The Christadelphian November 1950, Islip Collyer

“Balance and Moderation”

One of the difficulties in connection with our call is in establishing and sustaining a balanced view of life. We need balance as individuals, and we need it in the community which is made up of many differing personalities. It is surprising that we can hold together as well as we do, for with men and women called from all quarters, with the Master absent, and no one with power or authority, any sustained harmony would seem difficult if not impossible. Probably we are greatly helped by our system of reading. While this good old rule is observed we are continually reminded of truths which are easily forgotten, and we are warned against harmful extremes. If we are able in quiet meditation to apply the lessons we most need in the development of our individual characters, the Scriptures are able to sustain the balance necessary for ecclesial harmony.

Truly much is involved in that little word “if”. Our natural tendency is to take most notice of those parts of Scripture which best accord with our mood, while paying little heed to the passages which rebuke us. All ought to be fully aware of this weakness and make a genuine effort to correct it. Men who so hate controversy and turmoil that they are inclined to be too tolerant, ought to pay especial heed to the admonitions to contend earnestly for the faith. Those who are so intent on sustaining doctrinal purity that they are continually forcing strife, should pay more attention to our great example and the many scriptural exhortations which show that the meekness and gentleness of love can be combined with moral strength. If the question is asked how can any man be expected to recognize that he is either too tolerant or too severe, the answer is that other men provide him with a gauge. If we find that there are brethren whose judgment is very different from our own, that is the time to test ourselves. Is there anything in this man’s idea that I am at fault? What has the Word to say on this question? In trying to make such a test an effort must be made to banish all fleshly influences. So often when one is quite certain of being actuated by worthy motives, there are yet other factors which in measure influence us and warp our judgment. Scripture furnishes us with many illustrations of this human weakness.

To many brethren, perhaps to most of us, the whole idea of refusing fellowship is so distasteful that we should be glad to avoid it altogether. The easy way would be to allow anyone who so desired to join us in our memorial service, throwing on each individual the responsibility involved. We are all aware, however, that this course would not be faithful. The letters to the Seven Churches teach at least two great principles in a manner that we cannot fail to understand. It is made quite clear that one ecclesia is not responsible for the failings of another, and there we have the recognized principle of ecclesial independence. It is equally clear that the elders are responsible for maintaining sound doctrine in their own meetings. “Thou hast them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth” (Rev. 2:15, 16). It may be difficult to know just where to draw the line in doctrinal purity. We have to act according to our convictions with an honest effort to take the course the Lord would approve. A clean cut in fellowship may often run counter to our sentiments and affections, and sometimes it has effects which seem most undesirable, but usually it is the only workable way.

There are some who deny this and, no doubt with good motives, agitate for another method. The agitation engenders harmful strife as agitation invariably does, and if we yielded there would inevitably soon come a call for a further move. The idea is that faithful members may remain in a faulty ecclesia with the hope of effecting reform, and that such sound members should be accepted in fellowship even by those who cannot co-operate with their ecclesia as a whole. Such agitators protest against the use of “labels” in this matter. They claim that visitors should be accepted on their merits, and not because they belong to a particular fellowship. Quite part from the question whether this is a method that the Lord would approve, it has the fatal defect that it is unworkable. It might be made to work in a very small ecclesia so long as the meeting did not contain any members of similar independent thought to their leaders; but it could not work in a large meeting where many visitors come to enjoy the benefit of fellowship. How could they all be interviewed to establish their fitness? How could such continual examination be tolerated either by the visitors or by the many members in a large meeting who are interested in them? Inevitably there would be agitation to go further, to repudiate “labels” altogether and to accept all who claimed to be baptized believers without any inquiry as to their credentials. Soon it would be found that the term “baptized believer” might bear different meanings in different minds. The absence of a name which might be condemned as a label would open the door too wide, and soon we might have a pretence of fellowship without the Gospel. What then of the call to be separate?

In these days there would often be serious confusion in small unorganized meetings in which, at holiday times especially, members from all parts of the country chance to meet. In organized ecclesias we may presume that members would have to accept the judgment of arranging brethren whether visitors should be accepted in fellowship, but who would decide this matter in chance meetings at the seaside? Could anything be a worse preparation for our memorial service than the uncertainty, the disagreement and the controversy which such a situation would produce? If you think that there are brethren separated from us who ought to be with us, by all means raise your voice at the proper time and try to effect a union. Remember the scriptural admonition to be subject to one another in love, a principle which in practice involves the rule of the majority. If you dissent from the majority decision so strongly that conscience will not permit you to submit, surely the best course is to state your case frankly and openly, and then with quiet, Christian forbearance withdraw from that which you regard as so seriously wrong. If you feel that your protest has been sufficient and that you will accept the decision that has been made, then be loyal to your ecclesia as you desire to be loyal to Christ. The very worst course would be to pursue a policy of underhand antagonism, and the very worst time for such machinations would be the first day of the week when the memorial service is held. At that time a plain label for every member is a thousand times better than contention or any element of deception. Whether we are severe or tolerant, the clean cut in the matter of fellowship is the only workable way.

