|
 Fellowship is a very important Bible subject, frequently taught throughout New
Testament scriptures. Its importance can be realized as we recall three of the many contexts in which the subject
is taught.
First, it is included in the historical account of the first gospel sermon preached
in the name of Jesus Christ. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship",
(Acts 2:42). "Doctrine and fellowship" are identified as the "apostle's" because they "were
the chosen and Spirit inspired" spokesmen to proclaim the gospel of Christ, (Acts l:8; 2:4). This sermon was
a constitutional proclamation.
Second, when Paul wrote to correct the divided Corinthian church this subject was
introduced early in the first chapter to remind them of their established unity. "God...through whom ye were
called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord". I Corinthians l:9.
Third, John wrote his first epistle to dispel the influence false prophets were
having among the disciples, (2:l8, 26). The first point he made was that their "fellowship with the Father
and the Son" came through the "declaration" of Christ's witnesses, (I John l:l-4).
I am confident that each brother participating in this forum believes himself to
be totally committed to God and is completely resolved to be loyal to His revealed truth. Sadly, however, I must
accept as a fact that men in this forum are separated from each other by misunderstandings which have raised suspicions
of unsoundness and have resulted in public charges of apostasy. A deepening chasm of division has resulted.
My Hopes for this Meeting
I am hoping for clarification of misunderstandings; for the allaying of needless
suspicions; for the removing of whatever causes which have produced the present separation. I hope for healing
and the closing of breaches. As men who love God and truth more than self and personal vindication, let us reason
together toward these ends.
Are some of us guilty of teaching that the boundaries set by Christ need to be
broadened? Then let us reason together so clearly that as conscientious men we will recognize that we have but
two choices: reform our preaching or preach a lie. Are some of us erecting sectarian walls from our own "judgements"?
Then let us reason together so plainly that as conscientious men we will realize that we will again have but two
choices: reform and act righteously or continue acting unrighteously.
To reach these alpine goals will require nobility of character, objectivity of
mind to reason fairly, and pliability of will to be corrected. Let us concentrate on accomplishing good and sensible
things through our discussion of truth; things more important than lip service to lofty ideals. Let us study and
reason together, so that what we do here will be more than an exercise in futility.
I hope that we can rebuild confidence in each other's integrity, achieving again
a meeting of minds concerning faith and fellowship, and uniting upon what Scripture says. I pray that it will be
found that our differences are over judgements, rather than over facts and propositions of truth. And, that such
differences are insufficient reasons for labeling each other "false teachers" and "false brethren".
In my opinion, two main things are contributing to our growing separation: first,
we are mistaken about what each other believes, preaches and practices. Second, some of the tensions between us
have been manufactured, perhaps out of good intentions, but none the less they have been manufactured. I am willing
to make my own deeds and doings the first test case for accomplishing these hopes.
Objects of "fellowship"
Good things result from "fellowship". "Joy" is one object of
it. "These things we write that your joy may be full", (I John l:4). "Compassion" is another
one: "becoming partakers with them that were so used; for ye both had compassion...", (Hebrews l0:34).
"Fellowship" causes the poor to be helped, (Romans l5:26). These objects can be accomplished only by
assiduously following the truth. Seeking to yoke "truth and things false" cannot possibly fulfill these
objects. Remember II Corinthians 6:l4-18.
Creeds, theologies and human interpretations, used as substitutes for, or as auxiliaries
to, the "apostolic declaration", have separated the "fellows of Christ" from God and each other.
For every untrue teacher there have been an equal number of well intentioned defenders of Truth who, through their
misguided "zeal of God", (Romans l0:2), have only succeeded in establishing "loyal parties"
within the "fellowship of Jesus".
The only means for successfully identifying "false teaching" and, at
the same time, avoiding the erection of "parties," is by continually appealing to the revealed truth
which speaks both to true faith and honorable character. Let us speak according to the "oracles of God",
(I Peter 4:11); always and only according to the "oracles of God".
Questions Of Concern
Most of the major questions have to do with the "breaking of fellowship".
(l.)Must we separate over every differences of "faith"? (2.) May we "fellowship" each other
regardless of differences? (3.) Does "fellowshipping" a brother in things which are right, always constitute
an endorsement of him in things about which he is in error? I intend to address these questions.
In order to do that I will need to establish the following points from Scripture:
The nature (identity) of Christ's fellowship, the means for establishing and maintaining it, how "judgement"
is involved in doing so, and over what and when must we "withdraw fellowship". It should be remembered:
(1.) God has ordained "fellowship" and revealed the means for it. (2.) No human judge stands between
each "fellow" and God. A congregation has no higher court of appeal than its own elders and/or "wise
brethren". See I Peter 5:1-3 and I Corinthians 6:5. (3.) The Scriptures were not written as a "systematic
theology". Like creeds, "systematic theologies" -- either formal or informal -- tend to be raised
from being "helps" to becoming authority; from being comments to becoming commandments. (4.) Personal
interpretations, sermons, and teachings (including this one), by the wisest and expert among us, are not standards
for testing one's soundness and faithfulness.
"Declaration And Dogma"
What is observed and written by inspired witnesses is called a "declaration".
I John l:3. The "declaration" is necessary to the support of all, true faith and righteous living. Cp.
