.

Pastors

As previously mentioned, the work of a pastor is shepherding – counseling, practically applying the Word to individual lives, and leading by example.  The only mention of pastors in the Bible states that they are a gift to the church from Christ (see Ephesians 4:11).  Because the ability to act as a pastor is a gift, no selection or ordination is needed.  The person must simply have the desire to exercise the gift.  Neither is it implied that each local church may have one.  Some local churches may be gifted with several pastors, while others may not have any pastors and may be in need of periodic visitation by pastors from other churches.  As with overseers, the church should recognize them as pastors without need of giving them an official title

The Laying on of Hands

Before leaving the subject of recognition of elders, overseers, deacons, and pastors, the subject of ‘laying on of hands’ should be addressed.  Some within Christendom today teach the ‘laying on of hands’ to be a Scriptural confirmation for ordination by those within the church.  Let us take a look at the New Testament passages which use the phrase ‘laying on of hands.’  The ‘laying on of hands’ recorded in the New Testament may be classified according to the following three purposes:

1. To signify an identification or association with the person on whom the hands are laid.  Examples of this include Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, 1 Timothy 5:22.

• To bestow either the Holy Spirit or a gift upon the person on whom the hands are laid.  Examples of this include Acts 8:17, Acts 9:17, Acts 19:6, 1 Timothy 4:14,    2 Timothy 1:6.

• To heal persons from their illnesses or handicaps.  Examples of this include   Luke 4:40, Luke 13:13, Acts 28:8.

Since our purpose here is to look at the laying on of hands in connection with selection or ‘ordination,’ let us take a closer look at some of the examples in the first category which are often used to support ordination.  The first category is identified as the ‘laying on of hands’ to signify an identification or association with the person on whom the hands are laid.  Such a meaning for the laying on of hands is illustrated in the Old Testament.  For example, when the Mosaic law was being instituted, we read that the Lord spoke to Moses saying:

“So shall you present the Levites [priests] before the tent of meeting.  You shall also assemble the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, and present the Levites before the Lord; and the sons of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites.  Aaron then shall present the Levites before the Lord as wave offering from the sons of Israel, that they may qualify to perform the service of the Lord.  Now the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the bulls; then offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering to the Lord, to make atonement for the Levites” (Numbers 8:9-12; see also Leviticus 8:16).

The implied significance of the sons (i.e., nation) of Israel laying their hands on the Levites  was that they were showing an identification with the Levites.  The sons of Israel were acknowledging that the Levites were, in effect, taking their place before God.  This became the priestly duty of the Levites.  In turn, the Levites laid their hands on the heads of the bulls which were to be sacrificed as a sin offering.  By doing so, they were identifying themselves with the bulls to be offered.  In effect, they were illustrating that the bulls were taking their place as though their sins (and in turn the sins of the sons of Israel) were placed upon the bull.  We see from this that people are identifying themselves in God’s eyes with the object on whom their hands are laid.

Now look at the New Testament verses which have a similar meaning implied by the term – ‘laying on of hands.’  In 1 Timothy 5:22, the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.”  From this, we can understand that he means not to identify with someone too quickly.  Get to know one first before allowing him/her to become associated with you, especially in the breaking of bread.  Otherwise, there is a danger that others who may be aware of this person’s wicked ways will also judge you, and consequently the church, to be of the same character.  The church then shares in the sin of such a person and the poor testimony that it gives to the world. 

Another important illustration of ‘laying on of hands’ for the purpose of identification is given in Acts chapter 13.  There we read of the church at Antioch.  “And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’  Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away”  (Acts 13:2-3).  In this instance, by the laying on of hands, the church at Antioch identified itself as partners with Barnabas and Saul in the missionary work which they were setting out to do.  This is not a passage validating ordination by man as some have supposed.  The passage clearly expresses that Barnabas and Saul were “set apart … for the work to which I have called them” by the Holy Spirit, not by men in the church at Antioch.  Furthermore, verse 5 states that they were “sent out by the Holy Spirit.”  It does not say that they were sent out by the church at Antioch.

Additionally, we read in preceding chapters that Barnabas was “full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (Acts 11:24).  In preceding chapters, we also read of Barnabas and Saul “that for an entire year they met with the church [at Antioch], and taught considerable numbers [of people]” (Acts 11:26).  Apparently, they were already teaching and ministering to believers in the church at Antioch prior to the ‘laying on of hands’ by members of this same church as described in Acts chapter 13.  Therefore, it is evident that the ‘laying on of hands’ by those of the church at Antioch (Acts 13:3) did not constitute ordination of Barnabas and Saul.

Responsibility

As a word of warning, the absence of an official clergy system does not eliminate the previously mentioned dangers caused by controlling men or lazy believers who are indifferent in their service to God.  An unofficial form of clergy can arise when believers in a local church neglect to exercise their priestly responsibilities and gifts.  Rather than offering prayers, hymns, or Biblical messages during meetings, they wait for others to act on their behalf.  Through passivity, the privileges and responsibilities may be relegated to a single man or a small group of men who, though sensing the lack of participation by others, refuse to shrink from their priestly duties out of a love for the Lord. 

Persons who neglect to exercise their priestly responsibilities and gifts may need encouragement to grow spiritually.  Many factors may affect one’s willingness or ability to contribute and/or the frequency of these contributions.  Some of these factors may include timidity, spiritual maturity, lack of familiarity with Scriptures, or limited preparation during the week due to other obligations.  Priestly contributions may also be affected by limited opportunities resulting from a large local church with many participants or by the fact that the person’s gift may not be in the vocal aspects of the church.  For these reasons, it is dangerous to equate infrequent participation with an absence of appreciation for the Lord.  Because some of the factors mentioned require time to overcome, patience, understanding, and love from the church is required and care should be taken so that encouragement is not perceived as pressure. 

We would do well to apply the lesson of the widow’s coins to our priestly service.  Remember the perspective of the Lord Jesus when viewing the poor widow’s donation to God at the temple:

“And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury.  And He saw a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins.  And He said, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them;  for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.”  (Matthew 21:1-4)

What may appear of little value to men may be of great value to God.  Though we may be only an infant spiritually or have but a short feeble prayer to offer, we can be sure that it is of great value and honor to God if said with sincerity.  Therefore, we should take encouragement to offer our spiritual ‘pennies’ at the feet of the Lord Jesus and diligently continue in spiritual growth with the knowledge that those pennies will become nickels, dimes, quarters, and silver dollars.  

In contrast to lack of contribution, it is possible for a person to participate without the leading of the Holy Spirit.  They may do so on a regular basis out of routine and without a true desire to honor the Lord.  Others may participate out of the desire to give the impression of being ‘knowledgeable’ or ‘righteous’ before others in the church (see Matthew 6:1-7).  Still others may zealously participate out of a desire to exercise control or influence upon others and gain a sense of power (see 3 John 1:9-10).

Ultimately, only God can truly assess the actions, service, contributions, and motivations of those involved in the church.  Christians should not take this upon themselves (1 Corinthians 4:3-5).  Regardless of how others in the church appear to be handling their spiritual responsibilities, it is important to remember that each believer must answer to the Lord for his or her own spiritual responsibilities.  How are you doing with yours?

The Necessity for Church Discipline

The church is not to blindly accept the profession of a Christian.  Conduct (a.k.a. work or fruit) should give evidence to support a person’s profession of faith in Christ (see 1 John 1:6-7, John 15:1-8, James 2:14-20, and Matthew 13:18-23).  However, it may be that some genuine Christians are at a period in their life when their conduct is contrary to the clearly expressed will of God.  Christians who engage in clearly immoral behavior still are part of the church in the eyes of the Lord; however, if unrepentant, they may appear indistinguishable from unbelievers or apostates to other members of the church.  The church then must obey the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul by refusing to associate with the unrepentant sinners within the church.  The testimony of the church before mankind as “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and the honoring of the Lord’s name depend on this.

Scriptural precedence for discipline and even excommunication (i.e., to be put out of fellowship) from the church, when necessary, is first provided by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17: “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.  But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.  And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer.”  As can be seen in this passage, the immediate desire should not be to publicly expose and hastily expel fellow believers who have sinned.  Rather, out of concern for them, the Lord’s instruction requests that we privately and kindly make them aware of their sin so that they might repent of it and their testimony be restored.  (Such sentiment is also expressed by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 6:1: “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.”)  However, if such a person refuses to acknowledge and repent of his/her sin after having it repeatedly brought to his/her attention and eventually the local church’s attention, Jesus instructs in verse 17 that this person is to be regarded as an unbeliever (though he may in fact be a backslidden believer) and must be put out of fellowship.