It is possible to carry the quest for a pure fellowship to a harmful extreme. A heavy responsibility is placed on the shoulders of elders in their duty to keep the ecclesia free from doctrine that the Spirit hates, and to deal with any instances of disorderly conduct, but none of us has been given any charge to “watch for iniquity”. Rather there is a very solemn warning against such activity (Isa. 29:20). There are many faults of various kinds in the weak mortality of our members. Sometimes faults come to the light and have to be corrected by exhortation, or open rebuke, or in the extreme issue by withdrawal—always with the object so emphasized by the apostle, that the erring one may be reproved and restored. If, however, zealous reformers try to seek out such faults, they are in grave danger of bringing false accusations and becoming slanderers. It would be possible to fill pages with instances of unwitting misrepresentation that have come under personal observation in the course of a lifetime—instances of faulty conduct, stories with a basis of painful fact which in being passed on have been given an unfair twist to the left, reports of incidents which appear shameful but which appear in a very different light when all the facts are known. And there have been reports which have given a completely wrong impression through words being used in a different sense by different speakers.

An instance of this last mentioned evil occurred quite recently and in a matter directly touching the subject of fellowship. It was mentioned that a certain brother would go direct from the breaking of bread and fellowship members of a church in which the Gospel was not known. It seemed incredible that any member could be so perverse. Quite incidentally, and apparently by accident, the truth of the matter came to light the same day. It was not a matter of fellowship as most of us understand the word, but attendance at a Sunday afternoon meeting where various speakers were allowed to express their thoughts, and there was a possibility of proclaiming the truth. It was no more a matter of fellowship than the apostle Paul’s association with the discussion groups of Mars Hill or in the school of Tyrannus.

It appears, however, that there are some among us who so extend the meaning of the word fellowship that there is grave danger of misunderstanding. They claim that at least in some instances the schisms are so serious that separation should go far beyond our service of remembrance. We have in our turn been the victims of such severe ostracism. Some years ago we were cut off by some of our brethren, not for any error of doctrine or any moral delinquency, but through a difference of judgment in the matter of ecclesial discipline. Some of them behaved as if they had found a command, “Do not admonish them as brethren but count them as enemies”. If circumstances impelled them to join us at a meal table, they would not give thanks to God on our behalf or permit us to give thanks for them. No one who has studied human nature would be surprised at this attitude. There is hardly a limit to the bitterness that can be caused by controversy or the hardness of a brother offended. No doubt these severe judges would—like the apostle—give thanks for bread “in the presence of all”, if the company were made up of unbelievers, even including such men as the Roman soldiers who were with the apostle on the ship. It is the slight difference of judgment causing controversy that is found so intolerable. No student of humanity would be surprised at the implacable animosity of some brethren, but no student of the Word could suggest any excuse for it.

Apart from such bitterness, which is always wrong, we may perhaps differ on the larger question as to how far separation should be carried when there has been a serious schism affecting our worship. We may call to mind the record of one who refused to conform to the strict ideas of his fellows in this matter and thus presented a clearly cut issue for our consideration. There was a certain large community we may speak of as “J” with very strict and rigid traditions. Quite near there was another large body we may call “S”. They were not in fellowship with each other, and there were beyond doubt solid reasons for separation. The people of S, although they claimed to be enlightened believers, were faulty both in doctrine and practice. The elders of J not only refused to fellowship the people of S in their worship of God, but condemned all contact with them; they would have no dealings with them at all. There was, however, a certain young man in J who had gained some reputation as a teacher, who refused to be put under such restrictions. He recognized clearly that the people of S were faulty in their worship, but he did not regard conversation, or even the acceptance of kindly service from them, as constituting a forbidden fellowship. He was actually found in close conversation with a woman who was not only of the unclean fellowship, but who was of very faulty personal conduct. The young teacher did not condone either her faulty worship or her personal sins, but he presented to her some of the most profound and important of divine truths, while accepting from her service and refreshment in temporal things. What shall we say of this attitude?

No reader will venture on a word of criticism or reproach, for no doubt all readers realize that we have only put into modern language a correct description of that which is related in the fourth chapter of John. All perceive that J stands for Jews and S for Samaritans, while the young teacher was our Lord and Master. All controversy is thus cut out and we may be able to give the lesson a little quiet thought. It may teach us to guard against extremes and show us how to be uncompromising and strong, yet with the kindly touch which reaches the heart.

We may have to recognize that some of our contemporaries are faulty in their doctrine and that the Lord would not have us worship with them, but friendly and kindly teaching may lead them in the way of light and life. There are times when a brother may be so intractable and so far from being in agreement with us that we cannot walk together, but even in such an extreme we should remember the admonition, “Count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”. We should all be able to learn this simple truth: it is possible to be strong and faithful without being either rude or unkind, while on the other hand, it is possible to be rude and unkind without either being strong or faithful.

I. Collyer