I John 4:6; II Timothy l:13. These passages are among the many which affirm the same truth. The "declaration"
is truth because God revealed it to the "witnesses". Cp. John l6:l3 and I Corinthian's 2:l0-16.
"Dogma", on the other hand, is opposite to "declaration". The
word comes from a Greek word meaning, "it seems", or "it pleases". It consists of human conclusions
and deductions which are "the fruit of human reflection…often occasioned or intensified by theological controversies".
Refer to, Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, by Louis Berkhof, pages l5-19. Eventually dogma is
made to assume the stature of authority for deciding right and wrong.
Denominations are not alone in developing "dogma". Brethren have also
been guilty, unconsciously perhaps, of raising their "true preaching" to the level of "dogma".
"True preaching" is not equal to Truth. In my judgement, this major mistake is being made in this present
Controversy. "True preaching" and Truth are not the same things.
Truth is what God "declares", (John l4:6). Our preaching may be either
true or untrue, as it is judged by Truth. Some one's "true position" is never identical with Truth.
Understanding "Fellowship"
Doctrine is taught conceptually. A conception is formed by gathering all information
and determining how each item relates to the whole subject. The bible defines "fellowship" conceptually,
recognizing at least three categories of it; natural (Hebrews 2:l4), economic (Luke 5:7) and religious (I Corinthians
l0:18, 21.).
Ralph P. Martin (New Testament Bible Dictionary, p. 245, observes:
- "The fundamental connotation of the root koin (common) is that of sharing in something
with someone".
- "...the important thing is that the words (belonging to the koin family refer primarily though
not invariably to participation in something rather than association with others." Gerhard Kittle categorizes
the koin words
like this: "sharing, having a share and giving a share". Also, Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider give
these useful comments:
- "...Paul's usage is always emphasized...and its religious character
is always emphasized".
- "Koinonia" is in Paul a designation for various community relationships that come into
being through (common) participation and are seen in reciprocal giving and taking of a portion".
- "...as with koinoneo Paul uses koinonia also for various common relationships of Christians with each other."
- "...such partnership exists between the apostle and all whom come
to faith through his proclamation..."
To summarize: sharing, participation and association are main features of this
family words; the emphasis being upon participation. The following English words that translate the koin family suggest a common denominator;
namely, sharing: partner, fellowship, communion, partake, contribution and communicate.
Biblical examples of "sharing"
- "Having a share". "…those who were once enlightened...and
were made partakers of the Holy Spirit", (Hebrews 6:4). "...write unto you of our common salvation",
(ude 3). "my true child after a common faith", (Titus l:4).
- "Sharing with someone". "...that...declare we unto you
also, that ye also may have fellowship with us", (I John l:4). "...the cup of blessing which we bless
is it not a communion of the blood of Christ", (I Corinthians l0:16).
- "Giving a share". "they...gave to me and Barnabas the
right hands of fellowship". Galatians 2:9. "...the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia ...to make a
certain contribution for the poor", (Romans l5:26).
Analysis of fellowship
To analyze something is to separate a whole into its constituent parts for purposes
of study. See Webster. One does this, for example, when he studies the nature of the church. He studies the various
features that define what the church is. As the features of the church help distinguish it from "others"
not of like kind, so do the features of "the fellowship of Jesus" help distinguish it from "others"
which are different in kind.
- Analyzing "fellowship" as an association or relationship of
"fellows". "…holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling", (Hebrews 3:l); "for we are
become partakers of Christ", (v. l4).
- As a relationship it is coextensive with "brotherhood" ("love
the brotherhood", I Peter 2:17), and "house of God" (I Timothy 3:15).
- This relationship is entered as each one yields to the "call of
God" given through the Gospel, (I Corinthians l:9; cp. Ephesians 3:6).
- This association is universal in scope. "Whosoever shall call upon
the name of the Lord shall be saved", (Acts 2:21).
- The ultimate and final decision of who is in this relationship is made
by God. "The Lord knoweth those who are his", (II Timothy 2:19b; Acts 2:47; I Corinthians 4:l-5). A brother's
"judgement" does not determine another's eternal destiny. To attempt such "judgement" is to
assume the prerogative of God.
- Analyzing fellowship as joint participation.
- This sharing is coextensive with all that participate in the activity.
- "no church had fellowship...but ye only", (Philippians 4:l5,l6).
- "cannot there be found among you one wise man", (I Corinthians
6:5).
- One joins the participation by choice and agreement.
- "fellowship in furtherance of the gospel", (Philippians l:5).
- Saul, Barnabas and the Jerusalem church, (Acts 9:26-28).
- It is local and limited to the "joint participation.
- "look ye out from among you", (Acts 6:3).
- "tend the flock of God which is among you", (I Peter 5:2).
- "wise men among you", (I Corinthians 6:5).
- It is under the control of the participants, guided by scripture.
- "whomsoever ye shall approve", (I Corinthians l6:3).
- "tend the flock of God which is among you...over the charge allotted
to you", (I Peter 5:2,3).