Another example of excommunication is given in 1 Corinthians 5.  In this chapter, the Apostle Paul admonishes the Corinthian church for overlooking the sin of a man in their midst who was sleeping with his father’s wife (i.e., his stepmother).  He instructs them “not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler” (1 Corinthians 5:9, italics added).  He also teaches that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough” (1 Corinthians 5:6) indicating that tolerance of the sin of this man resulted in a deleterious effect upon the entire church.  When unbelievers see a person openly acting immorally without remorse while claiming to be a Christian and gathering with the local church, they naturally assume that such immorality is tolerated within the church and come to associate immoral activity with those who call themselves Christians.  This gives a poor testimony and dishonors the name of the Lord.

To project the proper testimony of the church to the world, the Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian saints to “deliver such an one unto Satan to the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:5).  The unrepentant person, whose immorality is the result of fleshly living, is put out of association with the church and is given over for Satan to sift in hope that he might learn that there is no good in the flesh.  (For similar reasons, the Lord Jesus allowed Satan to sift Peter so that he would learn not to trust in his flesh, see Luke 22:31-34). 

Though unrepentant after excommunication from the church at Corinth, suppose this man had sought fellowship with Christians in a church at a different location, for example, the church at Ephesus.  Should the Ephesian church receive this man into fellowship? Jesus taught of the church that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 18:18-19).  Therefore, if the Corinthian church had acted with good cause to excommunicate the man, God would recognize this decision as a binding act of the church.  To be in accordance with God’s will, the church at Ephesus must act in concert with the church at Corinth and refuse fellowship to this man.  To receive the man would deny the unity of the body of Christ (the church) and undermine God’s judgment upon this man as implemented by the church at Corinth.  As previously noted, it would also result in the entire church partaking of the man’s sin (i.e., “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”).  Therefore, it is important that a local church know with whom they are associating and receiving into fellowship.  Along this line of thought, the Apostle Paul instructed Timothy : “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin” (1 Timothy 5:22).

It is evident that there is need for communication between the local churches so that together they might give forth a unified testimony as “the pillar and support of the truth.”  In the days of the early church, we read of men such as Paul, Apollos, and others who traveled between the churches to instruct and minister to them and keep them consistent in their practices.  Also, letters of introduction were written by widely recognized members of a local church to commend fellow believers in good standing who were traveling to distant churches where they were unknown.  For example, after Aquila and Priscilla had explained to Apollos “the way of God more accurately” in Ephesus, we read that “when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren [in the church at Ephesus] encouraged him and wrote to the disciples [in the church at Corinth] to welcome him” (Acts 18:27).  Also, the Apostle Paul indicated in 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 that unknown ones needed commendatory letters to introduce them to other churches, though he did not, since he and the Corinthians knew each other so well.  Other Scriptural examples or references to letters of commendation may be found in 1 Corinthians 16:3 and the book of Philemon which is itself a letter of commendation from the Apostle Paul to the church in the house of Archippus and Apphia on behalf of the runaway slave Onesimus.

Unfortunately, today there are many congregations that quickly welcome anybody into fellowship without knowing anything about them.  These gatherings allow any stranger who comes into their presence on Sunday morning to associate with them through partaking of the bread and the wine.  By receiving such strangers without knowing whether they are living in unjudged sin (e.g., fornication, drunkenness, homosexuality, etc.) or possess false doctrines or beliefs (e.g., denying the deity of Christ, trusting in works for salvation rather than the shedding of the blood of Christ, etc.), the church is partaking in the sins of such a person.  Such visiting strangers may actually have been excommunicated from another church for good reason, yet the receiving congregation readily accepts them into their fellowship.

The Scriptures teach, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others.”  Therefore, the receiving church should get to know the person wishing to come into fellowship.  This may take some time and will require understanding on the part of the person wishing to join the testimony of the local church.

Such a guarded approach to associations and fellowship does not necessarily mean that a person who is excommunicated from fellowship is not a Christian.  It is simply a recognition by the church that the person’s conduct is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Bible.  Excommunication or withholding fellowship should be done with the hope that the person refused fellowship might come to a recognition of their sin, repent of it, and be restored to fellowship.  Eventually, such was the case for the excommunicated man previously mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5.  The Apostle Paul writes regarding this man  in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8: ”But if any has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not to me, but in some degree – in order not to say too much – to all of you.  Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that on the contrary you should rather forgive and comfort him, lest somehow such a one be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.  Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.”  The story of the prodigal son is also an example of God’s will that we warmly receive back a wayward brother who has sincerely repented (see Luke 15,11-32).  We see then that the church should receive back into fellowship those who recognize their sin and repent of it as a result of excommunication.

Another passage of scripture containing the same line of thought regarding separation is 2 Timothy 2:15-22 : “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.  But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene.  Among them are Hymenaeus  and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.  Nevertheless, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, ‘The Lord knows those who are His,’ and, ‘Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness.’  Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor.  Therefore, if a man cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work.  Now flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.”  In this portion, an example is given of two men who were spreading false doctrine and we are warned that in a large house (i.e., professing Christendom) there are vessels to honor and some to dishonor.  If we desire to be useful servants of God, we are instructed to “abstain from wickedness” and to “cleanse” (i.e., separate) ourselves from the “vessels of dishonor.”  We are to be “with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart,” not from a heart contaminated by the acceptance and practice of unrepentant sin.

Scriptural Principles for Judging

The preceding portion regarding church discipline requires the use of judgment.  Many people with limited acquaintance with the Bible come to various conclusions about whether a Christian should judge.  Some people are familiar with verses that forbid judgment while others are familiar with verses that command judgment.  To remove confusion regarding this subject it is necessary to examine the context of each verse which speaks of judgment.  In the hope of facilitating this exercise, the following portion attempts to categorize, by context, New Testament verses that speak of judging.

General Guidelines for Judging

People should not judge others with an air of superiority, especially when they have faults of their own which are not corrected (see Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37).  To do so will result in animosity and being called a hypocrite.  Judge yourself first and then humbly provide helpful criticism to others.  In short, a self righteous attitude will produce strife.  Unfortunately, the phrase “Do not judge lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1) is the verse which many respond with in opposition to a preacher who reveals that their lifestyle is sinful and subject to God’s judgment.  They fail to understand that it is the Word of God as revealed in the Bible which is judging them rather than the preacher.  The preacher, who may very well be unaware of their sins, is merely the messenger of God’s Word.

Guidelines for Judging the World

Christians are not to judge the unsaved persons of the world; this is to be left to God (see 1 Corinthians 5:12-13).  This does not preclude Christians from recognizing immoral behavior in persons of the world as being sinful (e.g., see lists of sins in Romans 1:28-32 and 2 Timothy 3:2-5), but Christians are not to judge them in the sense of assigning punishment as the juries and governments of the world are required to do.  The Christian’s realm of discipline is within the church (see the preceding portion) while the governments of the world are to maintain order outside the church (see Romans 13:1-7).  Additionally, God deals directly with individual sinners.

Guidelines for Judging within the Church

Christians are to judge unrepentant persons within the church who manifestly exhibit immoral behavior (see 1 Corinthians 5:3,12).  See the preceding sections of this paper.

Christians are not to judge or speak against one another based upon actions which are not manifestly evil or sinful.  Judging or speaking against a brother or sister regarding doubtful matters breaks the command to love your neighbor as yourself.  It usurps the place of God as Judge, who alone can know the heart and motives of the other person.  (James 4:11-12).  It is better to endure a perceived wrong (e.g., a rude comment) and give the benefit of the doubt to the other person in the spirit of love (see 1 Corinthians 13:7, Colossians 3:12-14).

Christians are to judge disputes between members within the church rather than taking the dispute to the court of law established by man (see 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 and         Acts 6:1-6).

Christians are to personally judge their own sins before eating the bread or drinking the cup of the Lord (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32).  Failure to do so will result in God’s discipline.

Christians are to judge the content of the teaching of others within the church (see 1 Corinthians 14:29).  Judgement is necessary for two reasons.  First, to ensure that the teaching is scriptural and thereby prevent the spread of false doctrine.  Second, to determine how the teaching applies to one’s own life.

Christians are not to judge the value of the service or ministry of other Christians (see 1 Corinthians 4:1-5).  Although the message presented by Apollos may have sounded better to some people than Paul’s message or vice versa, the value of the work of a servant of Christ should not be based upon perception.  Neither can the servant of Christ properly judge his own work.  Such evaluation should be left to the Lord alone.

Christians are not to judge the understanding of other Christians with regards to things such as being vegetarian, celebrating certain days, circumcision, etc. if they are done to the glory of God  (see Romans 14:1-13; 1 Corinthians 10:23-31; and Colossians 2:16).  Such things are matters of conscience and Christian liberty.  We should not let our beliefs on these nonessential matters stumble or offend fellow Christians.  Rather, remember that each Christian will be duly rewarded by the Lord for their service. 

Christians are not to judge or make distinctions based upon evil or ulterior motives (see James 2:1-4).

