|
 Dear
bro. Turner:
Please
discuss the relationship of churches. What should be our
attitude toward one disfellowshipped by another congregation?
Could we have had fellowship with Laodicea?
T.C.
Reply:
Fellowship
with God exists only as we “walk in the light” — for “God
is light” (1 Jn. 1:5-6). He is also Pure, Love, Spirit, Holy,
and Perfect; and we must share such characteristics to
maintain fellowship with God (1 Jn. 3:3; 4:8; Jn. 4:24; 1 Pet.
1:l6; Matt. 5:48). This is the meaning and basis of spiritual
fellowship — of saints with God, of saints with fellow-saints
in the universal church, and of local churches with one another.
No corporate bond is here contemplated.
Saints
covenant together to form a local church — they are “fellows”
in a team: accepting common oversight, pooling resources, and
acting as one. (Heb. 13:17; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; Phil. 1:1; 4:15).
They are bound, by mutual consent and the nature of local church
structure, with the obligations of membership; although this
must never take precedence over their obligation to God. But we
find no authorization for teams of churches. There are no “fellow”
churches in the corporate sense — each local church is
completely independent. Their only bond with other churches is
that of common interest in serving the Lord.
The
Oaks-West church is interested in the work of the church in
Boronia, in the same way a saint in Maine is interested in the
welfare
|
|
of a saint in Texas: there is a common
interest in spiritual matters. Concerning Laodicea, the Lord
said, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. . .“(Rev.
3:19). It seems to me a saint in Texas could do as much for a
saint in Utah; or a church in Canada for a church in Spain. No
infringement of autonomy takes place in the use of moral suasion
to encourage saint or church to be faithful to the Lord,
although propriety and courtesy should be considered. Truth can
not be forced upon anyone. We could not condone, support or
encourage the Laodicean church or an erring saint in their
error; and of course, no corporate bond exists to be broken or
mended.
When
a local church severs relations with one of her members, this
means that in their judgment the offender has broken fellowship
with God and they are endeavoring to make the offender aware of
his condition, and bring him back to God. It is a logical
assumption that they would know more about the situation than
those of a different church. This is a local matter, within the
realm of local autonomy (self-rule), and other churches should
keep “hands off.”
If
the disfellowshipped one should seek to join a second “team”
(church) he should be told to correct his status with the first
church. If he says he is in the right (with God), this should be
proven to the satisfaction of the second church before he is
accepted into their fellowship. We dare not deny him a hearing,
or accept him without examination. There would be no local
autonomy if the poorest judgment of the weakest church could be
bound upon all churches everywhere.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