The "fellowship of Jesus" is identified by the following features which
comprise it. (l.) The common state to all the "fellows" -- salvation. (Jude 3). (2.) The "common"
basis for "belief" – "The Faith". (Titus l:4). (3.) The common "character" – holiness;
"partakers of the divine nature" through forgiveness of sins. (II Peter l:3, 4). (4.) The common blessings
and promises – "justification and eternal life" (Romans 5:l, John l7:3). (5.) Their common responsibilities
-- to "strive (together) for (with) the faith of the gospel" (Philippians l:27), and to "show forth
the excellencies of God" (I Peter 2:9,10), and to "further the gospel" (Philippians l:5).
Whatever manner of life, whatever doctrines, whatever practices which are destructive
to these features are sinful. "Fellows" cannot "fellowship" error. Anyone who believes seriously
in "walking by faith" cannot "participate" in any thing which would compromise the "fellowship
of Jesus". The means for sharing with God, and with all others who also share with Him, is the "declared"
message. What we participate in, with whom we "share", is to be determined solely by the "declaration",
(I John 4:l-6).
Cases of Fellowship
- The Jerusalem church.
"And all that believed were together and had all things common", (Acts 2:44). They were "together"
(relationship) and ""shared" (joint participation") their "possessions and goods"
because they "shared" a "common faith".
- The Corinthian church.
Each "saint" had been "called into the fellowship of Jesus Christ, our Lord" by means of "the
confirmed testimony of Christ", (l:9,6). They "shared" with all others who had responded to the
same "call". They "jointly participated" with each other in such things as assembling "to
eat the Lord's supper together" (11:20f.), pooling their financial gifts (16:l, 2), and approving messengers
together. (16:3).
- The disciples of John.
They had "fellowship" ("shared with") the Father, Son, and "witnesses" by believing
what had been "declared", (I John l:l-4). They "shared" in "light" with all who "walked
according to the message".(l:5-7). They "shared" in love with all who loved their brethren, according
to the "Message you heard from the beginning" (3:11). They "shared" in life with all that believed
"the witness of God concerning the Son". (5:9-12).
Causes For Concern
- The Jerusalem church.
When Saul sought to "join himself to the disciples" (Acts 9:26-30), they refused him., exercising control
over their "joint participation". When Barnabas "declared" for Saul the brethren received him.
He became a part of their "joint participation", as he "was with them going in and out at Jerusalem,
preaching boldly in the name of the Lord".
Following two evangelistic tours Paul (and company) went to Jerusalem
to visit the brethren. James and the elders rejoiced in their ministry among the Gentiles. (Acts 21:17-26). However,
certain brethren, "zealous for the law" had a difference with Paul. They had been "informed"
"that he taught the Jews to "forsake Moses ...neither to walk after the customs". James and the
elders requested that he "do this that we say to thee". Take four men into the temple who "have
a vow" and "be at charges for them". "Then, all shall know that there is no truth in the things
whereof they have been informed concerning thee; but that thou thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law".
The circumstances of this instance were different from the Galatians experience, which involved the defection from
the gospel of Peter, Barnabas and other brethren, (2:ll-21).
- The Corinthian church.
Their "fellowship" was seriously disturbed because of "contentions". They argued "over
men" (l:11, 12), personal rights (6:), discrimination in eating the Lord's supper(11:17-34), and other things.
To settle their "contentions" they were besought to "speak the same things" (stop saying they
were "of" various men), to seek out "wise men among you" to decide the issue, to "wait
one for the other" in eating the Lord's supper. Only then could peaceful "sharing" begin again.
- John's disciples.
He was concerned that some might be "led astray" by the "prophets" of the "anti-Christ".
(I John 2:l8-27). He was concerned about them even though they "had an anointing" which they had received
through the teaching that they heard from the beginning". As long as they remained faithful to the anointing,
they did not need any one else to teach them. His epistle challenged them to "test" their teachers.
These false teachers had both denied a proposition "witnessed"
in the "declaration" (l:l-4) -- "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" -- and had "left"
the testimony of Christ's inspired witnesses. Because of this perversion, John's continual appeal for the maintaining
of "fellowship" was, "Hear us", (I,4:6). This is always the test for determining truth.
Causes for Separation
- Teaching which subverts "fellowship" -- anything taught as truth which does not have the support of the "declaration"
is untrue.
- Concerning "the law of Moses", (Acts l5:l-35). Some brethren, claiming they "went out" from the apostles (a lie)
taught the Gentiles, "except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved". This was
another gospel, accounting salvation upon another basis than belief on Jesus Christ, the savior. It was not a misunderstanding
or an immature judgement.
When they all met in Jerusalem to show that this teaching was false, an
appeal was made to divine precedent (Peter); to "wonders" (necessary inference) which confirmed the preaching
of Paul and Barnabus that Gentiles could be saved in the same manner as Jews; and to the reading of Old Testament
Scripture (James).
When "silence" prevailed so that all could hear and think reasonably,
they came to "one accord". They wrote an inspired "judgement", messengers delivered it to places
of discord and "fellowship" was once more in place.
- Concerning John's disciples,
(II John 7-11). John taught them that if a teacher came not "bringing the teaching of Christ", he was
neither to "be received" nor "given greeting" in order for one to avoid becoming "a partaker
of his evil works". Otherwise they would "lose their full reward".