The Church as One Body

The need for discipline and separation from professing Christians who are dishonoring the Lord may appear to be at variance with the teaching of the one body of the church.  The New Testament teaches that the church is the body of Christ : “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22-23, see also Colossians 1:18).  Other verses teach that the church is one body : “For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.  For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit…But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 24-25, see also Romans 12:3-5; Ephesians 4:4,15-16; Colossians 3:15).  With this same thought, Jesus prayed concerning believers “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.  And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me” (John 17:21-23).

Therefore, the question may be asked, “How are we to demonstrate the truth of the one body when we judge and separate from others who may actually be part of the body of Christ?”  Several points may be made in response to this question.  First, if we have gone about separating from the person properly by giving him a chance to repent, we will have reason to doubt whether he is actually a fellow member of the body of Christ, in which case the truth of the one body is kept.  Even if he is indeed a fellow Christian, our break in fellowship with him does not put him out of the church.  Rather, it is God’s method by which to convict his conscience.  An example is the dinner table of a family with many children.  Each child has a place at the table.  However, when one child has been unruly and needs punishing, his parents may send him to his room without dinner.  He is still a member of the family, and although it may be vacant for a while, he still has a place at the dinner table waiting when he has learned his lesson.  So it is with the unrepentant yet true believer who is refused fellowship because he is living in sin.  He is still a member of the body of Christ, and he still has a place in fellowship awaiting him when he repents from his sin.

It is also important to note that, throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to keep the unity of the body but, rather, to keep the unity of the Spirit.  Although the church is one body and Christ knows who composes that body (“I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me,” John 10:14), fellow Christians not walking together in the unity of the Spirit may be unable to recognize one another.  The Apostle Paul instructed Christians to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called … being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).  It is therefore important to “endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit” amongst believers because the church can only present itself as unified to the world by following the Spirit.  The unity of the Spirit only occurs amongst those who’s walk is consistent with the will and character of God the Holy Spirit.  We should not forsake the truth presented by the Spirit in order to maintain unity with those members of the body who depart from the truth.  Elsewhere the Apostle Paul exhorts the church in Phillipi to be “of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (Phillipians 2:2).  Unity can only be achieved as far as the Spirit and truth are followed.  In short, maintaining unity with Christians from whom we should separate does not serve to unify the church.  Instead, it serves to unify rebellion against the Spirit and truth.

Concluding Remarks

Many Scriptural principles have been discussed in this paper which expose a contrast between the early church and the much of professing Christendom today concerning the conduct of the church.  Many people may argue that the truths presented in this paper (i.e., the proper use of the gift(s), the priesthood of each believer, discipline within the church, and separation from evil) are matters of individual discretion which are of minor importance and that what really matters is the attitude of one’s heart toward God.

While it is agreed that a failure to follow these truths will not result in a loss of salvation, we do live in a world of lost men, many of whom will mock and ridicule every failing of the church.  As shown in this paper, neglecting these truths can result in a weak and inconsistent testimony to the world by the church.  Unfortunately, in the eyes of many of the unsaved, these failures and hypocrisies of the church weaken its credibility to present the gospel.  Many souls are using these failings of the church as an excuse to spurn the gospel.  Thus, our failures appear to serve Satan’s purposes rather than God’s glory.  Far from being discarded as matters of minor importance, a return to these truths will help to build a stronger church resulting in a more credible testimony for Christ and His gospel.  Regardless of visible results, this is what honors God by acknowledging the place of headship He has given His Son over the church as recorded in the Bible. Therefore, it is important that both the method and the heart be in tune with God’s will.

For those who would argue that the attitude of the heart is all that matters, the Old Testament provides an example of how King David did the right thing in the wrong way when bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (see 1 Chronicles 13 and 15, and 2 Samuel 6:1-17).  The ark of the covenant had been lost in battle to the Philistines by the Israelites during a time of idolatry in the nation.  (Rather than seeking the mind of God concerning the battle through priests, prophets, or prayer, Israel had reasoned that the ark would bring them victory if they carried it into battle, see 1 Samuel 4:1-11).  After finding that the God of Israel was using the ark to plague them, the Philistines sent out the ark upon a new cart pulled by two cows in order to rid themselves of it (see 1 Samuel 5 and 6).  Eventually, the ark ended up back in Israel at the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim where it remained throughout the reign of King Saul. 

After David had become King of Israel, he rightly desired to bring the ark of God to the new capital and to build a temple for God in which to place it (i.e., his heart was in the right place).  To transport the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem, “they carried the ark of God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab, and Uzza and Ahio drove the cart” (1 Chronicles 13:7).  “When they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put out his hand to hold the ark, because the oxen nearly upset it.  And the anger of the Lord burned against Uzza, so He struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark; and he died there before God. … And David was afraid of God that day saying, ‘How can I bring the ark of God home to me?’  So David did not take the ark with him to the city of David, but took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.  Thus, the ark of God remained with the family of Obed-edom in his house for three months.”                     (1 Chronicles 13:9-14).  

God did not approve of the manner in which the ark was being transported.  He had given specific instructions to Moses that the ark should be carried by the Levites (see Exodus 25:13-14 and Deuteronomy 10:8).  Whether through careless oversight or ignorance, King David and the Israelites had not heeded the clearly expressed, written desire of the Lord for the manner of transport of His ark.  Instead, they were using a cart, the same method used by the ungodly, idolatrous Philistines who had dismissed the ark from their presence.  Such a difference in means of transportation of the ark may seem insignificant to us.  In fact, placing it upon an ox drawn cart appears to be a much faster and easier way than bearing it upon the shoulders of the priests.  However, God’s displeasure with this manner of transport was displayed when Uzza was struck dead for putting his hand to the ark when it teetered.  So, we see that although the intentions of David and the Israelites were good, they were not blessed until they carried out these intentions in the manner prescribed by the Lord.

Apparently during the three months that the ark was at the house of Obed-edom the Gittite, David did some studying of the Scriptures.  “Then David said, ‘No one is to carry the ark of God but the Levites; for the Lord chose them to carry the ark of God, and to minister to Him forever.’ … ‘Because you did not carry it at the first, the Lord our God made an outburst on us, for we did not seek Him according to the ordinance.’  So the priests and the Levites consecrated themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel.  And the sons of the Levites carried the ark of God on their shoulders, with the poles thereon as Moses had commanded according to the word of the Lord” (1 Chronicles 15:2,13-15).  Their reverence for the word of God was rewarded with the accomplishment of the task upon which they had originally set out.  “And they brought in the ark of God and placed it inside the tent which David had pitched for it, and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God” (1 Chronicles 16:1).

In this portion from the Old Testament, we learn that though we may have good intentions, such intentions should be carried out in accordance with His Word.  If we truly have a heart for the Lord, we need to know His will through the study of His Word.  It is hoped that this paper may serve as an introduction to some of the truths it references in the Bible.  It does not pretend to be a revelation of these truths or a supplement to God’s Word, the Bible, which is sufficient to stand alone.  Rather, it is intended to bring to the reader’s attention these truths which are already expressed in the Bible and to discuss their application.  May you take the time, as King David did regarding the ark, to review the referenced passages from the Scriptures in their full context and allow the Spirit of God to speak to you through His Word.

May the grace of God be with you in this and all endeavors.

Further Reading

The author found the following books/booklets helpful when learning of the church truths presented in this paper and recommends them to those interested in further reading upon the subject.  Many of the thoughts and ideas presented in this paper have been borrowed or inspired by the comments of these authors in their writings upon the Biblical passages regarding church truths.

The Church Today: Instructions from the New Testament by Paul L. Canner

The Church: What Is It? by W.T.P. Wolston

The Church and its Order According to Scripture by Samuel Ridout

The Church of God by William Kelly

A Divine Movement & Our Path With God Today by F.W. Grant

Calling Upon the Lord by C. Crain

Nicolaitanism or the Rise and Growth of Clerisy by F.W.Grant

The Church in a Day of Ruin by Paul L. Canner

Post Script

There is a small group of Christians who recognize the truths outlined in this paper and who gather to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ alone in Vancouver, Washington.   They are linked with other assemblies gathering to the Lord’s name alone throughout the world in a circle of fellowship through mutual doctrine, communication, and letters of commendation as has been mentioned in this paper.  They form a local representation of the church (the One Body), according to scripture.  They are but one of many other such small gatherings of Christians across the nation and throughout the world that manifest scriptural teachings relative to the form and substance of their meetings for worship, ministry, and prayer.  They practice the scriptural teachings of the priesthood of each believer, discipline within the church, and separation from evil.  Thus, in a manner very distinct from much of Christendom, these Christians meet for worship without pre-designated control of a clergy system, though they recognize gifts and guidance of spiritually mature elders.  The worship is not scripted as at many other ‘churches’; therefore, no programs are distributed as one enters to indicate the hymns to be sung that day or the topic of a sermon.  Rather, the hymns, prayers, Bible passages, and praises are contributed by any of the men in fellowship, as they feel led by the Spirit, while the meeting progresses.  Unbelievers and strangers are certainly welcomed, but are not permitted to participate in worship, ministry, or prayer meetings.  Once known well enough (over a period of time), the standing (saved or unsaved), and state (living in or practicing outward sin) of visitors desiring fellowship are ascertained.  To honor the Word of God and to protect the Person of Christ, those believers not living in or practicing outward sin are welcomed into fellowship.