The "teaching of Christ" consisted of all "ye heard from
the beginning", through "the things which we have wrought". When men leave "the witnesses",
refusing to learn from the "declaration", "fellowship" with the Father, Son and the apostles,
and faithful brethren is broken.
- "Wickedness".
Whatever reflects upon "the divine nature" of which Christians have been made "partakers" (II
Peter l:3,4), and what is "not befitting" of an "inheritor of the kingdom (rule) of God and Christ",
is cause for "separation", (Ephesians 5:3-12).
- The Corinthian brother "who had his father's wife" (5:lf.).
This relationship was not sanctioned by the Gentiles. Their failure to "mourn" over this sin and being
"puffed up" about it demonstrated the seriousness of this spiritual contagion. They were commanded "to
put awaythe wicked man from among yourselves". This command was emphasized by being stated five times in five
different ways.
- Purveyors of division.
- (II Thessalonians 3:6-l4), These brethren were "disorderly"
(broke rank, Vine), would not work, were "busybodies", meddling in the affairs of others, creating disturbances
and division. Those who "meddle" in "joint participation," in which they do not "share,"
are guilty of this sin. If such "disorder" continues, those who are engaged in it are to be "noted"
and "no company" is to be kept with them.
- The Cretian brother, (Titus 3:l0,11). The "factious" man is
"self-willed" possessing a spirit of "rivalry". He may even blindly contend factiously for
what is true. It is the extremity of his spirit ("ambition"), coming from a "perverted" ("twisted
through and through", Vine) heart which makes him dangerous. After a series of failed "admonitions"
he is to be "refused".
All questions of "faith" are to be settled by the "declaration of
the witnesses". Whatever questions affect the features that are necessary to the "fellowship of Jesus"
must be settled by the testimony of the "sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ", (I Timothy 6:3). Such
questions as divorce and remarriage, lasciviousness, "loving the world", eating the Lord's supper, human
institutions and the local church, what is honorable conduct in "fighting the good fight of the faith";
all must be settled on the basis of what the "declaration" teaches. The basic issue is, "to whom
should one listen" concerning "faith" and "living". One cannot scripturally "give
a share" to anyone who has "left the apostles' witness", the revealed Truth of God.
It is obvious that there is a difference between the "false teacher"
of (Romans l6:l7; I Timothy 4:lf.,II Peter 2:lf., Jude 4f., and I John 2:18-26) and a teacher who is in error of
some interpretation. Consider the contrast of those who proclaim "Christ of faction" (Philippians l:l7)
and Apollos (Acts l8:24-28).
The character, methods and results of each are different. The teacher of error
may not intend to subvert truth or righteousness ("lascivious doings"), nor use the methods of a deceiver
("privily bring in" his teaching, "in covetousness...with feigned words make merchandise of you").
Regardless of character, motive, method or result, however, the teaching of either is wrong.
These true propositions connect both teaching and character. They are inseparable
factors in the Bible’s particular use of "false teacher". One cannot scripturally participate in either
what is "false" or "erroneous".
How may one discern when a teacher moves from teaching errors of concern, to becoming
a serious threat to the "fellowship"? (l.) When he champions an error which compromises the "identity
of "fellowship". (2.) When his error becomes the center of controversy, causing tension. (3.) When his
error, for whatever reason, is neither addressed nor refuted. These points are equally applicable to the "factious"
man (Titus 3:l0, 11). One is as harmful to "fellowship" as the other.
"Withdrawing", withholding of "fellowship", "marking"
and/or "avoiding" brethren, are preventative (I Corinthians 5) and restorative in their nature (II Thessalonians
3); they are not punitive or retributive.
When done in the latter manner the "must I" syndrome is created: "must
I" withdraw from someone in error and with whom I have no joint participation; "must I" withdraw
from everyone I believe to be in any error? Is every "withdrawal" by others binding upon all brethren?
This syndrome leads to "Pharasical and Rabinic" madness!! The nature of the "fellowship of Jesus"
makes it impossible, and therefore, unnecessary, to answer all like questions with certainty. Applications are
made in the light of circumstances best known to the "joint participants".
Truth and Human Judgement
The Truth concerning salvation is a matter of revelation. It was neither discovered
nor disclosed by men. It is absolute and immutable. Because it is Truth it remains constant. It does not vary according
to cultures.
The gospel makes known the Truth by declaring facts (things done) and propositions
(affirmations made about something), (Ephesians l:13; 4:21-24). Two responses are possible: belief or disbelief.
New Testament scriptures were not written in the manner of Systematic Theology.
Nor is it possible for men to make them into such. Systematic Theology is a "method employed" "to
organize thematically the various dimensions and emphases of Scripture and in particular to show their inter-relatedness".
T. W. J. Morrow, page 671.
The New Testament Scripture in teaching character and quality of living most often
teaches by principles. It seldom instructs by "degrees and amounts". The qualities necessary to serving
as "elders" (I Timothy 3 and Titus l) and passages like Ephesians 4:32;5:1-4 are cases in point.
Certain mind-sets are unsatisfied with this type of teaching. They often seek out
detailed "cases" in the manner of a lawyer searching out "case law" to establish authority
by appealing to a previous decision or circumstance. The important thing to them is not whether or not that "case"
in scripture was revealed for the purpose for which the researcher uses it.
While the New Testament scriptures teach a "law of the spirit of life in Christ
Jesus" (Romans 8:2) and they are the "perfect law of liberty" (James l:25), future generations can
not find a "case-law" in them, which precisely fits every set of circumstances. "Case law"
mentality requires considerable mental dexterity to accomplish its purpose.
This was the mindset that produced among the Pharisees and Rabbis their particular
manipulation of the Law of Moses. Their "case-law system" became a substitute for the authority of God's
law. This is the danger of creeds.
This mind set is active among modern "fellows of Jesus". Either using
the label "communism" to identify the earliest brethren who had "all things common" (Acts 2,4),
or the label "unity in diversity" to describe all instances of "fellowship among some who differ",
typifies this mind-set.
Another example is the recent attempt to define "modest apparel" with
mathmatical precision. This is done by appealing to what the Old Testament High Priest was to wear as his under
garment as he presented himself in the sacred "holy of holies" before Almighty God. And one brother,
whom I personally heard preach, with the greatest exactness for a less discerning audience, drew a stick figure
on which he drew the exact point of permitted "modesty".
When can we expect a like definitive ruling on gluttony, foolish jesting, covetousness
and evil surmisings; all and each of which are not "befitting" for saints. Are we now to refuse "joint
participation" with those whose attire does not conform to this explanation? Such efforts could not come from
a "mind" which is resolved to obey the "perfect law of liberty". It comes from a mind characterized
by the "case law" mentality.
The facts and propositions of Truth, were revealed to influence one in holy living.
Applying them involves understanding and sound judgement.
Revelation 3:7 tells us that only Christ has the "key of David", "who
alone opens and shuts". Christians are prohibited from making ultimate decisions of salvation. Paul (I Corinthians
4:l-5) and James (4:11,12) warned brethren not to attempt this. "Fellows" are required only to decide
about "joint participation".
Paul did "beseech" Philemon to make a judgement about their "fellowship'
("partner") as he urged him to receive Onesimus back. "If then thou countest me a partner (a sharer
in the things of Christ)". verse l7. He mentioned five features of "fellowship" which form the basis
of his judgement. Are we "kin" (our sister Apphia), are we saved ("the church in thy house");
are we "fellow-workers and fellow-soldiers", have we both given a "share" (funds) to express
faith and help others"?
Fellowship When Differences Exist
The "declaration" forbids "fellowship" with these things: immorality"
(Ephesians 5:11), creators of division (II Thessalonians 3:6-15; Titus 3:10,11) and teachers who "bring(eth)
not the teaching of Christ"( II John 9-11). Clearly these passages forbid "fellowship" with sin
and/or "jointly participating" with one who is sinning under the circumstances so described.
Are we always able to agree with certainty on what is "immoral", in what
precise manner one is acting factiously or what is false teaching? Certainly brethren cannot participate in things
they consider wrong. Time and patience are necessary in correcting erroneous concepts and unholy living.
When instrumental music was introduced into worship, many brethren, though not
participating in such worship, would meet upon occasion, not use the instrument, yet worship together. Eventually
such had to cease because the real issue was seen to be disagreement over authority -- we must "listen to
the witnesses". The means to "fellowship" was compromised. The issue of "church cooperation"
was handled similarly. Separation came when it was recognized that the real difference was over authority, not
merely over a "method" of cooperation. One thing is certain: brethren have fellowship when they differ
in some things.
Is every "foolish jesting", every whispered criticism, every mistaught
scriptuture, justification for "withdrawal"? Which brother or congregation does this? All of us intend
to be guided by principles of truth, using our wisest judgement in applying them to the situations known best among
ourselves. Differences of judgement occur over things that have been addressed in revelation. We do not "withdraw"
our "fellowship", however, over every difference of judgement.
Not one of us is presently doing that, and/or defends that.
We seek to apply principles of truth wisely, though we cannot do this with mathematical
precision. As we struggle to fulfill our duty in particular situations, while seeking to avoid unscriptural extremes,
it will be helpful to keep these established facts in mind. (l.) One's judgement must be the result of "doctrine".
"Doctrine" authorizes; "judgement" does not.
(2.) The "ministry of casuistry" (deciding doubtful cases) is
unknown within the "fellowship of Jesus". Each "fellow" is responsible for his own "fellowship".
Wise counsel should be sought and considered, however. "Elders, who "watch for souls" serve this
purpose, (I Corinthians 6:5; Hebrews 13:17). No "authority" stands between the Christian, with his Bible,
and Jesus Christ.
(3.) Correcting "false teaching", "false faith", "false
living" and "false fellowship", is limited only by opportunity and the scriptural principles of
"self-government". As opportunities arise within these guide lines one would be disloyal to Jesus Christ
if he did not use them. All "false things" must be opposed and corrected for the hope of eternal life.
(4.) The terms "faith" and "doctrine" must be understood according to their scriptural use.
"Faith" may mean the doctrine to be believed and preached (Galatians l:23), one's own belief (Galatians
3:26), trust expressed in obedience, (Romans l:5), or a personal scruple (Romans l4:22, 23). The "doctrine
of Christ" (I Timothy 6:3) is either the teaching of Jesus during his personal ministry, or that which he
authorized in the sound words of the apostles. Probably both are intended by the term.