---

[1] If you have not repented of your sins and accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your savior, this paper concerning church truths may be of interest to you; however, if you adopt any or all of the practices mentioned herein, it will not be of any value to you or God unless you are trusting entirely in the shedding of Christ’s blood for your salvation.  To adopt these practices without repentance would effectively be presenting one’s good works and obedience to God as a means of righteousness.   The message of the gospel, however, is that salvation is a gift of God received by faith alone and not the product of works (see Romans 3:21-28, Galatians 2:15-16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7, etc.).  Be not like the Pharisee, but rather, be like the repentant tax-gatherer of Luke 18:9-14 and trust in the Lord Jesus.

[2] The female believers may exercise their gifts too, although it should be in a silent manner such as supportive prayer that the Holy Spirit might use one of the men to deliver an edifying message.  This is in accordance with Scripture which teaches that women are to be silent in the church (see 1 Corinthians 14:34-36) and are not to “teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (see 1 Timothy 2:11-14).  The silence of women within church meetings is in accordance with God’s intended order of things, namely that man is the head of woman, and Christ is the head of man (see 1 Corinthians 11:3).  This order is taught throughout the Bible with the intention that the man-woman relationship is to be a picture of the marriage between Christ and His bride, the church (see Ephesians 5:22-33).  In the marriage, the woman is to submit to her husband just as the church is to submit to the will of Christ.  Likewise, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church by giving His life for it.  The woman’s role in submitting does not make her inferior to the man, rather, it is the role specifically given to her by God in fulfilling this picture of Christ and the church.  In fact, we read that Jesus submitted Himself to the will of God the Father although, as part of the Trinity, He was not inferior to His Father (see Matthew 26:39).  In a likewise manner, men are directed to be submissive to Christ.   

[3] Tongues, as used in the Word, does not refer to gibberish.  Rather, it refers to a gift of the Holy Spirit that enables the gifted person to speak a foreign language (e.g., Italian, Chinese, Spanish, etc.) in which they are unlearned.  The Apostle Paul taught that “tongues are for a sign, not for those who believe but for unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22).  It was a gift given to the early church as a sign from God which validated the change from adherence to the Mosaic Law by the Jews to the appearance of the grace of God to all through Christ (see also 1 Corinthians 14:21).  Such an example of this use of tongues is given in Acts 2:1-11 where on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit enabled the believers to speak in languages so that men present that day from various parts of the world exclaimed, “we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

  Many believe that gifts such as tongues, healing, and miracles were temporary and applicable only to the times of the early church when transition was being made from Judaism to Christianity (see above verses and 1 Corinthians 13:8).  It is beyond the scope of this paper to tackle this subject; however, if tongues do still exist as a gift today, the scriptural principles given by the Apostle Paul should govern their use.  In the church, the Apostle Paul specifies that tongues should only be exercised if an interpreter is in attendance so that all present may be edified by the message brought (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).  Paul teaches that the exultation in the use of tongues by some during assembly meetings of the Corinthian church was misguided.  He states, “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:18-19).  It follows, therefore, if all believers in a local church speak a common language, the common language should be used to avoid confusion.  Furthermore, the use of tongues without an interpreter in a church gathering gives the appearance of madness to visitors and those listeners who cannot interpret (see 1 Corinthians 14:23).

[4] Although healing and miracles were performed by Jesus and his disciples, there is reason to believe that these gifts served as a temporary sign from God during the transition period from Judaism to Christianity and may no longer be evidenced in the church today (see also footnote 2 regarding tongues).  Even should these gifts be in evidence today, healing and the ability to be healed is not proportionate to the amount of one’s faith as taught by some.  For example, although he healed others, the Apostle Paul was not able to heal himself from the thorn in the flesh which he describes in 2 Corinthians 12.  Neither did he heal Timothy of his stomach problem and ailments, but instead prescribed wine (see 1 Timothy 5:23).  God often uses these infirmities and afflictions to show our weakness and demonstrate that we are “earthen vessels” (2 Corinthians 4:7) which need to look to Him for strength rather than ourselves.

  Finally, healing should be exercised in the spirit of love as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13.  Here, we read that love “does not seek its own.”  Is this true of those today who promote their “gift of healing” in front of television audiences or sold out arenas?  Are they acting on behalf of the ailing or on behalf of their own financial interests?

[5] Prophesying is speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit to bring a message that God wants delivered for a pertinent and/or specific purpose.  It does not necessarily mean predicting the future, although many of the messages which the Old Testament prophets delivered did concern the future as did the prophecy of Agabus in the New Testament (see Acts 21:10-11).   

[6] See footnote 2.

[7] Women may instruct one another as evidenced by Titus 2:3-5, however they are to be silent during an assembly meeting of the church when men are present as previously noted in footnote 2.

[8] The names for the seven chosen are all Hellenistic.  This willingness of the native Jews to entrust the food distribution to an entirely Hellenistic group of Jews who had complained against them displays an unnatural trust that gives evidence to the working of the Holy Spirit in this early church.

7/12/2009

OccasionalFellowship_RememberingTheLordWithPeopleWhoAreNotFamiliarToSomeInOurAssembly

A Response To An Inquiry.

Part 1

Dear __________

1          Some years ago when I first encountered the Darby letters you mention they troubled me for a while. As I understand it they mention receiving at the Lord’s Table believers who are casual visitors but known to be godly and with a consistent walk.  Some among us call this “Occasional Fellowship”.  It is practiced in various forms and degrees by some groups of believers who gather similarly to the way we do.  However, I firmly believe that the practice he describes is not scriptural.  (These same writers are very firm about ever going back to visit a church they had left, even if merely asked to speak).

2          The practice of “occasional fellowship” by an assembly in England in the late 1930s and 1940s led to a major division in 1947‑8.  We separated from them because they were receiving believers on occasional visits from assemblies from which we had separated around 1900.  This separation was because of unscriptural teaching by a brother (F. E. Raven) regarding the humanity and eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ  This was basic and fundamental to Christianity and could not be continued with.  I think you will agree that resuming fellowship with them, even on an occasional basis, would be associating ourselves with teaching that denied the Lord, and would be dishonoring Him.

3          Breaking bread at remembrance meeting is a sign and gesture of fellowship with all members of the Lord’s body, the church.  1 Corinthians 10:16‑17.  It may seem paradoxical that in order to faithfully honor the Lord and the unity of His body we must not have fellowship in breaking of bread with some believers even though they are members of His body.  That is the sad consequence of our failure to be faithful to His name and His word down through the history of the church.

4          Yet He still gathers believers unto His Name, out of the midst of the departure and confusion.  He will continue bringing others out to be gathered “with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”, 2 Timothy 2:22.  In being gathered this way, in grace and truth, we are “keeping the unity of the Spirit” Ephesians 4:4.  That is, we are “walking worthy of the calling to which we have been called.” Eph. 4:1.  Basically we are trying to return and keep as much as possible to the way marked out for us in the New Testament.  For example, our local assemblies receive believers because they are the Lord’s.  We can do this in grace, and in truth, if they have no obvious false doctrine, immorality, or associations with groups that do.  On the other hand, for these reasons we do not receive (or we are to exclude) some believers.  But we are limited to the reasons taught us in scripture.

5          In turn, we are part of a fellowship of assemblies which each receive or exclude other believers based only upon the action of any one of the local assemblies.  This practice is facilitated by letters of commendation.  Romans 16:1. (Phone calls and email work nowadays.)  This fellowship of assemblies is sometimes called a “circle of fellowship.”  It is scriptural because it recognizes the unity of the body. We do not have to reexamine every one coming to us from another assembly.  In fact, to do that would, in practice, deny the unity of the body of Christ.  In short, the local assembly and the “Fellowship” or the “circle of fellowship” are each a microcosm of the Body of Christ.  1 Corinthians 12:27.  The reason we are confined to a microcosm is because of the massive departure of most professing believers from the truth regarding the assembly and it’s order as revealed in the New Testament.  In holding and practicing  these truths, we are honoring the Lord to the extent we keep His word and do not deny His Name.

6          The underlying premise of what some call “occasional fellowship” is that some one knows the visitor and can vouch for that person’s upright, moral life and that he does not personally teach or hold doctrine (teaching) that contradicts what scripture reveals of Jesus Christ that is essential to being called Christian.  By this definition then, this visitor is a person who would be received (permanently) by the local assembly if he (or she) asked to take his place at the Lord’s Table.  If this is so, then the question boils down to: Why can’t we remember the Lord in breaking of bread with them on an interim or occasional basis?  To do so would seem to uphold the principle of the one Body highly valued in scripture. To do otherwise would seem to be sectarian, making unnecessary divisions in the body of believers making up the Body of Christ.

7          The practice of, what we call, “Occasional Fellowship” is seen by many as a necessary consequence of the unity of the body of Christ, which includes every born again person on earth. That unity certainly is true.  1Corinthians 12:13.  We witness to that every time we break the bread at the Lords Table.  1 Cor. 10:16‑17.  Yet in the same letter to the Corinthians the apostle Paul, in chapter 5, rebukes them for harboring immorality in their assembly, and instructs them to put away the wicked man from among them, even though he is called a brother.  There is, then, scriptural warrant to exclude some.

8          On the other hand we must not overstep and exclude some true believer for reasons not supported by scripture. There are many emphatic appeals in scripture to avoid unnecessary divisions and separations between believers. Paul chides the Corinthians for developing unscriptural divisions, or sects, by following leaders or teachings and forming sects. 1 Corinthians, chapters 1 ‑ 3. Romans 14 is another warning against unwarranted divisions between believers, due to differences in conscience as to serving the Lord. I will let you find some others. 

Part 2

9          While some believers will not question excluding a person due to obvious fundamental doctrinal error or immoral walk, they do honestly question the separation from others associated with such.  Does scripture speak to this question?  I believe it does.  There is a universal principle at stake here. Perhaps it is best stated by the phrase:

“A LITTLE LEAVEN LEAVENS THE WHOLE LUMP.”

This statement is made by the apostle Paul in two of his letters to assemblies.  The references are 1 Corinthians 5:7 and Galatians 5:9.  The one to the assembly at Corinth was regarding fellowship with immorality.  The one in Galatians was regarding fellowship with an erroneous teaching that undermined the value of the death of Christ on the cross.

1 Cor. 5:6          Your boasting [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?  7  Therefore purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: {is sacrificed; or, is slain}  8  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. {the feast: or, holyday}

Gal. 5:9           A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

In addition the Greek word translated purge in 1 Corinthians 5:7 is only used twice in the NT:

1 Cor. 5:7        Therefore purge out <1571> (5657) the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.

2 Tim. 2:21      If a man therefore will cleanse <1571> (5661) himself from these, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, and fit for the master’s use, [and] prepared to every good work.

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ Strong’s No. 1571 (GREEK) ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

 1571 ekkathairo {ek‑kath‑ah’‑ee‑ro} from 1537 and 2508; TDNT ‑ 3:430,381; v

AV ‑ purge out 1, purge 1; 2

 1) to cleanse out, clean thoroughly, to cleanse

All references to leaven in the scriptures seem to universally treat it as a symbol of evil.  Only upon its mention in Matthew 13:33 is there any difference of views on it denoting evil there.  Many hold that parable to be about the spread of evil through the Kingdom of Heaven, a fact predicted by the two references to leaven (1 Cor. 5 and Gal 5) above, and borne out by history. 

10        We are forbidden from giving support to, or even saying Godspeed (good bye means “God Be With You”) to one who has come to us bringing other than the doctrine of the Christ, is.  How can we dare link ourselves, even occasionally, with someone who, while apparently personally clean, continues to knowingly link with those who aren’t?

2 John 6 ‑ 11.     6  And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.  7 ¶ For many deceivers have entered into the world, who confess not Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. {wrought: or, gained, some copies read, ye have gained, but that ye, etc.}  9 Whoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  10 ¶ If any one cometh to you, and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither wish him greetings:  11  For he that wisheth him greetings is partaker of his evil deeds.

11        We cannot be linked with unbelievers or those who are knowingly linked with unbelievers.

2 Cor. 6:14     14  Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?  15  And what concord hath Christ with Satan? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?  16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,  18  And I will be a Father to you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.  7:1 ¶ Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

12        In Paul’s last epistle we are not told to determine whether a person is the Lords’ , beyond what they profess, but we are told to depart from iniquity and to purge our selves out from them.

2 Tim 2 : 19‑22.      19 ¶ Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth firm, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. {sure: or, steady} 20  But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.  21  If a man therefore will cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel to honour, sanctified, and fit for the master’s use, [and] prepared to every good work.  22 ¶ Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”

13        God is Holy!  Can we take, and link, Christ‘s name with unholiness?  Can we link Christ himself in the local assembly with it?

Le 11:44 For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: …45 For I [am] the LORD that bringeth you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I [am] holy.

1 Cor. 3:17 If any man defileth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are. {defile: or, destroy}

1Pet. 2:5 Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. {are: or, be ye}

 Re 4:8 And the four living beings had each of them six wings about [him]; and [they were] full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night,  saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come. {rest…: Gr. have no rest}

Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

14        An Old Testament incident illustrates the point.  See Joshua 7 and 8.  In this true story the people of Israel are weakened by the presence of a covetous person in their camp.  They are weakened first spiritually so they cannot discern the Lord’s will for their next conquest.  They even neglect to ask Him for His direction.  They then are defeated by an apparently weak foe.  After they finally call upon the Lord for help He reveals the sin they were harboring, the guilty one is discovered and removed from the camp.  Then they can continue their God directed conquest of the land.  While there are several lessons in this story, the fact and consequences of association with evil are clear.  We may say here that this is not merely an Old Testament principle here, but a basic principle of God true throughout the ages. 

Part 3

15        All of the foregoing comments assume the group with which the visitor is coming from is in some way linked with unholiness, moral or doctrinal.  Sad to say there are many, “churches” that do not carefully maintain holiness.  But, what if they do maintain holiness?  Then, they are apparently gathered on the same ground (Christ) as we are.  If so, shouldn’t we all should be together?  This possibility should not be overlooked, although I have never personally experienced it.  We should proceed carefully toward unity, as they would also.  Both groups would need to see if coming together is of the Lord.  This means since there are truly no scriptural barriers between us.  It is admittedly sad that we must be so cautious, when we are all part of one body, Christ.  Nevertheless we are warned to be cautious and careful, albeit not suspicious (1 Corinthians 13:7, love…believeth all things, hopeth all things).

1Ti 5:22 Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.

Jude 4  For certain men have crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

16        There is one other issue which I have not discussed, that of ecclesiastical practices and doctrines.  The term “ecclesiastical” refers to church, or more accurately, assembly.  (Ekklesia is the Greek word translated “church” and “assembly” in English.)  As I recall, both brothers Darby and Kelly (and I suppose others) made a distinction here.  They basically held that we should not let ecclesiastical differences stand in the way of what we now call occasional fellowship. I’m still mystified by their making this distinction.  However, I believe they held and practiced “occasional fellowship” mostly across this line of demarcation. They felt it to be sectarian to divide the members of the body of Christ for reasons other than immorality or error as to the doctrine of Christ. Yet, one of the principle reasons they had left the established state Church [the church of England [Anglican]) because of the institutionalized quenching of the Holy Spirit.  The clergy‑laity system, the prescribed rituals and prayers, the predetermined order of service, the choirs, the exclusion of liberty for believers to exercise priesthood or to use their gifts, etc., etc., all deny the very thing that characterizes the Church of God.  These things distinguish the Church from the Old Testament arrangements set up and prescribed previously, by God, in the law of Moses.

17        I believe their practice may have been based upon their observation that many churches back then were restrictive in membership and were doctrinally correct in the fundamentals of Christ.  As that condition gradually declined I believe those brethren had fewer and fewer opportunities to practice “occasional fellowship” in the manner they had begun.  Also, sadly, some divisions among themselves, over serious moral and crucial doctrinal issues, began to occur. Meanwhile, the denominational churches themselves hardened their resistance to the ecclesiastical truths discovered and revealed by brothers like Darby and Kelly in the nineteenth century. The brethren who experienced these divisions amongst themselves saw that the principles that led them to separate among themselves also applied between them and their brethren in the established denominations whom they had earlier purged themselves out from (2 Timothy 2:19‑22).  I believe that later writings of brothers Darby and Kelly began to recognize this and they backed away from advocating what we call occasional fellowship.  Brother F. W. Grant and other late nineteenth century and early twentieth century brothers came out quite clearly and definitely against the practice and teaching of “occasional fellowship.” 

18        I believe this gradual change was a transitional thing as the brethren emerged from the systems and finally realized a clean break was needed. Notice that I am not saying that we have made a change in doctrine due to changing circumstances.  Practices may change in response to changing conditions but God’s principles remain untouched by changing times and conditions. We, over a period of a century, have experienced a change in thinking and, therefore, practice, This change I believe this change is based upon a clearer understanding of the principles and responsibilities the Lord has given us in scripture. Occasional Fellowship is not scriptural and to prohibit it does not deny the One Body of the Christ. To hold and practice of occasional fellowship denies the principle: association with evil defiles and a little leaven leavens the whole lump. The “leavening” effect of the practice occasional fellowship has caused immeasurable trouble amongst the Lord’s people over the years.  It continues to.  As we write this, (AD 2000) a large international fellowship of believers is splitting over this issue.