It should be remembered that teaching about how to live is as much "doctrine"
as teaching about what to believe. The fifth and sixth chapters of Ephesians, which teach how the believer should
live, are as much doctrine as chapter one, which teaches the resurrection, coronation and headship of Christ.
Scripture teaches that brethren may "count each other as partners" and
jointly participate" with each other when there are some differences of "faith and doctrine" between
them. I am obligated to present proof of this assertion. I am willing for the proposition and proof to be tested
by the capable reasoning of the brethren who are present at this meeting, including men "on both sides of
the table".
Sometime, in trying to decide about "fellowship when differences" exist
one may call his own thinking about scripture "faith" and another brother's thinking about scripture
"opinion", "view", "judgement", "matters of indifference to God", or the
more recent phrase, "matters of authorized liberties". Some seem to think that such "fine distinctions"
will be helpful in justifying "fellowship" when differences exist. In my judgement, this is a pointless
ploy, because it ignores the reality that both brethren consider their thinking to be "faith". To each
brother his thinking is "faith", supported by the "doctrine of Christ".
I fully understand that what we do is not authority for what is right. But if one's
conduct is inconsistent with his principles, then he either has the wrong principle or he acts contrary to his
principle.
These arguments are not made to justify "receiving" all differences of
"faith" and all "teachers of differing doctrines". Anyone who takes seriously the need to "listen
to the witnesses" cannot argue for that kind of "unity in diversity".
As examples of a kind of acceptable "unity in diversity" commonly practiced
by all of us I have listed four doctrinal propositions, about which there are differences and yet each of us here
"fellowships" brethren who believe either "difference". I believe it to be a fact that each
person in this discussion, and all other brethren known to me, has "fellowship" with some brethren whom
they believe to be in some error. Here are the propositions.
- God permits one to marry again without culpability, when he is divorced
against his will, with no sexual infidelity being involved and subsequently learns of his former partner's remarriage.
- God does not permit divorce and remarriage for any reason.
- Whenever some Christians eat the Lord's supper (in the manner of our
Sunday evening services), all Christians present are required to partake with them.
- Human institutions, such as schools and papers, organized to freely supply
Bible teaching are unscriptural.
Brethren on each side of these propositions count them as "faith" and
things "which matter to God". Beyond doubt, "fellowship with them, is a kind of "unity in diversity".
It is commonly practiced, even among us of this forum.
There is a kind of "unity in diversity", however which is subversive
to truth and faith. An erroneous concept of it has been used for years by the denominations to justify "unity
that is not from the Spirit". Of more recent years a brother innovated a false plan, characterized by "fraternity
based upon a common paternity, "which wreaked havoc within "the fellowship". More recently, some
brethren, ignoring the hermeneutic of the Holy Spirit, have created a hermeneutic of their own. Each of these plans
is false.
Nevertheless, each brother in this forum practices a scriptural kind of "unity
in diversity". To label a brother with the "unity in diversity" catch phrase and never presenting
his own denial or explanation, while one is practicing a form of "unity in diversity" is at the least
unkind and unfair; at the worst it is sinful.
To ask a brother why he will "fellowship" one brother in error but not
another brother in error is a fair question that requires a Bible answer. The correct answer cannot be that the
differing brother with whom I have fellowship holds an "opinion", or "authorized liberty",
which does not matter to God. Is it not possible that the ageless practice of "sharing" when we differ
in some "matters of faith and teaching" grows out of the nature of "fellowship"? Romans l4
clearly teaches that when one acts contrary to his "faith", he sins. It is equally clear from scripture
that every "difference of faith" is not to be made an occasion of "withdrawal or separation".
Scriptures Supporting This Conclusion
The following scriptures support the proposition that under some circumstances
Christians may "have fellowship" when there exists some differences of "faith" among them.
Note the following circumstances in this proposition: (l.) The differences are between brethren. (2.)The question
relates to "joint participation". (3.) Matters of agreement are matters of faith sustained by the teaching
of Christ. (4.) Matters of difference are not destructive to the nature of "the fellowship of Jesus Christ".
These things should also be kept in mind: "fellowship in differences must
not involve one in sin". Each brother should maintain the mind set to keep "listening to the witnesses".
Resolving the differences should be the goal.
Case in point -- Jude 22, 23. "False teachers" have been identified,
described and their fate predicted in verses 4-16. In verse l7 the subject changes to "mockers" who live
according to "their own ungodly lusts". It is possible that these "mockers" are simply the
"false brethren" discussed under a different name. The description of them is in stark contrast to the
"beloved" ones (verse 20).
As the "beloved ones" "look for mercy", so they are commanded
to "show mercy" to brethren in three different, and worsening, circumstances. Mercy is to be shown to
each in a different manner.
- "To some in doubt -- unconvinced --("while they dispute with
you", margin), merciful and convincing instruction is to be offered. A change of mind is the object with these
brethren.
Questions come to mind: for how long should fellowship with "doubters
and disputers" be tolerated? What procedures will best serve all concerned? Wise judgement is essential in
answering these questions.
- Some are in a state of crisis; they are beyond "doubt". They
are in the state of sin. "Snatch them out of the fire". Rescue is called for. A change of state is needed.