19        It seems to me, the crux of the matter is: What things are immoral enough and what teaching denies the doctrine of the Christ, (and the Father and the Son) enough to preclude practicing OF with that person?  I believe most of those who teach and practice OF would agree with us these things preclude OF (as well as permanent reception).  It is the ecclesiastical beliefs and practices that they reject as adequate reason to refuse an occasional visitor the emblems from the Lord’s Supper. What differences are sectarian if brought to bear as a litmus test for fellowship?  Which are not?

20        Some among us have cited Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they are agreed?” Yet there are many things upon which earnest godly believer’s do not agree completely.  There are clearly many things which are not to separate believers from one another.  Romans 14 gives some examples.  Therefore the principle from Amos cannot universally apply to all differences, or there would not be many believers walking together, (perhaps not even many married couples).  Does it apply at all?  If everyone does not yield some they will not walk together for long. We can certainly agree with, and walk with God, and doing so, walk together with one another.

Philippians 4:5.  Let your moderation (gentleness, forbearance) be known to all men. The Lord [is] at hand.

Not that any should yield in the face of immoral acts, or the “doctrine of Christ”.  But we are to be long‑suffering, regarding issues of secondary importance.  Many, many scriptures attest to this, e. g. :

Ephesians 4:1‑4     1* ¶ I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation by which ye are called, {of the Lord: or, in the Lord}  2* ¶ With all lowliness and meekness, with long‑suffering, forbearing one another in love;  3*  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

But we must agree on the things that are crucial.

We must agree that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”, or we cannot break bread  together,

6/27/2000

A-Circle-of-Fellowship

Reprints of some papers appearing in “THINGS NEW AND OLD”

REMEMBER YOUR LEADERS

(Hebrews 13:7, J .N.D.)

With each generation there arises need for the fresh presentation of certain truths relative to the fellowship God has called us to. Due, perhaps, to neglect, or familiarity without exercise, or many other reasons, there is, however, back of it all Satan’s unrelenting effort to rob Christ of His glory in regards to His testimony in His Body here on earth. Though we are in the last days, yet the precious truth of the One Body, as set forth in Scripture, is not only to be theoretically held, but practically maintained today as ever before. This involves the authoritative teaching of Scripture as to principles concerning the unity of the assemblies of God’s people. These principles have been unfolded for us by “Leaders” amongst God’s people since the recovery of this precious truth nearly a century and a half ago. They spoke of this unity of the Spirit as seen in “a circle of fellowship,” and clearly spoke and wrote of the necessity of the main tenance of this principle for Godly order and discipline to be carried out in the House of God.

In Hebrews 13:7, the Spirit of God through Paul, exhorts us to, “Remember your leaders who have spoken unto you the Word of God: and considering the issue of their conversation, Imitate their faith” (J. N. D. Trans.>.

From the writings of some of these “Leaders,” excerpts have been taken, pertinent to the principle of “a circle of fellowship,” and presented herein for fresh exercise amongst the assemblies of God’s people at this time. Notations of the source of these excerpts are made so the reader may obtain the entire papers, where possible, to note the consistency of context.

MR. A. E. BOOTH

“No matter how many Assemblies may be scattered, it is distance only that separates them. Their relationship by the Spirit is one. Nothing can be nearer or closer. Then, to be consistent with that God ordained and established relationship, their practice, their fellowship, their order, their government, of necessity should be one. In all this where does independency come in, when saints are gathered consistent with the Pauline teachings? Independency, in contrast with the God appointed unity of saints and ASSEMBLIES, is discovered in its beginning when Paul wrote his last epistle to Timothy, “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me” 12 Tim. 1:15). So, step by step. stage by stage, the departure has continued ever since . . . Let us one and all be warned.” (Present Day Mistakes, 1932).

MR. SAMUEL RIDOUT

“The characteristic feature of Independency is, as its name indicates, that the local gathering is a unit, whose association with other gatherings is very light. Growing out of this is a denial of a ‘Circle of fellowship’—various assemblies recognizing one another as holding the same truth and having the same order. They claim that all fellowship is of individuals with Christ; that this individual fellowship with Him is also the fellowship of His Church, the only real link and title to be recognized. In this sense there is no real local assembly, but only the general fellowship of the whole body. They point to the fact there is ‘one body,’ and that there can be no circle of fellowship which is narrower than the limits of the Church of God. But if each local assembly is independent of all others, if its discipline is only for itself, is there not at once ignoring of the very unity which is being contended for?” (The Church.)

MR. B. C. GREENMAN

“There is, at present, in quarters where one regrets to find it, much ‘cheap talk’ about fellowship with ALL CHRISTIANS, which a little scrutiny shows means simply nothing but talk. A silly hue and cry is raised against ‘a circle of fellowship,’ as being sectarian and not of God; but perforce there can be NO fellowship without it being a circle, or having its limits, whether they be true or false. Yet we also belong to a circle of fellowship, and in spite of ourselves, if we have fellowship with others at all; few or many, right or wrong. . . . But in the mere fact that we receive some individuals, and refuse others, and that we are in fellowship with some gatherings, and not in fellowship with others, is no sectarianism whatever, else the truth of God as a Scriptural fellowship, has died out of the world. This we do not believe, and on the one hand, trust to find until the Lord comes, not only individuals but companies, who seek to maintain the holiness and grace alike that become God’s house. The Apostle Paul teaches a ‘CIRCLE OF FELLOWSHIP’ in 1 Cor. 7:17, 11:16, 12:26, 14:33, and were he here with us, we believe, would help us to sacredly regard the Scriptural lines he then laid down as the minister of the Church, amid the evils of our own day. He would NOT be in fellowship with ALL CHRISTIANS, we know, from his attitude towards the brother put away at Corinth, and the Assembly that for the time being was de filed by his presence. And finally this ‘communion of saints’ means the maintenance of godly order, both in and between the Assemblies, so that no one can be owned as independent of the others. This we believe, the very nature of the one body, and owning its living Head, forbids.” (Unity versus Independency.)

MR. C. CRAIN

“Of course, in strictly local affairs, each meeting attends to its own matter; but in matters which concern the whole Church, or in which the Church as a whole is involved, the relation of assemblies to each other must be thought of. Any action in a given locality which violates this relationship would be independency, and inconsistent with the truth of the Church. Local responsibility as opposed to unity is a false principle and an evil one. It is thus a distinct assault on the Church, and must be looked at as such by all who wish to preserve the truth. To protest against and refuse these principles is as much a duty as it is to refuse the teaching of Mr. Newton.” (Unity vs. Independency, 1932.)

MR. C. H. MACKINTOSH

“Hence, therefore, my beloved and valued friend, we can see that ‘excll1sivism,’ so far from being a dreaded bugbear, is the bounden duty of every assembly gathered on the ground of the Church of God; and those who deny it prove themselves to be simply ignorant of the true character of the house of God, and of the immensely important distinction between the discipline of the house and the unity of the body.” (Fifteenth Letter to a Friend.)

MR. J. N. DARBY

“As to ‘ad infinitum’ it is a mere bugbear, whatever associates itself with evil be it three or three hundred or three million, is on the same ground. If I associate myself with a principle of action, what matters how many assemblies engage in it, if they be so? Beside, it is a denial of the body. I know of so many assemblies: discipline in one is discipline in all, and the denial of this shows plainly enough where you have all got.” (Letters, Vol. 2, Page 268. 1873.) “In these days the unity of the body and separation from evil are vital points of testimony for Christians. One is the original and abiding principle of the church’s existence the other faithfulness to its nature and characterizing that faithfulness in a special manner in the last days. To me it is that (both) or nothing.” (Vol. 1, page 618. 1867.)

MR. F. W. GRANT

 “These brethren now take the ground distinctly of refusing a ‘circle of fellowship’ altogether apart from that of the whole body of Christ and we are called ‘Sectarianist in the extreme’ to speak of this. We are to be nothing but independent gatherings, each component for itself upon all questions and in no way bound by the action of the rest. The consequences of which are the destruction of all true fellowship and all discipline.” (A LETTER, 1896, to a brother in Kansas.)

A READING ON ASSEMBLY ORDER

 Toronto, Canada-1900

B.C.G.—“Chapter 14:33 (1 Cor.) is on the same line; and we know that it is the chapter that regulates the ministry of the Church when it comes together. It is a. sample case. After giving all these directions, he says. ‘For God is not the author of confusion but peace.’ In all the churches it is the same. How could the Apostle say this—how could he vouch for the various gatherings if this verse were not so? It is not but that gatherings may differ in their spiritual condition, but there was but one order maintained. There was but one center; but one order for all the assemblies. Now this is specially to be noticed, for I was challenged more than once across the sea, and have been on this side, as to this expression which has been used, as to the ‘Circle of fellowship.’ A person said to me, I do not agree with what some of you American brethren say as to a Circle of Fellowship. Well, I said, if you can give us a better name to express a divine fact, we will be glad for any good name, because we know the name is but human but the thing is divine, and we do not want you, in objecting to the name, to do away with the thing. Here is a circle of fellowship here is an order that the apostle can vouch for—that if you leave Corinth and go to Ephesus you will find it there.”

F.J.E.-—“In connection with the circle of fellowship, would you say that in view of the failure that has come in amongst those professing to be actually gathered out to the Name of the Lord, that that ‘Circle of Fellowship’ is confined to those who are holding to the truth of God as it was when the movement first took place?”

B.C.G.—“CERTAINLY.”

F.J.E.—“That is to say, to take ourselves, for instance: Is it confined to that “Circle of fellowship’ apart from other companies of those called brethren?”

S.R.–“CERTAINLY. We cannot vouch for other people maintaining that which we do not know they are main taming.”

F.J.E.—-“If that is the case, we would say we are in the ‘circle of fellowship’ on what ground: For what reason?”

S.R.—”To maintain the truth which we find in the Scriptures.”

F.J.E.-“Then that practically condemns the other circles.”

S.R.-“IT DOES. UNQUESTIONABLY, brethren, and I do not believe we ought to have the slightest hesitation in saying that we are where we are by conviction, and that by God’s GRACE WE MAINTAIN IN LOVE AND LOWLINESS, BUT WITH ALL FIRMNESS, OUR SEPARATE POSITION AS GATHERED TO THE LORD’S NAME IN SUBJECTION TO HIS WORD, and look on our dear brethren in the sects, and our dear brethren who are not, but who are practically forming sections in that way, we look on them all alike; we test them all by the Word of God.”

F.J.E.—“It would be wrong for me then, believing that I am where the truth is, to say to these other circles: Now let us come together; we are wrong.”

S.R.—“CERTAINLY. Why should I confess as wrong that which is the truth of God?”

A.E.B.—“Another point as to this. NOT ONLY HAS THE SCRIPTURE PUT US IN THIS POSITION, but certain circumstances in connection with our brethren have compelled it. We all know that our hearts’ desire is not to be separated from them, but it is because they will not follow the truth, we have been forced into separation from them.”

CONFERENCES AS TO THE ASSEMBLY

Held in Plainfield, N. J. 1896.

A circle of fellowship is a necessity. If we have none how can we carry out the order established through the apostle Paul for God’s house? On the same principle as we recognize a local company, we must recognize a general company. A mere confederacy it is not. We make no terms with one another. We seek only to walk together in obedience to the word of God. People object to the term “circle of fellowship,” but they also say “the ground of the one body” is sectarian. Call it what you will; the term may be changed, but the truth of it is there in God’s Word. This circle is the only practical representation of the body of Christ. The opposite is independence, and independence in this way is the thing God would not have in a creature. If there be not a common or general judgment, a judgment binding upon all. there is none. There needs, therefore, “giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

“If we make this keeping the unity of the body, we should have to recognize every member of the body of Christ, no matter how they act; but in keeping “the unity of the Spirit” we act for the whole, and discipline does not hinder but helps this. The Lord’s Table has to do with our gathering together. We do not inquire merely if a man has certain marks of godliness or morality, but if he is associating with men who are wrong with God. We are to follow righteous ness all the more in a day of break up, and we cannot fellowship people who are going to make war upon the principles which God has given for our guidance.”

******

May the Lord richly bless the presentation of this most important line of truth, as from those who spoke unto us the Word of God, and considering their godly life, “imitate their faith.” —D. T. J.

“A Circle of Fellowship” or Independency?

Another question must now be considered, which unites itself to that which we have been just considering. We shall find that “independency” is one of the most successful means of evasion of Scriptural discipline that could perhaps be imagined,—one of the most successful snares by which the children of God can be seduced into resistance to the will of God, while to themselves they seem to be standing only for the principles of the Word, against “confederacy,” for purity, and unsectarian maintenance of the Body of Christ. We must therefore look seriously and with sufficient care into the matter: first, at what independency really is, and then at the fruits which make manifest the tree. In its simplest and boldest form, independency appears as the denial of any Scriptural authority for any “circle of fellowship” outside of the individual gathering, wherever it may be; and this denial is made in the interests, as they imagine, of unsectarian recognition of the one Church only, which is the body of Christ. The formation and maintenance of any such circle they maintain, sectarian, and the adoption by such circle of a common discipline is sectarianism full-blown. It constitutes the whole a “party,” which may take the Name of Christ, as some at Corinth did, and only be perhaps on that account to be the more avoided. as making that precious Name an instrument of division.

This charge is not, it may be, that of denying the Name of Christ. but it approaches it so nearly as to make it of the most serious consequence. Those who hold to a circle of fellowship and yet refuse the adoption of a sectarian name. with what is implied in this, can neither afford to give up their claim of gathering simply to the Name of Christ, nor accept the truth of what is charged against them. Let us examine then what is meant by these assertions, neither shaken from our convictions by their boldness, nor refusing to bring all these to the test of Scripture, as often as may be needful. That which is true will only gain in its hold on us by every fresh examination, and the only danger is in this being lightly and not thoroughly carried out. We should be thankful for any suggestions that awaken fresh inquiry.

Now what is a “circle of fellowship”? That all such is not forbidden must be believed by the objector himself, if he have but “two or three” gathered with himself in any local assembly. For this, I suppose, is not the whole “assembly of God” there, but something indefinitely less than this. Yet, here there must be within and without, a being, in some sense, of us or not of us, a something which is saved from being a party, not by having no walls or door, but by its having no arbitrary, no merely human, terms of admission. If it have no terms, then it is a mere rabble of lawless men, and as such to be refused by every Christian.

If you say, “No, it is Scripture to which we are subject,” that brings in at once the implication that it is Scripture as you see it, not as your fellow-Christians see it; and you take your place as before the Lord, to be judged of Him in regard to this. Your being a separate somewhat, a “circle of fellowship,” does not constitute you a party: you own Christians everywhere, as members of the body of Christ, and receive them wherever a Scriptural hindrance to their reception does not exist and you speak of being gathered

simply to Christ’s Name, without an idea that you are making the Name of Christ a badge, or sign. or instrument, of division.

Well, then, in this place, at least, there exists a gathering of Christians that I can recognize,—I suppose, ought to recognize,—apart from the whole body of Christians in the place. I say, “ought,” because I have duties in regard to the assembling of ourselves together; and here alone I find those with whom I can assemble, no unscriptural condition being imposed on me. Were there another assembly in the same place and of the same character, then I should have to ask why they were not together: for the sin of schism is a grave one in Scripture. and I should have of necessity to refuse this.

If, then, in this place, I repeat, there is a gathering that I can own, and must,—suppose, now, I went elsewhere and lived-found perhaps there also one that I had equally to own as gathered to Christ’s Name alone, would it be right for me in the new place to refuse to own as a separate company, those in that from which I came, whom, when I was there, I had to own, and whom, if I were now there I should have to own? Is it possible that my going from New York to Boston should make that wrong for me at Boston which at New York would be quite right, and if I went back there, would be right again? If so, that is independency in earnest; or else it is the most curious shifting of right and wrong that one can conceive of; morality shifting every few miles of the road, whichever way I travel. And yet, if not, we are connected in principle, to a “circle of fellowship”!

The recognition of each other by such gatherings throughout the world is, therefore, right; and everything opposed to it is false and wrong. Nay, it is impossible to maintain practically, if principles are of any value to us. For, were I taking the journey spoken of, must I not inquire for those who are of one mind with us in Boston? and would those in Boston expect anything else of me‘? To re fuse a circle of fellowship may be held as a theory: the facts will always be discordant with the theory. The theory itself cannot be truthfully accepted by any one who has given it any sober reflection; except it mean independency of the grossest and narrowest kind; that is, associating where one will, and recognizing obligations nowhere but where I will. And this would be indeed the most perfect sectarianism that could well exist.

But we are to recognize the whole body of Christ! Surely, but not their unscriptural associations. In the interests of the body of Christ I refuse denominations; but in the same interests I am bound to accept the circle of unsectarian fellowship. The gracious words which, providing for a day of failure and confusion, sanction the two or three gathered to the Lord’s blessed Name, sanction such gatherings in every place, and therefore a. circle of such gatherings. It would be as sectarian to refuse identification with these as to take our place with the various denominations. Nay, it would be more so. Nor would it save us from this, to say we were acting for the good of the whole Church of God, when from Scripture itself the disproof is so easy.

Now, another step.

To accept these is to accept their discipline. For the Lord’s sanction of the gathering is the express sanction of their discipline. Of course, I do not mean by that that they can add to Scripture, or invent a character of discipline that is not found there; nor yet that He could sanction what might be a mistaken judgment. He is the Holy and the True, the Lord and Master of His people always: and that is quite enough to say as to all this. But authority for discipline these “two or three” have; and woe to him who resists its rightful exercise: “If he hear not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican” is said of just such feeble gatherings as these.