The reaction should be immediate and severe. Danger to them is more than a possibility, it is an actuality.
- Some are practicing sin. They are spiritually contagious. A change of
condition is needed by them. Any participation with them puts one at risk, imperiling his own holiness. "Mercy
with fear" is the command.
These verses authorize the manner in which most brethren deal with those who are
unsettled, unsafe and unholy.
Different circumstances call for different expressions of fellowship. Judgement
is involved in carrying out these commands. Circumstances, known best to the participants, are a part of the process.
Most churches today face situations similar to those described by Jude. In dealing with them, over some period
of time, some may be acting unwisely; some may be acting more wisely than others. Because one is held responsible
for his own "fellowship", what more is a brother, not of "that fellowship", to do than teach.
One must act with balanced concern. The salvation of all is the over-riding object.
Case in point -- Romans l4-l5:7. The circumstances are as follows: (l.) Two brethren
(one called "weak", the other "strong") differed over "meat and days". Each believed
God approved his "faith". (2.) Their differences produced disputing and condemnation of each other. (3.)
They were commanded to "receive" each other (count each other as "partners", worthy of "fellowship"),
"yet not for decision of scruples" (verse l.) (4.) The object of the command is "peace and mutual
edification"(verse l9), avoiding causing the "weak" brother to violate his conscience. (5.) The
occasions of the argument, "meats and days", were said to be "clean and good". These brethren
were to "fellowship" each other even though they differed.
To understand and correctly apply this chapter, in its narrow context, it would
be very helpful if we kept in mind the practical difficulties a Jewish Christian would have as the Old Covenant
was replaced with the New. He was to learn that neither Gentile (Acts l5) nor Jew was required to "keep the
law" in order to be saved. And, if one did attempt that he was both "severed from Christ" and fallen
away from grace" (Galatians 5:2-6).
On the other hand, the Jewish Christian was not required to cease living as a Jew
(thou thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law", Acts 21:l7-26). These two passages were dealing with different
circumstances. They both have an important impact upon Romans l4. The disputed chapter establishes that under certain
conditions brethren who differ in some things they believe God approves may have "fellowship" with each
other.
"Several fundamental principles had to be respected by both parties in the
dispute over dietary regulations and religious festivals...First, the Lordship of Jesus had to be maintained...'the
rights of the Lord' had to be respected. (Rom.l4:9). Second, the parties in dispute were to be aware of the judgement
of God...(Rom.14:12)...Third, each individual's faithfulness to God was placed in jeopardy by an uneasy conscience
(Rom.l4:5)...Fourth, the opposite party in the dispute had to be considered ahead of oneself (Rom.14:21)...It must
be recognized, however, that matters of difference between strong and weak brothers are not necessarily to be considered
indifferent matters. At least one party in dispute usually believes that participation in such activities would
constitute sin". These true and fine remarks are quoted from, Melvin Curry, "Follow After Things Which
Make Peace", as published in a booklet, The Just Live By Faith, edited by Mike Willis (Cogdill Foundation,
1979, pp. 65-70).
This chapter does not teach that when brethren differ in matters that are destructive
to the "fellowship of Christ" they are to remain in a "sharing relationship" without "teaching,
reproof, rebuke and instruction of righteousness".
Wise and sound judgement is needed in applying this chapter's instructions. Difficulties
arise when one is dealing with matters not specified in the chapter. Certainly the instructions in it cannot be
applied to teaching and living which are clearly destructive to those features which compose the "fellowship
of Jesus".
In recent years, a brother who is renowned for careful application of what he believes
to be truth, and able in presenting his teaching, gave a considerable list of "differences" among us
which could be "received" according to the teaching of Romans l4. Significantly the brother used his
"judgement" in deciding what went on the list. Interestingly he decided, for brethren who "differed",
what was "faith" and what was "opinion", and what is a "matter of authorized liberty".
Personally, I cannot see that his judgement helps us unless, of course, his judgement should be the judgement for
us all.
It appears to me that the differences of "fellowship" between us in this
forum are over the interpretations of particular passages and not over "doctrinal" right or wrong. I
may be mistaken in my interpretation of a passage (Romans l4) but I do not teach falsely that sin should be "fellowshipped".
Neither am I "partaking of one’s evil works" when I jointly participate in things approved with one with
whom I differ in some matters of "faith". My judgement may be flawed and unwise; I may need correction
and admonition from wiser and sounder brothers; it may even need to be done publicly. But my possible mistakes
make me neither a false teacher nor a brother needing to be "marked and avoided".
It is helpful to be reminded of "signs" which indicate dangerous "trends".
But, "breaking fellowship" over every difference of faith is not helpful. Especially is this true when
those who are zealous concerning "trends" are practicing the thing they note as a "trend".
Case in point -- Hebrews 5:11-14.
The Hebrew writer is critical of brethren, "who by reason of time" should be wise and mature. Their delinquent
immaturity prevented them from "discerning good and evil". Not only was their immaturity an error but
it is bound to have produced serious errors in their living. The correction the author suggested was not "separation"
but exhortation: "let us press on unto perfection". (6:l). If they did not make serious improvement he
warned them of sobering consequences (vv. 6-8).