It is plain that precisely the same thing is to be said for the discipline as for the gathering itself: if it is to be respected at A where it is exercised, it is just as much to be respected at B or at C. If it be the decision of a local matter, then the Lord has plainly put it into the hands of those who are in circumstances to judge of it aright, though protest and appeal are surely to be listened to, and they are bound to satisfy consciences where honestly exercised about it.

As to a question of truth, as such it affects all consciences; it can be put before all: no local gathering has authority in any such matter: it would be making a creed to be subscribed. The truth as to Christ is a deeper and more vital matter, for we are gathered to His Name. Where truth of this kind is subverted the gathering exists no more, except as an instrument in the enemy’s hand, and is to be refused, with all who take part with it.

If on the other hand, the question be of facts, then those who have them are bound (if these affect more than the local gathering) to make them known to their brethren; and here a circular letter may rightly have its place, not to establish a rule or principle of action, but as a witness: which of course is open to question, as all facts are, if there be contrary evidence, or that given be insufficient. No circular has authority in itself: it is purely a question of facts and of the credibility of the testimony.

With these limitations, which are the results of the frailty and fallibility which are common to us all, we have necessarily to own a circle of fellowship and the discipline connected with it, if we would be free from the charge of real independency.

And real independency is not of God, but always and everywhere acts against Him. It is to make the members of the same body say to each other, “we have no need of you,” and to deny the unity of the Spirit which should pervade the body. The more we lament and refuse the sectarianism which exists, the more are we compelled, and shall rejoice to own the body of Christ wherever possible. And this circle of fellowship, while it is not the “body,” furnishes us with the means of owning this in a truthful and holy way, so far as the state of ruin in which the Church exists permits it to be done. With love to all Christ’s own,—with an open door for the reception of all according to the conditions of truth and holiness,—such a circle is not sectarian, but a protest against it, while the meeting that refuses connection with it is sectarian in fullest reality.

And this is what is meant by the “ground” of the one body. It is as different as possible from any claim to be the one body, and does not in the least imply any sectarian conditions of intelligence in order to communion. The maintenance of a common discipline is in no wise sectarian, but part (and an essential part) of that communion itself: absolutely necessary if the holiness of God be the same thing wherever it is found, and not a thing for the “two or three” anywhere to trifle with as they list.

Independency, in setting aside the practical unity of the Church of God, sets aside a main guard of holiness itself. It makes this no object of common care; it does not seek common exercise about it. It releases from the sense of responsibility as to the house of God: it is my own house I am to keep clean after my own fashion. And this real laxity as to the people of God at large (but which is so consoling to an unexercised conscience, that it is the great charm undoubtedly to multitudes today) naturally has the effect of lowering one’s estimate of holiness altogether, and so prevents my own house being kept really clean.

Where. however. a circle of fellowship is in fact maintained. along with and spite of the protest against it. or where there is not the maintenance of a common discipline »~where perhaps as the natural fruit of independency also, the unholy principle is contended for that an assembly cannot be judged for that which would compel the judgment of an individual, there, as is natural to expect, any local discipline almost can be evaded by a little dexterity. If the gathering at B will not receive you from A, it will from C. and C will receive you from A. No one is safe any where from the violation of a discipline which he himself recognizes as a Scriptural one. Any particular person, if he be not too prominent, becomes lost to the eye amid the maze of bewildering differences. He who has conscience. and would Iain be clear, has soon to resign himself to a general hope that what looks so like confusion will in the end conserve the interests of holiness; or in despair. to wash his hands of what he cannot avoid.

Yet it is an ensnaring system; for in this way pessimism and optimism both can find apology for it, and go on with it. One gets free of an amazing amount of trouble; and while not seeming to have given up all ecclesiastical ties, as many have, yet be practically as free as they for the gospel and from the wearying responsibility of being one’s brother’s keeper. Why should we be‘? When we only get our trouble for our pains. find a narrow path instead of the broad, open one, which is so pleasant to all of us, and for this have only to shut our eyes at the proper time, and ignore what it seems we cannot help.

And in fact the countless small breaches of independency make less show than the terrible rents which we are exposed to otherwise. Why not let this sad-faced Merarite go, with his pins and cords of the tabernacle always getting into entanglement, and be content with Kohath and with Gershom?

Still, if the TABERNACLE OF THE LORD is to be set up in the wilderness, how shall we do without the pins and cords?

In result it will be found that it is the truth of God which suffers, and tends to pass away and be lost. What wonder when we begin with choosing what we will have of it, and what we will discard? Fellowship becomes a thing of most uncertain quality: and what wonder, if obedience to the Word has anything to do with fellowship? Worship is largely displaced in behalf of service: for we have lost the necessary pins and cords. We may go on with the help of what truth we can still borrow and find room for; but the truth tends somehow continually to slip away from us; and in the jangle of many utterances, it is ever getting to be of less account.

One’s voice may be little heard in a day like this; but I would do what I can to press upon the people of the Lord first of all their Master’s claim. I press that this independency, little as one may imagine it, little as many may care to entertain it even as a question, means ultimately ship wreck to the truth of Christ, because it means independency of Him. One may find in it plenty of associates, for it makes little demands upon one and gives the kind of liberty which is so coveted today. The authority of Christ is not in it. It may support itself by the help of other names—names in repute as Christians too-and be in honor. It cannot have the commendation which Philadelphia, spite of its “little power,” finds from her gracious Lord:— “THOU HAST KEPT MY WORD, AND NOT DENIED MY NAME.”

—F. W. G. (From “A Divine Movement”)

A Question and Answer

Ques.—-S0 much has been made of late years of the doc trine of a “circle of fellowship” (which is new to me), and I would like to ask what truths are necessary to be held in order to be in such “Circle”? and who has the authority to say who is in or out of said “Circle”? Do not the boards of the tabernacle represent individual members of the Body of Christ, indwelt by the same Spirit? Would not such a doctrine tend to great positional pride and consequent looseness of walk and practice? I can find no scriptural solution for any body of Christians being in any degree above their brethren elsewhere in the eyes of God; does not godliness. with humility and self-judgment, constitute the highest place wherever found? It seems to me that the time has come to hear the last call of our Lord to individual testimony (Rev. 3:20). It must be a blessed place for those who have faith to take it, and who cannot conscientiously go on with the worldliness and unrighteousness that they have to go on \vith in the professed assemblies of God today. If wrong. I am willing to be shown.

Ans.—How does it come that you know that “so much has been made of late years of the doctrine of ‘a circle of fel1owship’,” and that it is “news” to you? Is it like the Bible to many, who know that “much fuss is made about it.” and know nothing of it? In some things ignorance is a virtue; in others it is guilt.

But to your questions one by one: First of all, let us say with sorrow, that had not the Church gone astray, there would now be seen all over the world but one circle of fellowship, that of the Church of God. But she has gone astray to such an extent that it has been said her annals were “the annals of hell.” What formed the “Protestant” circle of fellowship? It was the abominations of what called itself “the only and true church.” And since Protestants have formed a new circle of fellowship, by separating from Rome, what causes have they not given for necessary circles of fellowship out of them also. Would you remain among a people where “Higher Criticism” makes God a liar—substituting their dictum for His Word; denying the Deity and virgin-birth of Christ, the atoning sacrifice, and the resurrection of our Saviour? If you did, you would in the end become like them; for the Word of God says: “Evil communications corrupt good manners,” and the Word of God makes no mistakes. If you did not, you would find yourself separated from them. 2 Timothy 2:15, et seq., treats of such conditions, and gives us instruction how to meet them. Verse 20 gives the corrupted conditions; verse 21 the remedy for such as desire to be faithful; verse 22 gives the new formed circle of fellowship, which extends to those in the same path. As you see, it is not “what truths are necessary to be held in order to be in such circle.” It is a divine path accepted, which places one with others who are of a like mind, willing to accept the reproach of Christ.

Such a circle will not pretend to be the Church, the Body of Christ, but it will confess “there is one Body,” and that it is as members of it they assemble together, separated from others only to avoid the evils from which the Word of God bids them to be separate.

That there is danger here of “positional pride” we know but too well. Is there any less danger in what you mention as “the last call of our Lord to individual testimony?” We have never met with greater pride than with individuals who can associate with no one. Of course in any case it must be individual faithfulness, or else I am only following others—a miserable thing, bringing shame and grief in the end. But, in faithfully taking the path appointed of God, if we are humble, we soon find ourselves in the company of others.

You ask: “Does not godliness, with humility and self judgment, constitute the highest place wherever found?” You confound state with place. A man may be in the highest place, but in a bad state. Israel were by the grace of God set in the highest place among the nations of the earth, and they fell into the lowest state.

We do not know what is your ecclesiastical place, but we pity anyone who has to go on with the state you describe among “professed assemblies of God today.” Even the apostles found in their day plenty of evils to correct among the assemblies of God, but the Word of God ministered by them was heeded. (Help and Food, Vol. 32, p. 250).

Reception-to-Fellowship-Roger-P.-Daniel-Summary-By-DLJohnson