Each of us has "fellowship" with some who are equally immature and remain
so for years. Most brethren are unprepared to precisely define maturity or put a "time" limit on when
it should be reached. I doubt that at this time many brethren feel qualified to begin a "withdrawal"
of those who are shamefully immature. Most of us handle this clear duty with our best judgement, even as we may
feel less than certain about our judgement.
Then the question of "endorsement" is raised. If one fellowships a brother
in things which are right, believing him to be wrong in others, is he being "a partaker of his evil works"?
It appears to me that under differing circumstances this question can be answered both "yes" and "no".
If I am correct, that means that once more "human judgement" is involved in applying truth.
First, one is never justified in either doing wrong or violating his conscience.
One is justified in acting with a brother for purposes of correction. Or, he may "judge" that the error
is insufficient to cause separation. It is in these areas that we have no clear cut "case law" and must
reply upon "wisdom". And "wisdom" involves discernment. Cp. Hebrews 5:l4; James 3:13-18.
I feel sure of these things: each of us does "have fellowship" in things
which are right with some we believe to be wrong in other things. This "problem" grows out of the nature
of "fellowship of Jesus". Between one's self and God, there is no human court of appeal.
Extremes
Some teach that "fellowship" has no boundaries, ignoring a preponderance
of Scripture to the contrary. In error they teach that all mistakes, errors and sins can be tolerated, that teachers
of things "false" must be permitted a "pulpit" without challenge; that "good character"
justifies fellowshipping "false doctrine".
On the other extreme some advocate having no "fellowship" where any difference
of teaching exists; though they do not practice it. Neither extreme is true or sound. Each extreme is unapproved
by the "testimony of the witnesses".
Who is arguing for "joint participation" which is destructive to the
uniqueness of the "fellowship of Christ"? Who is preaching "fellowship" of sinful relationships
that would compromise the holiness of the saints? Is there one among us who is teaching that "false teaching"
should not be opposed or that the influence of such teachers should not be opposed?
It is a mistake to teach that each difference of "faith" requires withdrawal
of fellowship. It is wrong for one servant "to judge the servant of another", (Romans l4:4). It is dangerous
for one to make judgements about a "fellowship" of which he is not a part and of which, therefore, he
cannot be certain of the circumstances. I Corinthians 4:l-5. Concerns for another's soundness is healthy; warnings
should be welcomed from brothers of good will. Also, those who would teach their judgements as authority should
be admonished and soundly warned.
When Joy Is Wounded
"Joy" is an object of "fellowship". Like the beauty of a flower
it is a fragile thing. In John's epistles it was marred by teachers who "left" the means to eternal life;
denying the "testimony" that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
"Gladness and singleness of heart" were alive and well in the early Jerusalem
fellowship until two brethren lied to God and "fear" replaced joy. Paul's spiritual children at Corinth
"defamed him", made him as "the filth of the world, the off scouring of all things" and rejected
his admonitions from an "open heart". They "received" and "bore well" those who brought
them "another gospel" and a "different spirit". Others turned against their "spiritual
father", (I Corinthians 4:l6).
John had no greater joy than "to hear that "his little children walked
in the truth". But one of them loved "preeminence" so much that he "received us not",
spake against John with "prating and wicked words". He would not "receive the brethren" and
"those who would he forbiddeth them and casteth them out of the church". In each of these cases "joy
was wounded"; in each one "fellowship" was harmed". Sin was the cause for it. Neither God who
is light, nor his children, the sons of light, can "share" in sin, (III John)
The Cretians, who had been "redeemed, purified from sin, and possessed of
God" reverted to their old nature, acting as "evil beasts". One among them made division within
the fellowship, separating brother from brother through his "self-will" and "rival" party,
(Titus 3:l0,11).
We are well served today when perceptive brethren, who are "examples of good
works, sober-minded, whose lives evidence no evil thing", warn us of dangers informing us of the harm which
"false teachers and false brethren" can do among the unsuspecting. The history of the "fellowship
of Jesus" is dotted with such dangers.
To be honorable and valiant solders of Jesus let us remember Paul's charge to Timothy,
our fellow-soldier: "fight the good fight of the faith"; "observe these things without prejudice
or partiality", (I Timothy 5:22). Can we not reason together acknowledging the good intentions of each other
as we seek to dispel differences? Let us accept the correction of each other in the same spirit as Peter accepted
that of Paul’s. In spite of Paul’s correction of him, Peter finally referred to Paul as his "beloved brother"
(2 Peter 3:15). Would truth be compromised if we "waged war" in a similar manner?
I am recommending and pleading for the cessation of public and pointed, personal
denunciations that grow out of disagreements over matters of judgement.
It is time for healing to begin among brethren who love God, who would never knowingly
nor intentionally teach or "fellowship" what is not authorized by the declaration of truth, who in loving
the brethren" would be unwilling to put personal appreciation before faithfulness to the "charge"
that each has voluntarily accepted from him who is the sole commander of our souls.
Let us be practical. What can I stop preaching which will make my preaching sound?
What teaching do I need to preach that I am not preaching? What "joint participation" can I cease "sharing
in" that will keep me from being viewed as a child of darkness rather than a child of light?
Let us all begin working for the binding up of wounds.
|
